[ZombieArmy]

I thought you were fairly clear the first time around, but I think there’s also a distinction in your exchange between national attitudes to what governments should and shouldn’t do. In any event, the supply of spare parts isn’t a simple “do” or “don’t” issue: there are matters like user safety to consider, for a start, so there are legitimate reasons for some manufacturers to refuse to supply parts to unqualified repairers.

Could you give an example of what would be a safety concern in regards to consumer electronics repair?

[UncleVanya]

It's a nice idea, but the cost of warehousing an undetermined inventory of parts for an unstable market will likely be borne by the consumer in the form of end-price.


Steve

I personally wouldn’t expect perpetual parts access, but when a DA 50-135 that is still sold new can’t be repaired due to lack of parts availability something is seriously wrong.

(More than once precision has stated lenses that are in current manufacture can’t have xyz part replaced. This is different than the cost of repairing including labor exceeds the value of the lens... and access to parts in those cases might change that for the tinkering types. )

[UncleVanya]

Could you give an example of what would be a safety concern in regards to consumer electronics repair?

Capacitors in some gear might fall into this bucket but those are generally available. I’m not sure there’s a good example in most cases.

[BigMackCam]

Could you give an example of what would be a safety concern in regards to consumer electronics repair?

Capacitors in some gear might fall into this bucket but those are generally available. I’m not sure there’s a good example in most cases.

That was my immediate thought too... capacitors, such as those used in flash circuits. You can get a very painful shock from a partially or fully charged capacitor, and whilst it may not be dangerous to a healthy individual, someone with a weak heart or fitted with a pacemaker might be at risk. Even a healthy individual could flinch or jump from such a shock, and injure themselves indirectly as a result.

[Mooncatt]

I don't buy this argument. Anyone could reverse engineer the product given enough time. Plus patented things are already disclosed in excruciating detail to the patent offices because that's a requirement.

No the problem is here is these companies make deals with parts manufacturers to not use off the shelf components and make it almost impossible to repair your own product if you don't have a donor product.

Given enough time, you can crack the DRM on a game, but that doesn't make it legal for me to reverse engineer it into a DRM free game that I sell. Of course I can look at a patent filing, but that doesn't make it legal to use as a blueprint to create my own knockoff product. It doesn't matter if the OEM product is cost prohibitive for many people or that there is a large potential market of potential buyers looking for a cheaper alternative.

[normhead]

Having been third party Apple vendor when Apple brought int her no repair policy we saw both sides. I remember one customer, who seen almost year trying to get her computer fixed before baking and buying another one. Our technician tried at least 3 times to fix it, and it alway broke again within couple weeks. After that Apple went to a "no Motherboard repairs" policy. Full replacement only.

Their reasoning was that so many of these repairs were unsatisfactory or not properly diagnosed it was hurting the reputation of the brand. Now I know, there are lots of people who think they can do these things, Apple's research indicated many over estimated their abilities and just caused more problems for authorized technicians. An Apple rep came to our store armed with spreadsheets etc showing their research and why they came to that decision. I remember being both opposed to the decision, but the research also altered my thinking on the matter.

With the technical considerations of modern life, there are a lot of people who think they know a lot more than they do. Sure they bought it, can do whatever they want with what they buy. Does the company have to sell them the parts to do so? That's a whole different issue.

To me, its case of "You do what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do." In my own situation, i needed lens contacts for my DA*60-250. My authorized dealer sent me the parts. There was really nothing I could screw up. The part cost me 30 bucks instead of $200 service. Anything more complicated than that, they probably have a better idea whether they should sell you the parts than you do.

[Mooncatt]

Capacitors in some gear might fall into this bucket but those are generally available.

Then the consumer tries to sue the manufacturer for their own negligence and ignoring all the safety warnings in the manual.

I’m not sure there’s a good example in most cases.

I don't know where a camera would fall on the danger scale, but consider the shear amount consumer electronics out there. Some would be relatively safe to work on, others incredibly dangerous in unskilled hands, and everything in between. Trying to sort that all out would be a regulatory nightmare.

