> including a repair obligation for manufacturers of certain products
Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
I have a ~10 year old iPad Pro in perfect working condition. I can basically do nothing with it, and increasingly it can no longer even browse the internet because Safari is so outdated on it.
But, this regulation is still a tiny step in the right direction.
vv_ · 2026-08-24 07:34:59 UTC
Updating old products is expensive, especially as their hardware falls further behind. Unless manufacturers adopt some kind of subscription model to justify the cost of continued updates, which would likely be very unpopular, I don’t see how they can realistically keep older devices supported indefinitely.
seemaze · 2026-08-24 07:47:21 UTC
unlock old hardware and let the community support
vv_ · 2026-08-24 07:58:38 UTC
It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive, as someone needs to prepare all the materials and resources the community would need to continue supporting the product after official support ends. Second, there are legal restrictions, for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware. Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available.
You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
realusername · 2026-08-24 08:04:09 UTC
> Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available.
You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you.
They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.
vv_ · 2026-08-24 08:14:52 UTC
> they don't want to give up ownership back to you
No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
Edit:
I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
> No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting?
Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
realusername · 2026-08-24 08:22:53 UTC
No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers, because that's what they are.
Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors
To give a reply:
> Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of.
Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
flohofwoe · 2026-08-24 10:49:03 UTC
> I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
There's a 10 minute timer on HN to avoid discussions becoming too heated (at least AFAIK that's the reason).
> You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection (and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway).
In the 80s it was entirely normal to get parts lists, schematics and ROM listings when buying a computer for instance (and I guess other electronic devices too), there is absolutely no reason why access to the same information should be restricted today.
troupo · 2026-08-24 08:08:16 UTC
You've just made an argument for a bunch of regulation to force opening up and removing obstacles.
E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?
Same goes for many, many, many other things.
thefz · 2026-08-24 08:28:23 UTC
> It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive
By not doing it you are basically outsourcing this cost to the environment.
xxs · 2026-08-24 09:05:28 UTC
The intellectual property is not some god given right unlike air and water. There is little need not to support a decade old hardware and effectively turning the said hardware to a door stop, or a landfill.
Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
kenmacd · 2026-08-24 13:25:09 UTC
You are framing this as something they have to do: support it, release documentation, open source it, etc.
It's not. It's something they have to stop doing. Stop adding code that specifically stops third party software from running.
dwaite · 2026-08-24 17:27:03 UTC
It is a nice thought, but there may not be a ton of effort in starting reverse engineering projects on a full custom silicon stack 7+ years after release (when Apple typically stops supporting hardware)
NL807 · 2026-08-24 08:06:27 UTC
>I don’t see how they can realistically keep older devices supported indefinitely.
They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.
Hendrikto · 2026-08-24 08:14:32 UTC
Vendors do not have to support their product indefinitely. They have to design their products in a way that they do not become useless after support ends. E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.
Hendrikto · 2026-08-24 08:12:43 UTC
I recently had to throw out a first gen iPad that was physically still in mint condition (even including the battery, somehow), simply for the lack of support essentially turning it into a useless brick.
microtonal · 2026-08-24 09:21:23 UTC
IMO this is one of the biggest gaps in the new EU repair rules (from what I have seen of it). It should mandate unlockable bootloaders, etc. or at the very least an unlockable bootloader once the regular support period is over.
Imagine the cool things people could do with old iPads. Put Android or Ubuntu Touch and give it to people who cannot afford a tablet. Wall display for Home Assistant. Rip out the batteries and have a very low energy ARM server, etc.
xxs · 2026-08-24 08:27:49 UTC
the main issue is that's an ipad and it's locked. In contrast - a 15y+ laptop can be used (after few upgrades - i5-560M, 8GB RAM, 500GB SSD, AC-8260) to do office work: it runs the latest Firefox and Open Office + googledocs and friends without too much trouble.
DanielHB · 2026-08-24 10:52:21 UTC
Android devices are unlocked, non-manufacturer OSes are still well outside of "easy" to install, much less get all features working.
The main problem is that people maintaining the OS build for your hardware is the same people making the hardware. If legislation forced to divest both into separate companies the support would last far, far longer.
master-lincoln · 2026-08-24 12:14:35 UTC
I would also want that for TV software or car software.
But I guess there is no money to be made on that software...otherwise we would already see a bunch of non-manufacturer companies offering software for 3rd party devices that are unlocked, wouldn't we?
Or maybe the used hardware is just not documented well enough
kenmacd · 2026-08-24 13:14:18 UTC
> Android devices are unlocked
<sigh> If only that were true. I have a Samsung S20 with 128gb storage and a adequate battery that is ewaste because of the locked bootloader and now permanently vulnerable kernel.
Not disagreeing with your premise (the same should be done with ISPs — own the connection or the wires, but not both). I'd just take the "hard" install with fewer features over what we have now.
embedding-shape · 2026-08-24 09:11:08 UTC
> Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
Eh, what are you proposing? That these new regulations should cover +10 year old devices too?
