3 ms·

Not OP, but I’m guessing they were referring to the drastically higher costs involved in actually opening, diagnosing, and replacing a part in something as comp

Not OP, but I’m guessing they were referring to the drastically higher costs involved in actually opening, diagnosing, and replacing a part in something as complex and intricate as an iPhone. Since it will be prohibitively expensive to take your phone to a store and have someone actually do that (ie: repair it), instead the rule will amount to some complex and less-than-ideal alternative where you can turn in your phone and get a refurbished one instead... They then “recycle” your old broken phone - ship it back somewhere with significantly cheaper labor (and less strict disposal regulations) where they do some very basic component harvesting (such as screens and storage for those refurbs) and then melt down or simply trash the rest. In the end you still can’t actually repair your old device (and really, that’s often just an unrealistic expectation this day in time, they’re just too small and complex) and we’ve just institutionalized a wasteful system to make ourselves feel better.

anoncake 7y ago
That's absurd. The plan is to make devices repairable. Current devices not being repairable is the problem being solved. What you've described is the status quo.
- chrismeller 7y ago
  Riighhttt, but you missed the part where they aren’t repairable for a reason. If you want your iPhone to be the size of an old bag phone then it can probably be repairable by any idiot with a screwdriver and soldering iron. If you want to keep it the size of something that fits in your pocket, that’s just not going to happen unless you’re fine with it doing the exact same things as a phone from 20 years ago did. I don’t think you’d be willing to pay $1200 for a smart phone that only makes calls just because you could replace every part in it.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Stop the strawmanning please.
- 0x4477 7y ago
  Instead of dictating an arbitrary and likely unrealistic featureset via government force, we can all vote with our wallets and not buy phones that aren't repairable. Clearly, the demand for repairable phones is not sufficiently high to sway people from buying ones that are not repairable, and, more importantly, it may not be possible to make a phone meaningfully repairable with how small delicate technology in phones is nowadays. Not to mention, how do we determine what level of repairability is sufficient, and by what metric? What parts should be interchangeable? Battery and camera? Should we merely make the phone's case easy to open? Why is any one or a combination of these things something that consumers are entitled to and need to have protected by law?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > Instead of dictating an arbitrary and likely unrealistic featureset via government force, Strawman. > we can all vote with our wallets and not buy phones that aren't repairable. "Voting with one's wallet" just doesn't work. > Clearly, the demand for repairable phones is not sufficiently high to sway people from buying ones that are not repairable, Yes, that's the problem. > and, more importantly, it may not be possible to make a phone meaningfully repairable with how small delicate technology in phones is nowadays. Then the technology has to get bigger again. It's called a trade-off. > Not to mention, how do we determine what level of repairability is sufficient, and by what metric? What parts should be interchangeable? Battery and camera? Should we merely make the phone's case easy to open? It's almost as if making decisions involved making decisions. What's your point? > Why is any one or a combination of these things something that consumers are entitled to and need to have protected by law? That's in the article. Besides, "because they (resp. their elected representatives) want" is a perfectly valid and sufficient reason.
himinlomax 7y ago
I meant the exact opposite. Recycling is inefficient. Repair requires skill, but is possible, energy-conserving as well as reduces pollution generally. See Louis Rossmann.

anoncake 7y ago

That's absurd. The plan is to make devices repairable. Current devices not being repairable is the problem being solved. What you've described is the status quo.

chrismeller 7y ago
Riighhttt, but you missed the part where they aren’t repairable for a reason. If you want your iPhone to be the size of an old bag phone then it can probably be repairable by any idiot with a screwdriver and soldering iron. If you want to keep it the size of something that fits in your pocket, that’s just not going to happen unless you’re fine with it doing the exact same things as a phone from 20 years ago did. I don’t think you’d be willing to pay $1200 for a smart phone that only makes calls just because you could replace every part in it.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Stop the strawmanning please.
0x4477 7y ago
Instead of dictating an arbitrary and likely unrealistic featureset via government force, we can all vote with our wallets and not buy phones that aren't repairable. Clearly, the demand for repairable phones is not sufficiently high to sway people from buying ones that are not repairable, and, more importantly, it may not be possible to make a phone meaningfully repairable with how small delicate technology in phones is nowadays. Not to mention, how do we determine what level of repairability is sufficient, and by what metric? What parts should be interchangeable? Battery and camera? Should we merely make the phone's case easy to open? Why is any one or a combination of these things something that consumers are entitled to and need to have protected by law?
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Instead of dictating an arbitrary and likely unrealistic featureset via government force, Strawman. > we can all vote with our wallets and not buy phones that aren't repairable. "Voting with one's wallet" just doesn't work. > Clearly, the demand for repairable phones is not sufficiently high to sway people from buying ones that are not repairable, Yes, that's the problem. > and, more importantly, it may not be possible to make a phone meaningfully repairable with how small delicate technology in phones is nowadays. Then the technology has to get bigger again. It's called a trade-off. > Not to mention, how do we determine what level of repairability is sufficient, and by what metric? What parts should be interchangeable? Battery and camera? Should we merely make the phone's case easy to open? It's almost as if making decisions involved making decisions. What's your point? > Why is any one or a combination of these things something that consumers are entitled to and need to have protected by law? That's in the article. Besides, "because they (resp. their elected representatives) want" is a perfectly valid and sufficient reason.

himinlomax 7y ago

I meant the exact opposite. Recycling is inefficient. Repair requires skill, but is possible, energy-conserving as well as reduces pollution generally. See Louis Rossmann.