Right-to-Repair Returns
In 2021, The Right-to-Repair debate has made a comeback to public attention. After more than a decade of almost unchallenged ascendency, the public is increasingly scrutinizing the technology industry as public trust in these companies wane. People are increasingly concerned regarding the degree to which “big tech” is shaping society. This concern ranges from how people receive news and entertainment, to the environmental impact of unconstrained consumerism.
One of these concerns is the extent to which technology companies, including manufacturers, are making their products increasingly difficult to repair. In doing so, these companies force consumers to buy a complete replacement every time their existing device breaks down. Right to repair activists allege manufacturers are deliberately making their devices more difficult to repair by withholding spare parts and device schematics from the consumer market. Making devices less repairable generates bigger profits for the manufacturers as they can sell whole systems as replacements rather than the less profitable spare parts. It also gives manufacturers tighter controls over their product ecosystems by preventing independent technicians from being able to repair their products. This forces consumers to only go to manufacturer-approved repair stations, which can then charge substantial markups to the detriment of the consumers.
In May of this year, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published a report in favor of Right-to-Repair. The FTC followed up action in July with a recommendation of stricter enforcement of right-to-repair laws. At the same time, Apple’s co-founder Steve Wozniak spoke up in support of the right-to-repair movement. However, such efforts are only a start. Many of the activists’ efforts at improving repairability barely cover the labyrinthine legal contracts and economic incentives that shape the market. As people’s lives increasingly revolve around technology, the right-to-repair debate cannot have been more needed than now.
What is Right-to-Repair
Right-to-Repair is a challenge to the perception the technology industry is increasingly anti-consumer. Many end-users, from farmers to consumers, have complained companies are making even simple repairs difficult to impossible for them. For instance, farmers have complained they cannot repair their own tractors. Instead, they must wait for a company-certified technician, who may live many towns away, to arrive. The idea behind right-to-repair is to allow people to repair their own devices without explicit permission from the manufacturers. One way this can be achieved is for manufacturers to make spare parts and repair guides available to the public.
Theoretically, the right-to-repair benefits the consumers and the environment by prolonging the service life of consumer devices. People would not need to buy a new replacement when the old one breaks. With spare parts and repair manuals available, consumers would have the choice to repair broken devices themselves or turn to independent technicians. People with broken devices would not be forced to only a small selection of technicians approved by the manufacturer. These company technicians may charge a significant markup, or will not work at a time convenient to the end-user. This also reduces the e-waste that ends up in landfills every year. The pollutants released from manufacturing and “recycling” of electronic devices are a significant contributor to the global health crisis.
Why Has Repair Become More Difficult
While the benefits of repairing broken devices may seem obvious, the repair industry has become more difficult in recent years. Repair has always been possible. However, the increasing sophistication of electronic gadgets has made home repair more difficult for customers. Another economic point to consider is the cost of devices. As manufacturers have driven down the costs, it is more convenient for consumers to buy replacements rather than attempting repairs.
Complexity
Technology that the average consumer in the developed countries has access to has grown complex over the past two decades. As devices become more complex, so has repair become more difficult. For many users, the prospect of self-repair is daunting. For instance, even repairing desktop computers may be difficult for some people. This is despite desktop computers being one of the easiest electronics to repair, thanks to the industry’s standardization and a relatively large DIY market.
The end-users reluctance to get into repair is not surprising for a number of reasons. There are still multiple points of failure in a complex system of interdependent parts, such as a computer. A symptom can have multiple causes, and troubleshooting requires the repairer to systematically test and eliminate probable causes. This can take up a significant amount of time and effort, especially if the repairer is inexperienced. Even once the user has identified the source of the problem, the repair might also be just as difficult. The difficulties of repair may be as simple as screwing in some replacement. Or it might be as difficult as soldering or desoldering components. In less standardized devices, compatibility between the replacement and the original parts is also a major issue.
Another factor is that, as components get smaller, manipulating the components increasingly require specialized tools. As devices shrink down to the size of smartphones, natural human hands are having difficulties in manipulating many of the very small cables present in these devices. Furthermore, in mobile devices weight becomes a major factor, adhesives have replaced screws and latches, to save weight and improve water resistance.
One only needs to look at the guides on laptop or smartphone repair to realize how many tools are needed to disassemble smaller devices. Rather than just unscrew and socket components newer smartphones have layers of glue holding components in place. Similarly, laptops may solder their components in place rather than using sockets. Replacing these adhesives requires melting the glue or solder down without damaging the components. For the average consumer, it is simply economical to acquire specialized, get trained on how to use them, only to carry out one or two repairs before the device becomes obsolete.
