I was wondering if this would be carved up with exceptions, but it's actually rather strong comparable to what state laws we have had so far per [1]
> Like the repair rules passed in Minnesota last year, Colorado’s law notably covers data center and business-to-business equipment, only without Minnesota’s vague exclusion for “critical infrastructure” equipment.
> There are some exclusions, like game consoles (due to lobbying from game console manufacturers over piracy concerns), medical devices, ATVs, and motor vehicles, which are also typical for repair rules introduced in other states like California and New York. Like Oregon’s right-to-repair law, Colorado’s HB24-1121 explicitly prohibits electronics manufacturers from using “parts pairing” to prevent replacement components from working unless approved by company software.
So what does this mean for Apple devices? They will have to back away from pairing? If yes, then it should work everywhere? Or will they agree to pay whatever fines in CO to avoid changing this elsewhere? Is there another option I should be thinking about?
My guess is they will retain "parts pairing" from a technical perspective, but frame it as an anti theft measure, and focus on preventing use of stolen device parts.
Perhaps they'll relax the restrictions on "non first party" components (likely you'll lose some functionality that aftermarket parts don't actually support), but use pairing to lock out parts from stolen phones.
I suspect that part of their strategy is to try to make stolen iPhones less attractive to thieves, and effective parts pairing would likely reduce the market for stolen phones stripped for parts.
Of course, if you can "blank" off a stolen part to appear as an unofficial one, that doesn't work! That idea is therefore likely to face challenges.
The challenge will be what is really meant by parts pairing - to some extent if you want to do some features securely (say touch ID), you probably want to pair the reader to the secure enclave with a shared AES key and similar. There could be tooling to reset and re-establish that pairing on an unlocked device.
Legislation often struggles to define exactly what is required though, so it will certainly be interesting to see how Apple responds.
Apple has already announced they are killing parts pairing as it is currently implemented. They will, however, block the use of parts which came from a parent device marked as stolen.
I assume they will just price their repair parts accordingly. Maybe this will drive 3rd party development of compatible parts, and then consumers will decide to pay for the Apple OEM part or the knock-off.
I think you nailed it. The voting population generally disapproves of 'car culture'. Foolish trends like removing catalytic converters and running super loud exhausts for single digit horsepower gains or hooning on public roads don't do its image any favors. But the most basic reason is just that the industry lobby that wants to lock down cars is much stronger than the independent/shade tree mechanic lobby that doesn't.
Medical devices and aircraft should NEVER be the exemptions.
Those are two category of product that have one of the longest lives of consumer goods, and have serious external guardrails and regulations around their safety.
There are MANY 50 year old aircraft flying around still, the average GA fleet age is 35+. Part of that is that replacement parts are approved by the FAA, and not the OEM. If the FAA says I can use an Garmin transponder in my Cessna, Cessna can't brick my plane even if they have a deal with Icom. There are still aftermarket parts being sold for models that were discontinued in the 1950s. Imagine if we had to throw away every old airplane when the manufacturer went bust.
Medical devices are the same, if a third party manufacturer is selling an FDA approved replacement battery for an older hearing aid, I would be pissed if the manufacturer bricked my device for not using their battery. Or even worse, how mad would you be if the original manufacturer, and the secret signing key for their batteries, went out of business and you didn't even have the option of an expensive OEM battery.
To heck with that. My right to reverse engineer and fabricate parts for an airplane that I own is ALREADY enshrined in federal law, and our aviation user groups are funded and motivated to protect this privilege. It is as applicable to American Airlines (they have used it, for example, to produce replacement MD-80 tailcones) as it is to a dude with a Cessna.
What are your thoughts on the artificial eye company that shut down, possibly leaving patients with non-working and non-repairable implants in their head [1]?
Woohoo. CO got "documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, [and] tools" for multiple product categories.
More R2R rights are needed:
1. Either the UL or EPA needs to grade devices for repairability and TCO
2. a. Repair parts and b. phone-home cloud features should be disclosed how long they will remain on the market
3. a. When parts are no longer available (NLA), it should be legal to produce compatible replacements including circumventing DRM, b. when cloud features are no longer available officially, API endpoint(s) shall be modifiable to point to other servers
4. Schematics should be made available for electronic products from businesses with 500+ employees
5. It should be illegal to brick parts and devices based on their age, the current time, or by model, or for installing third-party parts
> CO got "documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, [and] tools" for multiple product categories.
I remember when Tesla was first forced to comply with MA's R2R laws. It was like something out of Hitchhiker's Guide...
There WAS a website where you could order parts, in theory. Except every single part on the site was either "Unavailable" or "Call Tesla", even down the simplest commodity bolts...
There WAS somewhere you could go to look at the documentation / service manuals. You did have to make an appointment, though, and you did have to pay a fee, and there was a time limit, and you couldn't bring any electronic devices with you, only a legal pad and pencil...
