Will we, as the consumers of the industry, take control of the situation?
Yep! that’s the age old issue, consumers taking control of whatever they can get their hands on ~ who isn’t a consumer? ~ and who’s so ‘not a consumer’ that they can point the finger. Then I hear the consumer say I want more ‘control’ ~ way to go ~ to continue what consumers do best ~ consume or
I do not get the point of what you are saying here. Is it that it is helpless, so I am not going to do anything about it?
‘It’ cannot be helpless but an individual can or cannot help a cause. If by it you refer to the action of a body then the body subjectively may consider itself ‘helpful’ whereas in the wider context it is just satisfying its own desires.
The cause is always self preservation by consuming. A person or animal can only consume that which is weaker than them. When individuals group together their combined strength allows exploitation of things the individual could not do, hence the power of people who communicate well.
The point is ‘it’, doesn’t matter to some, and is not a right, whereas for the group that claims or wants a right it is really only a privilege born on the backs of those that must suffer.
The reason I have been vegan for 45 years, collect rain water and grow food etc. (alone) is that other individuals want to group together to have more power and then demands rights or to put it more bluntly more power over others. It matters not if the other is an individual or a body corporate for they must bow to the rights demanded of them.
Basically there is no ‘it’ there is just I and I.
Am I going to do something about myself and am I helpless? ~ I don’t consider myself completely helpless but I struggle more to not consume than to worry about ‘rights’. I already have rights and privileges beyond measure.
So my critical view is not to dissuade others from their method of consumption but to avoid being complicit where I can ~ I often ~ after wonder If I should speak of such things and respond to such posts, but I wanted a break from digging the Earth and jumped on your wagon for a ride.
Apologies as I said I have no problem with your actions in posting you thoughts and I do like to repair what I can ~ live off grid with solar, built my own wooden workshop/cabin/shelter etc so I appreciate the desire to repair, but I just don’t see it as a ‘right’ ~ rights are just more dependencies.
Thanks for the explanation.
I think I get your points, even though some of them are from very different domains. Veganism, living off-grid, building own shelters are not that “all-good” domains but are complex ones with multiple pros and cons, so I would rather prefer to stay within one domain and specific area and not compare them.
Isn’t it why humans often have constitutions and laws that supposedly protect their rights. I am not saying that they work that well, but that the rights are for the people. The right is a choice, a big part of the freedom if I could say so. Maybe it sounds naive and it is only so on the paper but with the right to repair we do not have it even on the paper.
I think it takes it to the very extreme. This way I can say that to live we need to consume some sort of energy and unless we can eat solar power, we will be living off the suffering of the worms in the ground, birds in the forest whose land we are occupying, and eating their plants as vegans, for example. Surely, as humans we crap everywhere, so we need to draw a line somewhere.
So, I with the right to repair would like to gain the possibility to know (diagnose) what is wrong with the device that I purchased, and, based on that, have the possibility to buy the spare parts and repair the device (myself or by another party). Am I asking too much?
You are not asking too much, ask for more but my only point is to ask more of yourself not others.
The issue of need Hmm! It may be that once we are born we need to die, even that is questionable, but the rest is desire and wants and I can understand you wanting to have more control but to make it a ‘right’ for those privileged enough to have a phone requires as you acknowledge rules and laws. Laws that are only enojoyed as a right through the threat or action of sanctions that include violence to individuals freedoms and enhanced exploitation of resources.
You are not asking too much, you never can. You can ask for all of the cosmos and all of eternity or just a portion for 70 or 80 years for your own pleasure, but making it a law that I have to succumb to ~ I think not
I appreciate your post and responses but I’m not not sure I should continue to criticise the concepts as it can be taken as not just adverse but an attempt to throttle the idea. I have no intention of dissuading you from your endeavors, it’s just it’s a public forum that I choose to be a part of and stick my oar in so to speak. It’s a big sea and we all make waves.
As the final thought, one aspect that I would like to address is lies. The lies about the need for soldering RAM and SSDs onto the board of computers (for performance or whatever). The lies about gluing the screens and batteries for the water and dust proofing/resistance, the lies about serialization of the components for the sake of security, and things that you are holding it wrong. The lies that if you run a jumper wire it makes it into a different product. Or that you are holding it wrong. I think it would be the right thing to say that I do not want the wheels of the car to be soldered to the car, and that is where we need to draw the line. However, many actors in the industry with their lies try to push this line further and further from (should I call it) common sense.
Sadly ‘Common’ sense is far from viable but yes it would be great if what is viable was the common but I seem to be stumped in my efforts for viable longevity.
Lies it all is, and looking very pretty too, just totally unreliable but at least I know it’s unreliable.
All the best
The article is about appliances and I am not sure if it covers electronics in the same way as well. Anyway, if it works, it will be a step forward for the EU, I believe.
What Louis Rossmann addressed in an earlier video is that laws for the supply of spare parts often only apply to user-replaceable parts, not to soldered parts (which he is able to replace in his repair shop, but are hard to come by.)
That means you’d have to get an entire system board to replace a microphone / USB port if those parts are soldered onto the system board instead of in separate modules like on Fairphones 2/3.
My argument is that it’s not practical to provide all sub components. In the 60’s I was a radio maintenance engineer in the Royal Navy and it was possible to replace individual valves and transistors etc, but once integrated circuits came on the scene the disposable issue arrived rapidly. It is not economically viable to do deep repairs and so manufacturers do not provide the business model for many individual components.
Look at the fairphone. In order to make some headway it is built of modules that then increase the size of the phone, incorporate instability and are not that popular.
Making laws to force businesses to do what consumers want is ugly. Making laws is ugly, but if so many people want so much in one aspect then they have to forego it in another.
The future is not about what a person can gain from invention but what are they prepared to lose and in the case of modern electronics it is the ability to repair most components.
I can repair a chair and the mechanics of a car. I can fell trees, cut wood, make a fire, melt metal but I cannot make a cpu or system on a chip.
This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
The right to repair is becoming more and more a thing. For Fairphone it could be an accelerator, if they achieve beeing free of legal issues. Hopfully there will be a way soon.