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

One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

columbianewsservice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 562 posts

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#411

Post by 8bitsrule »

ksec wrote: post #330
Terretta wrote: post #60

I genuinely do not want repairability anywhere near the top of the list of performance and design trade offs. Ruggedness, longevity, sure. Avoiding need to repair, definitely. Repairability? Other concerns, things that change the day-to-day use of the device, should weigh more. Spent too many years as a full service PC network support small business to ever again want to deal with parts that aren’t actually attached…

I agree I dont care about reparability by third party as long as the devices is literally made indestructible . But If it cant be made that way, why the trade offs? Why should I loss all my Data on MacBook when its CPU, GPU, or logic board has a problem? Why does repairing a keyboard require replacing the half of the laptop. And why are these repair so expensive. It is all about balance. And a lot of these balance in…

IMO, the balance in Apple disintegrated when Woz left.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#412

Post by shagie »

cgearhart wrote: post #231
xyst wrote: post #82

Apple's fight against right to repair while pushing materials to the public that state they are trying to reduce their carbon footprint is the absolute peak of hypocrisy. I understand the closed off design of their products is a result of the Steve Jobs era, but why can't the current leadership make a change? Why can't Apple make their products easily repairable while making them aesthetically pleasing? The typical "…

I used to work as a civil service engineer for the Navy in technology development for future weapons. The brass would often complain about how expensive fully-integrated solutions were. We investigated and found that the main cause was vendor lock-in to buy the all up rounds. We couldn’t compete for lowest cost on the power cards, or signal processing cards, rocket motors, etc., because the government didn’t have dat…

For the military, right to repair is one of those areas where I think there is an especially good use case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/opinion/military-right-to...

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/even-the-american-military... is a later article that references back to the NYT opinion piece.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#413

Post by moron4hire »

have_faith wrote: post #270
moron4hire wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line "it has undermined his credibility" changes it from just a comment on personal opinion to an attack.

That's a pretty low bar.

"I didn't say you are in fact an asshole. I said--in my opinion--you act like an asshole. So you can't call that an attack."

I grew up seeing plenty of this kind of passive-aggressive language lawyering. It doesn't change anything.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#414

Post by asdff »

kewrkewm53 wrote: post #134
xyst wrote: post #82

Apple's fight against right to repair while pushing materials to the public that state they are trying to reduce their carbon footprint is the absolute peak of hypocrisy. I understand the closed off design of their products is a result of the Steve Jobs era, but why can't the current leadership make a change? Why can't Apple make their products easily repairable while making them aesthetically pleasing? The typical "…

Funnily enough Macbooks were way more repairable when Jobs was still alive. Apple seems to be getting only worse each passing year.

It was such a different philosophy back then even just 10 years ago. The RAM modules were easy to access and work with. The battery could be accessed with your finger and a latch, because it was assumed users would need a new battery in a few years. The HD was also accessible from this same door, because it was assumed users would be upgrading to an SSD in a few years. Users were given all the IO Apple thought they would possibly need.

Then Tim Cook came to power and let Jony Ive have free reign of the glue and the solder iron, and Macbooks became disposable.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#415

Post by danShumway »

slver wrote: post #264
bogwog wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither "right to repair" nor my original comment advocate for being able to repair your own devices at home. Did you read that part?

It's honestly hard to understand what our discussion is about at this point. I stated initially Rossman is fighting about his ability to buy working parts and doing repair. Now turns out you agree with that. So, I guess that's all.

The disagreement is over whether your point changes anything at all about the right to repair movement.

Okay, let's say Rossman is fighting for his own ability to do repair. So? That's what we want. Every consumer benefits if there's a competitive repair industry. In particular the people who can't do their own repairs at home benefit from a competitive 3rd-party repair industry.

Giving Apple a monopoly over its repair process is bad for consumers. It's bad overall no matter what Apple devices look like, but it's particularly bad if the devices are difficult or impossible to repair at home. The fact that consumer devices are getting harder to repair is exactly why third-party repair shops are so important, and exactly why Rossman's goals align with those of the average consumer. Because as devices get harder to repair, it becomes more important that consumers have access to a wide range of professionals that can do those repairs.

I think you're getting pushback because you keep refusing to engage with the arguments that people are making, repeating "the age of generic parts is over", and then acting like that changes something about the current situation. It doesn't. You seem to be missing the connecting logic between your own point and the surrounding debate about right to repair.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#416

Post by waheoo »

Nextgrid wrote: post #213
paulgerhardt wrote: post #208

Living in Shenzhen, it’s shocking how easy it is to go out and repair stuff. Living in Palo Alto, it’s frustrating how hard it is. I’m thinking maybe, just maybe, introducing repairability laws won’t solve the problem. I am perfectly happy upgrading the memory on my MacBook Air with a reflow air station rather than swapping out some dims if it means my laptop is half as thick and twice as rugged. I’m also just as hap…

The reason it can be done in China is because those shops illegally obtain the parts (whether counterfeit or stolen, since Apple won't intentionally sell them to anyone) and resources (schematics, software, etc) to be able to do so. This situation is both good and bad. Stolen parts are good, in the sense that this grey market at least allows consumers to repair devices cost-effectively. It's also bad, because besides…

They're mostly extracted from broken screen phones that are otherwise perfectly working.

