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

551–560 of 566 posts

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

#551

Post by zepto »

fsflover wrote: post #549
zepto wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. So why did you mention laptops? Seems like a false comparison. 2. What 11 year old GNU/Linux phone is supported today let alone ‘forever’?

> 1. So why did you mention laptops? Seems like a false comparison. Linux laptops have a proven track record of being supported for >10 years. Since the GNU/Linux phones also run mainline Linux, they are effectively the same kind of devices. There is no reason to expect that GNU/Linux phones will stop being supported. > 2. What 11 year old GNU/Linux phone is supported today let alone ‘forever’? Nokia N900? See also:…

> 1. So why did you mention laptops? Seems like a false comparison. Linux laptops have a proven track record of being supported for >10 years. Since the GNU/Linux phones also run mainline Linux, they are effectively the same kind of devices.

1. No they aren’t. The hardware is different. Laptops are not the same as phones. It’s a false comparison.

They may run the mainline kernel, but they certainly don’t run mainline distributions usefully.

PinePhone isn’t even considered supported for consumer use today.

It’s sold for developers and most users say it doesn’t even work as a daily driver

2. Is the Nokia 900 supported? It’s not obvious. What makes you think it is? Even you used a ‘?’.

3. Why is this relevant?

Anyone who wants one can buy a PinePhone or Librem.

Why would someone who wants a GNU/Linux phone buy an iPhone?

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

#552

Post by zepto »

fsflover wrote: post #546
zepto wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reread the thread. In this thread, the OP is speaking about design obsolescence. I don’t need to reread it. My response applies to design obsolescence. Relatively few people upgrade every year these days. The fact that the old devices are still desirable negates the idea that people don’t want them because they look outdated . I.e. changes in design are not causing people to stop using the devices. For design obsol…

> Relatively few people upgrade every year these days. [Citation needed]

No - this is trivially googled.

Compare phones sold to phones in service.

Tens of millions vs more then a billion.

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

#553

Post by zepto »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #550
zepto wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So an SoC-based device is simply impervious to physical attacks? This is a straw man - nobody said ‘impervious’. You said this: > If you have physical access to a device, you can already tap the memory bus or countless other places It is complete bullshit. If it wasn’t, you’d be able to post a link to someone doing it.

Backdoors into iPhones already exist, here's one that was used for a while, before Apple closed it: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cat-mouse-fight-fix-e... If you think that is the only way into an Apple device, and that police or even nation states are now helpless against the mighty "hack resistant" iPhone, then you may be interested in this bridge I happen to have for sale.

> Backdoors into iPhones already exist, here's one that was used for a while, before Apple closed it: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cat-mouse-fight-fix-e...

I presume you know that isn’t an example of someone “tapping the memory bus”, which seems to be still just bullshit.

Yes, security flaws exist.

Generally we close them, not argue for abandoning security altogether as you are doing.

Police generally are helpless against the iPhone.

Nation states may well not be, but it is still going to cost them a lot.

Your argument - that because nation states can compromise the iPhone, we should make it so everyone can, seems very odd.

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

#554

Post by splix »

zepto wrote: post #499
splix wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that a company cannot keep all old software downloadable forever, but note that in this case it was just a four years old device.

First gen is the operative word. That device is not representative. 4 years was an eternity in device capability at the time the first gen of the iPad was released. I’m writing this on a 6 year old iPad Pro that I use every day. Everything runs on it, and it shows no sign of being too slow or even needing a battery replacement. It seems like the problem has been solved.

It wasn't a problem with the device. It was Apple decision that one day disallowed to download existing working software. They had the software, and I don't think it was too expensive to keep it downloadable for a few more years.

Or you mean that there was a problem with Apple servers and now it's fixed?

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

#555

Post by zepto »

splix wrote: post #554
zepto wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First gen is the operative word. That device is not representative. 4 years was an eternity in device capability at the time the first gen of the iPad was released. I’m writing this on a 6 year old iPad Pro that I use every day. Everything runs on it, and it shows no sign of being too slow or even needing a battery replacement. It seems like the problem has been solved.

