7 ms·

You can choose to forgo owning stuff personally, sure. But that is not everybody's preference. And please don't pretend that "devices aren't built around discre

You can choose to forgo owning stuff personally, sure. But that is not everybody's preference. And please don't pretend that "devices aren't built around discrete components anymore". There are plenty of discrete components in a modern phone/laptop/roomba/whatever, that could be replaceable/upgradable by advanced user or entry-level technician, but are not: - battery - screen - storage - RAM - list goes on and on...

jolux 5y ago
I believe the GP was talking about discrete circuitry vs integrated circuits, not so much supporting peripherals.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  But their parent wasn't (in fact, they mentioned x86 and AMD, which are integrated circuits). Look at a random PC (or, until recently, a random laptop): it's made from a lot of individual components that can be swapped out or upgraded independently. Storage, RAM, CPU, GPU, cooling, motherboard, WiFi chip, Bluetooth chip, speakers, microphone, screen, all the peripherals - they're all designed to work together as a category, and to be easily replaceable. I can source each one from a different vendor, and they'll still work. Hell, in many cases, you can even fix individual components, with a hot air station and a steady hand. And if I upgrade a component, my old one can often get a second life inside another computer, possibly someone else's. It's a good thing to have, and there's nothing stopping modern laptops, tablets and phones to have the same level of upgradeability and swapability. Nothing - except that the vendors don't want to[0]. These things run on the same set of hardware standards as larger computers, and on literally the same software stacks. I[1] should be entirely able to open up my phone, desolder its battery and memory, swap them out for newer and better ones, apply sealant, close the case and have the whole thing work. There's no technical obstacle here - the only problem are the business strategies of the vendors. -- [0] - I have another long rant for the usual "it's customers who chose integrated over repairable" argument, and I'll post it elsewhere in this thread. For now, I'll just say: it's not like anybody is asking customers to choose. These options are not being made available in the first place. [1] - Or my friend who spent half his life tinkering with electronics. Or the repair shop down the street. A point commonly missed in discussions about Right to Repair (and Free Software) is that it isn't about expecting consumers to do hardware/software work themselves - it's about making it possible for local markets for software and hardware maintenance and repair to exist.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    >These options are not being made available in the first place. Could it be because it's not financially feasible? If you present the idea of a repairable alternative to an iPad, are any investors going to take you up on it? I think a big aspect of this whole debate is that manufacturing efficiencies have gone up so much, that it's simply not economically worth it to sacrifice the resiliency and cost effectiveness of making it completely integrated. The cost to launch a new product and manufacturing line is also very high, so that you have to be really sure a sufficient number of consumers will want it. On top of that, as a seller, you get to keep costs low when you have to spend less on dealing with people tinkering with it and then sending it in for warranty. Unfortunately, I don't think a "tinkerable" option can compete on price to value ratio such that sufficient people would buy it to make it a feasible investment. >it's about making it possible for local markets for software and hardware maintenance and repair to exist. Efficiency is frequently a trade off for a word that I can't think of, but maybe can be described as "security" or "local security". It's similar to not needing a butcher, produce market, shoe store once a Walmart Supercenter rolls into town. I struggle to come up with a legal requirement that would restrict efficiency such that it does not give others (globally) a competitive advantage, but still retains "local security".
    - kiba 5y ago
      These devices can still be fixed, if only using specialized tools. However, it's another issue when manufacturers deliberately make these devices more difficult to fix such as using security screws. Many of the modern smartphones can still be fixed as are laptops. However, these repair shops only exist if they have the schematic and parts available. it's not an efficiency issue. It's planned obsolescence.
    - foxhop 5y ago
      We don't need a tinkerers option we just need unobstructed access to the docs and access to purchase proprietary parts to replace failures and those parts should be available at a fair price. I vote yes for right to repair, both with my dollar and my desire to favor the rights of the citizens of this country.
    - 5y ago
devoutsalsa 5y ago
A big reason that stuff isn't replaceable anymore is because consumers wants some of the benefits that come w/ non-replaceable parts. For example, it's nice that I can drop my iPhone in water w/o worrying (too much) about destroying it. I spent ~$1500 on an iPhone 12 Pro in November & dropped it in a lake in December. Part of the reason it's (more) waterproof if because it's not covered w/ ports/hatches/openings that would allow me swap out the battery/RAM/SSD/something. If I had to choose between having a fully customizable phone & one that doesn't die when it gets wet, I think I'd rather have one that resists water. Just one person's opinion.
- vkou 5y ago
  > A big reason that stuff isn't replaceable anymore is because consumers wants some of the benefits that come w/ non-replaceable parts. This may be true, but we shouldn't confuse 'a decision made by a product manager' with 'the customers want this'. Some design decisions succeed because of the other strengths of a product (and the competition cargo-cult copies them), not because they are good design decisions. Some design decisions are made because they are more convenient for the vendor, not better for the customer. Some design decisions are made because of inertia. Pointing to any particular design trade-off in a successful product, and saying that 'Well, this is obviously what the market wants' is not always a correct conclusion to draw. USB is unarguably the most successful mechanism for two hardware devices to communicate with each-other in history, and yet you need to flip the cable over three times before you can plug it in. Should we conclude that customers want to play the cable fandango every time they plug one device into another?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    >yet you need to flip the cable over three times before you can plug it in I used to know one of the folks involved with the USB standard pretty well professionally. At one point, he told me that this aspect of USB is one thing he wished they could have dealt with differently. (That said, the fact that the mini and micro versions are more explicitly keyed doesn't make that much of a different and I assume that a USB-C or Lightning-type design just wasn't possible at the time without undesirable tradeoffs.)
olliej 5y ago
Ram isn’t separate, storage is soldered on, screens have security sensitive components built in (the Touch ID in modern android devices), etc
tomjen3 5y ago
RAM and storage is usually integrated on phones. The battery is usually not something you can pull out anymore because people like me prefer phones that I can use to find my way in the rain without risk damaging the phone, but even so they are pretty easy to replace, the same with the screen. On laptops you have a choice: buy a Thinkpad that is not an ultrabook, but even then you see people prefer thinner and lighter models than ones that are servicable.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  How do you use your phone in the rain? Whenever I try, I find it's pretty much impossible, because the screen gets all wet and slippery, I can hardly see anything on it because of distortion through individual drops of rain, and I get spurious clicks from raindrops falling onto it. So I have to shield it under an umbrella or something... And if I have to do that anyway, the phone being less than 100% watertight because the battery is swappable won't be a problem in the first place.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    I only use it in the rain to look up maps and see directions or to quickly see a message and you are right that the distortions from the rain can make it hard to see, though I haven't had the issue of a slippery phone. Maybe I am just paranoid, but I would like to know my phone doesn't die on me when it is exposed to rain.