Consumer Reports is a media company assigning gold stars to products their writers like. The EPA (or FCC, or ____) is a 3-letter with a nominal ability to enforce certain standards among devices presenting their mark. The purported accountability of a EPA/FCC/UL/whatever mark is key here.
Would be nice to have a law saying anything with a reasonable expectation of wear must be user replaceable.
For example, every modern Mac will turn into e-waste within a decade since that SSD has to wear out. I don't care how high of a quality SSD you use, it just won't last forever.
My 2-year-old MacBook Air would be the perfect computer if I could just put a larger SSD in it, but I can't. So I'm already looking at buying a new computer.
How many SSDs have you worn out in your personal computers? They've been affordable for over a decade, so I assume you must have exhausted the write endurance on at least one drive, right?
I agree with right to repair where a company should make every effort for a customer to repair their device. But only so long as it doesn't regress technology; someone can replace a battery or screen etc, but I would never expect a regular or even technically inclined person replace a fine pitched BGA in a device.
At some point in the future we're going to get to the point where these things become fully integrated: solid state battery, display elements, silicon all printed into one solid glassy chunk.
Maybe I am missing something. As an owner of device or equipment, being able to repair is very basic right to the property. Why is it a big deal? Would love to be enlightened.
You can have a right in principle but companies must actively take measures to make parts and documentation available for it to
actually be possible to avail yourself of that right. The big deal is over which purposes and to what degree governments should be able to compel companies to offer this to their customers, support resale of used parts, support business that broker parts, etc. There are a lot of messy details and tradeoffs.
While well-intentioned, I wonder if this will lead to something like the "sesame" debacle[1], in which is becomes far cheaper and easier for companies to deliberately design digital devices so as to be absolutely unrepairable -- even by the manufacturers themselves -- rather than provide parts and instructions for 3rd parties to effect repairs.
Apple already did this. They've been doing it for over a decade. They don't do component-level repair, they do assembly swaps, because it's cheaper to make the customer pay $500 to replace a board with 100 soldered-on components than to pay $50k/yr more for a skilled technician to replace just one. Then they handcuff their vendors to make sure as many chips as possible on the board can only be bought by them.
The reason why Louis Rossmann is - or, at least, was able to fix your MacBook is because Apple's vendors were breaching their supplier agreements. Apple worked around that by putting Apple logos on all their components and getting Customs to seize any parts shipments coming out of China.
Why are you singling out Apple here? I can't think of any consumer product where the manufacturer does board-level repair. My washing machine dies? They replace the whole board. TV dies? replace the TCON board. My aircon stops? They replace the whole board. ECU in my car starts throwing errors? They replace the whole unit. What company sends out a repairman with a soldering iron?
Design For Manufacturing + Design For Obsolescence
!=
Design For Durability + Design For Repair + Design For Low TCO
Recall how the GDR's unbreakable beer mugs failed to sell in the West and became lost to time because restaurant vendors insisted on selling "cheap", inferior, fragile products breaking regularly to ensure profits.
> because restaurant vendors insisted on selling "cheap", inferior, fragile products breaking regularly to ensure profits
I prefer thinner, lighter glassware. Even if it breaks more often. The fact that these products didn’t do well in households should be Exhibit A for why restaurants’ profit concerns weren’t to blame.
Design For Obsolescence isn't often the goal ... just a side benefit. Not that it doesn't happen.
The goal is usually something like: ensure we meet durability requirements X, while minimizing costs.
Now in practice that might very much amount to the same practical impact, such as the product will break after the designed lifetime, but maybe not if it happens to be cheaper to use a simpler, cheaper component that actually is more durable. But probably there is some component that is the weak link that only meets the minimum design specs. And this yet one more reason why Repair is important, because many of the components are perfectly fine!
People already steal beer mugs...buying very expensive ones that don't break would just be a target for thieves requiring you to replace them even more frequently than glass ones.
This has been the status quo. Soldered SSDs, ram, keyboards that die from a speck of dust. It's the lack of oversight that's allowed companies to do as they please.
The market largely self-regulates this. If you want systems with replaceable components built to high quality standards, they exist, but there are costs. They might costs more, not be cutting edge, not have the nice integrated form factors. But plenty of third-party-reviewers, brand reputation from customers, and fierce competition reigns in much of the worst practices of industry. But things move fast enough that it requires either relying on a reputation for quality or detailed review to get what you want. And the mainstream buyers don't care about soldered components (at point of purchase). They might care about resale value, but really doesn't hinder the current market too much, given how fast things deprecate relative to repairability. All of this is basically self-regulated by a highly competitive global market.
Readit News
> Like the repair rules passed in Minnesota last year, Colorado’s law notably covers data center and business-to-business equipment, only without Minnesota’s vague exclusion for “critical infrastructure” equipment.