Similarly I still have an iPhone with a lightning port instead of the legally mandated USB-C port, but at no point was I expecting Apple to somehow change the ports of existing devices.
moffkalast · 2026-08-24 09:14:49 UTC
Arguably compute performance has changed very little in the past five years and we're way into diminishing returns for silicon, so yes it makes perfect sense for devices to last more than a decade and remain perfectly capable machines now as long as they're not kneecapped by lack of support combined with a locked ecosystem. Manufacturers either need to keep it updated or they need to make it possible for others to do so.
ethbr1 · 2026-08-24 10:33:26 UTC
And with the memory crunch, it's likely that we passed peak memory in consumer devices, at least for a bit.
So for next decade, older devices might often have more memory!
yonatan8070 · 2026-08-24 09:23:59 UTC
Not the OP.
I'd say that we need regulation requiring user-replacable software. Even though a PC might not be supported by Windows 11, and subsequently major browsers will cease support. You can still install a 3rd-party OS like Linux which will maintain support far beyond the original EoL.
Same goes for Android devices, I used to have an LG G2 (the phone, not the TV), which IIRC shipped with Android 4 or 5, and through LineageOS I updated it all the way to Android 11. Granted it couldn't remain relevant forever, its 32-bit ARM architecture is quite outdated and a lot of apps lost support for it, but for a while it remained quite useful.
Might help you get some more use out of it, thanks to the DMA :-)
terhechte · 2026-08-24 10:41:26 UTC
I tried to install this the other day with Altstore and gave up after 30min. I learned there are two altstores, and the one I could install didn't support the "source" listed on that repository. Then I looked into the other options and all required some terminal messing and rooting and what not. I thought in the EU we should be able to just install software now.
DanielHB · 2026-08-24 10:49:42 UTC
Divorcing the OS from the hardware means stuff just lasts far, far longer.
Like just a few years ago it became impossible to run 32bit windows which effectively killed all OS software updates for hardware older than ~2005. Most application software followed.
On the Linux they just dropped support for the 486 and older versions of the kernel will likely still get security updates for a while.
mrweasel · 2026-08-24 11:14:39 UTC
The iPad is easily Apple worst product in terms of consumer friendliness. A lot of iPads shipped with way to little storage and I'd be surprised if Apple didn't know this.
The 10 year old iPad is still a perfectly capable device, but it suffers from the lack of an updated operating system and enough storage to apply a would be update. There are millions of people for whom an iPad is all the computing they'd ever need (many just use their phone as well), but the larger screen makes it a good option of online shopping, banking, emails, government documents, calendar and appointment booking. The price is reasonable, but it doesn't need to replace every three to five years to serve that purpose. Arguably I don't know how Apple would make money on it long term, but the lack of update should count against them in terms of their environmental image.
Apple is far from the worst, their phones updates for a long time, longer than most. Their laptops equally so. The iPad is very disappointing, because even if they issue an OS update, not all the devices can apply it, because of the lack of storage. Still better than my wife's old Samsung phone that was unable to apply any operating system update ever, because the storage was to limited.
tzs · 2026-08-25 17:13:42 UTC
Is bricking accurate there? From what I've read the old Kindles can no longer download from the Amazon store, which is the only reasonable way to get new Kindle books onto a Kindle.
However, any Kindle books they have already downloaded to that Kindle will continue to work, and can be backed up and restored to a desktop computer over USB.
Also any Kindle books they bought for that Kindle when Amazon allowed downloading to desktop for later USB loading can still be loaded that way.
Finally, it still works for non-DRM books from other sources. It is essentially now like a non-Kindle ebook reader that also happens to be able to read the set of Kindle books you already have.
Oh, and you also have to avoid doing a factory reset or deregistering the Kindle. It will then lose the ability to read Kindle books, making it even more like a non-Kindle ebook reader.
You might not be totally screwed out of your Kindle books even then. We are talking about devices that were introduced in 2012 or earlier and last sold new in September 2014.
Amazon only succeeded in hardening their DRM to the point that DRM removal tools don't work for most people in the last couple of years or so. That means there is a good chance that the Kindle books of most of the affected users have reasonably breakable DRM.
There are some things that might have happened since they bought the books that updated the DRM on their copies, but if you just downloaded the books, and only later moved them off and on via USB (manually or with something like Calibre) to manage space on the device, and did not also read them in the Amazon desktop Kindle app then they are almost certainly still using the original DRM and that can easily be stripped.
ShadowOfThePit · 2026-08-24 07:23:11 UTC
> According to the European Commission, the new rules are expected to bring €4.8 billion in growth and investment within the EU.
The source of this number seems to come from here, on page 73:
Interestingly, the number is over a span of 15 years, and is only the calculated "Growth and investment".
Other numbers are "Savings in production costs" at €15.6 billion, and "Consumer savings" at 25€ per consumer per year for an impressive total of €176.5 billion.
