6 ms·

> I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. Why

> I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. Why not? > I'd rather see legislation that ensures when a piece of tech reaches the end of its useful lifetime it can be submitted back to the manufacturer and properly recycled at no cost to the user. It is always and exclusively at the cost of the user?

duado 8y ago
Making something that’s easy to take apart often makes it bigger, because interfaces need to be modularized. I’ve never needed to open one of my iPhones and would not want them 1mm thicker to be repairable.
- Zarath 8y ago
  Maybe you've never needed to open your iphone because it would serve no purpose. If I could upgrade my old iphone by taking it apart, I wouldn't have bought a new one in the first place...
  - abalone 8y ago
    You don’t have to buy a new iPhone to replace the battery, so presumably you’re imagining upgrading the processors, camera, sensors or some other aspect of the iPhone. Those components are so tightly integrated and custom fitted in each iteration of the device that it is technically impossible to “upgrade” them independently.
- dustindiamond 8y ago
  Do you use a 4s for its minimalist size?
  - duado 8y ago
    SE.
- simion314 8y ago
  Would you honestly be inconvenienced by the extra 1mm ? You could get the ability to replace your battery or screen on reasonable prices,
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Making something that’s easy to take apart often makes it bigger, because interfaces need to be modularized. So, you can still make it mandatory where you don't need to make things bigger?
  - iguy 8y ago
    But who decides? There is going to be a ministry of "did it need to be so compact?" staffed by disinterested experts? I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      That's the opposite of what the comment meant. The suggestion is that where it doesn't change the size/quality you mandate easier disassembly. Next to zero subjectivity.
      - iguy 8y ago
        Yes I got that. But my point is that this involves second-guessing every design decision. You propose some new design which is more compact / easier to manufacture / more reliable because it has fewer connectors, and then you take it to the ministry for approval. How do they know whether your changes are justified? Maybe they sketch an easier-to-disassemble variant which is no bigger than yours, and reject your design, but they don't understand the why it will cost you twice as much to assemble that design (in your factory, with your workforce) or why you rejected that kind of connector (your experience with the supplier, or your vibration tests). Can you prove why you made these decisions? Call expert witnesses? This just seems like an impossible minefield to me. I think better to tilt the balance in other ways, like pushing longer guarantees (regardless of whether the best solution is an unbreakable one-piece object, or a repairable one) and forcing recycling (so that the sticker price includes more of the total lifecycle cost).
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > But who decides? Well, I dunno, but that's a question with every law, and thus not exactly an argument by itself? > I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying. But why would there need to be micro-management?
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  I once had a Mazda 6. In order replace the PCV valve one has to remove the manifold. A ten minutes job on any other car was a couple hours in this one. They didn't make it easy just because I have the right to repair it myself. You shouldn't have to deal with an extra mm and all the inconvenience that comes along with it just to support my right to replace the battery.
kevinherron 8y ago
> > I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. > Why not? Because, 1) I personally don't care about this. 2) More important than 1, I don't think the law/government has any business deciding this. The market can decide (spoiler: it already has).
- simion314 8y ago
  Did the free markets ended slavery in US or under-age working? I remember many good things had to be forced with laws and not let to be decided by the big companies.
  - kevinherron 8y ago
    Are you equating the "injustice" of not being able replace the battery in your iPhone with that of slavery?
    - simion314 8y ago
      No, I am invalidating the point of "Free markets" solve things, so you can ignore the slavery and put other things free markets did not solve like pollution,cigarettes etc but I assume someone would bring the excuse that the goverment was at fault all along and free markets were not free.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    > Did the free markets ended slavery in US In a very oblique manner it did. Industrialization (which was very much a product of free markets) of the Northern States made the economics of slavery untenable in the North. Once people were not as blinded by profits, they could actually see that slavery was a moral evil. In the South, the economics were very different and therefore a lot of rationalizations were formed as to why slavery was not that evil. In addition, Industrialization enabled larger population growth in the North as well as larger production. This is what gave the Union the advantage in manpower and material that allowed the North to win the Civil War.

duado 8y ago

Making something that’s easy to take apart often makes it bigger, because interfaces need to be modularized. I’ve never needed to open one of my iPhones and would not want them 1mm thicker to be repairable.

