By Alexandra Sims & Trish O'Sullivan*
There was a time when the family washing machine would last decades, with each breakdown fixed by the friendly local repair person. But those days are long gone.
Today, it is often faster, easier and cheaper to replace household items, even when they are meant to be repairable.
This is not just a consumer issue. Only about 2% of New Zealand’s e-waste is recycled, meaning most of our electrical goods are ending up in landfills.
And the problem is likely to worsen as more appliances use software. This allows manufacturers to limit the lifespan of their products. Copyright rules on that software are making repairs even more difficult – and potentially illegal.
So what can be done to protect consumers and the environment from appliances with deliberately short lives? Our research found changes are needed to a range of laws, including copyright law, to enshrine the consumer’s “right to repair”. The government can look overseas to see how this can be done.
Cheap Kmart blender fails after one week - Consumer NZ https://t.co/yMlM2ZeW3m
— RNZ News (@rnz_news) March 24, 2021
The right to repair
The concept of a “right to repair” is relatively vague. But essentially, products need to be designed to last longer and be repairable.
Manufacturers also need to ensure repairs can be done with commonly available tools, and that spare parts and repair information are available.
While there is no single definition or set of requirements, a number of countries (including the United Kingdom, France, Australia and parts of the United States) are introducing laws establishing the right to repair, albeit to varying degrees.
But New Zealand has yet to make, or indeed propose, any such legislation.
Beyond repair – software locks
Crucially, the right to repair is not limited to simply repairing broken electronics and appliances.
Increasingly, manufacturers are using software to control how products are used through “software locks”, also known as digital locks.
For example, these have been used to stop printers working at the end of their pre-programmed life or if the owner stops paying a monthly subscription.
Consumers are then forced to choose between using expensive authorised repairers to “service” the printer, to continue paying a subscription, or to throw away their “bricked” appliance (one that has become as functional as a brick).
Software locks are also used to prevent repairs by the owner or independent repairers, even if genuine spare parts are being used.
Copyright infringement
Hacking a software lock is possible, but it can be a technical challenge and also a legal nightmare. Professional repairers are concerned about infringing copyright and other intellectual property rights if they repair items.
And they have every reason to be worried, with manufacturers using “intellectual property as a weapon” against independent repairers.
In New Zealand, software locks called “technology protection measures” (TPMs), are protected under the Copyright Act. Independent repairers who circumvent a TPM to repair or maintain a product are committing an offence and if prosecuted are liable for a fine of up to NZ$150,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.
But some countries have recognised that manufacturers are illegitimately using copyright to prevent repair. In the US there are narrow exceptions for circumventing software locks to repair some goods. But these are temporary and need to be reconsidered and renewed every three years.
A proposed amendment to the Canadian Copyright Act would allow the circumvention of TPMs. The amendment is currently moving through the legislative process and is expected to pass.
Right to repair: Germany pushes for more ambitious EU rules https://t.co/YoHCif0g6W
— Euractiv Technology (@eaTechEU) September 20, 2023
Parts pairing
The growing practice of “parts pairing” – allowing manufacturers to prevent a product operating correctly, if at all, after the installation of a spare part – means circumventing TPMs will not resolve all the software lock issues.
It’s a complex problem and any ban on parts pairing would require careful consideration.
Overseas, Apple has a “self-service repair” programme, meant to allow independent repairs of Apple products. In practice, the programme has been largely unworkable due to Apple’s demands – including handing over customers’ personal information, agreeing to years of audits, and signing non-disclosure agreements simply to get the parts.
Some of the harm of parts pairing could be mitigated by implementing a repairability label scheme, as introduced in France.
Such schemes require manufacturers to include labels outlining the repairibility of an item, and what it is likely to cost. This helps consumers make an informed decision about what they are buying, but it also requires an independent watchdog to ensure the information is accurate.
While the global right-to-repair movement is growing, none of the solutions being implemented overseas are straightforward, and all require significant legislative effort.
That said, New Zealand needs to address the issue of product reliability and longevity as an environmental issue and a consumer right.
*Alexandra Sims, Associate Professor in Commericial Law, University of Auckland and Trish O'Sullivan, Senior lecturer, School of Accountancy, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
31 Comments
I had a really good experience recently. My 5 year old subwoofer stopped working so I emailed Dynaudio in Denmark about it. They asked if I was comfortable opening it up with a screwdriver. I was comfortable as it was just a bunch of screws and unplugging a wire inside.
I then sent them photos of the amplifier and circuit board. They determined that it was a manufacture fault and are sending me a new amplifier and circuit board under warranty. This is so much better than having to send a really heavy subwoofer somewhere. And it was awesome that they were ok with me doing the servicing.