It also lists "Business adjustment costs" at €8.1 billion, "Business administrative costs" at just €69.8 million and "Implementation and enforcement" at €105.5 million.
I wonder why "Growth and investment" was chosed as the number to use. Maybe to keep emphasising their gist of "the EU is the future for sustainable growth"?
Also, here are the announcements by the Commission:
They have already begun. It’s called the Product Liability Directive (2024/2853) and forces software providers to guarantee fitness for purposes and safety.
lnsru · 2026-08-24 08:42:52 UTC
Good luck to hardware startups in Europe! For every developer now a company needs one technical writer or compliance specialist. That basically means that all small everyday electronics products will come from overseas. Either because it’s cheaper or it’s cheaper and nobody cares about certification.
birdsongs · 2026-08-24 09:25:32 UTC
This is so disingenuous. I've been part of two Norwegian hard tech startups in the past few years (one as a founder, one currently as an embedded lead) and all it took was our mech engineer (which you will always need) making an accessible case design and publishing a short two page PDF on disassembly.
Down the road, if we make it, we will have access to funds for a few roles that maintain spare parts and a repair (more likely replace/refurb) department, that will coordinate with our manufacturing houses.
None of this blocks innovation or velocity for early stage startups. Unless you have more concrete examples I'm somehow missing?
lnsru · 2026-08-24 10:33:52 UTC
How good is your employer prepared for Cyber Resilience Act?
thrance · 2026-08-24 10:46:13 UTC
Always the same weak anti-regulation argument: "if companies can't screw over their consumers, how can they ever turn a profit??". And guess what, this law also applies to foreign companies selling in the EU.
another-dave · 2026-08-24 10:50:34 UTC
"The 'right to repair' regulations introduce new rights and supports aimed at encouraging repair over disposal, including a repair obligation for manufacturers of certain products and the establishment of a national repair platform to help consumers locate repair services."
If your hardware start-up was going to tell me to buy a new product if it broke after a year, then I've no problem if it doesn't get going in the EU.
We don't need more cheap tat, we need things that can have a reasonable shelf life. We used to expect that from products as standard. Then when more things became electronic, it started to drift into obsolence after X years.
But there's so many products that don't need to be replaced. I don't need a state-of-the-art pedometer or weighing scales, I just need one that does the job it did when I bought it.
expedition32 · 2026-08-24 09:35:46 UTC
I live in a rich European country. This is not Shenzhen. The, very scarce, technically inclined people who know how to repair a vacuum cleaner or electronic toothbrush can get a real job with an hourly rate that makes repairs economically unfeasible.
Repair cafes are nice hobby projects for pensionados but it is not going to move the needle.
shiandow · 2026-08-24 09:40:55 UTC
You underestimate my willingness to 'under sell' my free time by spending it to fix something I own.
euroderf · 2026-08-24 20:59:32 UTC
For "fix" substitute "assemble": there's the Ikea model.
euroderf · 2026-08-24 09:56:54 UTC
When did it become socially acceptable to throw things out rather than repair them ? When did it become economically rational ?
Helsinki (for one) needs some real repair cafés.
spockz · 2026-08-24 10:08:24 UTC
The moment manufacturers started making products that didn’t last long enough, with replacement parts expensive enough, and raising hourly rates for labour which made it cheaper to buy a new product rather than repair the old one. Also the new product tended to be more efficient with electricity and water or marketed as such.
ethbr1 · 2026-08-24 10:11:20 UTC
As someone quipped to me, there's a reason the environmental movement used an priority ordered list.
reduce, reuse, recycle
tpxl · 2026-08-24 10:05:40 UTC
The manufacturer/seller already employs people who deal with this, and it's not expensive. Getting my washing machine fixed for 10€ parts + labor instead of 300€ parts + labor sounds mighty nice to me.
> Manufacturers must also provide [...] access to spare parts at a reasonable price.
This is the important part. Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go.
ethbr1 · 2026-08-24 10:17:47 UTC
> Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go
Hopefully data collection that supports device-specific repair cost breakdowns and tracking is part of this legislation.
Currently, manufacturers optimize for manufacturing -- it's cheaper to assemble with a $200 all-in-one board than a discrete button.
If it were more expensive to use an all-in-one board (say, because they were on the hook for repairs and/or buyers had a place to easily compare repair costs...) then they'd do otherwise.
Price/cost obfuscation is the root of a lot of inefficiencies.
j16sdiz · 2026-08-24 10:45:36 UTC
> Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards
I won't call soldering anything on a 20-layers pcb "stupid shit".
xxs · 2026-08-24 20:26:18 UTC
I don't know of any PC motherboard to be 20-layers. "Asus ROG Crosshair X870E Dark Hero" is like 650 euro and it's "merely" 8 layers. Edit: "MSI MEG X870E Godlike" is 1200 euro or so and 10 layers.
mk89 · 2026-08-24 10:07:31 UTC
EU is huge and hourly rates are different in many countries.
