[gjsman-1000]

This is a different definition of Right to Repair entirely. iFixit and others fall into this definition, while people like Louis Rossmann believe R2R simply means Right to Repair, and not Right to a Repairable Design. This is another issue with R2R - some define it as just getting parts and tools; others as mandatory design guidelines and requirements.

Pay attention carefully and watch different videos about what R2R means. There's a significant schism in the R2R movement over whether R2R means repairable design or not. The most successful branch legislatively (New York, Rossmann, EU proposals) says that it does not include repairable design; and that Right to Repair only encompasses the right to have manuals and parts, not that the manufacturer has to make specific design choices (other than, like, USB-C but that's not repair-related).

Edit: Another issue that comes up is how granular is a "part". Louis Rossmann sees a part as being on the level of a specific microchip and is upset he can't order parts at that level of granularity. Apple, and other R2R activists, view a part as a much larger finished item, such as a PCB or a Battery (rather than, say, the specific resistor on the inside of a Battery). Legislators for R2R in EU currently are trying to define R2R as being "if the manufacturer sells a part, they must sell it to everyone," not "the manufacturer must individually sell all pieces of a product until they are no longer divisible" - but the Louis Rossmann crowd views as being insufficient R2R. So... another loose R2R schism.

[HPsquared]

It's a problem with politics in general: that of some slogan going around which gains traction among a wide range of people, but different people have different interpretations of what the slogan actually means. They support their chosen definition, not that of others.

In fact, I would propose this kind of ambiguous slogan has, as a memetic advantage over more well -defined ideas, precisely because of this "broad appeal" which is actually the broad appeal of a slogan, not a policy.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Legislators for R2R in EU currently are trying to define R2R as being "if the manufacturer sells a part, they must sell it to everyone," not "the manufacturer must individually sell all pieces of a product until they are no longer divisible" - but the Louis Rossmann crowd views as being insufficient R2R. So... another loose R2R schism.

Rossman appears to want the same as you say the EU want, the actual manufacturer to sell parts freely rather than being locked up by that manufacturer's downstream buyers (eg Apple) preventing repairers like Rossman from going to the chip factory to get the supplies to do repairs, in the same way that Apple go to the factory to get supplies when manufacturing boards, etc.

[wiseleo]

For everyone who says "it's too hard" to repair tiny parts, it's not. It requires special tools and surgical hand precision, but the tooling is affordable. You can outfit a lab for less than $1000 non-recurring cost. We should have schematics and boardviews available because they _are_ in effect the product repair manual. We should have ability to order individual chips. Limiting repair to field-replaceable units is IBM's business model.

When I don't have schematics and boardviews, I have to spend time generating them in my head.

[GekkePrutser]

> Pay attention carefully and watch different videos about what R2R means.

I don't do videos. If someone actually takes the time to write it down I'll read it :)

But for me right to repair simply doesn't work when the design itself is repair-hostile like Apple's.