Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's weird how you read me describing the decisions of the market and attribute them to my opinion/preferences.
He probably missed the first t
This.
It's your device, you should be able to repair it
251–260 of 566 posts
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why is it not the same issue? By preventing the users to replace the battery, you force them to buy a new device after a couple of years.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#253Earlier 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…
This was in a very different era, when manufacturing was difficult and expensive. Having the schematic didn't necessarily get you anywhere. That's no longer the case - now the design is expensive but the manufacturing is cheap.
Component level schematics should be freely available for all products. It's not like there are no schematics available for e.g. Macbooks. Third party repair shops use them all the time. It's just that they are not legally available.
I might entertain the argument that you don't want to show all internal details of your 6 layer PCB but those are also not necessary for repair. Just hand out the component level schematics.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#254Earlier 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…
>Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation. Nearly every electronic device I bought in the 1970s did not have included schematics. TI-55, Pong console, digital watches, Speak'n'Spell, transistor radios, Mattell football and baseball handhelds, Simon... and on and on. Nearly everything then was also not easily repairable, and certainly not by an average consumer.
> Nearly everything then was also not easily repairable, and certainly not by an average consumer.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone's saying that "an average consumer" in the terms of "I can't tell the difference between a hammer and a soldering iron" should be able to repair their devices.
But I think that if the consumer can demonstrate some minimum level of interest (education, certification, or at least competence) then they absolutely should be able to repair devices they own.
And, further, that owning devices and software should be the default and normal thing. The trend today of renting/leasing things is clearly anti-consumer.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safer? I could cause a safety issue attempting my own car or bicycle repairs and both of those things are much more repairable than a modern smartphone. You know what's bad for human "safety"? Gratuitously burning through resources and causing pollution by making phones out of all sorts of rare materials and hucking them out.
Pretty sure OP is not referring to physical safety here, but more cyber security. Apple's devices offer a lot of cyber security that more modular devices can't guarantee as effectively.
> Pretty sure OP is not referring to physical safety here, but more cyber security.
Arguably that's because device manufacturers aren't made to care about cyber security. Were that to change, their devices would be a lot more safer.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
i not sure what your talking about... people get their phones fixed all the time, its just the companies make it very difficult or not possible at all when you can't get access to parts, or you have companies like Apple who prevent you importing parts even if the parts are ripped out of broken devices. Then you have Apple who lie they say you can't recover your data or repair your device, yet you go to a repair shop…
But that’s my point. Why do buy a phone from company like that? Just stop buying from them and buy from another manufacturer instead and the problem will be solved.
okay true, but you think its fine for Apple to prevent you from taking out say your broken camera and replace it with a working one? or a LCD... or any part? You think its fine for say John Deer to prevent you from repairing your own tractor? if any part is replaces with exactly the same part but your tractor won't turn on because the "encryption link" is not correct?
would you be fine with your car preventing you from changing your tire? unless you get them to do it and only install their "tires"?
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#257So what benefit would the right to repair bring?
Even if all the schematics were published, parts be more standardized and built in a way that things are easier to maintain, would it really make a difference?
People want the shiny new PS5 no matter how repairable the PS3 is. Maybe in a few decades the technology development slows to a point where this might be reasonable, but today people think on how to get their hands on the new M2 chip even before the M1 is fully rolled out.
Then there is mechanical degradation, most components degrade over time and start to cause problems. The longer you wait, the more problems (basically the same as with cars). Most people who can afford will go for a median timeline where the devices work reliably and then dump them no matter what. So unless we make them last for decades reliably (not likely in the near future) this is not a viable thing to strive for.
Then there is software support. Vendors continuously improve the software and add new hardware capabilities to stay competitive, because everyone else is doing it. So if we wanted to keep stuff working, we'd have to strangle competitive innovation and mandate a specific cap on technology for a given time.
So I think that's all not reasonable. Instead we should strive to make the stuff we produce recyclable (like really), so that the materials can become the new shiny stuff that people crave for. But stuff is not designed to be recyclable at all and if you look at the global recycling industry (or fantasy really, so little is recovered) you can picture a giant dumpster we leave for the next generations.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a market for it? $200 Android devices with a big battery and decent performance and so on are out there, so I wonder how many people are worried enough about a swappable battery. Jitterbug makes the phone to sell their service, so it's not directly comparable (it does demonstrate that the devices aren't that expensive to produce).
I was using a Moto G8 Power for exactly that reason, but I still think 3 days of battery life is just not enough. The phone could have easily been 4 times the size without being too big for me. Then the screen cracked and I made it worse trying to fix it because I dont have the patience to properly melt glue. Now I'm using a CAT phone which has cool features, and is supposedly stronger, but mostly the same problems.
Better repairability is always better, I just don't think people care about it.
For the battery, I would certainly rather have an external power pack (which are readily available) if the idea is to last a week.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#259Repairability 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.
I don't think that repairability is better for sustainability in general, if we are speaking about electronics. Making an electronic device more repairable would make it more complex (again, not in every case, but in general). Where before a manufacturer could just solder numerous components to a single board, now will be arrays of sockets each of which is a new point of possible failure. Glue will be replaced by mag…
I get where you're coming from on this, but from a design and manufacturing perspective, it isn't correct. Fairphone has published a pretty extensive lifecycle analysis of their latest device that details the environmental impact of designing for repairability vs the extended life that comes from that change: https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairpho...
There's a similar study focused on notebooks that goes into the environmental benefits of extending longevity: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1...
Finally, we've spent the last year and a half building a highly repairable notebook at Framework, and it is as robust as any other premium thin and light notebook.
I agree with you though that there is a behavioral change required to maximize the benefit. There are many audiences (like a lot of the folks on HN) who are ready to make their devices last longer, but others may need more time to get comfortable with it.
Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your approach will always be a valid choice, for those who want it This isn't "my approach" – it's the approach that the vast majority of purchasers prefer. And pining for the good ol' days of technical datasheets doesn't help everybody who can't start their cars without the successful interaction of nearly a hundred proprietary microcontrollers running proprietary code speaking over a high-speed data bus. And here…
Do you have a source to cite for "the approach that the vast majority of purchasers prefer"? That seems pretty speculative. The market can be manipulated or directed by more than simply consumer choice, e.g. by business incentives of product manufacturers.
> Do you have a source to cite for "the approach that the vast majority of purchasers prefer"?
I mean, gestures at every consumer-targeted product made since at least the early 'oughts.
People want things that are some combination of more capable, more convenient, more reliable, and less expensive. Different consumers obviously make different decisions, but there's a reason you can't go to a car lot and easily find a car with a stick shift. There's a reason you probably don't know anyone who has a Speed Queen top loader (pre-redesign model of course ;)) in their house, even though it is infinitely more reliable and repairable than the competition. Those offerings are less capable, less convenient, and more expensive than the alternatives, so customers don't want them.