- cross-posted to:
- android@lemdro.id
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- android@lemdro.id
- technology@lemmy.world
The Android phone maker says go ahead, fix your own phone.
The right-to-repair movement continues to gain steam as another big tech company shows its support for letting people fix their own broken devices.
Google endorsed an Oregon right-to-repair legislation Thursday calling it a “common sense repair bill” and saying it would be a “win for consumers.” This marks the first time the Android phone maker has officially backed any right-to-repair law.
The ability to repair a phone, for example, empowers people by saving money on devices while creating less waste,” said Steven Nickel, devices and services director of operations for Google, in a blog post Thursday. “It also critically supports sustainability in manufacturing. Repair must be easy enough for anyone to do, whether they are technicians or do-it-yourselfers.”
In the Oregon repair bill, manufacturers will be required to provide replacement parts, software, physical tools, documentation and schematics needed for repair to authorized repair providers or individuals. The legislation covers any digital electronics with a computer chip although cars, farm equipment, medical devices, solar power systems, and any heavy or industrial equipment that is not sold to consumers are exempt from the bill.
Google has made strides in making its Pixel phones easier to fix. The company enabled a Repair Mode for the phones last month allowing the protection of data on the device while it’s being serviced. There’s also a diagnostic feature that helps determine if your Pixel phone is working properly or not. That said, Google’s Pixel Watch is another story as the company said in October it will not provide parts to repair its smartwatch.
Apple jumped on the right-to-repair bandwagon back in October. The iPhone maker showed its support for a federal law to make it easier to repair its phones after years of being a staunch opponent.
You must log in or register to comment.
Where’s the catch?
just like Apple, limited models and limited parts. It will probably take till 2030 or something before it comes even close to being available “globally”.
The phones are designed to be be hard to repair. So it is obvious most people won’t be doing this themselves. Which was the dream.
Taking the repair monopoly from the big corp and distributing it across small businesses is still a win.
It has been like this for years. This changes nothing imo. Small shops have always repaired phones.
The real issue will be to break their monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly at some point so we can again start doing real business instead of a handful companies ruling the world.
except that’s not happening. It’s giving big tech good PR while they keep doing exactly what they have been doing for the past 2+ years (i.e. pretending to care about right to repair, and the environment, and whatever other good-soundign cause they can think of, without actually doing any of it)
Google is just looking for good PR because their plan is to sell assemblies instead of individual parts. As an example, say on the phone’s motherboard a particular chip died, instead of replacing just that one piece Google wants to to sell you a whole new board at a cost so high that most people would probably consider just buying a new phone instead. They even attack Apple by suggesting governments should ban part pairing so they can look like the good guys.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/rV5bBSZX00E
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Exactly! This is just a PR stunt, nothing more, and it looks like “journalists” bought it.
The catch is in the title. Google will not back a law that will otherwise completely block them, instead of just making things different for them.
Google will comply with the law, but we all know they will do so in the most minimal ways or find loops to exploit it, even.
The catch is repairing a Google phone, even running a custom OS like GrapheneOS, doesn’t circumvent the lowest levels of their insidious tentacles that extract your information. They feel comfortable in letting you think you’re taking control.
Not that most other manufacturers are any better. Maybe a couple are, but they’re the ones that are still being sidelined, one way or another.
As a daily: fairphone As a tinker devide: pinephone
Those should do it.
LOL, never trust any GAFAM.
No they will not.
That’s a shitty article by a “journalist” that hasn’t read the bill otherwise they would know that it’s NOT right to repair, but rather it’s a bill disguised as right to repair that actually gives even more monopolistic powers to big tech.
[…] “journalist” that hasn’t read the bill otherwise they would know that it’s NOT right to repair […]
Have you read the bill?
Yes, it basically just reinforces the usual “Authorized Service Providers” spiel, i.e. it’s not a real right to repair bill.
Special Access for ASPs: manufacturers have to share repair manuals, tools, and parts ONLY with ASPs under “fair and reasonable terms”.
This means if you’re not part of their club and haven’t signed their agreements to become an ASP you may not be allowed to purchase parts. And to be clear, becoming an ASP can restrict you in the kinds of repairs you can provide, and the kinds of information you can tell your customers, under legal threat, and may require you to hit impossible sales quotas.
Parts and Conditions: It gets trickier with parts. Manufacturers aren’t actually forced to give you, the little guy, access to individual parts. What they’re obligated to do is to provide full assemblies to ASPs. So, if you need just a tiny part for a fix, tough luck – they can legally turn you away or make you buy a whole assembly, which is neither practical nor cost-effective.
