3 ms·

> Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years. This means generating a vast amount of e-waste and increasing the cost

by zepto 6y ago

> Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years. This means generating a vast amount of e-waste and increasing the cost of units. Since Apple doesn’t make the components themselves, they would have to warehouse a supply of spares.

avianlyric 6y ago
Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell. Asking them to make that supply publicly available does not strike me as a huge ask. Hell they could derive the supply from their recycling efforts they’re always showing off as WWDC. Also how does providing spare parts result in huge amounts of e-waste, that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell. This is not relevant. Nobody is forcing them to do these repairs. When the parts are no longer available, they stop doing them. > The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken. Yes, and it may well be a counterproductive scheme that doesn’t work as intended. 1. You need to warehouse components to comply with the law, or continue to make otherwise redundant components, which means maintaining outdated industrial plant. 2. Devices with replaceable components have to be made in a more complex way that is more liable to break, costing more up front, and more in repairs. There is no real problem with some hugh pile of slightly broken iPhones that are being wasted. The real problem is the huge number of working iPhones that are too outdated to run modern software. If we need a law, it is one that requires manufacturers to make a bootcamp equivalent for devices at the end of their software support cycle, so all the still working devices can continue to be useful.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
What absurdity? By this logic we wouldn't repair cars either 'to reduce waste'
- zepto 6y ago
  Cars and computers are quite different in terms of their components and life-cycles.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Pleaae demonstrate at least one occasion where making a device repairable increased waste
    - zepto 6y ago
      Android phones are much more repairable e.g. with replaceable batteries and non-drm parts. Despite this, they have have less than half the useful lifetime of an iPhone, and so generate much more waste.
      - tpxl 6y ago
        They may have a lower useful lifetime, but that is completely unrelated to their repairability.
        zepto 6y ago
        This is false. iPhones are built to last longer by being more physically integrated, and the trade off is that they are less repairable.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        This is complete fantasy, there is no evidence that iphones are more physically resillient that a $150 crappy android phone. I asked for evidence, not talking mumbobo-jumbo out of your rear

by zepto 6y ago

avianlyric 6y ago

Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell. Asking them to make that supply publicly available does not strike me as a huge ask. Hell they could derive the supply from their recycling efforts they’re always showing off as WWDC. Also how does providing spare parts result in huge amounts of e-waste, that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken.

zepto 6y ago
> Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell. This is not relevant. Nobody is forcing them to do these repairs. When the parts are no longer available, they stop doing them. > The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken. Yes, and it may well be a counterproductive scheme that doesn’t work as intended. 1. You need to warehouse components to comply with the law, or continue to make otherwise redundant components, which means maintaining outdated industrial plant. 2. Devices with replaceable components have to be made in a more complex way that is more liable to break, costing more up front, and more in repairs. There is no real problem with some hugh pile of slightly broken iPhones that are being wasted. The real problem is the huge number of working iPhones that are too outdated to run modern software. If we need a law, it is one that requires manufacturers to make a bootcamp equivalent for devices at the end of their software support cycle, so all the still working devices can continue to be useful.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

What absurdity? By this logic we wouldn't repair cars either 'to reduce waste'

zepto 6y ago
Cars and computers are quite different in terms of their components and life-cycles.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Pleaae demonstrate at least one occasion where making a device repairable increased waste
  - zepto 6y ago
    Android phones are much more repairable e.g. with replaceable batteries and non-drm parts. Despite this, they have have less than half the useful lifetime of an iPhone, and so generate much more waste.
    - tpxl 6y ago
      They may have a lower useful lifetime, but that is completely unrelated to their repairability.
      - zepto 6y ago
        This is false. iPhones are built to last longer by being more physically integrated, and the trade off is that they are less repairable.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        This is complete fantasy, there is no evidence that iphones are more physically resillient that a $150 crappy android phone. I asked for evidence, not talking mumbobo-jumbo out of your rear