Counterpoint: We're all safer by using devices that can't be repaired/tampered with by end users.
Safer how exactly?
Harder to hack with device in hand, e.g. by replacing with compromised components or accessing secure data
It's your device, you should be able to repair it
211–220 of 566 posts
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#212This 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…
Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation. As an example, this (1) is how the manual looks for a ~1970-1974 stereo record player I have. You have diagrams of the boards and lists of parts as in individual caps, etc. We should strive to move in that direction, not away from it. Permanently locked bootloaders, DRM for componets, etc. are a move in the oposite direction. To move the over…
Be careful.
My dad replaced a defective memory chip on his IBM PC XT.. but the computer cost the equivalent of $12k.
I’d rather throw away a dozen modern laptops than fix one that costs 10x.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation. As an example, this (1) is how the manual looks for a ~1970-1974 stereo record player I have. You have diagrams of the boards and lists of parts as in individual caps, etc. We should strive to move in that direction, not away from it. Permanently locked bootloaders, DRM for componets, etc. are a move in the oposite direction. To move the over…
> We should demand that any device and any component in any device be second source-able Devices aren't built around discrete components anymore. That ship has sailed, we waved goodbye, partied on the dock, and took an Uber home. Now we're nursing the hangover. But hey, our phones are now marginally thinner than last year's phones, so that might be worth something. I don't see how we get back, considering the market…
> it'd rather treat devices as things that we lease for a low cost from a vertically-integrated company.
This is a nightmare.
I built my PC, I repair my phone and laptops. I replace joysticks and mod old gaming consoles. I fix my own car.
I don't want the industry following Apple into the depths of hell.
We used to be allowed to record tv shows on VHS legally. Look how far we've slid down the path of non-ownership.
We've given up our privacy, we license media on subscription, and even our employers rent premium and expensive time sharing on "cloud".
Open source has been captured and turned into hidden away SaaS/PaaS.
We're all being gaslighted.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trend for lack of reparability in smartphones is because of consumer preferences. Consumers are consistently choosing devices that are smaller, lighter, higher durability, waterproof, cheaper etc. vs. devices that are more repairable that do not have those features.
Where does this crazy idea come from that you have to glue shut a device to make it waterproof? A rubber gasket and a few screws work just as well without compromising repairability. Wristwatches have been constructed like this for centuries, while being a lot smaller and lighter than any smartphone. Maybe it would slightly increase the BOM and assembly cost, but considering that it fits in the budget of a 30€ Casio,…
> Where does this crazy idea come from that you have to glue shut a device to make it waterproof?
Glue helps with heat dissipation, physical shocks, vibration knocking plugs loose, provides electrical insulation, chemical resistance, and makes the components less able to vibrate over time and knock things loose, makes sensor positioning more stable, and even makes things easier to assemble since less individual fasteners are needed.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#215A 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…
> Maybe even making them four or five times the thickness of the latest i-sung devices
Sure smartphones are quite thin these days, but there are vanishingly few people that want a phone that's 2.96cm+ thick.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're talking about an unsupported devices, aren't the downsides of third party repairs basically moot? There are any number of above-board companies that you can ship your device to and will do a battery swap for you so long as batteries are available.
Yeah, that's what I did. Found an unofficial repair and replaced the battery for less that $100. Anyway, I don't think it should be so hard to replace a battery. And I still remember times when I was able to replace battery manually at home.
> And I still remember times when I was able to replace battery manually at home.
This is definitely an issue, but it's not the same issue as planned obsolescence.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should demand that any device and any component in any device be second source-able Devices aren't built around discrete components anymore. That ship has sailed, we waved goodbye, partied on the dock, and took an Uber home. Now we're nursing the hangover. But hey, our phones are now marginally thinner than last year's phones, so that might be worth something. I don't see how we get back, considering the market…
Your approach will always be a valid choice, for those who want it, and companies will be happy to provide that device-as-a-service model. R2R is just seeking to preserve the practical access to repairability for those who want to service their own devices.
No it's not, it's looking to enshrine that standard by law for everyone. Nothing is stopping consumers from demanding phones that are self-serviceable, they just simply aren't willing to accept the tradeoffs involved (larger size, worse thermals, higher price, etc). If you disagree, there's an unserved market segment wide open for you!
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation. As an example, this (1) is how the manual looks for a ~1970-1974 stereo record player I have. You have diagrams of the boards and lists of parts as in individual caps, etc. We should strive to move in that direction, not away from it. Permanently locked bootloaders, DRM for componets, etc. are a move in the oposite direction. To move the over…
> We should demand that any device and any component in any device be second source-able Devices aren't built around discrete components anymore. That ship has sailed, we waved goodbye, partied on the dock, and took an Uber home. Now we're nursing the hangover. But hey, our phones are now marginally thinner than last year's phones, so that might be worth something. I don't see how we get back, considering the market…
You can choose to forgo owning stuff personally, sure. But that is not everybody's preference. And please don't pretend that "devices aren't built around discrete components anymore".
There are plenty of discrete components in a modern phone/laptop/roomba/whatever, that could be replaceable/upgradable by advanced user or entry-level technician, but are not:
- battery
- screen
- storage
- RAM
- list goes on and on...
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think requiring schematic disclosure and non exclusivity for venders of custom parts is entirely unreasonable with catastrophic first and second order effects. Particularly the latter. We want more contract manufacturing, not less of it. If you take away the ability of companies to negotiate reasonable deals with their venders, they'll just buy them out and vertically integrate.
When I was born all electric and electronic appliances came with a complete diagram in the box. I don't understand how disclosing the schematic has any negative impact of any sort. Also the vendor contracts in these cases are based on volume discounts which are not affected by non-restricted sale to other parties.
Well two points on that:
- Repair schematics and diagrams are not necessarily complete schematics and may be abridged or missing some details
- Modern electronics are significantly more complex than when you were a child, unless you were born yesterday. Schematics for designs are barely useful for assembly today, let alone repair. They are primarily design documentation.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#220A 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 h…
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the only reason you need a SoC is if you're trying to make the phone small. If you don't care about size you can have discreet components. There are millions of people with big enough pockets (literally and metaphorically) , who wouldn't notice the extra weight of their phone.
edit: discreet might be the wrong word because they would all be ICs but not quite a SoC.