121–130 of 208 posts
ifixit has only ever given two phones 10/10 in its repairability scores, the Fairphone 2 and 3, and only one other phone has scored above 7 since 2017. What we really need is system to seriously penalise manufacturers until they fundamentally change practices. https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability?sort=score
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right 50,000 GBP tool. Louis Rossmann did a video tearing apart France's recent implementation of this from the perspective of an Apple repair technician. Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematic…
I think this pretty well sums up the loophole. You have the right to repair... what? If I buy a macbook, do I get to replace the case? keyboard? These seem pretty reasonable. But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? This is obviously a different story - it would be nice, but the part probably isn't manufactured by Apple (maybe it is on the new Silicon?). My point is that at some point, things start to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this pretty well sums up the loophole. You have the right to repair... what? If I buy a macbook, do I get to replace the case? keyboard? These seem pretty reasonable. But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? This is obviously a different story - it would be nice, but the part probably isn't manufactured by Apple (maybe it is on the new Silicon?). My point is that at some point, things start to…
> But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? Are you suggesting the right to repair should include this?
Does it make sense to lower the repairability score because I can't replace the L1 cache? If the answer is "no", then what is the difference between an L1 cache replacement and a CPU replacement on a fully integrated motherboard (like Apple's new computers)? The answer in my mind is one of convention. Perhaps the solution to this is to enshrine the Von Neumann architecture as a legal standard. But this solution seems like it could limit innovation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a fridge doesn't need software? I don't hear consumers clamouring for it.
But fridges do have software. There’s code in there monitoring and regulating the compressor, monitoring temperatures and making decisions. Thankfully these problems are so simple companies rarely fuckup the software. But it does happen, and then hardware is run slightly out of spec resulting in failures. Have the right to replace the software would be amazing. It would give people the ability to replace slightly bro…
I'm sorry, air compressor regulation does not require software. Compressor units have been working for decades without software. If the current industry is anything to go on, the reliance on software for compressor regulation has reduced, not increased, reliability. Older fridges would last 20-30 years. Last year I threw out a fridge that was a free hand-me-down. The gasket was so old that the door would not seal anymore, but the compressor still worked!
Most of the other things you speak of, such as schedule based temperature changes, are possible in hardware alone. Responding to electricity prices is a no-go anyways, a fridge maintains a constant internal temperature. Turning it off to save money will spoil food faster, costing you more money.
I think you come from a "software is everything" mentality, which is fine for something as complex as a smartphone, but completely the wrong way to go about things for an appliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want t…
Because a source of parts is devices that are stolen and stripped for the parts. The parts are then laundered so you think your source is legal. By putting a serial number on each part it means you go after the supplier who you otherwise thought was honest and so this whole scheme shuts down.
I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also financial extremely favorable to Apple or is just FUD and PR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They seem to be suggesting that the L1 cache is obviously a different story. Source: sentence immediately after the one you quoted
You haven’t answered my question any more than they did. It’s not obvious at all how they think it’s different. It’s obviously harder to repair or replace, but it’s not clear whether they think the goal is to make it repairable.
Most "repairs" come in the form of replacing a component. Many products can be divided into components and those components can recursively be broken down into smaller components. At some point, though, a component cannot reasonably be further divided for the purpose of repair and peterlk appears to imply that a CPU is an example of such a component. Indeed, repairing a faulty L1 cache would probably require so much investment that even the manufacturer itself would not be able to justify such a repair.
> My point is that at some point, things start to get blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to continue blurring these lines.
peterlk goes on to point out that manufacturers often use this fact to their advantage by convincing people that it's not practical to componetize bigger, more expensive parts for the sake of repair, such as the main board assembly on a laptop. In reality, component-level board repair is a practical solution for many repair scenarios, provided you can source the necessary components and schematics.
We lack objective criteria to determine what parts can reasonably be made "repairable" via componetization and manufacturers abuse that to confuse people. I myself thought component-level board repair was a dead end until I stumbled upon Rossmann's channel. I think both you and peterlk are getting to the same point: we need that criteria if we're going to reach the full potential of the right-to-repair movement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want t…
> Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. For a lot of people, this is a feature, not a bug. It prevents repair shops using substandard components, or even replacing good components with cheaper ones and then re-selling them. Edit: another much more serious issue, i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years. This means generating a vast amount of e-waste and increasing the cost of units. Since Apple doesn’t make the components themselves, they would have to warehouse a supply of spares.
Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell. Asking them to make that supply publicly available does not strike me as a huge ask. Hell they could derive the supply from their recycling efforts they’re always showing off as WWDC. Also how does providing spare parts result in huge amounts of e-waste, that’s a bit of a non-sequ…
This is not relevant. Nobody is forcing them to do these repairs. When the parts are no longer available, they stop doing them.
> The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken.
Yes, and it may well be a counterproductive scheme that doesn’t work as intended.
1. You need to warehouse components to comply with the law, or continue to make otherwise redundant components, which means maintaining outdated industrial plant.
2. Devices with replaceable components have to be made in a more complex way that is more liable to break, costing more up front, and more in repairs.
There is no real problem with some hugh pile of slightly broken iPhones that are being wasted.
The real problem is the huge number of working iPhones that are too outdated to run modern software.
If we need a law, it is one that requires manufacturers to make a bootcamp equivalent for devices at the end of their software support cycle, so all the still working devices can continue to be useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem with unofficial repairs right now is where the parts come from. If you buy an iphone camera, where does that camera actually come from. I doubt there is an unoffical iphone camera factory. So those parts only have 2 sources, broken and stolen iphones. What ideally would happen is each part on the iphone has a serial number and is registered with icloud. If a phone gets stolen, you get a message wh…
> Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years. This means generating a vast amount of e-waste and increasing the cost of units. Since Apple doesn’t make the components themselves, they would have to warehouse a supply of spares.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want t…
Because a source of parts is devices that are stolen and stripped for the parts. The parts are then laundered so you think your source is legal. By putting a serial number on each part it means you go after the supplier who you otherwise thought was honest and so this whole scheme shuts down.
Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts?