Home - , - California is Latest State to Join the Fight to Pass the "Right to Repair" Bill

California is Latest State to Join the Fight to Pass the "Right to Repair" Bill

When it comes to dealing with a broken smartphone, there's only very little that can be done to help save these devices. This is even harder for Apple device users since they run the risk of losing their warranty. The only option to have the device fixed and keep the warranty is to have the device fixed by Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider. If you decide to have it fixed by a third-party repair shop, its warranty will be deemed void. This is an unwise choice, especially if your device is still covered by one.

Thankfully, today's news seems to be a step in the right direction; particularly for those in California. Earlier this week, California Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman proposed a bill requiring manufacturers (like Apple) to give their customers an option to fix their devices on their own or somewhere else other than an Apple Store or an approved retailer.

The bill, called Right to Repair Act, will give product owners and third-party repair shops access to repair information and parts. This way, they can fix the device on their own and not have to worry about losing their warranty.

As of this writing, only 18 states have proposed a similar legislation. California is only the latest state to follow this direction. The other states include Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Vi0rginia, and Washington.

Although the bill has proposed, it will be a long and trying journey to pass this legislation. The big tech companies have already expressed their opposition to this idea as it includes a security risk to its users. Until now, however, these companies have not been able to disclose the specifics on how this could be a security threat for its users and put them in jeopardy. With the sizable financial and political capital of these tech companies, it will really take a lot to lobby for this legislation to be passed.

In the other states where this bill has been proposed, there has been a lot of languishing and debate. In New York, for example, this has been an ongoing dialogue of sorts. But with California joining in on the list of states, it could make this proposal stronger; especially since the state already has some of the best repair laws passed.

For now, however, the battle's just begun.

Source: Android Authority


Comment Page :
  1. If you want to follow news/events re right to repair - https://repair.org

  2. In my opinion, this is a very tricky issue.

    On the one hand, we all wish to be able to get the most for the least cost, similarly, this holds true for the tech companies as well.

    We are all familiar regardimg our side of the battle for this right, but lets consider the tech companies opinions on this.

    Imagine if you owed a tech store that made their own tech, and you, like a good company, backed your product up and gave it warranties, not only that, you offered to repair the damaged parts free of cost, within a reasonable time frame.

    Now, you have been getting 20%, some arbitrary number I picked out of a hat, of your customers bringing back their devices for service, and they usually have only 2 parts to repair.

    Now if you give them the right to repair their own device, and then, they mess up, since, lets say, they are not fully aware with all the schematics of this specific unit, and now, that 20% is not coming in for 2 parts to be repaired, they are all coming in for 4 parts to be repaired. How would you feel about that? How would you feel about now having to go and repair 4 parts instead of 2, all for free, because it is still to be covered by the warranty.

    Is it not extra cost on your part?
    Is it not to impede on your profits?
    To impede on your capital growth?

    Now, surely, any customer can just intentionally damage the product and still demand the repairs, if it can look like a wear and tear, I assume. Now, surely that can happen, but we are not assuming that anyone will go and deliberatley damage their units to just force the company to repair more.
    But if they are repairing it, and they without notice damage some part, and its not so damaged that it does not work now, but in 2 months later, that newly damaged part may no longer work. And since it took such a long time after the repair, and because it was working right after the repair, one may think that that was due to regular wear and tear. So now they will come in and say that it does not work, and the company will look it over and see that 4 parts do not work, instead of the usual 2 parts. And they will have to fix 4 parts and not the usual 2 parts. All this because they have to.

    An alternative is to allow certified sites to repair it, which seems to be what is already allowed.

    This is just my opinion, what do you guys think?

    1. I doubt that's what is meant to be allowed by this "right to repair" stuff. But wouldn't a better use the taxpayers money be to pass a law on fair pricing for repairs in the first place. It should not have to cost over $100 to repair a phone screen! Then phones shouldn't have to cost over $1000 as well. Somewhere things have gone wrong!