Obsolescence
Obsolescence is yet another factor to consider when considering why repairs are becoming less repairable. Repairing devices would mean prolonging the life of a gadget that will become obsolete soon and will struggle to fulfill its intended purpose. The economics of obsolescence becomes more pronounced as the device in question becomes smaller and more “consumer-grade”. People might use a business-grade server for a decade or more. This is because the server is tied into the larger business infrastructure and has a higher upfront cost that makes constant replacement uneconomic. However, consumer-grade devices are usually more self-contained units, which eliminates the infrastructure part of the equation. Furthermore, the rapid pace of advancement in mobile computing means that after around five years, a device might become unable to run the latest applications or experience compatibility issues.
In the modern digital world, obsolesce is not just a performance issue. Once the manufacturer declares a device obsolete, the device drifts to become less compatible with newer software and other devices. At the same time, the manufacturer stops patching any new security flaws. The lack of new updates creates a security risk if sensitive data is stored on the device. When facing the prospect of devices stops being supported every couple of years, many consumers make the rational decision to just buy a newer replacement instead.
What’s In for the Manufacturers
Public Distrust
Right-to-repair activists often paint manufacturers as greedy businesses that use underhanded tactics to maximize profit. While this portrait paints too many manufacturers with the same broad brush, it does have a kernel of truth. As already mentioned, one only needs to look at the development trajectory of cell phones to see that manufacturers are making decisions that result in their products becoming less repairable. With each newer generation, previously accessible components are increasingly buried under glue and irremovable covers.
Meanwhile, legal experts have rebutted many of the manufacturers’ stated reasons against the right to repair. For instance, the manufacturers have claimed that providing schematics and repair manuals would violate copyright law and infringe on their IP. Yet, the U.S. Copyright Office and the FTC have dismissed these claims. When judges and officials dismiss these claims as legally unsound, it does not paint the manufacturers in a positive light. Instead, manufacturers appear as obstructive businesses that are willing to lie just so they can reward their executives with bigger bonuses.
Warranties
That is not to say that manufacturers are entirely unreasonable in their opposition. One of the most cited reasons against the right-to-repair is the potential conflict between this right and the existing warranty system. One way which manufacturers can maintain a favorable public reputation is by offering good repair and exchange services. Many of the terms and conditions that are prevalent in current manufacturer warranties that favor consumers may need to be revised or scrapped if right-to-repair is realized.
Warranties are a way for manufacturers to offer after-sales services and build a positive relationship with their customers. Many manufacturers offer generous warranty coverages on refunds and replacements to gain an edge over their competitors. Many warranties offer refunds or free repair services to a customer within a time period if the purchased device experiences problems that are not the customer’s fault.
This current system creates a problem for manufacturers when it comes to the right to repair. It is possible they may damage the device more as they try to repair it. It is easy to accidentally damage a wire when pulling too hard on a connector or over-torquing a screw. And this is not getting into more complex repairs such as soldering and de-soldering components. While customers are reluctant to repair their own devices, it would be relatively easy for manufacturers to determine if a warranty claim is due to a manufacturing defect or customer actions. However, this determination becomes more difficult when buyers have tried and failed to repair their devices, then claiming it is a manufacturing defect.
Professional repair shops can somewhat mitigate is the conundrum by offering a more “professional” repair experience. However, repair shops vary in quality and there is no guarantee that they can do a good job. Part of the reason why manufacturers such as Apple tightly control who can repair their devices is that there is the possibility unverified “repair technicians” will carry out substandard repairs. Substandard repairs can leave the consumers believing the product is of bad quality and undermines the whole point of warranty.
Conclusion
The right-to-repair legislation is a much-needed law to reduce waste and encourage reusability when it comes to electronic devices. However, the underlying economics and the difficulties involved in repairing increasingly complex devices may limit the law’s impact. This is not to say that right-to-repair is not beneficial. For consumers, improved access to the tools needed for repair can save money. For policymakers, more tech accessibility can increase the interest in STEM education. Some manufacturers may even benefit from the increased availability of spare parts that right-to-repair legislation enforces.
However, for the original equipment manufacturers, the right-to-repair poses a challenge to the current warranty and quality control systems. This challenge to the manufacturers’ ability to guarantee product quality means manufacturers are usually reluctant to accept right-to-repair legislation.
More than right to repair would be the formation of technical standards surrounding new technology products. For example, desktop computers are highly repairable because the form factors of the major components are standardized and easily swappable between different brands. By contrast, many mobile computing devices are a combination of various proprietary parts with little standardization between manufacturers. Standardization and minimizing incompatibility between similar devices would go a long way in reducing waste by making spare parts truly swappable across devices and industry.