But in the end, you can't fix stupid. You know that someone will try to work on a "safe" electronic device while it's plugged into the wall and get zapped with mainline voltage. So it's just better from the manufacturers standpoint to avoid the liability risk all together, and only refer customers to qualified/licenced/authorised repair shops.

[BigMackCam]

Having been third party Apple vendor when Apple brought int her no repair policy we saw both sides. I remember one customer, who seen almost year trying to get her computer fixed before baking and buying another one. Our technician tried at least 3 times to fix it, and it alway broke again within couple weeks. After that Apple went to a "no Motherboard repairs" policy. Full replacement only.

Their reasoning was that so many of these repairs were unsatisfactory or not properly diagnosed it was hurting the reputation of the brand. Now I know, there are lots of people who think they can do these things, Apple's research indicated many over estimated their abilities and just caused more problems for authorized technicians. An Apple rep came to our store armed with spreadsheets etc showing their research and why they came to that decision. I remember being both opposed to the decision, but the research also altered my thinking on the matter.

With the technical considerations of modern life, there are a lot of people who think they know a lot more than they do. Sure they bought it, can do whatever they want with what they buy. Does the company have to sell them the parts to do so? That's a whole different issue.

To me, its case of "You do what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do." In my own situation, i needed lens contacts for my DA*60-250. My authorized dealer sent me the parts. There was really nothing I could screw up. The part cost me 30 bucks instead of $200 service. Anything more complicated than that, they probably have a better idea whether they should sell you the parts than you do.

Actually, I'd have no problem with camera manufacturers providing only complete modules for replacement where necessary, rather than discrete components. Anyone who's worked with surface mount devices will know it's not for the completely inexperienced - so if I have to replace a small board at a cost of $50 - $100 instead of a $10 SMD chip, I can live with that...

[shyrsio]

I find it astonishing that one as to fight to own an electronic device he already bought(looking at you apple). making a complex device because it needs to fit in a small space I can understand, but over-complicating a device just for the sake of it being difficult to repair is just wrong. lets not forget how we got to this day and age, evolution of technology was almost always based on open source technology. Ever since some ridiculous copyright bills have been passed, things have got a bit out of hand in this aspect.

[BigMackCam]

Then the consumer tries to sue the manufacturer for their own negligence and ignoring all the safety warnings in the manual.

I don't know where a camera would fall on the danger scale, but consider the shear amount consumer electronics out there. Some would be relatively safe to work on, others incredibly dangerous in unskilled hands, and everything in between. Trying to sort that all out would be a regulatory nightmare.

How does it work for motor vehicles? There's all sorts of risks in working on a truck, car or bike. Do folks sue motor manufacturers because their neck-tie got wrapped around the air-con pulley, or they pulled a muscle torquing down the cylinder head bolts? People have worked on their own vehicles for more than a century. There's a lot the average person can't work on now without diagnostic equipment and software, but still - they can buy those things if they really want to... and they can certainly buy, and fit, almost any part in their vehicle. Surely there's a way in terms of legal framework and precedent for electronics manufacturers to be protected if someone gets hurt because of their own stupidity when attempting to fix an item they paid for and own in full?

[photoptimist]

Could you give an example of what would be a safety concern in regards to consumer electronics repair?

The biggest danger is lithium Ion batteries that catch fire on passenger aircraft or in homes. It's mostly a problem with devices like smartphones that have slender, thinly jacketed battery packs (those really should not be allowed to be repaired by consumers) but I recall at least one case in which a digital camera caught fire.

A shorted wire inside a poorly-repaired camera could be quite dangerous.

P.S. As of 2017, LiIon battery fires were happening about once every 10 to 11 days according to the FAA (Lithium-Ion Battery Fires on Planes - Consumer Reports).

[Mooncatt]

Surely there's a way in terms of legal framework and precedent for electronics manufacturers to be protected if someone gets hurt because of their own stupidity when attempting to fix an item they paid for and own in full?

Unfortunately I don't think it's that simple in today's world. Call me pessimistic if you want, but there's a reason as have to put "Caution, hot!" on coffee cups.