  3. The costs of complying with right to repair laws will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices.

    1. How? $1000 for a phone not high enough? The high the price the less people willing to buy it. The X is one example of it and Apple know it too that’s why they work on affordable model.

    2. Anon. 6:22 AM -

      Which will be recouped by the consumer not paying outrageous OEM repair prices or being told to buy a new one, we can't (won't) fix yours.

      This has been fought out in vehicle repairs already. Some state vehicle specific right to repair laws are 20 years old.

      If independent repair shops didn't exist I would be buying new vehicles every 4-6 years vs. pay outrageous $ to a dealer to repair/maintain, not to mention the oversell unnecessary [email protected] they try to push. I pay local independent 30-50% less, keep vehicles 12-20 years. Consumer saves, manufacturer hates it.

    3. I agree with the OP. The repair manuals and spare parts contain intellectual property created by the OEM. If they are forced to sell them to 3rd parties this IP will be used to reverse engineer clones and create counterfeit phones. Improperly repaired phones will proliferate despite the manuals. The user experience will suffer, damaging the OEM's reputation. Costs will be passed on to the consumer one way or another. The OEM might also produce completely sealed phones that have to be broken to open. Then deny extended warranty program claims on all unsealed phones.

    4. Anon at 12:34 PM:
      I use ASE-certified mechanics at an independent shop who have also been trained by my car's manufacturer to fix my specific car model. They learned and were trained while working at dealerships, in addition to their ASE certification.

      I can get my phone fixed tomorrow by an independent repair shop that is authorized by the phone manufacturer to fix their phones. These shops have the manuals, training, certifications, business processes and proper spare parts to assure satisfactory repairs.
      Under Right to Repair laws, there is no equivalent to ASE-certified auto mechanics. You will be on your own to find a repair shop and technician who can properly repair your phone with satisfactory parts. How will you do that? Maybe you can write an article for everyone. Questions to ask. How to verify that courses were passed and certificates issued. Making sure the tech has a successful track record fixing your model, not just the number of repairs on different phones. Verifying their supply chain to make sure they don't use cheap Chinese knockoff parts of unknown quality that have never been tested to work properly by the phone manufacturer.
      Relying on random, unverified online reviews of shops that were written by people of unknown motives will probably not be a trustworthy method.

      Once Right to Repair laws pass, we will have to navigate this maze if we don't want to pay repair prices set by manufacturers and their authorized independent repair shops. Don't expect the new laws to help you avoid shoddy repairs - having the manual doesn't guarantee anything.

    5. AnonymousMarch 11, 2018 at 7:04 AM

      The OEM has perfectly acceptable recourse in the courts & can go after people stealing their proprietary property. Your argument is what OEM's are shoveling in blatant attempt to enhance their bottom line.

    6. AnonymousMarch 11, 2018 at 7:04 AM
      "The OEM might also produce completely sealed phones that have to be broken to open"

      Sure let's make more sealed up electronics that can't be repaired, we need more e-waste in the world.

    7. AnonymousMarch 11, 2018 at 8:09 AM

      Pure scare tactics. You are clueless re the auto repair/parts business.
      Ask anyone who has been ripped off by ASE certified shops unnecessary or substandard work and/or who use substandard knock off parts. Finding a good honest mechanic/shop has very little to do with ASE, about as much as BBB does.

    8. ASE has 0 to do with a shops honesty, fair dealing. Competency? They offer resources, you can lead a horse to water.....

      Ironically ASE has advocated RTR in re to vehicles for years.

    9. "Finding a good honest mechanic/shop has very little to do with ASE"
      I don't agree. You don't seem to understand that ASE training and certification in each type of repair category means that a tech has received relevant training and passed the certification tests. This certainly is valuable - the tech received and remembered the comprehensive training. It doesn't mean or guarantee the shop management won't try to use cheap parts or overcharge you. And it does not guarantee that the shop bought the tools, other equipment and software licenses needed to fix every car. If not, they might have to pay a mobile specialist to initialize the part they replace on you car so that the car's computer network will recognize it, for example. Or they might keep swapping parts at your expense for labor until they stumble upon the broken one.

