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:
> 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 I can basically do nothing with it, and increasingly it can no longer even browse the internet because Safari is so outdated on it.
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.
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.
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.
> an unlockable bootloader once the regular support period is over
If we're talking about a 15-year old device, it definitely feels like requiring (1) a boot loader unlock method & (2) all technical specs required for basic functioning (display, input, compute) aren't overly burdensome on Apple et al.
Essentially mandating a corporate 'methods and specifications' EOL requirement to avoid device obsolescence.
This would also have a side effect of giving the EU a regulatory trade barrier against sketchy fly-by-night Chinese tech (e.g. "DMOAO tablet").
And encouraging tier I tech device manufacturers to offer longer warranties, in their own self-profit-interest.
I understand that Apple can't provide upgrades for free, but why can't I buy an upgrade for $30 or whatever? Better than throwing away perfectly good devices.
And they won't let anyone install any other software onto the hardware, so I can't even rely on the free market providing what I want.
I think for these kind of scenarios what Apple should do is unlock the device when it officially stop supporting with new iOS updates. You bought the device and you own it, so you should be able to use it as long as you want.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.
If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.
It would open up a tertiary market for smaller companies to do that (maybe even sell into a different market).
Not every business venue needs to be a multi billion multi national and using some devices for a long time is better than burrying them all in a land fill.
> it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers
I should have phrased it as:
> it wouldn't provide enough value to their customers to create meaningful value for the company.
You can argue that "ha ha, we shall enact regulation to force them to do this!" but the reality is that only a small percentage of customers would actually benefit from such regulation. Because most people are not going to tinker with their devices, especially if there is no easy or straightforward way to do so.
So in the end, you'd have more regulation that makes it harder for new players to enter the market, while doing little to solve actual customer problems and ultimately imposing significant costs on manufacturers.
For people who actually care about long-term device support, they can choose reputable manufacturers that already offer it. If no such manufacturers exist, that may instead represent an opportunity for someone to build a business around providing better long-term support.
You really want to trust the government with keys to the kingdom? Like what they wanted here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
And no, I wouldn’t trust an EU government or coalition any more than the US or any other country
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.
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.
> There is little need not to support a decade old hardware
> it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
Right back at you, I guess.
I would understand the frustration if manufacturers were not upfront about how long they intend to support their hardware, although that is not always easy to predict. However, demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
> 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.
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.
> I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
> Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to
For the components I listed, and based on my understanding of "normal computers" as desktops and laptops, you cannot do all of these things today.
> it's my computer
It's their firmware. They don't magically give up their intellectual property rights when you purchase a piece of hardware from them.
What would be reasonable is providing access to datasheets, schematics, and manuals, where permitted by local laws, so that users can tinker with and develop for the hardware themselves. However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such, should be able to do any modification I see fit to the device, regardless if the manufacturer thinks it's a good idea or not.
And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights.
> However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).
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?
Well I'm quite sure the advances in LLMs abilities are going to be quite a nice change in this regard. If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code or at least full specs after devices drop out of support, it would be fairly simple and cheap now to port drivers to new kernel release or different OSs.
> If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code
This may be the hope or expectation you have with regard to regulation, but I don't think it is ever going to happen because it would conflict with other regulatory requirements, especially in the realm of radio.
You may say "regulation can be changed" but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise.
Not to mention that such a requirement could effectively force companies to give up intellectual property that they have invested heavily in developing. What if a manufacturer outsources the firmware development to a vendor that specializes in firmware? If the manufacturer were required to release that firmware as open source, they would effectively be forcing that vendor to open-source its product. That could undermine the vendor's entire business model.
Your link doesn't say that the device isn't getting any updates. It only says that, if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates. They still get guaranteed security updates for five years.
> They don't have to support it indefinitely.
How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
> if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates.
Indeed. An ancient 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates. Which means it doesn't get features, its core software isn't updated inculding such minor things as the browser (most apps on TVs are browser apps), store etc.
Eventually its certificates will expire and it won't be able to connect to most things
> How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
Depends on device. People don't buy TVs every year. So a 10-year support isn't out of the question. That said, 10 years should probably be minimum for almost all hardware.
E.g. Microsoft supports Windows for ~10 years, and for a much wider array of hardware.