[ZombieArmy]

The biggest danger is lithium Ion batteries that catch fire on passenger aircraft or in homes. It's mostly a problem with devices like smartphones that have slender, thinly jacketed battery packs (those really should not be allowed to be repaired by consumers) but I recall at least one case in which a digital camera caught fire.

I hope you remember that user replicable batteries were the norm in phones for a lot longer than it not. Practices like soldiering the battery or using non hard casing are nothing but attempts to stifle repair and nothing else.

A shorted wire inside a poorly-repaired camera could be quite dangerous.

A shorted wire in a poorly repaired camera likely just means a dead camera. I can't imagine how difficult it'd be to make it dangerous and would probably take SKILL to do so.

P.S. As of 2017, LiIon battery fires were happening about once every 10 to 11 days according to the FAA (Lithium-Ion Battery Fires on Planes - Consumer Reports).

You do realize how many flights there are per day right? And besides a lot of the time this is caused by older devices with bulging batteries, being able to put in new safer batteries would be a boon!

---------- Post added 12-09-20 at 07:50 PM ----------

Having been third party Apple vendor when Apple brought int her no repair policy we saw both sides. I remember one customer, who seen almost year trying to get her computer fixed before baking and buying another one. Our technician tried at least 3 times to fix it, and it alway broke again within couple weeks. After that Apple went to a "no Motherboard repairs" policy. Full replacement only.

I mean this is an anecdotal story with no details. Motherboard repairs are still doable to this day and people make whole businesses based on it. Something like that where repairs don't hold could be based on a bigger issue like rampant water damage that could have corroded traces on the board, or there could have been issues with the voltage lines causing them to overvolt some components at different intervals. It could also simply be a case of just guessing what the problem was due to no access to diagnostic software.

Their reasoning was that so many of these repairs were unsatisfactory or not properly diagnosed it was hurting the reputation of the brand. Now I know, there are lots of people who think they can do these things, Apple's research indicated many over estimated their abilities and just caused more problems for authorized technicians. An Apple rep came to our store armed with spreadsheets etc showing their research and why they came to that decision. I remember being both opposed to the decision, but the research also altered my thinking on the matter.

Authorized technicians have never done on board repairs and apple has never given schematics for their boards to assist in third party repair. It is better now than it was in the past since there are plenty of easy to obtain board views for different laptops (made by third parties) but back then it was all based on the shop to reverse engineer a board or get under the table documents from someone in the know. Or at worst, guess.

---------- Post added 12-09-20 at 07:53 PM ----------

Capacitors in some gear might fall into this bucket but those are generally available. I’m not sure there’s a good example in most cases.

I'd think the soldering iron would be more dangerous than a standard cap. Personally I think we should stop assuming everyone needs to be treated like a child in terms of these safety concerns.

I wonder how many people here own power tools by the way.

[DWS1]

I'm not sure the camera repair market is big enough for this to really matter. Any push for change will have to come from the independent repair shops.

[Mooncatt]

I hope you remember that user replicable batteries were the norm in phones for a lot longer than it not. Practices like soldiering the battery or using non hard casing are nothing but attempts to stifle repair and nothing else.

I could go on for days on this subject alone! I volunteer on one of the Android forums and we have that debate fairly often. You're right. Swapping batteries on phones use to be no different than swapping batteries on our cameras, and they were designed that way.

Phones use to be plastic and rubberized, able to take a beating. Then they started making phones with metal bodies for "premium" construction, and everyone complained about the lack of water resistance. Then they sealed up the phones for water resistance (ignore the fact there was a water resistant phone that also had a replaceable battery) and manufacturers told us it also allows them to make custom shaped batteries for more design flexibility. Then people complained you can't wireless charge through a metal body, so now we have glass body phones. Next, people complain about how fragile the back glass is, as many shatter from relatively small drops.

So now we have people putting their fragile glass body phones into plastic and rubberized durable cases, complaining that the cases are too thick to wireless charge through, the manufacturers don't warranty water damage (making that IP rating moot), and I'm still waiting to see a phone battery that is shaped anything but a thin rectangular brick.

Yet we call this progress. [/rant]