      It's going to be similar types of issues with phone repair, even though phones are much less complex than a car. General tech training is helpful, but doesn't guarantee that a tech will know how to do a good job repairing your specific phone, or take the time to do it right. Or that a shop will invest in the tools and quality repair parts needed to do a quality repair. Telling a low-paid tech to "read the repair manual" won't solve this.

      So answer the previous question (if you can): How WILL people find a good phone repair shop when anyone can buy a manual and spare parts, and there is no standardized, recognized phone repair training and certification program like ASE runs for auto repair?
      Better to face reality than to be willfully blind to foreseeable consequences of Right to Repair.

    10. "The OEM has perfectly acceptable recourse in the courts & can go after people stealing their proprietary property."

      A special federal commission under the US Trade Rep just estimated that the foreigners steal more than $250B in IP each year from US companies, and that the actual figure may be as high as $600B. A major portion of that money is stolen by none other than China because of unlawful practices that pretty much offer no legal recourse for the holders of such IP rights.

      I'm sure that if it was easy to sue the Chinese government and Chinese companies to get compensation that it would happen. It's not easy. It is very hard, time-consuming and expensive. Thieves do a good job of covering their tracks.

    11. This outfit ADRSE - Cell Phone Repair Certifications & Standards appears to be offering ASE style training and certifications for cell phone techs.

    12. Some phone repairs require soldering. Then the tech should also be IPC Certified if you care about an expensive phone. This and an ADRSE cert get you a capable tech with "vendor-neutral" training. Kinda like ASE certs in all categories of auto repairs.
      This is Not expert, in-depth training and knowledge of iPhone, Samsung, LG, HTC phones in particular. I don't know whether ADRSE students have access to specialized OEM tools, test equipment or manuals.

    13. AnonymousMarch 11, 2018 at 10:11 AM

      Cry me a river. More OEM whining being parroted.

      There will always be "pirates", always be people reverse engineering tech. The more locked down the bigger the challenge to a hacker. Want your tech pirated? Lock it down as hard as you can, over charge for it (gotta recoup all that $ wasted "locking it up") & refuse to provide info. to repair or mod. & you instantly are the biggest target most likely to be hacked.

      Sound like OEM's need to find the right way to bribe China the way they own US politicians. RTR would be a no brainier done deal already w/o Apple et. al. lobbying $$$$$ washing over state legislatures. Obscene amount of "fr€€ $p€€ch" being spread around by OEM's. We pay for all that against our best interest cost.

    14. I worked for a company that decided to expend resources locking down their current tech. over innovating and going where the tech. was evolving to, ignored the innovators in the company & industry. Head in the sand except protecting their patents. Losing battle as they were told. Innovative competition ate their lunch (w/o violating IP), they turned from a tech. leader into a company of lawyers financed by "equity partners" chasing patent suits, most of which were losers because either tech. moved on and didn't need their proprietary product or innovators developed a way around the proprietary tech. because of an agressive & unreasonable extortionate attempt by equity to recoup their "investment" What a fruitless waste. One step up from copyright trolls.

    15. Anonymous March 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM
      "..... I don't know whether ADRSE students have access to specialized OEM tools, test equipment or manuals."

      I think that is the point of RtR, that they do have access.

    16. Farmers can't do simple plug and play component replacements on their quarter million dollar John Deere harvesters because of senseless locks placed by the OEM soley designed to allow repairs by JD only. So what happens? Failure during harvest, farmer told no techs available for a week, farmer misses peak harvest costing him way more than the hugely inflated JD repair bill.

      Yeah, riiight, we don't need RtR, that real life scenario sounds perfectly acceptable.

