3 ms·

The commercial sector to produce some products with longevity and ease of repair as features.

• protomyth 16y ago
  The commercial sector has learned that certain product segments are filled with people who are not "into" the product (e.g. a lamp is a lamp). Thus, Wal-Mart-type stores rule. Most people buying these products do not make their decisions based on longevity or ease of repair. Motorola has actually been honest enough about this to tell you to buy from someone else.
  • harry 16y ago
    I appreciate that Motorola is honest. It is still a PITA to tell a distant in-law/customer/acquaintance that I can't fix THEIR phone because of some dumb thing the company decided 2 years ago and has since replaced and forgotten about. The Moto decision is just a tiny thing that probably won't affect much in the grand scheme of things. I just have an issue with the fundamentals. It's a hot button issue for me. ^_^
    • protomyth 16y ago
      An honest question, what does this decision prevent you from fixing?
  • ori_b 16y ago
    Everyone loses with this, though. Motorola loses because their devices are more expensive and take more effort to manufacture. Apathetic consumers lose because the devices are more expensive and geeks are less likely to be inclined to improve the ecosystem. And geeks lose because the devices are more expensive and harder to hack. It makes no good sense for Motorola to burn cash on making their phones harder to hack when they don't need to - it's only managerial paranoia that leads to this, as best I can tell.
    • protomyth 16y ago
      Motorola is not loosing money on this. They have accounting numbers that tell them that having a modifiable device ups their support cost. People without the real technical ability or (worse) people with no technical ability that have friends/relatives who do the 'upgrade' for them cost money in support. The difference in manufacturing cost over the production run is insignificant (i.e. they are not increasing the end-user cost based on this change). Companies like Motorola know most of their customers are apathetic to the needs of hackers and look to the bottom line. Apps will still run on the phone, so customers will still have that. This is a win for Motorola in the market they serve.
      • wdewind 16y ago
        Definitely. Ultimately the consumer pays less because of this.
      • angusgr 16y ago
        I'd be interested to see some proof that this is why this is happening. The best reasons I've read for why Apple is so hard on jailbreaking is (a) carrier agreements not liking unlocks and (b) pirating of apps. I find these reasons a bit more compelling, although like I said I'd like to see more information about it.
• joezydeco 16y ago
  What do you mean by longevity? The ability to reflash phones with the newest releases long after the hardware can't support them? C'mon, everyone jumps to the next shiny thing every 6 months or whenever their contract expires, especially the hackers. What you mean by "ease of repair"? How is the ROM getting busted up that you need to reflash the phone?
  • harry 16y ago
    3 years from now someone's 11 year old kid will be using a technophile uncle's hand me down phone and I'll be asked to repair it when the power connector is worn. A company that creates a device and directly states "buy something else if you want to modify this" probably didn't make that power connector a replaceable part because it was "easier to just affix it with 2cm of glue." It's a fundamental issue with the attitude MOTO is presenting.
    • joezydeco 16y ago
      We're talking about the boot code here, that's all. They didn't embed C4 or toxic nerve gases inside the case if you want to fix Junior's phone years from now. In all likelihood, Junior is going to throw the phone away and get an ad-subsidized Droid 7 for free. Let's face it, all of this hardware is disposable now. Ask your local VCR repairman.
      • dododo 16y ago
        hardware is currently disposable because this is how manufacturers have decided to make money. not so long ago, it seemed common to upgrade your PC: swap in one component, put in another. you're arguing to just buy a new device completely. why do you think throwing away, rather than improving, something that so much energy, material and other resources went into creating, is a good idea?
      • harry 16y ago
        I get what you're saying that this is how it is and that it's an insignificant thing. I'm opposed to making hardware disposable and I see this move as another step in that direction, thus I disagree with what MOTO has done.