5 ms·

Heh. How do I lobby to oppose this? I don't want bulkier, thicker and uglier devices just so I can open them, because I have no interest in doing so. And I defi

by ahbyb 7y ago

Heh. How do I lobby to oppose this? I don't want bulkier, thicker and uglier devices just so I can open them, because I have no interest in doing so. And I definitely don't want this written into law...

AlexDragusin 7y ago
On the contrary, devices can be made thin and sleek while being repairable. Seems the marketing has worked wonders in making some people believe that thin and sleek can only be achieved by sacrificing repair-ability. This is not just an issue of corporations greed but an issue of efficient use of finite resources on this planet.
- ahbyb 7y ago
  >On the contrary, devices can be made thin and sleek while being repairable. I'll believe it when I see it. Thus far all easily repairable mobile phones I've seen were ugly and bulky compared to normal phones.
  - AlexDragusin 7y ago
    Of course, you won't see it until the makers get their shit together. Why else would they glue things such that one can't replace even some cheap component and instead having to buy a new phone? For now the ruse brings the loot, as with everything, it goes in waves, this shall pass and we shall eventually get to a stage where we will find balance in this matter. Currently, the battery is what pretty much limits the device profile. All the miniaturization achieved on the components should actually aid in nice, modular design that allows replacement of particular faulty part (if you can deglue the whole thing first).
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Take a look at this list then: https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability?sort=score https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability?sort=score You'll see plenty of nice devices scoring high marks. You'll also find comparable competitors scoring low mark. Lack of repairability is mostly a choice - an active choice. Browsing the low scores on the list I linked to, you'll see that companies do extra work to reduce repairability, sometimes with express purpose of just making things harder to repair. There are no technical reasons why so many devices are not repairable. There is only moral bankrupcy at institutional level, and lack of regulation that would force the market players to stop behaving antisocially.
    - ahbyb 7y ago
      I've looked at the list and all the devices there are thick (like, 2009-level thick) and have huge bezels.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Look closer. Not just at maximum score, but at the spectrum. You can see e.g. iPhones scoring 7 and (for the last two years) 6 out of 10, whereas Samsung Galaxy phones went from 8/10 (S4) to 3/10 (S10) or even 2/10 (Fold). This list is nice demonstrator that looks have very little to do with repairability.
  - jotm 7y ago
    iPhone 4. And probably 5. I've only ever opened a couple of iPhone 4 and 4s, but they were definitely way more repair friendly than an S8 or a HTC One. And does 1mm under 9mm even matter? Maybe if you're one of those who claim a 15 inch laptop will break your back lol
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    Lg v20 is slim enough and can be serviced and opened easily.
rzzzt 7y ago
Is there really no way to manufacture thin and light devices with screws instead of glueing parts together? Do standardized connectors also stand in the way of innovation?
- KozmoNau7 7y ago
  A screw and the attendant material to secure that screw into takes up more space than a bit of glue, and—crucially—is more expensive, both in regards to manufacturing and assembly.
  - rzzzt 7y ago
    It is only more expensive if one doesn't factor in the "toll" a non-working, unrepairable, yet sleek device takes on the environment.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Reason #74656 why we desperately need emission taxing.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    More expensive? Thats very marginal additional cost. Screws cost close to nothing.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Standards, (almost?) by definition, do stand in the way of innovation. Think about the standard represented by the micro-USB for low voltage charging and data connection. If we standardized on power connections in 1990, we'd have barrel jacks on many things instead of micro-USB. For that matter, if we standardized on USB connectors in 1996, our phones might all have giant USB type-B connectors on them. Can't go against the standard, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#/media/File:USB_Type-B_receptacle.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#/media/File:USB_Type-B_rec...
simion314 7y ago
This laws are not targeted only at smatphones or laptops. You do not need a washing machine to be slicker or use some cheap parts so the manufacturer gains 2$ .I would pay those extra 2$ so I get better screws then plastic ones or glue. Also I have a pump that has a part that breaks 2 times a year and I have to replace that part. I would pay 2 times more on the part if it break 2 times less often, If my pump was made by Apple I would have to send it far away and wait 1 month to have it fixed.
- a3n 7y ago
  > If my pump was made by Apple I would have to send it far away and wait 1 month to have it fixed. Or be told you're holding it wrong.

