5 ms·

Repairability seems like a good goal for sustainability. The challenge on electronics is determining what is a reasonable and useful life for a product. Should

by tims33 5y ago

Repairability seems like a good goal for sustainability. The challenge on electronics is determining what is a reasonable and useful life for a product. Should an iPhone SE or a knockoff Android last and be repairable for a decade? My worry is the regulation will get this wrong. Moderate rules are probably the best way to start.

LegitShady 5y ago
> Moderate rules are probably the best way to start. These changes almost never happen. Whatever change you put the first time is likely the only change that will happen. Starting off with a compromise for fear of 'getting it wrong' is the easiest way to make sure you get it wrong.
- tims33 5y ago
  That is a fair point. I just have visions of becoming cumbersome and limiting.
viktorcode 5y ago
I don't think that repairability is better for sustainability in general, if we are speaking about electronics. Making an electronic device more repairable would make it more complex (again, not in every case, but in general). Where before a manufacturer could just solder numerous components to a single board, now will be arrays of sockets each of which is a new point of possible failure. Glue will be replaced by magnets, clips, etc. which is great for repair, but again, makes device more complex. And still most people will get rid of them after a few years of use. Consumerism is the top enemy of sustainability. Right to repair is a complex endeavour. There will be no simple solutions.
- scrose 5y ago
  > I don't think that repairability is better for sustainability in general Sorry, but what? Being able to repair a device means that you can (and usually will) be able to prevent demand spiking for a brand new device that uses as many or more materials than the last. For starters, imagine a world where vehicles were not repairable. I'd argue that any mass-produced thing benefits from repairability.
  - TideAd 5y ago
    I suspect that a minority of people would choose to repair their old phones even if they were more repairable. When your phone dies, it's a good opportunity to buy something new and more fun. I don't know for sure but I don't think this would stop that much consumption.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > When your phone dies, it's a good opportunity to buy something new If you have infinite money, yes. Most people in the world do not have it. (And if you do not care about the environment, too.)
    - scrose 5y ago
      > I suspect that a minority of people would choose to repair their old phones even if they were more repairable. Repair shops exist for this purpose. I’m not saying every individual will repair their device themself if it breaks. That would be as out of touch as saying most people will just buy a brand new phone anytime theirs has an issue. Making things less repairable means that whether you’re willing to pay someone else or not to fix something, you will be unable to.
    - filleduchaos 5y ago
      The vast majority of people on the planet cannot afford to "buy something new and more fun" every time something of theirs breaks.
- ben-schaaf 5y ago
  > Making an electronic device more repairable would make it more complex (again, not in every case, but in general). Right to repair isn't about forcing manufacturers to make devices more repairable. It's about giving you the right to repair it in the first place. Right now we have paired components that can't even be replaced by genuine parts from a donor device, board components that aren't purchasable by anyone other than the OEM and a complete lack of access to repair documentation from OEMs. Even the most skilled repair technicians in the world with the best equipment money can buy aren't able to repair your device because they can't debug it without documentation, or they've reverse engineered it but can't buy the parts because they're not for sale, or they've taken the parts from another device but they won't function because the OEM software locked them to the device they came from. Linus from Linus Tech Tips said it best: "The vast majority of the opposition to right to repair comes from people who either haven't had it explained to them properly or from folks that are on board with right to repair even though they don't realize it yet" https://youtu.be/nvVafMi0l68?t=91 https://youtu.be/nvVafMi0l68?t=91