Nevertheless, the point is not the electronic toothbrush, but rather the "BIG" stuff that costs much and it's creating a lot of garbage.
A 1200 euro TV that breaks after 5 years - are you willing to buy a new one just because?
Once you have that infrastructure in place, eventually also the "smaller" things will be cheaper to replace.
radu_floricica · 2026-08-24 10:15:40 UTC
1200 euro TVs don't really break after 5 years anymore, not in any meaningful numbers.
I've played with entrepreneurship most of my life - I know how "a solution looking for a problem" looks like. Any VC would laugh them out of the room.
Edit: don't get me wrong - there is a part of this that is almost free and only requires a bit of enforcement. That part is good, and it's exactly what governments should deal with. But anything that imposes direct or indirect costs should go through serious cost/benefit analysis.
xxs · 2026-08-24 11:30:03 UTC
TV, unfortunately, are the worst offenders in most cases as they cannot be reliably opened.
Things that are on the not hard scale to fix - cleaning robots, inkjet printers (with fill-in ink), laptops (incl. board repairs as long as they are not a BGA), desktop pc, mowing robots, mowers (all 2 and 4 stroke variants), most battery tools (drills, sanders, saws, etc.). Overall stuff that can opened reliably, even if that requires specialized tools like bearing pullers or impact wrenches.
Things that are hard - anything that uses glue as the prime assembly fastening choice, e.g. TVs and monitors (or just plastic clips). Cheap plastics (ABS) bodies are annoying as well. Fridges, no way to refill or fix the compressor. Serialized components that need specialized tools/software after being replaced.
In that regard that would be my complaint - ease of disassembly and clearly marked parts, exploded views, schematics. Spare parts. Personally, I'd spend half a night to repair 30-40euro device w/o any documentation, just b/c I can -- but that shall not be the norm.
vanderZwan · 2026-08-24 10:52:48 UTC
Not everything has to be a business. Our local library has "repair café Sundays", and most of the people involved in it are volunteers. There are some "pensionados" among them (and they are cherished for their institutional knowledge), but they are definitely not the majority. There is a strong community of interested tech nerds that like to help each other out and learn how to fix things themselves, and who also want to learn from the previous generation.
jhoechtl · 2026-08-24 10:46:20 UTC
I would like to see small appliances inbuilt batteries (mostly Li-Ion based) be prohibted. It contributes to device obsolescence and is a security risk --> burning waste dumps.
mhitza · 2026-08-24 11:56:26 UTC
I think this regulation that comes into effect February of next year concerns all kinds of batteries, not only those of smartphones https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... . I think, because I didn't doublecheck right now further than reading the first matching "appliances" paragraph (ctrl-f).
What I know off the top of my head, from reading the legislation a while ago. Is that technical reasons, such as waterproof devices, will still be able to retain non user replaceable batteries if it is needed to keep the device waterproof.
m000 · 2026-08-24 12:07:35 UTC
Especially vaping devices. Cigarette butts were at least easier to dispose of than these plastic encased tips and single use vapes.
fhn · 2026-08-24 15:56:50 UTC
it's insane to me they designed it to be higher cost(li-ion + usb charging + oled screens!) than just using disposable AA batteries.
mrguyorama · 2026-08-24 18:18:30 UTC
It should be helping you to understand just how absurdly cheap per unit a commodity consumer product is.
Vs how much you pay for it.
pjc50 · 2026-08-24 16:07:38 UTC
I don't think single use vapes were ever compliant with WEEE, it's just that it's not enforced.
apatheticonion · 2026-08-24 12:10:23 UTC
I would like this to be extended to software.
If I buy an Android phone, I should be able to maintain/update the operating system.
If I buy a MacBook, I should be able to maintain or change the operating system.
If I buy a TV, smart watch, microwave - I should be able to maintain their software.
The only thing prohibiting this is the fact that drivers are obfuscated and/or hardware schematics sufficient to produce drivers are not provided.
IMO, if the EU wants any technical sovereignty, they'd address this as I don't see European companies producing a competitor to the MacBook - I do however see European companies being capable of creating a competing operating system (or Linux) to install on a MacBook, but only if Apple is compelled to allow them.
The same goes for smartphones, cars, and any digital device
carlosjobim · 2026-08-24 12:32:45 UTC
You are able to do that, just like you are able to drill out the cylinders of your brand new car. If you are skilled enough. But the manufacturer doesn't have any obligation to teach you how.
eimrine · 2026-08-24 13:04:46 UTC
Drilling is easy, dealing with ECU is not.
benj111 · 2026-08-24 14:58:25 UTC
Except a better comparison is you can replace your cylinders, but then the engine won't work because the ECU detects none registered cylinders.
eimrine · 2026-08-24 13:03:16 UTC
Of course you should, pal! You should not buy any proprietary shite to stop investing into even more invasive proprietary antiuseful technologies. But you use to not do that, so we both are going to experience suffering. Thank you for being the bad actor for me.