      Leave it that way, more incentive for an innovator to crack all of JD's systems wide open. Look at VW, Uwe Ross didn't like their attitude re repair access 20 or so years ago so VCDS was developed by him granting access to way more access than most other cars, way more than VW should have reasonably been expected. Even dealer mechanics like it better (even though some specifically prohibit its use) than the VW supplied diag. tools, works faster or better in many use cases.

    17. Anonymous March 11, 2018 at 10:11 AM

      "A special federal commission under the US Trade Rep just estimated that the foreigners steal more than $250B in IP each year from US companies, and that the actual figure may be as high as $600B."

      US patents for software algorithms are not universally recognised. If they were the world would be paying royalties, almost in perpetuity, for mouse clicks, generic windows, screen-savers, window tiling, status bars, scroll bars, and much more.
      Those "may be as high as" figures are fantasy created by patent trolls influence interests & by some OEM's to book tax advantages.

      Check out this patent troll

      People of your view would have us still paying double for cars because any auto manufacturer would need to join ALAM and pay royalties to them on each auto sold. Thankfully Mr H. Ford won that many year battle about 107 years ago.

  4. Good analogy. Competition from independent mechanics also keeps dealer pricing in check.

  5. I don't think anyone is saying that the consumer has no right to repair their own device, I think we are saying will the manufacturer have an obligation to back its warranty if a consumer does opt to repair their own device.

    Why would it be fair to the manufacturer to keep the warranty in a scenario that has potential to cost them more?

    Manyfacturer (M): How come the engine died?
    Customer (C): I am not sure, I too am surprised?
    M: Did you change the engine oil?
    C: Yes.
    M:Every 2000 miles?
    C: Yes
    M:Did you use the specific type of oil that only works for your specific super high sports car that has 1000 HP and 14 cylinder and a specifically designed cooling system, did you use that specific oil that has one of the lowest friction ratings on the market? Did you use any oil that fits that category? Because your very specific made sports car is very high end and is not a run of the mill car that any old engine motor oil will work with. Did you use that type of engine oil?
    C: ...

    Customer #2 (C2):Engine is not working.
    M:Did you change the oil?
    M: Every 2000 miles?
    M:Did you use the specific type of oil that only works for your specific super high sports car that has 1000 HP and 14 cylinder and a specifically designed cooling system, did you use the specific oil that has one of the lowest friction ratings on the market? Did you use any oil that fits that category? Because your very specific made sports car is very high end and is not a run of the mill car that any old engine motor oil will work with. Did you use that type of engine oil?
    C2: Well... I did not change it myself, but the certified mechanic did and here is the receipt and the run down of what they did.
    M: Oh, everything looks in order...Sorry for the mishap, please allow our service personelle to take a look and repair any parts that is covered under our warranty.

    Am I missing something here?
    Is the analogy wrong?
    Why would it be wrong?
    If we allow any person to try to fix these devices and they mess up and make it worse than what it was prior to their involvement, then the costs of fixing the device would or could be lower. Now the person tries to fix it, messes up more than what it was, and then if the warranty is still in effect the manufacturer will have to spend more time, resources, personelle, and money to fix something that would or could have cost less if the consumer had come to them from the get go.

    Thank you. What do you guys think?

    1. Car dealers can and do deny warranty coverage if they can show evidence of improper owner or 3rd part repairs or maintenance.

      Right to repair is about more than warranties. A big issue for the independent repair industry is manufacturers refusing to sell them service manuals and replacement parts.

    2. Apple refused to replace the defective battery under their extended warranty campaign that covered my iPhone 6S, which I bought "refurbished" from a 99%+ feedback eBay dealer. The tech said the phone had been tampered with. I replaced the battery myself - the phone stopped charging after a minor fall. I found that the eBay tech had not replaced the battery terminal cover plate. One of the tiny screws for that plate was loose inside the battery compartment (it could have shorted out components!). The Apple battery had a big dent on one side, and was only secured with a small strip of double-sided tape.

