The IEEE website places cookies on your device in order to provide you with the best user experience. By using our website, you agree to the placement of these cookies. To learn more, please read our privacy policy.
The Consumer Technology Association of America estimates that US residents bought 183 million smartphones in 2016. There are already as many TVs in this country as the population. This is a lot of electronic products, and these numbers are still rising.
In general, all these technologies may make our lives better. But there is also a disadvantage: these things often fail. Unlike the 30-year-old blender on the kitchen counter that will not die, new technologies—especially smart devices with beautiful embedded electronics—will collapse more quickly. A recent study by the German government confirms this trend, which applies not only to sophisticated products such as smartphones and tablets, but also to devices that we want to use for a long time, such as TVs, washing machines, and even tractors.
Manufacturers are more willing to sell you their latest models than to repair your old electronic products, so they strive to make repairing their products too expensive or impractical. This is a global problem, because the technology market is global and people all over the world will be affected. With so many people throwing away so many broken things, it is not surprising that e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream. Tens of millions of tons are discarded every year around the world.
Throwing away things instead of fixing them can have a profound impact-on consumers, the economy, and the environment. In fact, no one will get any repaired future except those who are trying to sell you a new product. Many of us are not ready to accept that future without a fight.
In 2013, a group of concerned consumers, recyclers, refurbishers, environmentalists, digital rights advocates, and maintenance experts in the United States jointly founded Repair.org. One of them (Gordon-Byrne) is the executive director and the other (Wiens ) Is the chairman of the board. We are working hard to ensure that when a malfunction occurs, American consumers can easily find the information and parts needed for repair, or repair by anyone they choose.
Over the past few years, this battle has been heating up. In 2017, twelve states introduced “right to repair” legislation to make it easier for consumers to repair damaged digital devices. With support from the grassroots, Repair.org takes the lead in turning these bills into laws. Not surprisingly, we encountered a lot of resistance, not from legislators, but from lobbyists hired by large technology companies who secretly stifled the right to repair bill.
You may think that these legislative struggles are irrelevant or have little to do with you personally. However, if you believe that when you buy something you do have it, then you should pay attention because we explain why this is not the case and provide a history of how we got to the very strange situation today.
Since the existence of electronic equipment, people have been repairing electronic equipment. You know how to practice: when something breaks, you can solve the problem, take it apart, repair or replace the failed component or subcomponent, and then restart the machine. If it works, that would be great. If not, please try again. It's that simple.
The hassle of repairing computerized products—this category is growing and includes almost anything you plug into the wall or running out of batteries now—is that the road to repair is not always that simple. Sometimes it is easy to see that the connection is loose or the capacitor is broken, but in most cases, identifying and correcting potential problems requires sophisticated diagnostic tools and detailed service documentation. If the manufacturer refuses to provide these things, repairs are still possible, but much more difficult. Every repair becomes a research and development project.
In the past few decades, companies that make electronic devices have often provided the information needed for repairs—and often for free. The computer comes with a schematic diagram showing how the various components on the circuit board are connected. Even Apple is now one of the most unfavorable gadget manufacturers in the industry, and has sent a free, detailed manual (with schematics) to the owner of Apple II. Many owners are expected to repair or even patch their equipment.
But as the years go by, this kind of information becomes increasingly scarce. It's ironic. We live in the information age. However, just when information on how to repair electronic products is most readily available to owners, it has dried up.
This scarcity is deliberate. The manufacturer does not want you to repair a damaged microwave oven or air conditioner; they want you to buy a new one. Some people even send stop and termination letters to people who post maintenance information online. As early as 2012, Toshiba told the laptop repair technician Tim Hicks that he needed to delete 300 PDF files of Toshiba's official repair manual from his website, and he provided this information on the website for free. In order to avoid being sued, Hicks agreed, and now fewer people are getting the guidance needed to repair Toshiba laptops.
Toshiba is not the only culprit. Visit the Apple website and try to find the repair manual for your MacBook Pro. It is not there. Visit Samsung's website to find a way to repair the flat-screen TV. You will come home empty-handed. The same goes for your Keurig. Or your Kindle. Or your GoPro. Or your Lexmark printer is always broken. You might find a user manual, and perhaps some other online resources, created by people who figured out how to fix a damaged product on their own. But in general, manufacturers remain silent on the topic of maintenance.
