In a 100% honest world I agree with everything you say. But, the world isn't 100% honest.
Let's say company A asks manufacturer F to make 100,000,000 units of a product. One element of this product costs $10. An enterprising person suggests that if 1% of the material submitted to the mfg line was counterfeit, but could be made to pass "inspection" they could make at least $10,000,000. They could resell the "genuine parts" on the grey market at a 50% markdown, but only pay 1% of the cost for the counterfeits. The product would ship. Company A would ultimately be left to deal with the 1% (but not trivial number) of unhappy customers and perhaps a class action lawsuit due to "not meeting specs".
In the post I am responding to, there is no requirement by anyone to validate that a part is within spec. Current contract manufacturing for a lot of products does not involve the originating company being able to independently validate the product before it is shipped to the end user. All validation needs to occur during manufacturing, on-site at the manufacturer. If you aren't validating what goes into manufacturing, how can you make any promises as to what comes out?
If company A decides to implement serialization of parts to combat manufacturing "problems". Those advocating "right to repair" are going to be upset because they are now 100% collateral damage. There are other aspects of this, where chip vendors attempt to lock-in customers with the promise of using "custom part numbers" (HP has a fabulous history for this, extending back to the 1980's) or for "custom" programming during fabrication. Many, many. many parts now contain programmable elements and silicon vendors have capitalized on this to gain a business advantage and lock in.
In a world of fraud, especially in the "repair" market, how can and do you establish trust when purchasing parts?
Let's also look at something entirely different. The "Blue Pill" is a development board, originally based on an ST microelectronics STM32 part. If you wanted to purchase a "Blue Pill" board, you will now >90% of the time (based on price) receive a counterfeit product - the microcontroller will not be an STM32 part and it will not exactly meet the specifications (especially in low power situations). Who is to blame? Who pays for this fraud? Should this be "fixed"? How? By who?
Pivoting again. This news "report" is a product, delivered to customers. Are journalists prepared to document the thought processes that went into their product. Will they commit to documenting any changes to the product, including why the changes were made and for what reasons? This is what many of these articles are implicitly asking of hardware manufacturers!
I am generally in favor of being able to repair, but it isn't as simple as toilet roll unroll forward or backwards? (a deliberately chosen metaphor as the majority of the worlds population does not use).
2) Irrelevant: Companies can and do defraud each other already; that has nothing per se to do with right-to-repair.
3) General observation: If one finds oneself needing to write a Breivik-manifesto-length screed in defense and explanation of some viewpoint, that may be a sign that the viewpoint needs rethinking.
Let's say company A asks manufacturer F to make 100,000,000 units of a product. One element of this product costs $10. An enterprising person suggests that if 1% of the material submitted to the mfg line was counterfeit, but could be made to pass "inspection" they could make at least $10,000,000. They could resell the "genuine parts" on the grey market at a 50% markdown, but only pay 1% of the cost for the counterfeits. The product would ship. Company A would ultimately be left to deal with the 1% (but not trivial number) of unhappy customers and perhaps a class action lawsuit due to "not meeting specs".
In the post I am responding to, there is no requirement by anyone to validate that a part is within spec. Current contract manufacturing for a lot of products does not involve the originating company being able to independently validate the product before it is shipped to the end user. All validation needs to occur during manufacturing, on-site at the manufacturer. If you aren't validating what goes into manufacturing, how can you make any promises as to what comes out?
If company A decides to implement serialization of parts to combat manufacturing "problems". Those advocating "right to repair" are going to be upset because they are now 100% collateral damage. There are other aspects of this, where chip vendors attempt to lock-in customers with the promise of using "custom part numbers" (HP has a fabulous history for this, extending back to the 1980's) or for "custom" programming during fabrication. Many, many. many parts now contain programmable elements and silicon vendors have capitalized on this to gain a business advantage and lock in.
In a world of fraud, especially in the "repair" market, how can and do you establish trust when purchasing parts?
Let's also look at something entirely different. The "Blue Pill" is a development board, originally based on an ST microelectronics STM32 part. If you wanted to purchase a "Blue Pill" board, you will now >90% of the time (based on price) receive a counterfeit product - the microcontroller will not be an STM32 part and it will not exactly meet the specifications (especially in low power situations). Who is to blame? Who pays for this fraud? Should this be "fixed"? How? By who?
Pivoting again. This news "report" is a product, delivered to customers. Are journalists prepared to document the thought processes that went into their product. Will they commit to documenting any changes to the product, including why the changes were made and for what reasons? This is what many of these articles are implicitly asking of hardware manufacturers!
I am generally in favor of being able to repair, but it isn't as simple as toilet roll unroll forward or backwards? (a deliberately chosen metaphor as the majority of the worlds population does not use).