> There are some exclusions, like game consoles (due to lobbying from game console manufacturers over piracy concerns), medical devices, ATVs, and motor vehicles, which are also typical for repair rules introduced in other states like California and New York. Like Oregon’s right-to-repair law, Colorado’s HB24-1121 explicitly prohibits electronics manufacturers from using “parts pairing” to prevent replacement components from working unless approved by company software.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/29/24166894/colorado-right-t...
Perhaps they'll relax the restrictions on "non first party" components (likely you'll lose some functionality that aftermarket parts don't actually support), but use pairing to lock out parts from stolen phones.
I suspect that part of their strategy is to try to make stolen iPhones less attractive to thieves, and effective parts pairing would likely reduce the market for stolen phones stripped for parts.
Of course, if you can "blank" off a stolen part to appear as an unofficial one, that doesn't work! That idea is therefore likely to face challenges.
The challenge will be what is really meant by parts pairing - to some extent if you want to do some features securely (say touch ID), you probably want to pair the reader to the secure enclave with a shared AES key and similar. There could be tooling to reset and re-establish that pairing on an unlocked device.
Legislation often struggles to define exactly what is required though, so it will certainly be interesting to see how Apple responds.
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/11/apple-to-allow-used-par...
Deleted Comment
Those are two category of product that have one of the longest lives of consumer goods, and have serious external guardrails and regulations around their safety.
There are MANY 50 year old aircraft flying around still, the average GA fleet age is 35+. Part of that is that replacement parts are approved by the FAA, and not the OEM. If the FAA says I can use an Garmin transponder in my Cessna, Cessna can't brick my plane even if they have a deal with Icom. There are still aftermarket parts being sold for models that were discontinued in the 1950s. Imagine if we had to throw away every old airplane when the manufacturer went bust.
Medical devices are the same, if a third party manufacturer is selling an FDA approved replacement battery for an older hearing aid, I would be pissed if the manufacturer bricked my device for not using their battery. Or even worse, how mad would you be if the original manufacturer, and the secret signing key for their batteries, went out of business and you didn't even have the option of an expensive OEM battery.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/january/09...
Edit - Source on AA fabricating their own tailcones: https://www.flightglobal.com/american-airlines-drives-effici...
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
We must not allow exceptions, it must be every single universal machine!
More R2R rights are needed:
1. Either the UL or EPA needs to grade devices for repairability and TCO
2. a. Repair parts and b. phone-home cloud features should be disclosed how long they will remain on the market
3. a. When parts are no longer available (NLA), it should be legal to produce compatible replacements including circumventing DRM, b. when cloud features are no longer available officially, API endpoint(s) shall be modifiable to point to other servers
4. Schematics should be made available for electronic products from businesses with 500+ employees
5. It should be illegal to brick parts and devices based on their age, the current time, or by model, or for installing third-party parts
I remember when Tesla was first forced to comply with MA's R2R laws. It was like something out of Hitchhiker's Guide...
There WAS a website where you could order parts, in theory. Except every single part on the site was either "Unavailable" or "Call Tesla", even down the simplest commodity bolts...
There WAS somewhere you could go to look at the documentation / service manuals. You did have to make an appointment, though, and you did have to pay a fee, and there was a time limit, and you couldn't bring any electronic devices with you, only a legal pad and pencil...
Wouldn't that be more of a Consumer Reports thing?
For example, every modern Mac will turn into e-waste within a decade since that SSD has to wear out. I don't care how high of a quality SSD you use, it just won't last forever.
My 2-year-old MacBook Air would be the perfect computer if I could just put a larger SSD in it, but I can't. So I'm already looking at buying a new computer.
Direct link to the text as signed (pdf): https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_1121_sign...
At some point in the future we're going to get to the point where these things become fully integrated: solid state battery, display elements, silicon all printed into one solid glassy chunk.
[1] https://reason.com/2022/12/23/why-is-sesame-suddenly-in-ever...
The reason why Louis Rossmann is - or, at least, was able to fix your MacBook is because Apple's vendors were breaching their supplier agreements. Apple worked around that by putting Apple logos on all their components and getting Customs to seize any parts shipments coming out of China.
!=
Design For Durability + Design For Repair + Design For Low TCO
Recall how the GDR's unbreakable beer mugs failed to sell in the West and became lost to time because restaurant vendors insisted on selling "cheap", inferior, fragile products breaking regularly to ensure profits.
I prefer thinner, lighter glassware. Even if it breaks more often. The fact that these products didn’t do well in households should be Exhibit A for why restaurants’ profit concerns weren’t to blame.
The goal is usually something like: ensure we meet durability requirements X, while minimizing costs.
Now in practice that might very much amount to the same practical impact, such as the product will break after the designed lifetime, but maybe not if it happens to be cheaper to use a simpler, cheaper component that actually is more durable. But probably there is some component that is the weak link that only meets the minimum design specs. And this yet one more reason why Repair is important, because many of the components are perfectly fine!