braiamp · 2026-08-24 14:58:16 UTC
This comment implies that we have options... we do not have options. Hell, there are places where such options are actually outlawed!
bji9jhff · 2026-08-24 15:55:41 UTC
Which options are outlawed and where?
braiamp · 2026-08-24 16:13:36 UTC
Just look at anything that require certification and prohibit modification, PCI endpoints, FIPS, fuel pumps, aviation, medical software, gambling machines... most of those are outlawed because the law made it prohibitively expensive or cumbersome for someone to make an alternative even if the implementation is known
fsflover · 2026-08-25 20:01:46 UTC
Despite all these, GNU/Linux phones exist and can be daily drivers for technical people. And you can download their schematics, too. Sent from my Librem 5.
apatheticonion · 2026-08-25 23:26:51 UTC
I am on that team and REALLY want it to be the case - but GNU/LInux devices are usually a significantly worse hardware experience than their walled garden cousins.
For example, there is literally no laptop on Earth as nice as the MacBook Pro. Extremely long battery life, insane CPU & GPU performance, unmatched trackpad - but it runs MacOS. Unless you're a professional video editor, the laptop is largely relegated to being a thin client for a Linux machine you SSH into (or spawn a non hardware accelerated VM and demolish performance / power).
How long would it take Apple to develop Linux drivers (even as binary blobs like nvidia)? Probably a couple of weekends. Why don't they? Because walled garden.
The MacBook is lucky in that it's a high profile device so we see projects like Asahi working at it - but again, without good documentation and despite the incredible progress, the Asahi team have spent years and created an alternative for older Apple hardware that still isn't daily drivable (not throwing shade at the project, it's incredible and I am dying to use Linux on my MacBook).
But what about devices with less enthusiastic communities? Pixel 8? Samsung TV? Asus Router? Fitbit Air? D-Link portable 5g modem? My smart blinds?
These devices have no drivers, locked bootloaders, and no community to spend years reverse engineering hardware (that will be obsolete by the time OSS drivers are developed).
I want to see my high end consumer hardware running OSS and until regulators step in to force the "right to repair software" - I don't see that happening and it breaks my heart.
fsflover · 2026-08-26 07:57:15 UTC
Everything you said is true, which is why supporting alternatives that are open by design is essential. Even if they are have less powerful hardware.
dewey · 2026-08-24 15:12:27 UTC
Don't blame the user for a fault of the market and regulation.
In the real world you'll always only ever see the duopoly of Android / iOS for phones for example. This can be government apps, parking apps, apps for your utilities etc. so it's not like there's an easy choice to opt-out of that. It's not much different for laptops (Will still have some non-free blob in them for some driver), TVs, kitchen appliances.
eimrine · 2026-08-26 07:53:06 UTC
Why not to blame the "real world" inhabitants which have chosen to be my enemies? I blame ones only because I can not eliminate them now. I consider their worldview as being not deeper than a pig puddle, because their life is just pulling the strap. Are there any other ways to demonstrate their emptyness to some external observers?
There is no escape from duopoly if you need banks for 24/7 - get rid of that need now or the slippery slope of the technofeudalist slavery will suck you all even deeper into never wanted outcomes.
maxerickson · 2026-08-24 13:10:43 UTC
It's pretty likely that manufacturers would charge handsomely for these requirements. At least at first.
You'd probably also get things like TVs with very basic software at import, with much better software available for people willing to obtain it outside the EU.
thunfischtoast · 2026-08-24 14:00:07 UTC
Which modern TV has good software?
Seems like pretty much all TVs today come with horrible software.
I'd very much like the option to only have a basic OS on there that's actually snappy like my old TVs used to be and not need to load its menu from the internet every time I start it.
fanatic2pope · 2026-08-24 14:08:08 UTC
A TV without software sounds like a dream. Just give me a working HDMI-in port and I'll take care of the rest, thanks!
maxerickson · 2026-08-24 18:25:56 UTC
Yeah that's misunderstanding my point. The compliance software might, for example, only play an old format from USB. Probably at low resolution.
Telaneo · 2026-08-25 14:58:23 UTC
If it's a TV, I don't want that either. If it's something where that type of functionality will be useful, it'll surely be listed in the specs, and nobody's going to buy it if it only lists 480p. If it lists better capabilities (on EU listings and whatnot), but it can only actually do that with the non-EU firmware, then that sounds like false advertising to me. Not to mention that if people can actually reprogram it, someone will reimplement the relevant features.
amelius · 2026-08-24 14:38:03 UTC
You forgot iPhone.
apatheticonion · 2026-08-24 23:14:53 UTC
FR the iPhone is such a great missed opportunity.
Imagine if someone developed a Linux based mobile OS that could run on it.
Imagine if someone figured out that the USB-C port could do displayport out.
Then imagine plugging that Linux iPhone into a usbc dock or lapdock (laptop with only a screen, keyboard and usbc input) and having a Linux desktop pop up.