      I don't blame Apple at all for refusing to repair this phone. When all types of independent shops and other people, skilled and unskilled buy manuals and spare parts, they will learn at our expense. The market for used phones will be much riskier than it is now because many more shops will be trying to fix complex phones. Some (many?) shops will cut corners to make more money, and more of us will get screwed trying to save a few bucks on repairs. Fixing blame and obtaining compensation will be difficult and time-consuming at best.
      Pay the price, or roll the dice.

    3. "Pay the price, or roll the dice."

      The low price is the fair price.

  6. If manufacturers worked hard to develop their specific products, are we now just going to go and ask them to give up their product's intellectual hold?

    Is this not protected under copyright laws?
    Are we upset that they are not selling their repair kits or are we upset that they are not backing the warranty even if a third party repairs the product.

    For the latter, the above two arguements still sound solid. Unless they are not, and if they are not, I am wondering why they are not.

    If the former, then, how can we, should we, or is it legally possible to demand intellectual rights to just be given up that easily?

    I would like to make my own additions to Windows, does Microsoft have to give me their code?
    I would like to get into the areospace business, will boeing give me their plane plans which they spent so much time and energy in developing a safe and marketable product?
    I would like to get into the pharmateutical business, can I demand the synthesis formula and recipe for a cutting edge drug that has had millions if not billions of dollars of research, from literature review, to data collection plannimg, to the 10s of thousands of individuals recruited for the study, for the data collection, for the kinks taken out, all phases of testing, and then finally being approved for consumer use do they have to give all that me just because I ask for it?

    Now, maybe you can say that the analogy is not 100% in line. In one case we are not asking for the rights to the code or the engineering of the motherboard, nothing that sophicated, and the other case we are asking for the entire product, isn't it a bit mismatched?

    One can say that, or perhpas the analogy, imo, is correct.
    Meaning, that, each part of the device is something that the manufacturer has worked hard to develop. Do not look at it as just them giving us the intellectual knowledge of 1% of the WHOLE product, but rather look at it as them being forced to give the whole 100% intellectual knowledge of that one part.

    Is it correct of us to ask them to just give it up?
    Can I just go through your business books and give to the world your marketing strategies? Or your wholesale vendor list that you worked hard to put together?

    Now are we upset that they wish to protect their intellectual property, while we may or may not be upset if someone demands from us our intellectual property?

    1. It's right to repair, not "let me violate your IP". You parrot industry B$ but it falls flat on its a$$. If I "own" it I should be able to diagnose & repair it if I am willing to invest in the "tools", not steal your IP. If I can't I am just renting/leasing it with OEM defined/controlled lifetime.

      I won't lease/buy a product that the OEM refuses to supply repair info. ie - Honda no longer publishes repair info. for the public on new cars, I'm no longer a potential Honda buyer.

  7. Phone OEMs could play rough with RtR states. Raise manual prices to $1,000 or more. Triple parts, tool and repair software prices. Only provide phones on lease with repair service and insurance bundled. Reduce warranty to 30 days in RtR states and increase it to 18 months in other states. Limit warranty to original buyer (Apple). Require original bill of sale and proof of residency for warranty repairs. Seals on phones that break when opened - no warranty coverage. Completely seal phones so they have to be sawed open to do any work and then you need a whole new body, very expensive.
    Lawmakers are mostly lawyers with no real business experience. They rarely take the time to study potential unintended consequences and never accept any responsibility when things go bad. Gotta take credit during their term so they can get re-elected. Pass another law later to fix problems caused by first law; on and on.

  8. So your state passes a RtR law and hundreds of new repair people buy manuals, tools and test equipment. They quote you a low price and learn on your phone, make an unsafe repair and your battery hone explodes in your pants. You collect nothing - it’s not the oem’s fault. This is great! It keeps prices down for the rest of us who aren’t cheapskates.