Instead, they place official service information and diagnostic tools behind passwords and paywalls, and distribute maintenance information to a small number of "authorized" providers. Unable to obtain repair instructions, customers are forced to use these authorized service centers, which may charge high fees because they have no choice but to purchase new equipment.
This is why one of us (Wiens) created iFixit, a company that breaks down popular consumer electronic product models into reverse engineered repair instructions, and then publishes the information for free on the Internet. The description comes from iFixit, not the manufacturer, so iFixit cannot be sued for disseminating proprietary repair information.
Source: 2014 Global E-waste Monitoring, Advanced Institute for Sustainable Development/United Nations University
Even if you happen to find repair instructions on the iFixit website or elsewhere, you still have to find replacement parts. In some cases, the parts are so difficult to obtain from the manufacturer that people turn to extract them from discarded equipment, as if they were harvesting organs from a person who had recently passed away. For small repair shops, things are even more difficult. It is difficult for them to find a reliable source of high-quality replacement parts.
When servicing smartphones, tablets, and gaming devices, the lack of repair parts is a particularly big obstacle. There are billions of these products, but many models do not have an independent source of fragile items such as glass. This is crazy, because of course glass often breaks. For mobile phone manufacturers like Apple and Samsung, repairing it is a big business, and they are vigorously protecting their monopoly on repairs. As of September 2014, SquareTrade, a gadget insurance company, estimated that since the iPhone’s 2007 launch, Americans have spent $10.7 billion on iPhone repairs.
Apple may be the most serious offender in refusing to sell service parts or provide repair information to anyone other than an authorized service provider. The company does not even provide such information on devices that Apple no longer repairs (Apple has a long list of "old and obsolete" devices that are no longer supported), or its "genius" repair skills are not proficient enough, like repairing a computer motherboard Same.
In 2015, the company went further—remotely disabling iPhones whose screens were repaired outside of Apple’s authorized network. One of the crashes belonged to the photographer Antonio Olmos of The Guardian. He broke the screen while covering the refugee crisis in the Balkans. There is no Apple store in Macedonia, so Olmos found a local repair shop and replaced the damaged screen with after-sales parts. It works very well. However, a few months later, after a routine software update, Olmos' phone stopped working just because of that screen.
At first, Apple defended "Error 53" (when the problem was identified) as a security measure. The company accused the unauthorized repair shop: "When iPhone is repaired by an unauthorized repair provider, if the pairing cannot be verified, it will affect the touch ID sensor’s faulty screen or other invalid components, which may cause the inspection to fail. With subsequent updates Or resume, additional security checks will cause "error 53" to be displayed," an Apple spokesperson told the Guardian.
But this interpretation does not apply to owners. Independent repair shops did not damage these phones; Apple did. There is no problem with the aftermarket screen. They are just not made by original equipment manufacturers-because Apple refuses to sell OEM screens to independent repair shops.
Under public pressure, Apple apologized and repaired the damaged phone with a new update. But a precedent has been set. Previously, Apple restricted access to parts and service information, making it difficult for people to repair its products. Now, for those owners who dare to repair equipment without the company's permission, Apple can punish them through software.
No repairable parts: When it comes to electronic devices such as smart watches and mobile phones, manufacturers will convince people. However, it is usually possible to use replacement parts and instructions from other sources for repairs. Photo: iFixit
In 2011, entrepreneur and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen joked in a column in the Wall Street Journal that "software is eating the world"-which means it is now almost everywhere: telephones, microwave ovens, coffee machines, sewing machines , Even Barbie. It may use it to devour and repair.
All computer equipment comes with embedded software—code that tells the machine what to do and how its components should work together. Without that code, our coffee cannot be brewed, our car cannot change gears, and our sewing machine cannot sew.
When you buy such a machine, the hardware belongs to you. But if you ask the manufacturer, they will say that the software in it still belongs to them. It is protected by copyright, and most manufacturers don't want you to touch it, even if it is broken. Thanks to a controversial US law called the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA) [PDF], manufacturers can place a digital lock on the code to prevent people from interfering (or even viewing) it. The European Union's copyright directive also has similar provisions. Initially, such laws were designed to prevent pirates from copying movies and music. However, more and more manufacturers use them to maintain control of the products they sell to you.
Lexmark used the DMCA to sue Static Control Components. The company's chips allow other companies to refill Lexmark toner cartridges and sell them again. Recently, HP even remotely disabled unauthorized ink cartridges installed in its printers. Even John Deere has deployed digital locks to ensure that only his own technicians can fix any software-related problems on agricultural machinery.
