the desire for a smaller product profile may dictate that a component be glued rather than mechanically fastened with a space-eating bracket. These design choices may impact the ease or difficulty with which a device, or a component thereof, can be repaired or replaced; a challenge faced by all repair providers, whether affiliated with an OEM or not.[1]
When asked during the Workshop whether methods that some call repair restrictions, like the use of epoxy to glue parts together, are actually just design decisions that are necessary in order to meet consumer demand, Alcorn of CTA said that there was a lot of concern among OEMs about “the wrong battery being put in upon replacement, which creates safety problems. Thermal events, I think as some people call them. But then the other issue, which is a significant issue, is consumer demand…. consumer demand is something that these manufacturers spend an awful lot of time and money trying to figure out and they compete fiercely for that.”[2]
Microsoft made a similar argument, saying that consumer demand and “market requirements” may have an incidental effect on the ease of device repairability.[3] However, these “design features,” it argued, must be considered in the full context of why they were implemented, and not just as “‘repair restrictions’ in isolation.”[4] Microsoft cited its choice to use adhesive to secure batteries and design display panels as an example of one such “design feature.” It asserted that the use of adhesive, over screws, makes for a sounder, more durable and damage resistant device that can better survive “inadvertent drops or mishandling,” while “also meet[ing] consumer demand for a high-quality, tactile, and ‘solid’ product feel by preventing internal components from rattling with the casing.”[5]
Right to repair advocates argue that consumers care about repairability, in addition to aesthetic design, but do not have the necessary information at the point of sale to purchase products that are repairable. McDonough stated at the Workshop, “I can confidently say that all of my customers have no idea whether or not their devices are repairable. So many times I’ve heard, ‘had I known I couldn’t fix it I would not have purchased it.’”[6] Nathan Proctor also stated in his remarks that “I think the problem is the point of sale, is just—consumers don’t have enough information … people are trying to crowdsource that information, but that’s a problem now …. You can’t say the consumers don’t want it because I hear those complaints all the time.”[7]
The arguments made in submissions to the docket and at the Workshop on this point, by manufacturers and right to repair advocates alike, were almost entirely anecdotal in nature. Researchers, however, have studied this issue. First, a 2018 paper examining “whether repairability and functional durability affects reuse [of smartphones] via secondary markets,”
34
