vv_

If Anthropic has an "omnipotent genie" why would they sell it to other people?

When Strait of Hormuz was blocked prices increased for everyone, even if these countries did not import any oil from Gulf States. This is because oil is a global market. If a large exporter becomes unavailable - prices increase for everyone.

Diesel is a middle distillate and the United States themselves depend on Canadian heavy crude for their refineries.

> if it can be regulated at negligible cost?

> If regulation existed that forced, then third parties that want to sell into the mobile market would license / assign IP under the terms they have to.

> The unreleasable stack due to third party IP is a contract/market problem, not a fundamental universal truth.

That was my point. The regulation would not come at negligible cost. It is also entirely unreasonable to demand that manufacturers provide the source code for their firmware when all a user may actually want to do is install a different operating system. Some kind of SDK or developer kit with closed-source binaries should be sufficient for this, with the understanding that users would lose access to certain features, such as Apple Pay or Google Pay, as well as some security features relying on the chain of trust.

> Which is to say, increasing repairability shouldn't just be measured by how likely the first world is to use it, but also to how useful it would be to downstream consumers.

Cars are a good example of this. Historically, people in Western Europe would sell their used vehicles into what was essentially a second-hand market in Eastern Europe. This worked and continues to work to this day.

While a car is a good example of something whose lifespan can be extended beyond its first user, I don't think the same necessarily applies to mobile phones that are more than seven years old and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. That said, broken phones or phones that are traded in early in their lifespan can definitely find a home in secondary markets.

> Things like appliances (small motor, big bulky box) and furniture (bulky) are exceptions to the above, given their difficulty to efficiency ship en masse.

It's largely a matter of the weight- and volume-to-cost ratio. Otherwise I agree.

> It's a gradient, like all things. Repair has difficulty and cost. Policies (like this one) could be enacted which decrease that difficulty and cost. Are they worth it?

There are already vendors that refurbish phones and resell them today. However, it is not a particularly profitable business, largely due to the high labour costs involved. And I'm not talking about the difficulty of replacing a glued-in battery, but rather the cost and expertise required for component-level repairs on the motherboard, something no regulation is going to magically make disappear.

> But even so, I think it's a valid question of whether society would be 'better' if people had more ownership of their devices. Versus the current outsourcing to the mercy of Google / Huawei / Samsung / Vivo / Xioami / Apple.

It depends on where you draw the line on ownership and what benefits that provides to the end consumer.

There are specific areas where full ownership is explicitly restricted by regulation or other legal requirements, such as radio firmware or secure payment systems like Apple Pay or Google Pay. I don't believe consumers would benefit from increased access to these systems. In fact, I believe the opposite.

There are also cases where manufacturers rely on intellectual property from third-party vendors and simply cannot release or open-source the code without violating a non-disclosure agreement and potentially causing significant financial harm to the vendor. Even if regulation were introduced to allow manufacturers to disregard such agreements, that would not eliminate the underlying problem. It would simply shift the cost onto the third-party vendor, whose intellectual property and business model could be undermined by having its proprietary technology made public.

However, there are also cases where software or hardware becomes unusable for no apparent reason whatsoever. A good example, albeit purely a software one, is what Stop Killing Games is trying to address. I would generally agree with initiatives like that.

> ...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

What you consider "old" may not be what I, or the manufacturer, consider "old." A lot of embedded development is incremental: you start with an existing codebase and continue building on it to meet new requirements. Occasionally, the entire system is rewritten from scratch, but that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, even software running on a discontinued product may contain code and intellectual property that is still actively used in newer products.

> 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

I believe you are confusing intellectual property and copyright with patents. If that is the case, I would largely agree. I would even go further and argue that many things that are allowed to be patented are ridiculous and not particularly novel at all. Some are so obvious that even a layperson could arrive at the same solution, which arguably should disqualify them from being patented in the first place. This is especially egregious in the standards world, where some companies hold patents on solutions that are intended to be standardized and used globally.

If, however, you are not confusing these terms, then I find your position absolutely ridiculous. It would be akin to asking Microsoft to release the source code for Windows, Office, Teams, Azure (although who wants to see that mess, am I right? lol) simply because "intellectual property" isn't a thing. That would outright destroy countless business models, and I can assure you that no major global or regional regulatory body is going to adopt that position.

> >>there is absolutely no reason why<< access to the same information should be restricted today.

There are plenty of reasons. You simply don't agree with them. That's perfectly fine, but claiming that there is "no reason" for things to work differently from how you want them to is simply ridiculous. Many of them I've mentioned in this post.

> it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software.

Manufacturers have a regulatory obligation to prevent unauthorized combinations of software and hardware where those combinations could compromise the device's compliance. This is particularly relevant to radio firmware, including Bluetooth, where the manufacturer must ensure that the radio equipment remains compliant with the applicable regulatory requirements.

> The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort

Because they are required to do so by regulation. Those regulations exist for good reason, for example to prevent unwanted interference in the radio spectrum.

Beyond regulatory requirements, manufacturers also have legitimate reasons for preventing unauthorized tampering with their devices. One concern is theft and device resale, while another is software security.

You may argue that you don't care about these things, which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with holding it. However, I would argue that this is not what the vast majority of customers expect, and that most would ultimately accept these constraints for the benefits they provide.

> It's the large stream of perfectly usable e-waste modern practices emit.

From my point of view, the proposals suggested here, although difficult to discuss in detail because of how abstract they are, would not solve this issue in any meaningful way. By "meaningful" I mean that the cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation ratio would be rather poor.

IMO, the core issue with e-waste isn't necessarily bad practices by manufacturers, but rather consumer behavior. People often throw away 2–3-year-old phones that are still fully supported by the manufacturer. For example, with the exception of the phone I broke, I usually replace my phone every 5–6 years. Within that timeframe, I have the battery replaced by the manufacturer at least once, and the phone continues to work just fine.

This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods that are often replaced simply because newer models are available, rather than because the old ones are no longer functional.

This is ultimately a broader issue of consumer culture and our tendency to replace things rather than repair or continue using them. I don't agree that this is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead.

> I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith

Again with the abstract. Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith." It is very likely that what you view as a "bad faith" action actually has a reasonable explanation from the manufacturer's perspective. This is especially true in cases of chain-of-trust and anti-tamper protections.

> I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such

Technical specifications, datasheets, and similar materials can also constitute intellectual property of the manufacturer. Without access to these, you may not be able to "do any modification I see fit," especially when phrased so broadly that it could mean almost anything.

The only option I can see being somewhat feasible is for manufacturers to eventually release APIs with closed-source binaries, allowing users to create their own applications or operating systems.

This would, however, require regulation to ensure that manufacturers are allowed to provide these interfaces, as in some cases even the APIs themselves may be considered intellectual property, and manufacturers may not always be legally allowed to disclose them. Although it could be argued that if this is regulated, manufacturers would select vendors that can meet these regulatory demands.

The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach. However, if there were no expectation that users would continue to have access to the manufacturer's software or services, I think these issues could be resolved.

I'm sorry, instead of:

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.