3 ms·

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

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.

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.