jolux 5y ago

I believe the GP was talking about discrete circuitry vs integrated circuits, not so much supporting peripherals.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 5y ago
But their parent wasn't (in fact, they mentioned x86 and AMD, which are integrated circuits). Look at a random PC (or, until recently, a random laptop): it's made from a lot of individual components that can be swapped out or upgraded independently. Storage, RAM, CPU, GPU, cooling, motherboard, WiFi chip, Bluetooth chip, speakers, microphone, screen, all the peripherals - they're all designed to work together as a category, and to be easily replaceable. I can source each one from a different vendor, and they'll still work. Hell, in many cases, you can even fix individual components, with a hot air station and a steady hand. And if I upgrade a component, my old one can often get a second life inside another computer, possibly someone else's. It's a good thing to have, and there's nothing stopping modern laptops, tablets and phones to have the same level of upgradeability and swapability. Nothing - except that the vendors don't want to[0]. These things run on the same set of hardware standards as larger computers, and on literally the same software stacks. I[1] should be entirely able to open up my phone, desolder its battery and memory, swap them out for newer and better ones, apply sealant, close the case and have the whole thing work. There's no technical obstacle here - the only problem are the business strategies of the vendors. -- [0] - I have another long rant for the usual "it's customers who chose integrated over repairable" argument, and I'll post it elsewhere in this thread. For now, I'll just say: it's not like anybody is asking customers to choose. These options are not being made available in the first place. [1] - Or my friend who spent half his life tinkering with electronics. Or the repair shop down the street. A point commonly missed in discussions about Right to Repair (and Free Software) is that it isn't about expecting consumers to do hardware/software work themselves - it's about making it possible for local markets for software and hardware maintenance and repair to exist.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >These options are not being made available in the first place. Could it be because it's not financially feasible? If you present the idea of a repairable alternative to an iPad, are any investors going to take you up on it? I think a big aspect of this whole debate is that manufacturing efficiencies have gone up so much, that it's simply not economically worth it to sacrifice the resiliency and cost effectiveness of making it completely integrated. The cost to launch a new product and manufacturing line is also very high, so that you have to be really sure a sufficient number of consumers will want it. On top of that, as a seller, you get to keep costs low when you have to spend less on dealing with people tinkering with it and then sending it in for warranty. Unfortunately, I don't think a "tinkerable" option can compete on price to value ratio such that sufficient people would buy it to make it a feasible investment. >it's about making it possible for local markets for software and hardware maintenance and repair to exist. Efficiency is frequently a trade off for a word that I can't think of, but maybe can be described as "security" or "local security". It's similar to not needing a butcher, produce market, shoe store once a Walmart Supercenter rolls into town. I struggle to come up with a legal requirement that would restrict efficiency such that it does not give others (globally) a competitive advantage, but still retains "local security".
  - kiba 5y ago
    These devices can still be fixed, if only using specialized tools. However, it's another issue when manufacturers deliberately make these devices more difficult to fix such as using security screws. Many of the modern smartphones can still be fixed as are laptops. However, these repair shops only exist if they have the schematic and parts available. it's not an efficiency issue. It's planned obsolescence.
  - foxhop 5y ago
    We don't need a tinkerers option we just need unobstructed access to the docs and access to purchase proprietary parts to replace failures and those parts should be available at a fair price. I vote yes for right to repair, both with my dollar and my desire to favor the rights of the citizens of this country.
  - 5y ago