- nrp 5y ago
  I get where you're coming from on this, but from a design and manufacturing perspective, it isn't correct. Fairphone has published a pretty extensive lifecycle analysis of their latest device that details the environmental impact of designing for repairability vs the extended life that comes from that change: https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairphone_3_LCA.pdf https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairpho... There's a similar study focused on notebooks that goes into the environmental benefits of extending longevity: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X19301825 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1... Finally, we've spent the last year and a half building a highly repairable notebook at Framework, and it is as robust as any other premium thin and light notebook. I agree with you though that there is a behavioral change required to maximize the benefit. There are many audiences (like a lot of the folks on HN) who are ready to make their devices last longer, but others may need more time to get comfortable with it.
scrose 5y ago
We used to have this right, but it feels like somewhere between 2010-2015, companies realized they could make more money by disallowing simple replacements. I used to make some money as a kid by buying batches of broken Iphone 3G/3GS's on ebay, replacing parts on them, and then re-selling them myself. Practically any part of that device could be replaced in less than 30 minutes with $15 worth of tools. I have a 2012MBP and a 2014MBP that I gave to my family that are still serving their purposes after a few quick(and cheap) battery, RAM and HDD replacements over the years. I don't expect my 2019 MBP to last more than 5 years without costing me at least several hundred dollars more when I inevitably have to bring it to the Apple store for them to fix something that very much used to be user-fixable in a matter of minutes.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  I draw the line at SMDs. We should go back to through-hole components — I can desolder and resolder those. Sorry, I'm not trying to mock you. Just saw an opportunity to be facetious, not facetious. And, actually, to sort of make a point: I don't buy into the idea that companies are intentionally doing this — intentionally disallowing replacement parts, although I maybe just be naive. I do in fact loathe SMDs (as a hobbyist) but I am quite sure that companies have moved to them for non-nefarious reasons as well.
  - jack_h 5y ago
    This is pretty much it. Why do we use a BGA or WLCSP rather than a DIP package? Because we can’t fit a DIP package into the form factor, and manufacturing costs are higher. Why did we glue/epoxy a few components to the board? Because the device needed to pass a drop test such that components aren’t flying off. Why did we ultrasonically weld the enclosure shut? Because we needed IP68 or above rating and the price point we were trying to hit made that the most viable. I don’t necessarily have a problem with right to repair, but a lot of people don’t understand what goes into designing these things and attribute a lack of repairability with malfeasance rather than just the reality of manufacturing, economics, and consumer demands.
    - 5y ago
zepto 5y ago
Regulation of designs will very likely get this wrong, and very harm the environment and drive up costs. However there could easily be regulation of labeling that could help. E.g. mandate display of statistical years of working life, and number of years of software support. At least this way customers would be able to make a choice.
thereddaikon 5y ago
Remember, its reduce, reuse, and recycle in that order for a reason. Companies like Apple and Microsoft love to claim they are green because they put money into recycling old hardware. Except their business model for hardware revolves entirely around Increasing consumption and not reducing it. Its cheaper and better for the environment to maintain electronics than it is to replace them every few years and recycle them. Recycling is far from 100%, especially with electronics. Its not like steel or aluminum where you can just toss scrap into a crucible and get pure ingots on the other end ready to be worked into something useful.