    1. More about current repair businesses being able to continue their trade & consumers being able to tackle some repairs also vs. your wildly exaggerated scenario.

      I am a long time volunteer at a monthly fix-it clinic and SMH at some of the totally unnecessary or silly repair roadblocks placed by manufacturers. Despite this we manage to keep a lot of good old electro mechanical machines & electronics out of the dump and ticking away. Knowledge, common sense & a bit of ingenuity. Haven't harmed a person yet.

    2. "More about current repair businesses being able to continue their trade & consumers being able to tackle some repairs.."

      I agree that this is the aim of the rtf crowd. Get a law that will take engineering data and tools developed by OEMs at great expense and practically give it away to repair shops and individual who want to make more money. "Good for consumers." Politicians count votes and this is a populist issue. OEMs make so much money they can afford to give some of their IP and tech data away, right? Especially if they do not make enough political contributions.

      The problem is that all repair shops and individuals will not be skilled and/or honest. Maybe 80-90% will be both, but the rest? They will charge the lowest prices to get their hands on your phone. What will they do with it? Learn how to repair? Make mistakes that make your phone as dangerous as a Note 8? Hack the phone and install hidden spyware, botnet or blockchain software for a fee? Recover and sell your personal information? Use the engineering data and tools to clone, counterfeit and hack? We don't know, and we can't know until these things happen and it's too late. These are legit concerns, and there are NO PLANS in these rtf laws to prevent these kinds of problems from happening. Anybody can repair phones for money; there are virtually no special licensing, bonding or background check requirements in most states. You don't even need to spend $200 for a one-day, hands on course. Or less for web training. In my state I don't even need a business license unless I make more than $2,500/year.

      People want cheap repairs just like they want to pay almost nothing for complex phones; I get it. Exploitation and dangerous mistakes may be infrequent, but they can have a big impact on victims, and they will want to be made well. The techs, who make an average of only $28K/year for honest work don't have the deep pockets or insurance to pay $1M claims. So the hungry lawyers will go after the OEMs anyway with novel arguments of why they should pay victims. Or they will all lie and say they never had a cheap repair; 'the phone just blew up.'
      When these crooks win, guess who ultimately pays?

      'Don't care. Still want my cheap repairs. Ignore everything that could go wrong. It won't happen to me; I'm too smart. I'll read lots of online reviews.'

    3. The above comment really showed knowledge of nothing related to the issue of these repairs, which is really just a very simple matter.

      "Make mistakes that make your phone as dangerous as a Note 8?"

      Just one of the many errors. Now, go check out the "Dangers" of the Note 8 !

      The only "crooks" involved are those harassing people who seek and make these basic repairs.

      The "right to repair" is absolute. If the phone manufacturer wants to control my right to do what I want with what I own, I suggest they hand me back my $700 I paid them. If not. they should stop acting like they still own it.

      "Get a law that will take engineering data and tools developed by OEMs at great expense and practically give it away to repair shops and individual who want to make more money"

      That sounds like a great law. We own the stuff, we should know everything about it. The massive automobile industry has survived with everything known about their products and published in Clymer and Chilton manuals. Treat the phone and tech industry the same way: no one can give a good reason not to.

      The "developed by OEMs at great expense" moan is entirely pointless as well: the OEMs get paid for this handsomely when people by their phones.

    4. "Cheap repairs"? "Cheap" is a meaningless value judgement. People want to pay a fair price for repairs. You aren't paying one if people's First Amendment rights are violated and they can't publish basic technical information, and lawyers go after people who charge fairly for repairs with frivolous lawsuits.

      When people pay much lower fair prices for repairs, they DO pay.... they pay less.

  9. Meanwhile, big tech companies still surveil and censor with reckless abandon.

    But I guess one of the biggest threats to democracy matters less than having to go to an Apple store for iPhone repairs.

    And iSheeple wonder why droids always shoot them disgusted looks.