devoutsalsa 5y ago

A big reason that stuff isn't replaceable anymore is because consumers wants some of the benefits that come w/ non-replaceable parts. For example, it's nice that I can drop my iPhone in water w/o worrying (too much) about destroying it. I spent ~$1500 on an iPhone 12 Pro in November & dropped it in a lake in December. Part of the reason it's (more) waterproof if because it's not covered w/ ports/hatches/openings that would allow me swap out the battery/RAM/SSD/something. If I had to choose between having a fully customizable phone & one that doesn't die when it gets wet, I think I'd rather have one that resists water. Just one person's opinion.

vkou 5y ago
> A big reason that stuff isn't replaceable anymore is because consumers wants some of the benefits that come w/ non-replaceable parts. This may be true, but we shouldn't confuse 'a decision made by a product manager' with 'the customers want this'. Some design decisions succeed because of the other strengths of a product (and the competition cargo-cult copies them), not because they are good design decisions. Some design decisions are made because they are more convenient for the vendor, not better for the customer. Some design decisions are made because of inertia. Pointing to any particular design trade-off in a successful product, and saying that 'Well, this is obviously what the market wants' is not always a correct conclusion to draw. USB is unarguably the most successful mechanism for two hardware devices to communicate with each-other in history, and yet you need to flip the cable over three times before you can plug it in. Should we conclude that customers want to play the cable fandango every time they plug one device into another?
- ghaff 5y ago
  >yet you need to flip the cable over three times before you can plug it in I used to know one of the folks involved with the USB standard pretty well professionally. At one point, he told me that this aspect of USB is one thing he wished they could have dealt with differently. (That said, the fact that the mini and micro versions are more explicitly keyed doesn't make that much of a different and I assume that a USB-C or Lightning-type design just wasn't possible at the time without undesirable tradeoffs.)

olliej 5y ago

Ram isn’t separate, storage is soldered on, screens have security sensitive components built in (the Touch ID in modern android devices), etc

tomjen3 5y ago

RAM and storage is usually integrated on phones. The battery is usually not something you can pull out anymore because people like me prefer phones that I can use to find my way in the rain without risk damaging the phone, but even so they are pretty easy to replace, the same with the screen. On laptops you have a choice: buy a Thinkpad that is not an ultrabook, but even then you see people prefer thinner and lighter models than ones that are servicable.

CRConrad 5y ago
How do you use your phone in the rain? Whenever I try, I find it's pretty much impossible, because the screen gets all wet and slippery, I can hardly see anything on it because of distortion through individual drops of rain, and I get spurious clicks from raindrops falling onto it. So I have to shield it under an umbrella or something... And if I have to do that anyway, the phone being less than 100% watertight because the battery is swappable won't be a problem in the first place.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  I only use it in the rain to look up maps and see directions or to quickly see a message and you are right that the distortions from the rain can make it hard to see, though I haven't had the issue of a slippery phone. Maybe I am just paranoid, but I would like to know my phone doesn't die on me when it is exposed to rain.