by ahbyb 7y ago

AlexDragusin 7y ago

On the contrary, devices can be made thin and sleek while being repairable. Seems the marketing has worked wonders in making some people believe that thin and sleek can only be achieved by sacrificing repair-ability. This is not just an issue of corporations greed but an issue of efficient use of finite resources on this planet.

ahbyb 7y ago
>On the contrary, devices can be made thin and sleek while being repairable. I'll believe it when I see it. Thus far all easily repairable mobile phones I've seen were ugly and bulky compared to normal phones.
- AlexDragusin 7y ago
  Of course, you won't see it until the makers get their shit together. Why else would they glue things such that one can't replace even some cheap component and instead having to buy a new phone? For now the ruse brings the loot, as with everything, it goes in waves, this shall pass and we shall eventually get to a stage where we will find balance in this matter. Currently, the battery is what pretty much limits the device profile. All the miniaturization achieved on the components should actually aid in nice, modular design that allows replacement of particular faulty part (if you can deglue the whole thing first).
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Take a look at this list then: https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability?sort=score https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability?sort=score You'll see plenty of nice devices scoring high marks. You'll also find comparable competitors scoring low mark. Lack of repairability is mostly a choice - an active choice. Browsing the low scores on the list I linked to, you'll see that companies do extra work to reduce repairability, sometimes with express purpose of just making things harder to repair. There are no technical reasons why so many devices are not repairable. There is only moral bankrupcy at institutional level, and lack of regulation that would force the market players to stop behaving antisocially.
  - ahbyb 7y ago
    I've looked at the list and all the devices there are thick (like, 2009-level thick) and have huge bezels.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Look closer. Not just at maximum score, but at the spectrum. You can see e.g. iPhones scoring 7 and (for the last two years) 6 out of 10, whereas Samsung Galaxy phones went from 8/10 (S4) to 3/10 (S10) or even 2/10 (Fold). This list is nice demonstrator that looks have very little to do with repairability.
- jotm 7y ago
  iPhone 4. And probably 5. I've only ever opened a couple of iPhone 4 and 4s, but they were definitely way more repair friendly than an S8 or a HTC One. And does 1mm under 9mm even matter? Maybe if you're one of those who claim a 15 inch laptop will break your back lol
- ekianjo 7y ago
  Lg v20 is slim enough and can be serviced and opened easily.

rzzzt 7y ago

Is there really no way to manufacture thin and light devices with screws instead of glueing parts together? Do standardized connectors also stand in the way of innovation?

KozmoNau7 7y ago
A screw and the attendant material to secure that screw into takes up more space than a bit of glue, and—crucially—is more expensive, both in regards to manufacturing and assembly.
- rzzzt 7y ago
  It is only more expensive if one doesn't factor in the "toll" a non-working, unrepairable, yet sleek device takes on the environment.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Reason #74656 why we desperately need emission taxing.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ekianjo 7y ago
  More expensive? Thats very marginal additional cost. Screws cost close to nothing.
sokoloff 7y ago
Standards, (almost?) by definition, do stand in the way of innovation. Think about the standard represented by the micro-USB for low voltage charging and data connection. If we standardized on power connections in 1990, we'd have barrel jacks on many things instead of micro-USB. For that matter, if we standardized on USB connectors in 1996, our phones might all have giant USB type-B connectors on them. Can't go against the standard, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#/media/File:USB_Type-B_receptacle.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#/media/File:USB_Type-B_rec...

simion314 7y ago

This laws are not targeted only at smatphones or laptops. You do not need a washing machine to be slicker or use some cheap parts so the manufacturer gains 2$ .I would pay those extra 2$ so I get better screws then plastic ones or glue. Also I have a pump that has a part that breaks 2 times a year and I have to replace that part. I would pay 2 times more on the part if it break 2 times less often, If my pump was made by Apple I would have to send it far away and wait 1 month to have it fixed.

a3n 7y ago
> If my pump was made by Apple I would have to send it far away and wait 1 month to have it fixed. Or be told you're holding it wrong.