When asked why it prevented farmers from repairing their tractors, the company replied that farmers did not really own their tractors. According to John Deere [PDF], farmers only have "an implied license to operate the vehicle during the life cycle of the vehicle", and farmers (or their mechanics) are not allowed to fiddle with software to perform repairs.
Naturally, this position makes many farmers feel uneasy. They think that when they invest $75,000 or more for a new tractor, they will buy the whole thing. They feel that they should be able to repair the tractor on their own terms. Facts have proved that the farmers are right.
Authorities of the US Copyright Office — they may have a deeper understanding of US copyright law than John Deere — generally stand on the side of consumers when it comes to repairs. In 2015, the copyright officer told John Deere that the owner does have the right to repair his tractor and other equipment. And, in December 2016, the Copyright Office completed a one-year study on copyright law, repairs and embedded software [PDF], which strongly confirmed that repairs are legal under the copyright law. The same study argues that federal copyright law cannot be used as an excuse to prevent repairs.
But this has not stopped some manufacturers from continuing to try. For example, as part of John Deere's 2016 end-user license agreement, the buyer agreed to give up all control of the electronic equipment in the machine-including sensors, actuators, and computing units, as well as data, documentation, and diagnostics. More importantly, suppose the buyer agrees to the contract [PDF] just by opening the machine. No discussion. There is no negotiation. No signature required. Just turn the key and you give up the right to own the key parts of the machine you just purchased.
So, how do the American people maintain the right to repair electronic products? The answer is now obvious: pass maintenance rights legislation enacted at the state level.
Support for this issue has been obvious since 2012, when 86% of Massachusetts voters supported a voting initiative that would “[require] motor vehicle manufacturers to allow Massachusetts car owners and independent repair facilities Obtain the same vehicle diagnosis and repair information and provide it to the manufacturer’s Massachusetts dealers and authorized repair agencies."
The automakers protested loudly, but after the law was passed, they decided not to fight independent maintenance. In fact, in January 2014, they signed a national memorandum of understanding [PDF] to voluntarily extend the provisions of Massachusetts law to the entire country. In October 2015, the commercial vehicle industry followed suit.
Now we also need to formulate maintenance rights legislation for other types of equipment, especially electronic equipment, which is the focus of many states' "digital maintenance rights" initiatives.
Similar to Massachusetts' automotive legislation, these digital repair rights proposals will require manufacturers to provide access to service documents, tools, firmware, and diagnostic programs. They also require manufacturers to sell replacement parts to consumers and independent repair organizations at reasonable prices.
There are some changes to the bills introduced in more than a dozen states this year. For example, equipment in Kansas and Wyoming is limited to farm equipment. The one that is most likely to be adopted soon is Massachusetts, which is trying to eliminate its monopoly on repair parts and information. If it passes, electronics manufacturers may change their practices nationwide.
When something goes wrong, consumers will have more choices. Next time your smartphone has a cracked screen, a broken microwave oven, or a broken TV, you may be able to repair it quickly, economically, and fairly. And you, not the manufacturer, will decide where to repair your equipment: at home, at the manufacturer, or at a local repair shop you trust.
The right to repair electronic products is not only related to maintenance and even technology, but also related to ownership. You bought this thing, and therefore you own it—not just a part of it, but all of it. This means you should be able to fix it or anyone you choose to fix it. Ownership terms should not be changed just because there are chips in the product.
This article appeared in the November 2017 print edition as "The Fight to Fix It".
Kyle Wiens is the co-founder and CEO of iFixit. Gay Gordon-Byrne is the executive director of Repair.org.
The prototype system is the first system to demonstrate a long-standing theoretical goal
Rebecca Sohn is a freelance science journalist. Her work has appeared in magazines such as Live Science, Slate and Popular Science. She was an intern at STAT and CalMatters, and a scientific researcher at Mashable.
The researchers’ experimental device shows the "phantom brain" in the imaging system
Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging uses radioactive tracers to detect metabolic activity in the body and brain to detect cancer, cardiovascular diseases, etc. PET uses a process called tomographic reconstruction, where the algorithm uses statistical methods to compensate for limited data to form an image. This leads to relatively poor spatial resolution of PET scans. Although new advances have improved this resolution, they have not eliminated the need for iterative reconstruction. Now, in a new study published in Nature Photonics, a group of scientists in the United States and Japan have created a technique that can eliminate the need for tomographic reconstruction guessing games.