I know a lot of products aren't this easy to fix but giving the customer repair instructions in some situations like this should be considered more.
Good on Dynaudio for standing by their product.
I made the silly mistake of buying a near new Ford once. The plastic radiator header tank split along the welded seam. As soon as the Ford parts man saw me carrying it across the reception floor he said "split along the seam has it..they are all doing that". Didn't stop him charging $300 for another one that would have cost Ford under $10 to manufacture. I only buy Japanese vehicles now.
Some things I repair and others I don't bother. Things like Cellphones and PC motherboards are a throw away now because by the time they fail the tech has moved on so fast its really not worth it. Also most things are NOT designed to be serviceable anymore to a component level on the board. The cost of electronics vs labour repair costs have gone in opposite directions.
30+ years ago everything except houses were much much more expensive relative to income than today. It therefore made sense to pay a technician to repair it, or learn to repair things yourself. Now it's cheaper to buy another one.
One day in the future being able to fix things yourself to prolong their life will again become an economic survival skill.
The sort of skills you need are not being taught in schools anymore. The emphasis has moved on from individual semiconductors to an electrons level to just modular boards and "Coding" so the skills are no longer there. Repair is now probably seen more as a hobby and people just tinker with a soldering iron.
Easy to find the skills if you look. In the last twelve months I've repaired 4 consumer electronics that failed (oven, vacuum cleaner, sandwich press, coffee machine) and replaced the electronic window motors in my vehicle just by following some Youtube tutorials and a Haynes manual.
Unfortunately I have also had a couple of issues with my car when the part that needed to be replaced was coded with my VIN, so I couldn't just grab a spare from pick-a-part, I had to go to the dealer for a fresh part that they coded to my VIN with their special tool. Very anti-consumer, I am still chapped about that experience.
With the way modern PCBs are created with surface mount components, it's very difficult, and sometimes not possible to replace individual components if say a cap or a mosfet has blown. Even diagnosing such issues is often beyond what you can do with a simple multimeter, and beware the power caps which nowadays can have enough voltage to give you a potentially fatal shock. Swapping out the entire board is basically the only way to go if you can get your hands on one. Soldering skills are probably still required to reattach the connectors.
Unfortunately a label wouldn't tell the whole story though. Pretty much everything is repairable, it just depends on how much they charge for parts that decides if it is worth it. And the quality of design, manufacture and components.
Maybe a better way would be to extend the expected warranty periods in the consumer guarantees act. Manufacturers would then be incentivised to make better quality things that are cheaply repairable.
Consumer guarantees act already covers many products for longer than you think. Often it’s about 10 years for a household appliances. So next time they ask if you want to purchase an extended warranty…..
also in my industry the labeling requirements are already so insane the list of label requirements runs longer than the product itself. And we know no one ever reads them, or the user instructions, but all that work still has to get factored in to a price somewhere.
This whole consumerist capitalist environment is one long race to the bottom. No one is really prepared to pay extra for something to be easily repairable so that business or product never gets going. In many places regulations get in the way in terms of safety, and then there is always the uninformed self repairer who doesn’t appreciate why something is the way it is, maybe even goes so far to “fix” it but maybe that leads to a wire wearing somewhere, maybe starting a fire and maybe that comes back to the manufacturer and causes brand damage.
You can see why they wouldn’t want something like that, so it’s not all about planned obsolescence like people, myself included, like to claim.
The line that pretty much everything is repairable is one of my favourites, it’s so true. Even brand damage is repairable, but it’s one of the hardest.
This is a great article - kudos Interest.co for finding it.
I've selected tools on a repairability basis, for years. It seems the zenith was perhaps 1960; where metallurgy and design and manufacturing had gotten good, but planned obsolescence hadn't intruded (too much).
So the Singer 201k, to me, is the best domestic sewing machine, perhaps ever. Hand-tools (non-battery) likewise from then, are pretty good too, and the ones which were expensive in their day, seem to be the ones to go for.
Hand tools are really hard to find now. I've been looking in second hand shops for ages. And my (builder) brother got Dad's tools. But a childhood spent toddling around in his shed with those hand tools is paying off now in comfort in building basic things like fences, and an ability to see how things go together.
Learning to fix thing is definitely worth it. I have no qualification or work experience in electronic but I've fixed tons of things in the house. I learned from books I'd borrow from the local uni (internet was barely a thing back then).
