Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's your device, you should be able to repair it

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 566 posts

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#31

Post by varispeed »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #5

A bit of a tangent, but I'm really surprised one of the android vendors hasn't focused on the niche of easy to repair phones. Maybe even making them four or five times the thickness of the latest i-sung devices. extra hot swappable batteries and the like. I know the ostensible reasons waterproofing, planned obsolescence, looking cool, and being light weight. Though I suspect the real reason is they're just chasing th…

I think current phones are just about enough performant to withstand many years of use. I think such proposition using some older tech than current generation just wouldn't sell. People buy new phones not only because new ones look "better" but also perform better than older phones. If I think about my previous phone, the user experience was far from satisfactory. The current phone I have also isn't great, but acceptable. However, I'd love to change to get something more performant - I missed so many moments, for instance, when I wanted to quickly take a picture, but the phone just wouldn't respond for seconds.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#32

Post by JKCalhoun »

scrose wrote: post #23
tims33 wrote: post #3

Repairability seems like a good goal for sustainability. The challenge on electronics is determining what is a reasonable and useful life for a product. Should an iPhone SE or a knockoff Android last and be repairable for a decade? My worry is the regulation will get this wrong. Moderate rules are probably the best way to start.

We used to have this right, but it feels like somewhere between 2010-2015, companies realized they could make more money by disallowing simple replacements. I used to make some money as a kid by buying batches of broken Iphone 3G/3GS's on ebay, replacing parts on them, and then re-selling them myself. Practically any part of that device could be replaced in less than 30 minutes with $15 worth of tools. I have a 2012M…

I draw the line at SMDs. We should go back to through-hole components — I can desolder and resolder those.

Sorry, I'm not trying to mock you. Just saw an opportunity to be facetious, not facetious.

And, actually, to sort of make a point:

I don't buy into the idea that companies are intentionally doing this — intentionally disallowing replacement parts, although I maybe just be naive. I do in fact loathe SMDs (as a hobbyist) but I am quite sure that companies have moved to them for non-nefarious reasons as well.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#33

Post by endisneigh »

I wonder how the right to repair intersects with security. On one extreme, full right to repair is full access to all source code, schematics and documents related to the phone and all of its hardware and software. It would necessarily also give you the ability to arbitrarily flash firmware and install software without limitation. Clearly this can't be good for security.

However the other extreme, no access to anything is tantamount to no access at all, which is clearly secure, but isn't useful nor practical.

Is the government really capable of properly defining the line?

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#34

Post by swiley »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #5

A bit of a tangent, but I'm really surprised one of the android vendors hasn't focused on the niche of easy to repair phones. Maybe even making them four or five times the thickness of the latest i-sung devices. extra hot swappable batteries and the like. I know the ostensible reasons waterproofing, planned obsolescence, looking cool, and being light weight. Though I suspect the real reason is they're just chasing th…

Android was explicitly designed to make it easy for component manufacturers to keep their drivers closed. Now that Qualcomm essentially has a monopoly on Android SoCs you can't really build a modern phone that will have up to date software in 3 years.

This is why projects like the Pinephone and lebrem5 use such weird SoCs. Open source drivers are absolutely the only way to know that the phone manufacturer will even have the ability to maintain up to date software.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#35

Post by bogwog »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #5

A bit of a tangent, but I'm really surprised one of the android vendors hasn't focused on the niche of easy to repair phones. Maybe even making them four or five times the thickness of the latest i-sung devices. extra hot swappable batteries and the like. I know the ostensible reasons waterproofing, planned obsolescence, looking cool, and being light weight. Though I suspect the real reason is they're just chasing th…

If a phone's hardware lasts 10 years, it's going to need 10 years of updates. This shouldn't be a big deal since Android is open source and Google is the one investing in development; hobbyists regularly port modern Android versions to ancient hardware in their spare time, so even a small team of full-time developers at a manufacturer should have no problems doing the same for a company's devices.

I wonder if the reason is really just that these manufacturers are all blindly following Apple's lead? To an outside observer, a lot of Android manufacturer's seem to be really stupid, however the reality might be different from their point of view. I don't know, but it's frustrating to see how little of a shit all Android phone manufacturers give. It's why I can't feel sorry when I hear that a company like LG or HTC are shutting down their smartphone division; it's their own damn fault.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#36

Post by endisneigh »

balozi wrote: post #26

A persistent question in my mind is why do customers buy unrepairable products, from smart phones and high-tech tractors. Why is the market failing? Or is it working perfectly?

How many customers do you think will even attempt to repair their own device? That's the answer to your question.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#37

Post by harimau777 »

css wrote: post #2

This article moves the goalposts on what "right to repair" is several times. It generally means that manufacturers should not hide schematics from device users or disallow third party manufacturing of first party parts. However, the author states: > The law doesn't yet cover smartphones and tablets that she says are getting harder to fix. One problem is keeping older devices updated with new software. Now "right to r…

Re: Legacy software support

How does this work with physical products such as cars? Is there a statute of limitations for automobile recalls?

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#38

Post by iso1631 »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #5

A bit of a tangent, but I'm really surprised one of the android vendors hasn't focused on the niche of easy to repair phones. Maybe even making them four or five times the thickness of the latest i-sung devices. extra hot swappable batteries and the like. I know the ostensible reasons waterproofing, planned obsolescence, looking cool, and being light weight. Though I suspect the real reason is they're just chasing th…

I have a Mophie for my 2016 SE, perfectly acceptable tradeoff - when I want the extra power I compromise with a larger phone, but most of the time I don't need the extra power, and don't use it, thus have a smaller phone.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#39

Post by rank0 »

endisneigh wrote: post #33

I wonder how the right to repair intersects with security. On one extreme, full right to repair is full access to all source code, schematics and documents related to the phone and all of its hardware and software. It would necessarily also give you the ability to arbitrarily flash firmware and install software without limitation. Clearly this can't be good for security. However the other extreme, no access to anythi…

> On one extreme, full right to repair is full access to all source code, schematics and documents related to the phone and all of its hardware and software. It would necessarily also give you the ability to arbitrarily flash firmware and install software without limitation. Clearly this can't be good for security.

Open source code and device schematics shouldn't be a significant security threat. If device security is reliant on obscurity, you have improper security controls. Frankly, that should be on the device manufacturer, and not the consumer.

As for the second point, I should be able to install whatever software I want on my device...as its mine.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#40

Post by pwg »

endisneigh wrote: post #33

I wonder how the right to repair intersects with security. On one extreme, full right to repair is full access to all source code, schematics and documents related to the phone and all of its hardware and software. It would necessarily also give you the ability to arbitrarily flash firmware and install software without limitation. Clearly this can't be good for security. However the other extreme, no access to anythi…

> no access at all, which is clearly secure

Not "clearly secure" -- rather it would be 'security by obscurity':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_by_obscurity

Quote: Security through obscurity (or security by obscurity) is the reliance in security engineering on design or implementation secrecy as the main method of providing security to a system or component. Security experts have rejected this view as far back as 1851, and advise that obscurity should never be the only security mechanism.

Post reply on HN