"For decades, this has been a huge holy grail in our field," said Simon Cherry, professor of biomedical engineering and radiology at the University of California, Davis and senior author of the new study.
As the name suggests, PET scanning relies on positron emission. Before the scan, the patient is injected with a glucose radiotracer. The radioactive elements in the sugar release positrons. Once the positron encounters the electron in the body, the two particles annihilate each other, producing two high-energy photons, called gamma rays, which travel in opposite directions and form a line. The working principle of a PET scanner is to detect these photons and roughly determine their source by finding this line. This allows them to identify areas that absorb more tracer, such as cancer cells.
Michael King, a professor of radiology at the University of Massachusetts Chen School of Medicine who was not involved in the study, said that the problem is that straight lines alone cannot narrow the source of photons. Therefore, the algorithm uses all its data on other photon lines combined with statistical models to guess the source of each positron.
"The end result is that you get some very good things," Jin said. "But this is still a guess."
In recent years, detectors have become fast enough to detect photons that they can estimate their source based on the time difference between the time the photons reach the PET scanner sensor. This is called time-of-flight PET, which makes the scan more accurate, but not accurate enough to avoid tomographic reconstruction. This new study brought the time-of-flight PET to the logical conclusion-they created a system in which the sensor recognizes photons so fast that reconstruction becomes unnecessary.
Images acquired using dPEI settings on various test objects. Natural photonics
Researchers use three different methods to achieve this goal. They used a very fast method of converting gamma rays into visible light by using a vacuum tube and placing this mechanism in the machine's photodetector, thus eliminating the time required for light to travel between them. They also use convolutional neural networks to predict time.
The sensor used by PET in previous battles required approximately 200 picoseconds to record photons. At that time, light can travel about 3 cm. On the other hand, the lag time of the sensor in the new study is only 32 picoseconds, of which the light travel time is only 4.8 mm.
King described the research as "not unique to [researchers] in trying to achieve this goal." Since time-of-flight PET was invented, radiologists have known that this method, which researchers call direct positron emission imaging, would be more accurate if possible.
Lacey Mackintosh, head of the oncology and molecular imaging department at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center and assistant professor of radiology at the Massachusetts Chen School of Medicine, said this approach has other benefits. For images of the same quality, these may include lower doses of radioactive tracers. Although a single dose of radioactive tracer causes very little radiation to the body, any radiation exposure may be harmful. The scanner also does not have to install sensors in the ring, which will help claustrophobic patients. In addition, scans can be completed faster, which may enable doctors to perform multiple scans in a single meeting and help children who have difficulty keeping still.
However, Cherry said it may not be able to create a system with all these benefits at the same time. For example, the increase in signal can be used to reduce radiation dose, speed up scanning, or improve image quality. Which option you choose depends on the patient, their preferences and their circumstances.
"You will be able to customize your work according to specific clinical situations," he said.
Cherry said that such a system may also be cheaper because it may require fewer detectors. But he also said that it may take as many detectors as possible to produce higher-quality images than today's scanners can create.
This technology still has a long way to go before it can be used in the medical environment. Cherry described the research as a proof of concept, and the researchers' prototype design was impractical in many ways. For example, it takes 10 to 24 hours for the image to be generated, and the object that the researcher imaged is exposed to a lot of radiation. Nonetheless, Cherry said that this research shows that the technology is feasible, and there are no theoretical barriers—only technical barriers.
"Some people think that with this very fast timing accuracy, there may be other effects that may come into play, which may make it not work as we think," Cherry said. "I think we have put it on hold."
IEEE also mourns the loss of the former chairman of the society
Joanna Goodrich is an assistant editor of The Institute, covering the work and achievements of IEEE members as well as IEEE and technology-related events. She holds a master's degree in health communication from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey
Founder of MIT Microsystem Technology Laboratory
Penfield's academic career at MIT spanned 45 years. He played an important role in increasing the school's participation in the design of silicon integrated circuits. In 1977, he founded the Institute’s Microsystem Technology Laboratory, which provides modern manufacturing facilities to promote research and education in nano and micro technology
After joining the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a professor in 1960, he was promoted and served as the associate dean of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from 1974 to 1978. He was then promoted to department head and worked in that position for 10 years. After leaving office, he resumed teaching electrical engineering until his retirement in 2005.
