Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
To specifically answer your question, I don't think anyone's advocating for users to be provided with parts and schematics to repair a faulty L1 cache on a CPU, or for the CPU to be designed to support that kind of repair. 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, th…
Do they? Given that you later claim we don’t have the necessary criteria to determine repairability, this seems like an unsupportable claim.
I hear just as much from people obsessed with repair that confuses people in the other direction.
> 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.
We do and we also need to understand the costs at scale.
Repairability may not be better overall if it comes at the expense of durability, or more use of materials.
It’s not at all obvious, for example, that we have the numbers to support say, making iPhones more repairable vs simply designing them to neeed fewer more expensive repairs and then recycle them when failed.