The MacBook Neo already proved that iPhone hardware is fast enough for general purpose desktop computing - why aren't we allowed to do that?
Oh right, because the bootloader is locked and (practically) no one outside of Apple can produce hardware drivers without documentation.
It isn't a lack of skill or lack of demand - it's hardware gatekeeping by vendors.
It really should be required for manufacturers to publish full details about how the hardware works so that alternative software can be developed. I'd wholly support that.
celiacFun · 2026-08-28 19:26:19 UTC
They do though. There are hundreds of pages of specs you can read about it if you want to.
shevy-java · 2026-08-24 12:17:45 UTC
> People now have the right to request that manufacturers repair products that are technically repairable under EU law.
This kind of misses the point though.
Don't get me wrong, the above is nice to have as a law, but it does not
really understand the underlying problem domain. Louis Rossmann explained
it several times already; the problem was not that primarily that upstream
companies refuse to repair something, but that they deliberately make it
harder for downstream folks to repair something, for many reasons. Planned
obsolescence, trade secrets and other shenanigans, unable to purchase
replacements parts and so forth. Having a law that forces easy repairs onto
the upstream company, DOES NOT FIX THE DOWNSTREAM PROBLEM; and in some cases
it will make it worse. If the EU were serious about fighting for consumers,
they would require of all companies operating in the EU, WITHOUT EXCEPTION,
to not deliberately make it harder for downstream people to repair things.
We now live in the age of 3D printing, so really repairing anything should be
much much easier (at the least for simple materials; I understand that 3D printing
isn't that great yet with regards to tiny electronics parts). To me it seems as
if lobbyists always sneak in and worsen the legislation here. Both in the EU and in the USA.
kleiba2 · 2026-08-24 12:22:32 UTC
This is more like a "right to have repaired" than a "right to repair", unfortunately.
gandalfian · 2026-08-24 16:21:53 UTC
An official iphone screen for self repair costs more than my entire android phone. That's why people still steal them even locked and unusable. My miele washing machine will last twenty years, possibly indefinitely but every seven years it needs a repair costing £300 from Miele... Repairable is a start, economically repairable is trickier.
Comments
Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
I have a ~10 year old iPad Pro in perfect working condition. I can basically do nothing with it, and increasingly it can no longer even browse the internet because Safari is so outdated on it.
So it will be waste.
See similar story about Amazon bricking old Kindles: https://www.techradar.com/tablets/ereaders/amazon-bricking-c...
But, this regulation is still a tiny step in the right direction.
You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you.
They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.
No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
Edit:
I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
> No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting?
Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors
To give a reply:
> Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of.
Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
There's a 10 minute timer on HN to avoid discussions becoming too heated (at least AFAIK that's the reason).
> You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection (and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway).
In the 80s it was entirely normal to get parts lists, schematics and ROM listings when buying a computer for instance (and I guess other electronic devices too), there is absolutely no reason why access to the same information should be restricted today.
E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?
Same goes for many, many, many other things.
By not doing it you are basically outsourcing this cost to the environment.
Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
It's not. It's something they have to stop doing. Stop adding code that specifically stops third party software from running.
They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.
Imagine the cool things people could do with old iPads. Put Android or Ubuntu Touch and give it to people who cannot afford a tablet. Wall display for Home Assistant. Rip out the batteries and have a very low energy ARM server, etc.
The main problem is that people maintaining the OS build for your hardware is the same people making the hardware. If legislation forced to divest both into separate companies the support would last far, far longer.
But I guess there is no money to be made on that software...otherwise we would already see a bunch of non-manufacturer companies offering software for 3rd party devices that are unlocked, wouldn't we?
Or maybe the used hardware is just not documented well enough
<sigh> If only that were true. I have a Samsung S20 with 128gb storage and a adequate battery that is ewaste because of the locked bootloader and now permanently vulnerable kernel.
Not disagreeing with your premise (the same should be done with ISPs — own the connection or the wires, but not both). I'd just take the "hard" install with fewer features over what we have now.
Eh, what are you proposing? That these new regulations should cover +10 year old devices too?
Similarly I still have an iPhone with a lightning port instead of the legally mandated USB-C port, but at no point was I expecting Apple to somehow change the ports of existing devices.
So for next decade, older devices might often have more memory!
I'd say that we need regulation requiring user-replacable software. Even though a PC might not be supported by Windows 11, and subsequently major browsers will cease support. You can still install a 3rd-party OS like Linux which will maintain support far beyond the original EoL.
Same goes for Android devices, I used to have an LG G2 (the phone, not the TV), which IIRC shipped with Android 4 or 5, and through LineageOS I updated it all the way to Android 11. Granted it couldn't remain relevant forever, its 32-bit ARM architecture is quite outdated and a lot of apps lost support for it, but for a while it remained quite useful.
