101–110 of 321 posts
Honorable mention to the coffee grinders' manufacturer Baratza. They publish detailed instructions on how to repair their grinders, make videos showing how it's done, sell replacement parts and recommend service centers. [0] https://www.baratza.com
You get more bulky and expensive device for the right to repair. Would not want that.
1) Difficulty to repair because of physical design, e.g. goods that are physically challenging to open and modify or require specialized tools. This is often a reasonable side-effect of making devices as small or light as possible. I.e. making it physically difficult to repair.
2) Erecting legal barriers to repair by asserting that people may not legally attempt to repair or modify things they "own", using DMCA or copyright laws. I.e., making it illegal even to try.
As far as I know, the right to repair movement is centered around #2 and does not address #1. If it does address #1, I would guess it's only for cases where a company purposely makes something physically more difficult to repair for a reason unrelated to functionality, e.g. invents a new fastener with no functional advantage over a screw but that requires a multi-thousand dollar device to open.
But again, right-to-repair is almost exclusively about #2 as far as I know.
(edit) actually, a lot of people in the thread are making the same conflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That already happens, but on a different scale. When Apple has to repair or replace an iPhone, they're giving you a remanufactured iPhone using reused internal parts like screws or shielding. This is factored into the costs of an iPhone which keeps them 'lower' / profit margins higher.
Unfortunately, what ends up happening in most cases is that people make products, give them a ridiculous 1y or 2y warranty, then claim that if there're any problems after that time period you'll have to pay to repair or replace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what? I got your answer, I have this beautiful 0-mile device without all those gadgets and crap. No keyless entry, no GPS, no radio, no (power)windows, no thermostat, minor software and computers (just to control the engine and emmissions). If you want add-ons you add them yourself: - GPS -> mount your smartphone - Thermostat -> more/less clothes - Radio -> get a bluetooth headset for your helmet - The list…
I also ride a motorcycle. Just got a new sportster and love it. I'll agree that it is wonderful not ever having to adjust a damn radio, roll windows up or worry about broken AC. It's great for all the reasons you described. I also agree with your point that there __should__ be a market for a no-frills car of the same design philosophy. However, I would NEVER recommend that someone get a motorcycle. You and I both kno…
I disagree. It's the old freedom vs. security/safety argument. I have no qualms about recommending motorcycles or even just older and simpler cars, because safety is not the only factor and a lot of the time it's used as an argument to take away freedom. You can be perfectly safe by spending your entire life locked away in a jail cell... and you'll still die.
I've been thinking recently that there is exists a completely unxplored market in tech. Local shops based around FOSS / open hardware where designers, hardware and software people work together to build custom projects for their clients. I would call this person a "technology artisan", because the closest analogue I can think of is a tailor or a carpinter. So, for example, a family would go to their local technology…
The real issue is that consumers are stupid and want to stay stupid which means modular products, being more complicated, are not something they are going to shell out for. It's a lot easier to say "buy this widget for $x a month for 48 months" (classic US example) than to say "what computer do you have? oh you don't know. why don't we arrange for me to have a look at it another day. uhuh. ok well i've taken a look a…
It's still doable, and lots of great online guides and videos on how to repair smartphones, laptops etc. I replaced my smartphone earpiece, following an ifixit.com guide. Was initially daunted, given the expense of the handset, but it just took a set of mini screwdrivers and a wedge, 20 minutes, and has been working good as new for the last 3 months. Very satisfying experience.
So, I borrowed my buddy's pentalobe driver set and about an hour later had pulled the logic board out, replaced the antenna, and buttoned it all back up. That's been about a year ago and it's still working perfectly. And the new antenna was something like $6 on Amazon...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consumable parts are and have never been reused Are phone parts "consumable"? I thought "consumable" meant refers to things that get "used up" like milk, ink, pens, etc., not storage media or LCD screens or the like...
Batteries can be consumable after a fashion, as they lose capacity with each charge cycle. The effect can be reduced via certain techniques (depending on the battery chemistry involved), but so far never completely eliminated. Just consider it entropy in action, really.
What you should really want, if you like reparability, is a market for reparable goods. In general, it will be more costly than mass-produced integrated goods, but foisting repair opportunities onto every consumer product will ultimately make people less satisfied with the products on the market, and it will make those products less accessible (and more expensive).
As for cars, I think there's a real market opportunity to make your cars exceptionally open to repair, but I don't think mandating it is a good idea. Especially as powertrain designs become more and more complex, the likelihood that you will be able to correctly reassemble them dwindles. The onus must remain on the customers and technicians to meet the technical demands of repair.
A line in the sand must be drawn between "difficult to repair" and "illegal to repair". The first is at the hands of the customer, the second, the legislature.
As for software, sure, the DMCA is unfair, it should have been struck down long ago. It is being abused constantly, and serves little or no practical purpose except to enable abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gillette? Having started to use a safety razor recently, I'm starting to think that the impetus for moving to cartridge razors was just to make the refills harder to interchange and less of a commodity.
The interesting bit for me is that safety razors are nearly impossible to find in normal shops probably because they would be less profitable for the shops too.