Some examples:
- Vacuum cleaner: $600 new, failed after 3 years, replaced the motor ($35), still working 7 years later
- TV: $800 new, failed after 8 years (not bad I guess), 1 faulty diode in the PSU ($2), still working 3 years later
- Blender: $250 new, failed after 2 years (grr...), faulty rotary switch ($10), still working 3 years later
And of course some "small" things on the car, bought a cheap ODBII dongle from Dick Smith ($6), diagnosed a faulty MAP sensor, checked wiring was OK, ordered new OG Denso part ($50), 10mn job (litterally, it's fixed with a single screw on top of the intake manifold). Mechanic wanted $85 to scan the car and $300 to replace the sensor...
Cars offer the biggest savings, the OBDII ELM327 from AliExpress and some software to read the codes in your car is an instant $95 dollar saving and a 2 hour wait at a dealer to tell you the O2 Sensor has gone (Usually just the heater element) and they want like $400 for one when its more like $100 if you order one yourself and fit it. Must be loads of stuff out there that I could fix that goes into the bin its just to hard to find it. Best job ever was replacing $15 of parts on a $5300 HVAC board to get it going again.
Yep, ELM327 is the one I got:
Coupled with the "Car Scanner" app on the phone, works like a charm.
Allied with an option to repair certain items is the withdrawing of consumables associated with an item. eg Had a perfectly good corded Ryobi garden vacuum/blower which had hessian collection bags. After at least 15 yrs of low level use around the garden using vacuum 90% of the time, bags no longer became unavailable. The vac/blower was still working perfectly.
In Aussie even replacing a plug will void your insurance!
https://www.youi.com.au/you-connect/articles-and-guides/will-diy-electrical-work-affect-my-insurance
Not sure if that's the same here...?
That's where repair cafe's come in:
https://www.repaircafeaotearoa.co.nz/
My understanding is that if a ticket is needed, they have folk who do it.
But the bigger discussion is where we are headed, and ex fossil energy, I'm suspecting that hand-tools will supersede electric. I assembled the best of two Singer 201k's; threw the motors away, and put it on a serviceable treadle. No power-cuts, no breakdowns..... forever; certainly well past my time...
Yes we need the right to repair as forced obsolescence means products can be designed to break down and force repurchase in less than a couple of years.
Forced obsolescence in both hardware and software design has been the biggest earner and driver for new sales by such a large degree it is now considered part in parcel of company practice and earning models. Yet it also causes extremely high proportion of fuel consumption & water use (with the most still power/burning for heating and food), it causes the most pollution, gas expulsion and needless waste. The general public now barely consider repairing goods and the landfills are now growing at an outstanding rate with no point in conserving parts or resources from prior units. We now have it so imprinted in design we are now also blocking right to maintain (forcing only allowed service companies to be legally able to inspect units) and blocking allowing easily replaceable items like batteries.
Ironically the biggest drivers and petitions for the right to repair and recycle come from the farming lobbies. That this means they will have the biggest impact above any climate groups on product design, repair and product lifecycle is ironic. Climate groups are happy with "compost friendly" disposable cups that still end up going to landfill and cause massive energy & water use in production, transport & waste management. They still barely consider the lifecycle of their mobile phones and generally seek to have the latest tech at all times. This is quite sad because until they wake up and seek the right to repair for everyday household items and business tech we will see things get much worse faster than any token measures around the edges.
The right to repair is such a crux for any sustainability measures, (it is the most essential element with now exponential consumption & production), the fact that no department or political representative pushes for this (regardless of their brand or words), means they really are a waste of space. The climate commission really was just a token org with no clue about real sustainability. The green party really is just trying to use the zeitgeist for marketing and are literally window dressing, making things more inequitable in their actions.
As a sustainable engineer who won awards for product lifecycle improvements I myself shake my head at what a waste of money, time and words climate strikes, emergencies, and the govt department climate initiatives are. Literally none look to what energy and water use is required for everyday items or waste management. They are all a massive wasted opportunity cost and actually make things a lot worse with their actions and product lifecycle blindness in everything they use and wear each day.
Typing on a 10year old device repaired with parts bought from the same manufacturer who made them and sold them to the original "design" company but which are sadly designed technically to break within a couple years of use (or immediately depending on living environments). Sure the parts need to be repurchased but the whole device (including all the other toxic and extremely unrecyclable parts) do not. However even this has an end date until I get a 3d printer or even a decent setup for molding so I can start creating the parts myself. Metal for the parts is out until I can get the crystal growth right to be less risk to damage from cyclic stress & can make them with a lower resource cost than the existing materials, or can buy from a manufacturer metal parts designed to spec. However there are are options in a range of other materials that are less likely to fail than the original parts. The company has effectively lost their license to the device once they stopped providing parts to repair it to the general public, (many now never do in the first place), and stopped the warranty (many do not have maintenance warranties, they are replacement only as from the day it leaves the factory it can not be repaired).
