431–440 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They don’t prevent users from replacing the battery. I’ve done it myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average computer is around 700 including ones that are relatively repairable and ones that are not. Pretending that repairable laptops cost 20 times as much is disingenuous.
(In the comment) They want to be able to source a drop in cpu from 2 different supply chains. And they want that for every piece and part on the thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average computer is around 700 including ones that are relatively repairable and ones that are not. Pretending that repairable laptops cost 20 times as much is disingenuous.
> disingenuous That implies intent to deceive, which crosses into personal attack. Can you please not do that on HN? If you feel that someone else is wrong, it's enough to provide correct information in a neutral way. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not making a convincing argument when the person you're arguing with is coming from the "free market" angle. Someone arguing in favor of allowing market forces to solve the problem truly do think it's fine for Apple and John Deere to do those things. The solution for lack of repairability isn't to enact legislation to force them to make their products more repairable, it's to stop buying Apple and John Deere.…
Sorry, I’m not sure if I follow. Consumers are not rational, ok fair. But should we then listen to their demands to have things their way? Like devices, which can be repaired? Seems like a rational want? I don’t get it
Yes, we on HN are far more likely to demand repairabiliy, but most consumers don't care about the ability to repair their devices. Or at the very least, don't care so much that they'll choose not to buy the latest phone because the battery is not easily replaced.
And it boils down to what are consumers actually buying? If consumers are demanding something and the corporations are not providing it, but they buy the products anyways, the corporation has no incentive to provide it.
There was a lot of uproar when Apple removed the headphone jack when they made the iPhone 7, but that didn't stop consumers from making it the best selling smartphone in the world at the time, with ~40 million units sold. And now guess what? Other phone manufacturers followed suit. I guess headphone jacks aren't that important after all.
The market can demand whatever the hell it wants, but rarely follows through.
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…
I have no desire for any developer to have to do more work after the date of purchase to "fix" or "support" software. What I want is all the work to be done before selling the device. Quality control. Is this really too much to ask. I am not interested in purchasing what are effectively "works-in-progress".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it did. Computers became cheaper because more and more functionality can simply be combined on single chips. You can not replace parts of broken chips at home. Look into Apple's M1.
Average spend on a computer hasn't gone down recently. In the era when it actually did go down it was because volume and reliability went up, and cost of manufacturing went down as process improved. Phones have been system on a chip since the dawn of the era of the smartphone and few computers are. The difference between repairable and not is the difference between glue and screws and sockets vs solder. You have basi…
Computers have gotten a lot faster, that is why "spend" has kept up.
And you seem to suggest that early smartphones were already as fast as an M1, because they were "systems on a chip". That is not the case. Not all SoCs are the same, more and more things have been integrated over time.
And sockets take up space, making for thicker smartphones. People don't actually want that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that would happen, and it bothers you, just don't buy an Apple phone. Problem solved.
If that happens and there are no laws, it will affect more and more products. Don’t buy a laptop? A car? A building? A slab of wood? Yes, my examples are borderline unreasonable, but we’re already at the level of unreasonable products being licensed instead of owned (Tractors, DSLRs).
With the tractors and DSLRs, again, if you don't like their licensing model, don't buy them. If nobody buys them, they will probably change their licensing model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> disingenuous That implies intent to deceive, which crosses into personal attack. Can you please not do that on HN? If you feel that someone else is wrong, it's enough to provide correct information in a neutral way. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Would you prefer hyperbolic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An iPhone 4 with the “last supported OS” is significantly slower than when it had the OS it launched with. This ignores the fact that later iPhones with the newest OS are significantly faster than what they launched with, which contradicts the conclusion that this is intentional.
The lawsuit they lost suggests that the court found it was intentional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't though. It fails when it comes to repairability, re-use and reduction of e-waste. This is the topic of the primary article, and therefore the context for this thread. You can also weld an entire car together to make it cheaper, but this is not something we should celebrate or promote if it impacts the environment in terms of repair. But yes, I value your opinion so don't want to shut you out of the discuss…
>It fails when it comes to repairability, re-use and reduction of e-waste Around 1.5 billion phones are sold a year. What percent of phones are thrown out due to breaking versus people want an upgrade? Then compare to the costs and waste of using inefficient assembly techniques. It's also not hard or terribly expensive to get most broken phones fixed at plenty of repair shops. I think you vastly overestimate the numb…
Okay, this is your view, and we have a disagreement. We'll just have to agree to disagree :)
Also, its not just about glue vs nuts/bolts - Please consider the larger picture here about repair.
>It's also not hard or terribly expensive to get most broken phones fixed at plenty of repair shops.
That is not accurate, Apple for instance, chokes the supply chain by banning sale of components to repair shops. They prevent replaced parts from working by employing DRM. In any case, you're missing the general point. Right to repair isn't just about phones. We're talking about a common movement across multiple industries - Agriculture, Appliances, Automotive, Consumer Electronics, etc, etc. You can find more information here - https://www.repair.org
People don't make their decisions in a vacuum. They know they can repair their laptop, their PC, their car, etc. They know this based on their experience and experience around them. We need to promote the same mindset for other consumer electronics.
In any case, any added change will force the companies to innovate their assembly technique to reduce costs - just like every industry does when there is a new environmental regulation. The reality is we are seeing piles and piles of electronics fill up the landfills, and we need to do more to address re-use, repair and extending the lifetime of devices - This is the just one component of an overall plan to reduce e-waste.