After that: open up, and let people do whatever they want with it.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
They have already begun. It’s called the Product Liability Directive (2024/2853) and forces software providers to guarantee fitness for purposes and safety.
Does that conceptually imply we might get newer OS releases for ARM machines that ship with one that's already outdated and call it good? That would be pretty epic, but I doubt it covers it.
I'm not disagreeing, but also I don't understand what you mean. It's already legal for you to repair your own software, AFAIK? Or are you proposing they force only "source available" software or something?
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.
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?
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-...
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.
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.
If we're talking about a 15-year old device, it definitely feels like requiring (1) a boot loader unlock method & (2) all technical specs required for basic functioning (display, input, compute) aren't overly burdensome on Apple et al.
Essentially mandating a corporate 'methods and specifications' EOL requirement to avoid device obsolescence.
This would also have a side effect of giving the EU a regulatory trade barrier against sketchy fly-by-night Chinese tech (e.g. "DMOAO tablet").
And encouraging tier I tech device manufacturers to offer longer warranties, in their own self-profit-interest.
And they won't let anyone install any other software onto the hardware, so I can't even rely on the free market providing what I want.
Because otherwise you won't buy new device for full price
Might help you get some more use out of it, thanks to the DMA :-)
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.
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.
So for next decade, older devices might often have more memory!
If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.
Not every business venue needs to be a multi billion multi national and using some devices for a long time is better than burrying them all in a land fill.
> it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers
I should have phrased it as:
> it wouldn't provide enough value to their customers to create meaningful value for the company.
You can argue that "ha ha, we shall enact regulation to force them to do this!" but the reality is that only a small percentage of customers would actually benefit from such regulation. Because most people are not going to tinker with their devices, especially if there is no easy or straightforward way to do so.
So in the end, you'd have more regulation that makes it harder for new players to enter the market, while doing little to solve actual customer problems and ultimately imposing significant costs on manufacturers.
For people who actually care about long-term device support, they can choose reputable manufacturers that already offer it. If no such manufacturers exist, that may instead represent an opportunity for someone to build a business around providing better long-term support.
They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.
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.
Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
> it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
Right back at you, I guess.
I would understand the frustration if manufacturers were not upfront about how long they intend to support their hardware, although that is not always easy to predict. However, demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
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.
> Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to
For the components I listed, and based on my understanding of "normal computers" as desktops and laptops, you cannot do all of these things today.
> it's my computer
It's their firmware. They don't magically give up their intellectual property rights when you purchase a piece of hardware from them.
What would be reasonable is providing access to datasheets, schematics, and manuals, where permitted by local laws, so that users can tinker with and develop for the hardware themselves. However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights.
> However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).
By not doing it you are basically outsourcing this cost to the environment.
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.
This may be the hope or expectation you have with regard to regulation, but I don't think it is ever going to happen because it would conflict with other regulatory requirements, especially in the realm of radio.
You may say "regulation can be changed" but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise.
Not to mention that such a requirement could effectively force companies to give up intellectual property that they have invested heavily in developing. What if a manufacturer outsources the firmware development to a vendor that specializes in firmware? If the manufacturer were required to release that firmware as open source, they would effectively be forcing that vendor to open-source its product. That could undermine the vendor's entire business model.
Allowing users install what they want on it would be the best case scenario.
Instead we have bullshit like "your TV is three years old? No updates for you": https://developer.samsung.com/smarttv/develop/specifications...
> They don't have to support it indefinitely.
How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
Indeed. An ancient 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates. Which means it doesn't get features, its core software isn't updated inculding such minor things as the browser (most apps on TVs are browser apps), store etc.
Eventually its certificates will expire and it won't be able to connect to most things
> How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
Depends on device. People don't buy TVs every year. So a 10-year support isn't out of the question. That said, 10 years should probably be minimum for almost all hardware.
E.g. Microsoft supports Windows for ~10 years, and for a much wider array of hardware.
After that: open up, and let people do whatever they want with it.
In the "save the planet" times.
Repair cafes are nice hobby projects for pensionados but it is not going to move the needle.
If you want an economic argument there's no way to sell my free time for anywhere near the market rate on such a short notice.
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.
> 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.
Helsinki (for one) needs some real repair cafés.
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?