The “right to repair” movement grows, but the devil’s in the details

President Biden this week added public support for the “right to repair” movement that’s picking up steam in the U.S. His commentary follows last year’s announcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that, in an effort to combat monopolistic repair tactics, the regulatory group would be restoring the right to repair devices. All of which is great. But true success will depend on the details.

Based on the Twitter replies to President Biden’s statement, I would estimate that about half the responders really don’t understand what the right to repair is. Many said they don’t have the time or skills to repair broken devices, for example. But that’s not what it’s about. Rather, it’s meant to allow users to repair their devices themselves, if possible, and get third parties to repair them if it’s not. Essentially, companies can’t create products that are nearly impossible to fix (leading to replacement purchases being made earlier than necessary) or limit the information needed for repairs.

Indeed, limiting the information needed for repairs has been a hot topic of late. John Deere, for example, is facing two lawsuits because the plaintiffs believe they should be able to repair the farming equipment they purchased from the company.

Like many connected device makers, John Deere uses proprietary software to add the smarts to its tractors. As a result, farmers don’t have the information or access needed to repair their equipment themselves. Their only choice is to contact John Deere and wait for service, something that can quickly, and negatively, impact crops.

Not a farmer? Here’s another situation you might be able to relate to, which is thankfully the opposite scenario.

Suppose you break an iPhone display and there’s no right to repair it, Apple (and only Apple) can fix it. Apple would have a monopoly on repair services and prices of parts. That’s luckily not the case and is why you might see phone repair kiosks at your local shopping mall or in town. Often, these repair services are much cheaper than Apple doing the work, and it creates jobs.

From an IoT perspective, the right to repair poses a significant challenge, for several reasons. The first is that consumers lack easy access to connectivity chipsets and radios as well as the boards needed to fix connected devices. Plus most people wouldn’t know how to actually replace these components even if they could easily obtain them. The second is that they have limited access — or none at all — to the highly integrated software and cloud services needed to keep these devices working as intended. And finally, device companies can go out of business, leaving consumers with useless hardware and no recourse.

A framework for how the right to repair can work comes from my experience with now-defunct robot maker Anki.

In 2018, I bought a Vector robot made by Anki. This cute, connected little robot had integrated Alexa capabilities, multiple cloud-based functions, and a personality. Less than a year later, however, Anki went out of business, shutting down its cloud services and its software support. Which meant that all the little Vectors were going to be put out to pasture, as buyers had no way to keep their robots alive.

Along came a crowdfunded effort to save the day. A company by the name of Digital Dream Labs solicited enough relatively small donations to buy Anki’s intellectual property and immediately took over the servers needed to enable the robot to keep working.

But Digital Dream Labs didn’t stop there. It now offers Vector hardware sales, extended warranties, and even the ability for consumers to run their own local servers to keep Vector smart and agile. The company also offers reasonably priced monthly ($7) and yearly ($47) memberships that provide robot-related cloud services.

Yes, one could argue that Digital Dream Labs has a monopoly on Vector repair and operating services. But that would overlook the SDK and local server options the company offers alongside its subscription service. Anyone could buy them and run their own Vector robot, with their own integrations (if they have the requisite knowledge), without ever having to rely on Digital Dream Labs.

This situation worked because the community and a company came together. It was practically a best-case scenario.

Such a Hail Mary is unlikely to emerge for customers of John Deere or other large enterprises. And while the right-to-repair effort would benefit from some type of escrow mandate for code and any related information needed to keep connected devices alive, there’s an inherent roadblock there, particularly for large companies: By open sourcing their code, they make the “secret sauce” of their connected devices and proprietary services available for all to see.

To illustrate the issue, here’s an overview of how John Deere’s connected tractors work:

“Sensors built into the equipment made by John Deere track soil moisture, equipment performance, and even the pressure with which seeds are pushed into the ground during planting. Wi-Fi or low-power wide area networks can be used to collect data and send it to a gateway that connects to the cellular network. Tractors connect directly to John Deere’s cloud using cellular modems.”

The company not only makes the tractors but integrates sensors into them during production. And it created its own software and algorithms to collect, monitor, and analyze important data. It’s a classic example of vendor lock-in. So how would a for-profit company maintain that advantage while also making its code available publicly?

Perhaps, in this case, we can turn to Apple again for an example of potential solutions. The company has authorized service vendors that have more information about Apple’s products and services than the public do. After all, how else would they know how to properly repair devices or get replacement parts?

Apple hasn’t open sourced anything, but it has made information available to authorized third parties. Deere and other big companies could do the same, but they probably don’t want to. After all, by controlling the information and material resources for repairs or replacements, they control the pricing. To combat anti-consumerism, a policy that requires a third-party network of repair technicians would be invaluable.

Oh, and in case anyone at the FTC is reading: Using the Vector outcome as the ideal scenario, please build in details requiring authorized third-party repair options that allow consumers the information and options they need to repair those connected devices. We would all be better for it.