As the head of the department, Penfield invited Lynn Conway, who designed ultra-large-scale integrated chips, to come to MIT as a visiting professor in 1978. She taught the first VLSI system design course in school. Students can design their own integrated circuits, which are then manufactured by Hewlett-Packard.
In 1985, he became the head of the microsystem research project.
While at MIT, Penfield developed a course that allowed first-year students to be exposed to the second law of thermodynamics-the law states that the more energy is transferred or transformed, the more is wasted. He also established a master's degree in engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Outside of the classroom, Penfield has a wide range of research interests, including solid-state microwave devices and circuits, thermodynamics, and electrodynamics of moving media.
Penfield has received multiple recognitions, including the IEEE Circuits and Systems (CAS) Association Golden Jubilee Medal in 1999, the IEEE CAS Darlington Award in 1985, and the IEEE Centennial Medal in 1984.
He received a bachelor's degree in physics from Amherst College, Massachusetts in 1955, and a doctorate in electrical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1960.
Former Chairman of IEEE Microwave Theory and Technology Society
Ivanek was the chairman of the IEEE Microwave Theory and Technology Association in 1991. He is an active IEEE member and has held various leadership positions over the years, including the chairman of the Santa Clara Valley (California) Chapter.
His first job was designing a microwave radio system for a radio equipment design and manufacturing start-up company in Yugoslavia. From 1959 to 1962, he took leave to study at the Microwave Integrated Circuit Laboratory of Stanford University.
In 1967, he left the start-up company and joined the Fairchild R&D laboratory in San Jose, California. There, he devoted himself to developing communication applications for solid-state microwave devices. He was promoted to director of product development and then to director of systems research.
He left the company in 1986 and founded Communications Research in Palo Alto, California, a company that provides consulting services to manufacturers.
Ivanek received the IEEE Third Millennium Medal in 2000, which recognizes individuals who have made significant contributions to IEEE societies, regions, or departments.
He received a bachelor's degree and a doctorate degree. Electrical engineering at the Vienna University of Technology.
Life senior member, 90 years old; passed away on September 8
Sampson has worked at Westinghouse Electric Company throughout his career. He was the manager of the R&D Center of the Chemical Sciences Division in Churchville, Pennsylvania, and retired in 1991 after nearly 40 years of service.
He has written and edited many technical manuals and obtained a number of US patents.
He enjoys fishing, studying birds and collecting limericks, and volunteers at St. Alban's Anglican Church in his hometown of Murrayville, Pennsylvania.
Sampson received a bachelor's degree in electrical and chemical engineering from Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie Mellon) in 1952.
Former Chairman of IEEE Richmond (Va.) Chapter
Senior Life Member, 98; passed away on September 6
Hamm was the chairman of the IEEE Rich Score Association in Virginia from 1983 to 1984. He has worked as an equipment engineer for C&P Telephone in Allegheny County, Virginia for more than 35 years.
Hamm was drafted into the army in 1941. His combat expertise is radio communications. During World War II, he performed many missions in the United States, but due to his qualifications as a sharpshooter, he was eventually sent to France and Germany. After the war, Hamm was transferred to the army garrison in Busan, South Korea, where he worked as a technician until he was honorably discharged from the army in 1946. He has won many honors including the World War II Victory Medal.
In 1963, he returned to Virginia and helped found the Chestnut Oak Entertainment Association in Richmond. He is an active parishioner of the Wellborn United Methodist Church in Takaho, Virginia, and serves on its various boards and committees. He is the former chairman of the Men's Fellowship Group of the United Methodist Church.
Hamm has been an amateur radio operator since 1975. His call sign is WA4TCS.
Senior Life Member, 92; passed away on February 11
Axelrod has worked as an engineer in a number of companies in different industries. He is also a professor of electrical engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.
After receiving a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, Axelrod joined the US Navy and served on the escort of the USS Lewis during the Korean War.
For more than 50 years, he has been an active member of the B'nai Torah Synagogue in Highland Park, Illinois-now closed. He manages the library and serves on its finance committee. Axelrod is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Highland Park Public Library and serves as its treasurer.
He received his second bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Missouri, Columbia. He received a master's degree in electrical engineering and engineering management from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.
Transform more than 55,000 substations into independent micro data centers to solve the most pressing power distribution, security, and cost challenges that plague the U.S. power grid. Learn how virtualization provides a total solution to modernize and expand the power grid, with the capacity, protection, and reliability needed to keep power flowing smoothly.