    It's not your iPhone, but rather what it says about you, your fad-based politics, and your shortsighted priorities.

    I mean, what kind of person doesn't even use a back button.

    1. I'm not a 'droid;' I'm a person who wants a safe, fully integrated, quality phone system that works consistently. An OS that I can easily keep up-to-date at no extra cost. One that works seamlessly with my computer and tablet so that I can get work done quickly and efficiently. A phone OS that I don't have to relearn when I upgrade hardware.

      I don't want a fragmented "system" that gets few or no OS updates, and infrequent security updates. A "system" of apps designed to track my every move and spy on all my comm so that its developer can sell my personal data to advertisers. A phone that depreciates fast because nobody wants a phone with an outdated, obsolete, and soon to be unsupported OS. A phone where every app's UI can behave quite differently, so I would have to spend extra time learning each app's basic controls. A phone that gets the vast majority of attention of hackers, who do a great job developing exploits. And I don't want to have to learn how to use new phone customized UIs when I just to upgrade the hardware.

      No, I'm not a droid. I buy phones as tools, not toys.

    2. It's so much harder to do many things in iPhone compared to "Droids". The IOS file system is still broken, and reveals all IOS devices as being hopped-up iPods.

      When you want to do "work", it is so much better to copy a file in seconds than have to run through the ancient kludge of iTunes which takes forever.

    3. "Meanwhile, big tech companies still surveil and censor with reckless abandon.

      But I guess one of the biggest threats to democracy matters less..."

      1) Big tech companies cannot censor. They do own their own forums. and they can control what appears on them. That is an expression of the First Amendment, not a denial of it.

      2) You mentioned absolutely nothing to do with any harm to democracy.

    4. iPhone Dude: Get a Pixel. it really works better. You can side load, so you can get the apps you need instead of just what Apple thinks you need.

      The file system on Pixel WORKS GREAT (just like the Mac has!). The IOS one doesn't work, even with IOS 11.

      The "system of apps designed to track" statement is mere FUD. Both Android and IOS get bad apps that get weeded out. You will be using Google on both: the situation is just the same.

      Pixels update for years. So much for deprecation. The UI? IOS is crude compared to Android. Just try the back function: in 6+ places in IOS, and in just one in Android.

      I want a phone that is focused on what I need, not on what a handful of white coats in the Cupertino flying saucer need. So I choose Android. Because I want joy, not to be a tool.

  10. The Clymer and Chilton manuals are developed from informatiom that the automobile manyfacturer gave out or is it made by the publisher themselves? Did the publisher take apart the cars and then based on what they found make the manuals themselves, or did they go and just make the OEM manuals more "reader friendly"?

    If the latter, okay, so maybe we can kind of start the arguement for the telecommunication industry may not suffer if they give out all of their specs.

    But then, you could say that even though the automobile industry survived, we may need to see 1. How many of the companies that went under were due to their specs being out in the public 2. Of those that survived how much more profitable would they have been if the specs were not public.

    And if we say the former, so, then the same is true here. Someone can just take the phone, open it up, and then just publish all the schematics. I am not sure if that poses any legality issues or not, but it would still be similar to the automobile industry, if that is indeed what Clymer and Chilton manuals do, that they make the schematics themselves without any input from the manufacturer.

    I also don't know how feasible it is to sell parts that may be copyrighted. If they develop a specifically designed screw, and that screw is the only type that fits the holes, and if the manufacturer can copyright it, then how can anyone make a copy of it.

    How do third party car parts make parts for brand new cars, if they do? Are the car parts not copyrighted? (I use Copyright as the general go to term for anything that can be intellectually protected. I am not sure what the differences of Copy Rights or patents or trademarks are, I am just using it in the manner that should restrict someone else from making any use of it).

Comment Page :

All comments must be approved before they will appear. The following types of comments will not be approved: off topic comments, insults or personal attacks directed at other commenters, bigotry, hate, sexism and profanity.