Re: "Right to Repair" vs FRUs

On 10/3/2024 1:49 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote:

On 10/3/24 02:05, Don Y wrote:

On 10/2/2024 3:23 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote:

On 10/2/24 08:43, Don Y wrote:

Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
than that available to their depots?
>
I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
likely never have to make the "particular component"
available to customers?
>
Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

>
what would be the point of right to repair then?
>
Apple could continue to use a power-supply chip they
deliberately have made to be incompatible with $0.10
otherwise identical IC, so they can say sorry you can't
buy that, but we'll sell you a new motherboard for $1000

>
Yup.  Who's to decide that such a 10c chip *would*
have been acceptable?  What if they opt to design a custom
CPU that *incorporates* that power supply chip -- even if
the CPU *and* power supply chip were both OTS devices
(i.e., they CHOSE to integrate them to add value /in their
eyes/.)

 the added value of preventing anyone from repairing the device

Who's to say that's the case?
When /Robotron/ was released, it contained a semi-custom
chip that implemented a BLTer.  No magic.  Anyone with a
'scope/analyzer could easily see what it was doing and
infer it's design.  Functionally, it was a trivial design
effort -- if implemented in TTL.
It's presence added value (a DIP instead of 30 sq ins of
additional PCB) and reduced cost.  /But, also thwarted the
rampant counterfeiting that was commonplace in the industry/
(a clone of your product -- a set of ROMs! -- would be
available within weeks of your genuine article.
One can argue that this benefits consumers as well as the
manufacturer because the manufacturer isn't going to bother
producing new product if it is just going to be *stolen* (the
folks buying the machines had no qualms purchasing a knock-off;
as long as they could put something out that could coax quarters
from players, why would *they* care about the genuine copyright
owners?  Why would the *players* care???)
To address the needs of "repairs", it was proposed to sell
the chip for $2K (the price of an entire machine!) and
credit $1900 when the "defective" chip that it was
intended to replace was "returned for credit".  I.e., you
couldn't use the spare parts department as a source of *new*
components.

You'd have *all* manufacturers be seen as glorified
"parts stores"?
     "I'd like a half dozen 1/4W 4K7 resistors, please,
     and four M1.6 screws, back."
And, made available at a "reasonable" price?

 noone is going to buy jelly bean parts from manufactures when you can get them faster, cheaper, from digikey et.al.

Legislation constrains the price the manufacturer can sell *their* parts
(along with a "guarantee" of availability); nothing so constrains the
other retailers.
In the 70's, UV EPROMs got really scarce, for a while.  Everything
was "on allocation".  If I could claim to need one as a part for a
*repair*, then I could game the typical distis and go direct to the
manufacturers of devices that *used* them for my supply!
Do I have to have proof that I need X of them for X prior purchases?
Maybe I'm a klutz and I keep toasting them...  are you going
to x-ray the die to verify the "defective" part is actually
something that you previously sold me (*in* a product)?

That places undo pressure on the manufacturer; if the
*depot* (authorized repair center) isn't allowed to
purchase them from the manufacturer, why should a consumer?
I.e., whatever the FRUs defined as available to the depot
should apply to the consumer, as well.  If the depot can
locate 4K7's elsewhere and chooses to repair at that level
(to *avoid* having to purchase a new containing FRU) then
good for them; they've added their *own* value!

 so they can just say the authorized repair centers don't do
component level repair, they replace just the motherboard.

Exactly.

unauthorized repair centers can't do component level repair
because the manufacturer refuse to sell parts that they deliberate
had custom made

And what's wrong with that?
Shouldn't I be provided with ALL the documents required to
produce the device so I can *support* a unit that I have
legally purchased?  If I can repair defect X, why should I
be prevented from doing so simply because I don't have the
documentation to do so?  E.g., imagine all of the bugs that
could be repaired by "unlicensed" users if they had access
to the source code for these products ("intellectual
property"??  What's that?)