They're not stolen. But carry on pushing apples narrative that they own everything even after its sold.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#417

Post by shagie »

simion314 wrote: post #51
judge2020 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my opinion is that device makers should be allowed to make things unrepairable in design, but not in post-sale scarcity. The new macbook airs probably could have been just a tad thicker if they included modular ram and a m.2 ssd, but some consumers (and reviewers) really do like to chase thinness and will chastise Apple to continue to try to make their products as thin as a sheet of paper.

>but some consumers (and reviewers) really do like to chase thinness Honestly Apple started the thinness fetish, so IMO the reality is like this Apple pushes thinness fetish -> Reviewers and fanboys are now corrupted and will flaunt the size of their camera and thinness of the device.

You mean the Motorola Razr? and arguably the StarTAC.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#418

Post by lotsofpulp »

_dps wrote: post #405
lotsofpulp wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If $2/hr vs $10/hr is indeed the thing preventing repair being economical , that seems like it can be fixed with a mixture of incentives, apprenticeship contracts, and elevating the social status of "vocational education" (the name exists IMO only to serve as status-lowering). That incentive is the $x per hour. And the low $x per hour relative to quality of life is what causes the status lowering. Status is not low…

I think you've misunderstood what I meant; I mean incentives for businesses to pay their people more (or to offer something like apprenticeships). As for status not being lowered by words, we'll have to agree to disagree. No one in practice (in the US) calls medical school "vocational school" precisely because it is a phrase associated with lower status work in the trades.

Yes, people use vocational school to refer to schooling that requires less time, cost, and generally has lower barriers to entry. This results in a higher supply relative to demand, resulting in lower prices for the labor, and that is the causative factor for lower “status”.

You can change the name from vocational school to Nobel school or whatever, but as long as people are not earning high wages, it is not going to change any perceptions of “status”.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#419

Post by swiley »

pembrook wrote: post #406
xyst wrote: post #82

Apple's fight against right to repair while pushing materials to the public that state they are trying to reduce their carbon footprint is the absolute peak of hypocrisy. I understand the closed off design of their products is a result of the Steve Jobs era, but why can't the current leadership make a change? Why can't Apple make their products easily repairable while making them aesthetically pleasing? The typical "…

It's because they can see the bigger picture, beyond these 2010s-era complaints of 'user-upgradable RAM.' This is totally irrelevant in a SOC world. Apple is indeed reducing the carbon footprint of computer manufacturing, by consolidating more and more components on a single chip (SOC) with M1, and creating smaller and smaller hardware. There's a ridiculous amount of carbon footprint saved by not having to source, sh…

Yeah no that's bullshit. (and a change of subject)

We're not asking for modular connectors (although those are nice) or larger competents. we're asking Apple (and everyone imitating them) to stop artificially preventing people from replacing parts (either via deals with suppliers that prevent people from buying them or via software lockouts.)

People do surface mount rework all the time (I think the guy TFA is talking about is the same that inspired me to learn how to do it.)

Not having to throw stuff away because a single component that could otherwise be replaced is a huge gain for the environment (especially people in places that ewaste accumulates) and doesn't have to come at the expense of size reduction.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#420

Post by lmm »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #392
walrus01 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mentally make a distinction between "counterfeit" products which are actually authentic and good quality, unlikely to hurt the consumer, but arguably cause some harm to apple's IP, and "counterfeit" products which are actually poor quality clones made by inferior production lines. It's unfortunate that the same term is used for both. Presumably a high volume and skilled third party repair shop and its purchasing pe…

The term counterfeit is here being used by some people to mean 'genuine parts sold off-license', which is much more like a bootleg copy [1]. That is, it's the same item sold off-license. To some extent words mean what people who use them intend to mean, but in my opinion we shouldn't be calling parts from the same production line counterfeit , because the word implies forgery .[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boo…

> To some extent words mean what people who use them intend to mean, but in my opinion we shouldn't be calling parts from the same production line counterfeit, because the word implies forgery.[2]

If they had a particular QC standard marking, but had not been manufactured in accordance with that level of QC, that would be forgery, right?

If they bear the trademark of a company that demands certain QC standards, but were produced without those checks, it seems like the same thing in a way.

Post reply on HN