Might help you get some more use out of it, thanks to the DMA :-)
Like just a few years ago it became impossible to run 32bit windows which effectively killed all OS software updates for hardware older than ~2005. Most application software followed.
On the Linux they just dropped support for the 486 and older versions of the kernel will likely still get security updates for a while.
The 10 year old iPad is still a perfectly capable device, but it suffers from the lack of an updated operating system and enough storage to apply a would be update. There are millions of people for whom an iPad is all the computing they'd ever need (many just use their phone as well), but the larger screen makes it a good option of online shopping, banking, emails, government documents, calendar and appointment booking. The price is reasonable, but it doesn't need to replace every three to five years to serve that purpose. Arguably I don't know how Apple would make money on it long term, but the lack of update should count against them in terms of their environmental image.
Apple is far from the worst, their phones updates for a long time, longer than most. Their laptops equally so. The iPad is very disappointing, because even if they issue an OS update, not all the devices can apply it, because of the lack of storage. Still better than my wife's old Samsung phone that was unable to apply any operating system update ever, because the storage was to limited.
However, any Kindle books they have already downloaded to that Kindle will continue to work, and can be backed up and restored to a desktop computer over USB.
Also any Kindle books they bought for that Kindle when Amazon allowed downloading to desktop for later USB loading can still be loaded that way.
Finally, it still works for non-DRM books from other sources. It is essentially now like a non-Kindle ebook reader that also happens to be able to read the set of Kindle books you already have.
Oh, and you also have to avoid doing a factory reset or deregistering the Kindle. It will then lose the ability to read Kindle books, making it even more like a non-Kindle ebook reader.
You might not be totally screwed out of your Kindle books even then. We are talking about devices that were introduced in 2012 or earlier and last sold new in September 2014.
Amazon only succeeded in hardening their DRM to the point that DRM removal tools don't work for most people in the last couple of years or so. That means there is a good chance that the Kindle books of most of the affected users have reasonably breakable DRM.
There are some things that might have happened since they bought the books that updated the DRM on their copies, but if you just downloaded the books, and only later moved them off and on via USB (manually or with something like Calibre) to manage space on the device, and did not also read them in the Amazon desktop Kindle app then they are almost certainly still using the original DRM and that can easily be stripped.
The source of this number seems to come from here, on page 73:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
Interestingly, the number is over a span of 15 years, and is only the calculated "Growth and investment".
Other numbers are "Savings in production costs" at €15.6 billion, and "Consumer savings" at 25€ per consumer per year for an impressive total of €176.5 billion.
It also lists "Business adjustment costs" at €8.1 billion, "Business administrative costs" at just €69.8 million and "Implementation and enforcement" at €105.5 million.
I wonder why "Growth and investment" was chosed as the number to use. Maybe to keep emphasising their gist of "the EU is the future for sustainable growth"?
Also, here are the announcements by the Commission:
https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/right-repai...
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/right-to-repair-...
Down the road, if we make it, we will have access to funds for a few roles that maintain spare parts and a repair (more likely replace/refurb) department, that will coordinate with our manufacturing houses.
None of this blocks innovation or velocity for early stage startups. Unless you have more concrete examples I'm somehow missing?
If your hardware start-up was going to tell me to buy a new product if it broke after a year, then I've no problem if it doesn't get going in the EU.
We don't need more cheap tat, we need things that can have a reasonable shelf life. We used to expect that from products as standard. Then when more things became electronic, it started to drift into obsolence after X years.
But there's so many products that don't need to be replaced. I don't need a state-of-the-art pedometer or weighing scales, I just need one that does the job it did when I bought it.
Repair cafes are nice hobby projects for pensionados but it is not going to move the needle.
Helsinki (for one) needs some real repair cafés.
> Manufacturers must also provide [...] access to spare parts at a reasonable price.
This is the important part. Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go.
Hopefully data collection that supports device-specific repair cost breakdowns and tracking is part of this legislation.
Currently, manufacturers optimize for manufacturing -- it's cheaper to assemble with a $200 all-in-one board than a discrete button.
If it were more expensive to use an all-in-one board (say, because they were on the hook for repairs and/or buyers had a place to easily compare repair costs...) then they'd do otherwise.
Price/cost obfuscation is the root of a lot of inefficiencies.
I won't call soldering anything on a 20-layers pcb "stupid shit".
Nevertheless, the point is not the electronic toothbrush, but rather the "BIG" stuff that costs much and it's creating a lot of garbage.
A 1200 euro TV that breaks after 5 years - are you willing to buy a new one just because?
Once you have that infrastructure in place, eventually also the "smaller" things will be cheaper to replace.
I've played with entrepreneurship most of my life - I know how "a solution looking for a problem" looks like. Any VC would laugh them out of the room.
Edit: don't get me wrong - there is a part of this that is almost free and only requires a bit of enforcement. That part is good, and it's exactly what governments should deal with. But anything that imposes direct or indirect costs should go through serious cost/benefit analysis.
Things that are on the not hard scale to fix - cleaning robots, inkjet printers (with fill-in ink), laptops (incl. board repairs as long as they are not a BGA), desktop pc, mowing robots, mowers (all 2 and 4 stroke variants), most battery tools (drills, sanders, saws, etc.). Overall stuff that can opened reliably, even if that requires specialized tools like bearing pullers or impact wrenches.
Things that are hard - anything that uses glue as the prime assembly fastening choice, e.g. TVs and monitors (or just plastic clips). Cheap plastics (ABS) bodies are annoying as well. Fridges, no way to refill or fix the compressor. Serialized components that need specialized tools/software after being replaced.
In that regard that would be my complaint - ease of disassembly and clearly marked parts, exploded views, schematics. Spare parts. Personally, I'd spend half a night to repair 30-40euro device w/o any documentation, just b/c I can -- but that shall not be the norm.
What I know off the top of my head, from reading the legislation a while ago. Is that technical reasons, such as waterproof devices, will still be able to retain non user replaceable batteries if it is needed to keep the device waterproof.
Vs how much you pay for it.
If I buy an Android phone, I should be able to maintain/update the operating system.
If I buy a MacBook, I should be able to maintain or change the operating system.
If I buy a TV, smart watch, microwave - I should be able to maintain their software.
The only thing prohibiting this is the fact that drivers are obfuscated and/or hardware schematics sufficient to produce drivers are not provided.
IMO, if the EU wants any technical sovereignty, they'd address this as I don't see European companies producing a competitor to the MacBook - I do however see European companies being capable of creating a competing operating system (or Linux) to install on a MacBook, but only if Apple is compelled to allow them.
The same goes for smartphones, cars, and any digital device
For example, there is literally no laptop on Earth as nice as the MacBook Pro. Extremely long battery life, insane CPU & GPU performance, unmatched trackpad - but it runs MacOS. Unless you're a professional video editor, the laptop is largely relegated to being a thin client for a Linux machine you SSH into (or spawn a non hardware accelerated VM and demolish performance / power).
How long would it take Apple to develop Linux drivers (even as binary blobs like nvidia)? Probably a couple of weekends. Why don't they? Because walled garden.
The MacBook is lucky in that it's a high profile device so we see projects like Asahi working at it - but again, without good documentation and despite the incredible progress, the Asahi team have spent years and created an alternative for older Apple hardware that still isn't daily drivable (not throwing shade at the project, it's incredible and I am dying to use Linux on my MacBook).
But what about devices with less enthusiastic communities? Pixel 8? Samsung TV? Asus Router? Fitbit Air? D-Link portable 5g modem? My smart blinds?
These devices have no drivers, locked bootloaders, and no community to spend years reverse engineering hardware (that will be obsolete by the time OSS drivers are developed).
I want to see my high end consumer hardware running OSS and until regulators step in to force the "right to repair software" - I don't see that happening and it breaks my heart.
In the real world you'll always only ever see the duopoly of Android / iOS for phones for example. This can be government apps, parking apps, apps for your utilities etc. so it's not like there's an easy choice to opt-out of that. It's not much different for laptops (Will still have some non-free blob in them for some driver), TVs, kitchen appliances.
There is no escape from duopoly if you need banks for 24/7 - get rid of that need now or the slippery slope of the technofeudalist slavery will suck you all even deeper into never wanted outcomes.
You'd probably also get things like TVs with very basic software at import, with much better software available for people willing to obtain it outside the EU.
Imagine if someone developed a Linux based mobile OS that could run on it.
Imagine if someone figured out that the USB-C port could do displayport out.
Then imagine plugging that Linux iPhone into a usbc dock or lapdock (laptop with only a screen, keyboard and usbc input) and having a Linux desktop pop up.
The MacBook Neo already proved that iPhone hardware is fast enough for general purpose desktop computing - why aren't we allowed to do that?
Oh right, because the bootloader is locked and (practically) no one outside of Apple can produce hardware drivers without documentation.
It isn't a lack of skill or lack of demand - it's hardware gatekeeping by vendors.
This kind of misses the point though.
Don't get me wrong, the above is nice to have as a law, but it does not really understand the underlying problem domain. Louis Rossmann explained it several times already; the problem was not that primarily that upstream companies refuse to repair something, but that they deliberately make it harder for downstream folks to repair something, for many reasons. Planned obsolescence, trade secrets and other shenanigans, unable to purchase replacements parts and so forth. Having a law that forces easy repairs onto the upstream company, DOES NOT FIX THE DOWNSTREAM PROBLEM; and in some cases it will make it worse. If the EU were serious about fighting for consumers, they would require of all companies operating in the EU, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, to not deliberately make it harder for downstream people to repair things. We now live in the age of 3D printing, so really repairing anything should be much much easier (at the least for simple materials; I understand that 3D printing isn't that great yet with regards to tiny electronics parts). To me it seems as if lobbyists always sneak in and worsen the legislation here. Both in the EU and in the USA.