It wasn't a problem with the device. It was Apple decision that one day disallowed to download existing working software. They had the software, and I don't think it was too expensive to keep it downloadable for a few more years. Or you mean that there was a problem with Apple servers and now it's fixed?

No - I mean the problem is fixed in general. Not for this specific device.

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

#556

Post by foldr »

Google234 wrote: post #519
foldr wrote: post #210

What about reliability? Battery aside, the components in a smartphone could all be built to last 10 years. Regulations on component lifetimes might have a much more beneficial effect than repairability requirements. A well engineered smartphone or laptop shouldn’t need repairs within the reasonable expected lifetime of the device. But at the moment, manufacturers aren’t incentivized or required to target 10 year life…

A 10 year old device can barely render a webpage now and has a shitty screen and is generally inferior and every way to a new one. No one wants to use a flip phone now.

Yes, that’s my point. If devices reliably lasted 10 years, repairability would be moot.

(Your timeline is off, though. Flip phones were already well on the way out in 2011. An iPhone 4S from 2011 would still be usable, just about.)

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

#557

Post by rank0 »

endisneigh wrote: post #45
rank0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

> Open source code and device schematics shouldn't be a significant security threat. You don't see how a completely open device could be insecure? > As for the second point, I should be able to install whatever software I want on my device...as its mine. This is a valid opinion, but the whole point of contention is whether you can do anything with a device simply because you've purchased it, as opposed to what has be…

No an open device does not automatically mean insecure.

Proper security controls should work even if the schematics are open. If they don’t, that is a security defect whose ownership falls under the manufacturer.

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

#558

Post by shard »

zepto wrote: post #538
fsflover wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reread the thread. In this thread, the OP is speaking about design obsolescence.

> Reread the thread. In this thread, the OP is speaking about design obsolescence. I don’t need to reread it. My response applies to design obsolescence. Relatively few people upgrade every year these days. The fact that the old devices are still desirable negates the idea that people don’t want them because they look outdated . I.e. changes in design are not causing people to stop using the devices. For design obsol…

I don't think what you are stating is the definition for planned obsolescence. For example, even though there is a used car market, the fact that someone upgrades their car due to fashion means it's planned obsolescence. In fact, that's where the term was born.

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

#559

Post by jpttsn »

hilbert42 wrote: post #534
jpttsn wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the better performance of computers now. If lower repairability is a way to pay for that, that’s great.

"If lower repairability is a way to pay for that, that’s great.' You are implying the two concepts are incompatible. There is no reason why they should be other than a manufacturer's planned obsolescence strategy, which is what the Right to Repair movement is all about and fighting to fix.

Assuming there's planned obsolescence, it will make the manufacturer money. This money lets them build better products, stay in business longer, et.c.

If Apple made a repairable iPhone with the same profit margins and specs, I'm guessing it would have to be more expensive. I would have to pay for this, even though I don't want to repair my stuff (I just buy new stuff when it breaks).

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

#560

Post by fsflover »

zepto wrote: post #461
joshspankit wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately we can no longer look at court decisions as arguments either way. Large companies simply settle out of court in order to silence the facts. - If they are wrong and are successful in getting out of it, they might walk away with a judge "confirming" that they did no wrong. - If they are wrong and the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive, they might write a cheque and walk away. In either case the public…

Large companies and small companies settle out of court when the cost of fighting the battle isn’t worth it - nothing more and nothing less. We can deduce that there as no evidence of intent, since if the plaintiffs had such evidence they wouldn’t have settled for so little. Remember that this was a class action with a huge class, so the settlement amount is diminimis for the plaintiffs but a decent payout for the at…

I am impressed concerning how much you defend Apple. I suggest that you look at my favorites list about them. Maybe it will tell you that they aren't as good as would like to think.
Post reply on HN