Zarath 8y ago
Maybe you've never needed to open your iphone because it would serve no purpose. If I could upgrade my old iphone by taking it apart, I wouldn't have bought a new one in the first place...
- abalone 8y ago
  You don’t have to buy a new iPhone to replace the battery, so presumably you’re imagining upgrading the processors, camera, sensors or some other aspect of the iPhone. Those components are so tightly integrated and custom fitted in each iteration of the device that it is technically impossible to “upgrade” them independently.
dustindiamond 8y ago
Do you use a 4s for its minimalist size?
- duado 8y ago
  SE.
simion314 8y ago
Would you honestly be inconvenienced by the extra 1mm ? You could get the ability to replace your battery or screen on reasonable prices,
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Making something that’s easy to take apart often makes it bigger, because interfaces need to be modularized. So, you can still make it mandatory where you don't need to make things bigger?
- iguy 8y ago
  But who decides? There is going to be a ministry of "did it need to be so compact?" staffed by disinterested experts? I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    That's the opposite of what the comment meant. The suggestion is that where it doesn't change the size/quality you mandate easier disassembly. Next to zero subjectivity.
    - iguy 8y ago
      Yes I got that. But my point is that this involves second-guessing every design decision. You propose some new design which is more compact / easier to manufacture / more reliable because it has fewer connectors, and then you take it to the ministry for approval. How do they know whether your changes are justified? Maybe they sketch an easier-to-disassemble variant which is no bigger than yours, and reject your design, but they don't understand the why it will cost you twice as much to assemble that design (in your factory, with your workforce) or why you rejected that kind of connector (your experience with the supplier, or your vibration tests). Can you prove why you made these decisions? Call expert witnesses? This just seems like an impossible minefield to me. I think better to tilt the balance in other ways, like pushing longer guarantees (regardless of whether the best solution is an unbreakable one-piece object, or a repairable one) and forcing recycling (so that the sticker price includes more of the total lifecycle cost).
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > But who decides? Well, I dunno, but that's a question with every law, and thus not exactly an argument by itself? > I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying. But why would there need to be micro-management?
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
I once had a Mazda 6. In order replace the PCV valve one has to remove the manifold. A ten minutes job on any other car was a couple hours in this one. They didn't make it easy just because I have the right to repair it myself. You shouldn't have to deal with an extra mm and all the inconvenience that comes along with it just to support my right to replace the battery.

kevinherron 8y ago

> > I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. > Why not? Because, 1) I personally don't care about this. 2) More important than 1, I don't think the law/government has any business deciding this. The market can decide (spoiler: it already has).

simion314 8y ago
Did the free markets ended slavery in US or under-age working? I remember many good things had to be forced with laws and not let to be decided by the big companies.
- kevinherron 8y ago
  Are you equating the "injustice" of not being able replace the battery in your iPhone with that of slavery?
  - simion314 8y ago
    No, I am invalidating the point of "Free markets" solve things, so you can ignore the slavery and put other things free markets did not solve like pollution,cigarettes etc but I assume someone would bring the excuse that the goverment was at fault all along and free markets were not free.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  > Did the free markets ended slavery in US In a very oblique manner it did. Industrialization (which was very much a product of free markets) of the Northern States made the economics of slavery untenable in the North. Once people were not as blinded by profits, they could actually see that slavery was a moral evil. In the South, the economics were very different and therefore a lot of rationalizations were formed as to why slavery was not that evil. In addition, Industrialization enabled larger population growth in the North as well as larger production. This is what gave the Union the advantage in manpower and material that allowed the North to win the Civil War.