California tables Right to Repair bill following pressure from Apple, others
Following pressure from lobbyists, including a last-minute play by Apple, a California right to repair bill was pulled by its cosponsor for a second time, giving tech companies opposing the legislation a one-year reprieve.
California State Assembly member Susan Talamantes Eggman pulled the bill from consideration on Tuesday, the same day California's Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee was set to hear discussions on the matter, reports The Verge.
"While this was not an easy decision, it became clear that the bill would not have the support it needed today, and manufacturers had sown enough doubt with vague and unbacked claims of privacy and security concerns," Eggman said in a statement.
Eggman introduced Assembly Bill 1163 in March, calling on Apple and other device manufacturers to "make service literature and equipment or parts available to product owners and to regulated, independent repair shops."
"The Right to Repair will provide consumers with the freedom to have their electronic products and appliances fixed by a repair shop or service provider of their choice, creating a competitive market that will be cheaper for consumers and reduce the number of devices thrown in the trash," Eggman said in announcing the bill.
As with previous attempts to pass right to repair legislation, Apple directly contested the effort through lobbyists. In California, an Apple representative, which The Verge identifies as senior manager of state and local government affairs Rod Diridon, recently met with the state's Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee in a bid to dissuade lawmakers from casting a "yes" vote on the proposed bill.
According to a report from Motherboard, which was corroborate by The Verge, Diridon in closed-door meetings argued consumers might injure themselves by accidentally puncturing a device's lithium-ion battery while conducting a repair. A ruptured or damaged Li-ion cell could cause an intense, uncontrollable fire.
The Verge, citing sources within the State Assembly, reports Diridon did not concentrate on the fire risk, and admitted battery combustion typically occurs under a limited set of circumstances. He did, however, note a number of other issues with consumer repairs including difficulty of opening the device and risk of breaking the screen, the report said, adding that Eggman was compelled to delay presentation of the bill to address issues raised in the last-minute lobbying push.
Bill 1163 was Eggman's second attempt at pushing through repair legislation. Her first attempt, Bill 2110, was introduced in March 2018 and died in assembly that November. Both bills were crafted as efforts to reduce electronic waste.
California State Assembly member Susan Talamantes Eggman pulled the bill from consideration on Tuesday, the same day California's Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee was set to hear discussions on the matter, reports The Verge.
"While this was not an easy decision, it became clear that the bill would not have the support it needed today, and manufacturers had sown enough doubt with vague and unbacked claims of privacy and security concerns," Eggman said in a statement.
Eggman introduced Assembly Bill 1163 in March, calling on Apple and other device manufacturers to "make service literature and equipment or parts available to product owners and to regulated, independent repair shops."
"The Right to Repair will provide consumers with the freedom to have their electronic products and appliances fixed by a repair shop or service provider of their choice, creating a competitive market that will be cheaper for consumers and reduce the number of devices thrown in the trash," Eggman said in announcing the bill.
As with previous attempts to pass right to repair legislation, Apple directly contested the effort through lobbyists. In California, an Apple representative, which The Verge identifies as senior manager of state and local government affairs Rod Diridon, recently met with the state's Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee in a bid to dissuade lawmakers from casting a "yes" vote on the proposed bill.
According to a report from Motherboard, which was corroborate by The Verge, Diridon in closed-door meetings argued consumers might injure themselves by accidentally puncturing a device's lithium-ion battery while conducting a repair. A ruptured or damaged Li-ion cell could cause an intense, uncontrollable fire.
The Verge, citing sources within the State Assembly, reports Diridon did not concentrate on the fire risk, and admitted battery combustion typically occurs under a limited set of circumstances. He did, however, note a number of other issues with consumer repairs including difficulty of opening the device and risk of breaking the screen, the report said, adding that Eggman was compelled to delay presentation of the bill to address issues raised in the last-minute lobbying push.
Bill 1163 was Eggman's second attempt at pushing through repair legislation. Her first attempt, Bill 2110, was introduced in March 2018 and died in assembly that November. Both bills were crafted as efforts to reduce electronic waste.
Comments
The problem arises when people (like notoriously self-interested party iFixit) push the idea that Apple should be forced to sell companies like them parts. I’m cool with that for batteries and screens, maybe, but I’m definitely not cool with amateurs and uncertified techs getting their hands on Touch ID sensors or anything to do with secure storage. I would like to see a bill that addresses security/trade secret concerns while giving consumers more and cheaper options for common, simple repairs.
You want thin, strong, secure, light, water tight, devices. Those can only be repaired at a manufacturer certified repair station. It is absurd to think, as some in the movement do, that companies should be selling components for people to replace at home.
Oh and another thought. Someone replaces their LiIon battery at home. Great, five will get you ten that he throws the old one ion the trash. Can't wait until those start getting compacted in the garbage truck.
Leave the repairs to the professionals.
For complex CE equipment to be repairable it only requires for repairability to be included in the design.
My credit card (with EMV chips) is sent to me by regular post. It use useless until I activate it. Security sensors can be installed but non functional until the legitimate owner authorises activation via Apple or anyone Apple has certified for the task.
Front and rear glass is not a security element but difficult to repair - by design.
Last night I read about someone with a broken rear glass panel. The iPhone X series phone was fully functional but Apple wanted over $500 for the repair. The justification was that the rear panel was connected to elements within the phone.
If we design for repair many current problems would be far easier to fix.
Imagine this scenario:
For every model, two variants, one built with repair in mind, the other not. Which one do you think would sell more?
IP68 is a simple rating and does not form part of the warranty AFAIK. How many people accidentally have their phone immersed in water? Splashproofing has been around for years and is ultra effective for the real world. Combined with nano coatings (which have also been around for years) you are well covered.
Lithium batteries are totally safe under normal conditions. They are designed to be safe. The problem is perforation and perforation (during repair) occurs because they are difficult to remove - by design. Not battery design but phone design.
That 'design' is what brings us full circle because nobody asked us if we actually wanted to sacrifice removability in the first place.
The same applies to substituting front and rear glass etc.
That's easy ... the cheaper one. In droves.
It would also be the less-repairable one.
The issue is that normally legislation is late to the game when it comes to technology.
'Offering for sale' isn't asking. 'Buying' isn't replying. You took my comment completely out of context. Refresh your memory on the comment I was replying to.
It will take legislation to put balance into consumer protections. In this case, protections that should never have been eroded in the first place.
For example, if the batteries on truly wireless earphones cannot be replaced and require substituting for another complete earphone, legislation should definitely 'protect' the consumer. It could be as a simple as informing the customer (prior to formalising the sale) of the design limitation and expected lifespan of the product in a demonstrable way or a global protection such as an increase in the warranty period.