Do you have a license for that?: It’s like asking, “Do you have a permit for that fishing rod?” before you even get to the lake. The bill implies that if you want to repair these devices, you better have some sort of certification or license. This could be a huge barrier for independent repair shops, especially those who don’t have the best relations with the company they repair devices of, or even DIY fixers. You want to repair something? First, prove that you’re qualified according to their standards, which can be pretty steep or even unrealistic for many. It’s another way of keeping the repair circle closed and controlled while pretending to be the moral authorities of social and environmental justice.
“Can’t you see just how great a company we are? We’re allowing you to repair YOUR device, (assuming that we like you, that is), aren’t we such good people? After all you’re our dear cust---------”
ERROR: CONSUMER ACCOUNT NR. 48570 TERMINATED FOR INAPPROVED WRONGSPEAK. PLEASE INSERT CREDIT CARD TO CONTINUE READING MESSAGE.
Thank you for buying from Google, we support you, we love 😍 right to repair, we love 💚 the environment and we 💕 you, dear consumer 😘… errr… customer
Pretty clear you either haven’t read the bill or grossly misunderstood it. What you describe is not proposed legislation - it’s the current reality that individuals and independent repair shops already live with.
The 2024 variant of the bill isn’t actually publicly available online, but here’s last year’s WIP text:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB542
You wrote:
manufacturers have to share repair manuals, tools, and parts ONLY with ASPs under “fair and reasonable terms”.
Line 23 of the bill says:
(2)(a) An original equipment manufacturer shall make available to an owner or an independent repair provider on fair and reasonable terms any documentation, tool, part or other device or implement that the original equipment manufacturer makes available to an authorized service provider for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or updating consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells and that is sold or used in this state.
Pretty clear you either haven’t read the bill or grossly misunderstood it. What you describe is not proposed legislation - it’s the current reality that individuals and independent repair shops already live with.
The 2024 variant of the bill isn’t actually publicly available online, but here’s last year’s WIP text:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB542
Absolutely, the bill you mentioned is the one I was referring to. It does state that manufacturers must provide documentation, tools, and parts to both independent repairers and owners under fair terms. However, the real issue lies in how “fair and reasonable terms” are interpreted and applied in practice.
Here’s a quote from Google’s actual response:
User safety should be a top priority. Improper repair can be dangerous—especially if individuals use faulty parts or are unfamiliar with safety critical components, such as lithium ion batteries.** Legislation should acknowledge the risks borne by unskilled repairers and allow original equipment manufacturers (OEM) to provide parts assemblies rather than individual components to reduce the risk of injury.**
Doesn’t scream right to repair to me, let’s continue.
Right to Repair regulation should focus on: Devices that are repaired by an OEM’s existing repair offerings3 Right to Repair legislation in the United States is focused on leveling the playing field between OEM repair and independent repair offerings and putting consumers first, which we fully support
So, if they don’t repair their devices and only replace assemblies, they’re not required to do anything for RTR, how convenient!
Right to Repair regulation should focus on: Parts that are provided by an OEM’s existing repair operations
Hmm… So the easiest way to comply with the law is to not do anything
Policies should encourage repairers and recycling centers to recycle or to dispose of e-waste responsibly. We believe repair can be an important mechanism to reduce the large and growing problem of e-waste
Classic corporate green washing, this doesn’t mean recycling, it means break products, into as many parts as possible and dispose of them.
This is what recycling means to big tech:
Those are icloud locked iphone mainboards that have had their chips drilled through (this is "recycling). Some extremely smart people have figured out how to scrap them for parts, but that’s the ingenuity of actual repair people, not Big tech’s recycling.
Thats great news, but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and we will have to see if Google makes any parts for their phones available. I havn’t heard of Google… digitally keying their parts the way Apple does.
Next Week.
Google to renege on their promise for right to repair. “It was a misunderstanding on our focus in regards of right to repair.”
All in jest but Google isn’t the Google we loved and cared about 15 years ago.
I’ll believe it when I see it lmao
Can you also back right to not remove features from assistant?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The right-to-repair movement continues to gain steam as another big tech company shows its support for letting people fix their own broken devices.
Google endorsed an Oregon right-to-repair legislation Thursday calling it a “common sense repair bill” and saying it would be a “win for consumers.” This marks the first time the Android phone maker has officially backed any right-to-repair law.
The legislation covers any digital electronics with a computer chip although cars, farm equipment, medical devices, solar power systems, and any heavy or industrial equipment that is not sold to consumers are exempt from the bill.
The company enabled a Repair Mode for the phones last month allowing the protection of data on the device while it’s being serviced.
That said, Google’s Pixel Watch is another story as the company said in October it will not provide parts to repair its smartwatch.
The iPhone maker showed its support for a federal law to make it easier to repair its phones after years of being a staunch opponent.
The original article contains 291 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 42%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