Ironically , Chinese sites such as Aliexpress provide many genric spare parts that make fixing appliances etc possible and worthwhile.they usually have semiconductors even the specialsits like Farnells don't have.
The consumer isn't quite blameless either , we recently were able to buy 50 drill batteries from a big retailers "recycler". Only 3 of the 50 batteries that had been returned as faulty , were actually faulty.
.
Indeed. Unfortunately the downside is that from the point of design to user to waste manager there are huge logistical costs in energy and materials in construction. Ideally sustainability with the right to repair makes direct improvements from the point of initial design to improve part longevity, ease of replacement & ensuring other parts of the same unit are not tossed. Which means there is less production, shipping and waste management is needed for each unit.
I imagine most of those drill batteries came from drills that only had one or 2 other parts that had broken or poor design. Sometimes it is just the loss of the propriety recharging unit, motor or switches which means a consumer would need to buy a whole new drill anyway. This is the case for most e-waste currently. Small parts that could have been be designed to be replaceable at the point for each user is are often the cause for a whole unit to be thrown out. Even designing replaceable parts to substantially upgrade the units is now a lost art/dream. As each generation is designed to be incompatible and most users do not have access to parts or repairers anymore (remember the old tv & appliance repairmen industries that were prolific and are now gone). Things like switches, cables, recharging units, gears, motors etc now are designed to be exceptionally fragile and once broken in any small way mean the whole thing is unusable for purpose. This is the case for most new products and sadly even the green rated ones (e.g. solar powered ones) are often thrown out because of small degraded parts that are designed to fail within a year. Our devices could have been designed to be repairable and upgradable but have not. Even the cases are designed so each generation makes them obsolete and each one can be broken or degrade rapidly in daily use cases. Even though the cases are literally the easiest parts to replace or customize companies find new ways to deny this.
Our oven lasted to more than 40years, had its circuit diagram on the back so anyone could repair/replace the electrics and elements, glass, seals were all replaceable with common generic parts. The worst it would face in that time was eventual slow rust which in turn could be fixed and replaced. New functions could be added by adjusting the electrics. It could have been the ship of Theseus except most the parts did not break or fail even over a decade. Each individual part was also designed and made to be resilient.
Now a modern electric product can barely be expected to last 5 years and if the electrics go (including computer issues now included which often increase the rate of obsolescence) there is often no way to fix them anymore with no replacement circuitry available. Even a replacement part from a remote manufacturer would still incur a large degree of logistics cost. Most of our products do not need to be designed to be this fragile with functions that were the exact same as those years ago. Minor parts size adjustments are an easy way to justify needing a new device e.g. mobiles, tools or cameras but the small size adjustments of often less than a few millimeters are not needed. Clothing is especially more fragile & throw away these days (with fashion being one of the most wasteful industries).
Agreeably I would not have IOT but it is a trivial task to hook up old tech to an IOT controller. Besides most people do not use, need or even want IOT devices (with included added security risks they bring). As an example you do not need IOT to change the light colours remotely or adjust temperature. With the same oven example most people cooking dinner would not need to adjust the oven remotely and even disabled people who are often physically unable to stand & walk would still recognize the need to have human guidance & inspection over cooking operation. So some ovens are designed to be more accessible, but having an IOT oven is far more dangerous and barely actually needed. Never drink and fry as the saying goes.
If you have an older iphone it is often not cost effective and a major hassle to replace the battery, due to the high cost and Apple not selling the batteries. This is despite it being a consumable. IMO Apple need to be made to sell the batteries so people can replace their own batteries and not pay well over $100 for an authorised apple agent to replace it, and also be without the phone for a period of time if one doesn't live in a major city. .
The European Union is set to introduce a new law requiring smartphone manufacturers to design devices with replaceable batteries by 2027.
Thank goodness for that. Remember how all the phone brands had their own unique chargers? Yea that also ended due to EU rules and reg enforcing USB as a standard charging port. I'm very grateful for this.
Now if only we could have some more regarding repairability, availability of spare parts, diagnostics and manuals.
Bosch designs wonderful motors for ebikes they're widely regarded as some of the best .. until they break. It's impossible to buy spare parts. They only sell whole, complete motors assemblies. You might only need a cheap plastic cog, or a bearing but now you have to buy the whole thing, and have to send in your old one so you can't even keep the broken one for spares later. If there's any error codes, again, have to see your dealer. There's nothing you can do. What a waste of resources and it really ties the hands of local bike shops and the joe blogs who wants to repair his own equipment.
This, of course, extrapolates for all infrastructure; buildings are just big appliances.
We have the nonsense of Dunedin building a 'replacement' hospital, 60 years after building the last one. There will never be another - and staffing and servicing are already-deficient...
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.