Orginally written for an English project, but it's interesting so here you go.


You're talking with a friend about a new feature for your iPhone. You pull your iPhone out and hand it to them. They take a look, and hand it back to you. Except that you have butterfingers and you drop your phone. Bang, your phone hits the ground, screen completely shattered. You take it to Apple, and they quote you $400 to replace just the screen. You think, “that’s outrageous!” and take it to a different store only to be told that they can’t fix it. This is but one of many scenarios during which more complex and pleasing devices become harder and harder to fix. Although the evolution of consumer electronics brought about easily repairable devices, the culture has shifted to highly integrated, unrepairable hardware pushed by technology companies, which brings downsides such as e-waste, increased spending on electronics, and reductions in competition throughout the industry.

To understand the issues surrounding right to repair, one also must understand the direction the industry has taken over the past 10-15 years. For another potentially large investment for someone, a car, If something breaks, “you find a mechanic, you pay, and it's back” (Chen). If a car owner wants to find another mechanic, they can. They’re not locked to only Toyota or Honda dealerships, and they don’t have to buy a whole new car every time something goes wrong. 15 years ago, when someone bought an electronic device, “every bit of the circuits and designs were included on paper. Total open source" ("Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak: 'It's time to recognize the right to repair' | CNN Wire”). If they wanted to fix something they could. This had many benefits. It kept a significant amount of electronics out of landfills, since only individual parts had to be replaced. It also resulted in greater competition, since a consumer could go to almost any repair shop and look for the best rates. This also kept more money in the hands of the consumers, to spend on other items such as accessories, which could have been an additional source of income for a business. While repairable and open source products used to be the norm, the industry has shifted to more and more difficult to repair designs. A part of this increase in repair difficulty is due to complex integration of electronic components.

As the industry advances, practices such as highly integrated components have become more and more commonplace, preventing repairs. Think about it, “When your car has problems, your instinct is probably to take it to a mechanic. But when something goes wrong with your smartphone -- say a shattered screen or a depleted battery -- you may wonder: ‘Is it time to buy a new one?’” (Chen). Would you rather spend $1000 on a new phone, or $150 to replace one part on an otherwise perfectly functioning phone. “It's also not straightforward to buy genuine parts -- you can't go to the Apple or Samsung website to order a replacement screen or battery, for example” (Chen). And even if you can get the parts, “Basic repairs, like replacing a shattered screen or a depleted battery, are not simple. Modern gadgets are so thin and tightly glued together that special tools are usually needed to pry them open” (Chen). Technology companies are conditioning consumers to just buy new devices when something breaks. This creates unnecessary e-waste, which is often made up of rare metals, and we do not have an unlimited amount of these resources. These practices also discourage consumers from learning about their device. If someone wanted to, say, upgrade the storage in their laptop to store those precious family photos, they would need to learn how to take apart and install components. However, as soon as it doesn’t match what they read about online, they give up and explore alternate options such as pricey subscriptions. In conclusion, tech companies have many ways to prevent unauthorized repairs, and this has many negative effects.

As bad as this may seem, corporations such as Apple do have reasoning for their behavior. “The most common argument is security -- the idea that people with access to repair and diagnostics tools could perform illegitimate repairs and steal people's data” (Chen). This could, in turn, “jeopardize the safety of consumers' devices and put consumers at risk for fraud' (Chen). A bad actor could replace components with fake ones, which could allow for someone to spy on a person. Another argument made recently is that while it used to be impossible to get repair parts, Apple recently released a self repair program that allows someone to purchase the parts and equipment to repair specific parts of their phone from home.While these may be valid arguments, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), released a report that explains how companies were “harming competition by restricting repairs” (Chen). In this report, they also concluded that there was little to no evidence to support these claims (Chen). In fact, “President Biden issued an executive order that included a directive for the F.T.C. to place limits on how tech manufacturers could restrict repairs” (Chen). Many of these major tech conglomerates are just grasping at anything that could be a reason to not force open repairs. For example, the European Union recently passed legislation that would require companies to use USB-C connectors on a huge number of electronic devices, the idea being to reduce the number of cables and therefore potential e-waste (European Parliament). As with every other issue raised, the tech companies fought tooth and nail against it, arguing that it harms competition and jeopardizes security. However, that is not all in the long list of issues with the current technology industry.

As these problems surrounding right to repair get larger and larger, and the need for intervention becomes greater, popular figures in the media may be one of the few ways to make an impact on the industry. A common argument in the industry is that in order to have a device that anyone would actually buy, they need to have these super integrated devices. However, Framework Inc, a startup laptop company hopes to prove them wrong. They built their product, a 13 inch laptop, from the ground up to be upgradeable and repairable. Their founder, “Nirav Patel, spent more than a decade working in consumer electronics for some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley. He was an engineer at Apple, [and] head of hardware at Oculus” ("Quick fix, build your own laptop | Sydney Morning Herald”). He noticed that “We have pairs of shoes that last longer than our $2000 laptops” ("Quick fix, build your own laptop | Sydney Morning Herald”). Which, he and other fellow engineers agreed “was totally insane. This idea of building these very expensive, very advanced objects that were inherently disposable" ("Quick fix, build your own laptop | Sydney Morning Herald”). When their product was first launched, many were skeptical that they could deliver on their promise of upgradable motherboards, one of the major components of a laptop. However, two years later, not only have they released two upgrade options for their laptops, they also provided instruction for running the old computer out of the laptop as a small server. They even recently announced a 16 inch model with replaceable graphics cards (Patel). However, they are a tiny business, barely a fraction of Apple’s size. They would never have been this successful without their media coverage from media outlets such as CNET and Linus Tech Tips, a popular technology YouTuber. Their coverage of Frameworks products and their mission hopes to light a fire under the major technology companies such as Apple and Dell. With the right pressure on companies, we can and will give power back to the consumer.

In conclusion, the culture of the technology industry has shifted to highly integrated, unrepairable hardware pushed by technology companies, which brings downsides such as e-waste, increased spending on electronics, and reductions.

Works Cited
"Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak: 'It's time to recognize the right to repair'." CNN Wire, 9 July 2021, p. NA. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A667938117/OVIC?u=derr60587&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=710f1256. Accessed 29 Mar. 2023.
Chen, Brian X. "IPhone Self-Repair Kit: A Fix or a Fool's Errand?" New York Times, 26 May 2022, p. B1(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A704937337/OVIC?u=derr60587&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=12b87dec. Accessed 29 Mar. 2023.
Chen, Brian X. "The Fight for Your Right To Repair Your Gadgets." New York Times, 15 July 2021, p. B1(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A668514987/OVIC?u=derr60587&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=58c38acf. Accessed 29 Mar. 2023.
European Parliament. “Long-Awaited Common Charger for Mobile Devices Will Be a Reality in 2024 | News | European Parliament.” Www.europarl.europa.eu, 10 Apr. 2022, www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220930IPR41928/long-awaited-common-charger-for-mobile-devices-will-be-a-reality-in-2024.
"If it breaks, can you fix it? Right-to-repair advocates vote yes." Christian Science Monitor, 13 Mar. 2023, p. NA. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A741217872/OVIC?u=derr60587&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=0b908053. Accessed 29 Mar. 2023.
Patel, Nirav. “Introducing the Framework Laptop 16.” Framework, 23 Mar. 2023, frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop-16. Accessed 16 May 2023.
"Quick fix, build your own laptop." Sydney Morning Herald [Sydney, Australia], 18 Oct. 2022, p. 24. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A722748232/OVIC?u=derr60587&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=26410be0. Accessed 29 Mar. 2023.