by tims33 5y ago

LegitShady 5y ago

> Moderate rules are probably the best way to start. These changes almost never happen. Whatever change you put the first time is likely the only change that will happen. Starting off with a compromise for fear of 'getting it wrong' is the easiest way to make sure you get it wrong.

tims33 5y ago
That is a fair point. I just have visions of becoming cumbersome and limiting.

viktorcode 5y ago

I don't think that repairability is better for sustainability in general, if we are speaking about electronics. Making an electronic device more repairable would make it more complex (again, not in every case, but in general). Where before a manufacturer could just solder numerous components to a single board, now will be arrays of sockets each of which is a new point of possible failure. Glue will be replaced by magnets, clips, etc. which is great for repair, but again, makes device more complex. And still most people will get rid of them after a few years of use. Consumerism is the top enemy of sustainability. Right to repair is a complex endeavour. There will be no simple solutions.

scrose 5y ago
> I don't think that repairability is better for sustainability in general Sorry, but what? Being able to repair a device means that you can (and usually will) be able to prevent demand spiking for a brand new device that uses as many or more materials than the last. For starters, imagine a world where vehicles were not repairable. I'd argue that any mass-produced thing benefits from repairability.
- TideAd 5y ago
  I suspect that a minority of people would choose to repair their old phones even if they were more repairable. When your phone dies, it's a good opportunity to buy something new and more fun. I don't know for sure but I don't think this would stop that much consumption.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > When your phone dies, it's a good opportunity to buy something new If you have infinite money, yes. Most people in the world do not have it. (And if you do not care about the environment, too.)
  - scrose 5y ago
    > I suspect that a minority of people would choose to repair their old phones even if they were more repairable. Repair shops exist for this purpose. I’m not saying every individual will repair their device themself if it breaks. That would be as out of touch as saying most people will just buy a brand new phone anytime theirs has an issue. Making things less repairable means that whether you’re willing to pay someone else or not to fix something, you will be unable to.
  - filleduchaos 5y ago
    The vast majority of people on the planet cannot afford to "buy something new and more fun" every time something of theirs breaks.
ben-schaaf 5y ago
> Making an electronic device more repairable would make it more complex (again, not in every case, but in general). Right to repair isn't about forcing manufacturers to make devices more repairable. It's about giving you the right to repair it in the first place. Right now we have paired components that can't even be replaced by genuine parts from a donor device, board components that aren't purchasable by anyone other than the OEM and a complete lack of access to repair documentation from OEMs. Even the most skilled repair technicians in the world with the best equipment money can buy aren't able to repair your device because they can't debug it without documentation, or they've reverse engineered it but can't buy the parts because they're not for sale, or they've taken the parts from another device but they won't function because the OEM software locked them to the device they came from. Linus from Linus Tech Tips said it best: "The vast majority of the opposition to right to repair comes from people who either haven't had it explained to them properly or from folks that are on board with right to repair even though they don't realize it yet" https://youtu.be/nvVafMi0l68?t=91 https://youtu.be/nvVafMi0l68?t=91
nrp 5y ago
I get where you're coming from on this, but from a design and manufacturing perspective, it isn't correct. Fairphone has published a pretty extensive lifecycle analysis of their latest device that details the environmental impact of designing for repairability vs the extended life that comes from that change: https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairphone_3_LCA.pdf https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairpho... There's a similar study focused on notebooks that goes into the environmental benefits of extending longevity: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X19301825 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1... Finally, we've spent the last year and a half building a highly repairable notebook at Framework, and it is as robust as any other premium thin and light notebook. I agree with you though that there is a behavioral change required to maximize the benefit. There are many audiences (like a lot of the folks on HN) who are ready to make their devices last longer, but others may need more time to get comfortable with it.

scrose 5y ago

We used to have this right, but it feels like somewhere between 2010-2015, companies realized they could make more money by disallowing simple replacements. I used to make some money as a kid by buying batches of broken Iphone 3G/3GS's on ebay, replacing parts on them, and then re-selling them myself. Practically any part of that device could be replaced in less than 30 minutes with $15 worth of tools. I have a 2012MBP and a 2014MBP that I gave to my family that are still serving their purposes after a few quick(and cheap) battery, RAM and HDD replacements over the years. I don't expect my 2019 MBP to last more than 5 years without costing me at least several hundred dollars more when I inevitably have to bring it to the Apple store for them to fix something that very much used to be user-fixable in a matter of minutes.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
I draw the line at SMDs. We should go back to through-hole components — I can desolder and resolder those. Sorry, I'm not trying to mock you. Just saw an opportunity to be facetious, not facetious. And, actually, to sort of make a point: I don't buy into the idea that companies are intentionally doing this — intentionally disallowing replacement parts, although I maybe just be naive. I do in fact loathe SMDs (as a hobbyist) but I am quite sure that companies have moved to them for non-nefarious reasons as well.
- jack_h 5y ago
  This is pretty much it. Why do we use a BGA or WLCSP rather than a DIP package? Because we can’t fit a DIP package into the form factor, and manufacturing costs are higher. Why did we glue/epoxy a few components to the board? Because the device needed to pass a drop test such that components aren’t flying off. Why did we ultrasonically weld the enclosure shut? Because we needed IP68 or above rating and the price point we were trying to hit made that the most viable. I don’t necessarily have a problem with right to repair, but a lot of people don’t understand what goes into designing these things and attribute a lack of repairability with malfeasance rather than just the reality of manufacturing, economics, and consumer demands.
  - 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

Regulation of designs will very likely get this wrong, and very harm the environment and drive up costs. However there could easily be regulation of labeling that could help. E.g. mandate display of statistical years of working life, and number of years of software support. At least this way customers would be able to make a choice.

thereddaikon 5y ago

Remember, its reduce, reuse, and recycle in that order for a reason. Companies like Apple and Microsoft love to claim they are green because they put money into recycling old hardware. Except their business model for hardware revolves entirely around Increasing consumption and not reducing it. Its cheaper and better for the environment to maintain electronics than it is to replace them every few years and recycle them. Recycling is far from 100%, especially with electronics. Its not like steel or aluminum where you can just toss scrap into a crucible and get pure ingots on the other end ready to be worked into something useful.