4 ms·

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

by jolux 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
  - 6y ago

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

by jolux 6y ago

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

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TeMPOraL 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
- 6y ago