5 ms·

How is this different than saying “if a company wants to make bad environmental decisions, that’s their prerogative”? Sometimes the government needs to get invo

How is this different than saying “if a company wants to make bad environmental decisions, that’s their prerogative”? Sometimes the government needs to get involved to prevent short-sighted behavior.

verall 5y ago
Because of the layer of indirection, and potential for missed out innovation. Yes, nonrepairable devices are worse for the environment, but we had early poorly-repairable ultrabooks that helped create a market space for later more-repairable ultrabooks. I think most people just want to ban the worst anti-repair actions, like trying to disable the device in the event of repair attempts or preventing the use of otherwise compatible 3rd-party hardware with key signatures or proprietary authentication mechanisms.
- socialdemocrat 5y ago
  Lots of innovation is missed out on because of lack of regulation. So this is not a good point. The EV and solar panel revolution was largely created due to regulation. It is a very neoliberal view to think free markets are the only source of innovation and government is just standing in the way. Governments create lots of different incentives to foster innovation. Patents themselves are a government regulation meant to encourage innovation. Ironically companies have corrupt government to such a degree that patents today is often a hindrance to innovation. However well designed patent laws are likely better than no patent laws at all.
hervature 5y ago
It's different because they are recognizing that the issue isn't binary. It' not "bad for the environment" vs "good for the environment". It's recognizing there is a gradient of solutions ranging from "slowly increasing car efficiencies over time to allow for change" and "outright banning fossil fuels starting tomorrow". It's recognizing that "repairability" isn't the only thing to be optimized for.
- saurik 5y ago
  ...but the other thing being optimized for is "thinness"? As a society, you are saying sometimes we should just accept that things will be bad for the environment, maybe even horribly so and at a massive scale... because, otherwise, they can't be thin enough?
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    Reducing size is always good. It's just one of many metrics of efficiency and greater efficiency is always good. If a new part is smaller than an old part, the new part probably uses less materials. Less heavy metals in the solder and component body etc, less weight for shipping which burns all kinds of fuels, etc etc. Saying "thinness" is kind of stupid, because making the full outside shape of something too tiny to even use, is the stupidest way to use a decrease in the size of all the parts inside. The gains could just as well be taken advantage of by filling the same space with other stuff like more battery or even empty air. Taking the idea to an unlikely extreme just to illustrate: A phone that was the exact same size as my current one, and performed the same jobs no better or worse than my cirrent one, but which was mostly a hollow shell just to give my hand something to hold and screen to see, and all the eletronics were in a little glass thumbnail would be perfectly great on several fronts. Reduced component size has made an infinity of things either more efficient, or made them possible at all instead of impossible. There is no such thing as "small enough already". That's identical to saying "efficient enough already".
  - hervature 5y ago
    I believe that's a thinly veiled criticism directed at Apple. Even Apple tries to optimize for cost and what I would label aesthetic. You'd have to convince me that thinness is worse for the environment than having a repairable product that has the extra packaging and delivery wastage of something that is 2x the bulk and weight so that we can make it last a few more years potentially. Again, this isn't a binary problem. Even if we had an "eco-friendly" computer, it doesn't teleport to its destination. Your argument is equivalent to banning all cars because human death is unacceptable. Cars give more than they take, that's why we tolerate the death statistics.
  - 5y ago

verall 5y ago

Because of the layer of indirection, and potential for missed out innovation. Yes, nonrepairable devices are worse for the environment, but we had early poorly-repairable ultrabooks that helped create a market space for later more-repairable ultrabooks. I think most people just want to ban the worst anti-repair actions, like trying to disable the device in the event of repair attempts or preventing the use of otherwise compatible 3rd-party hardware with key signatures or proprietary authentication mechanisms.

socialdemocrat 5y ago
Lots of innovation is missed out on because of lack of regulation. So this is not a good point. The EV and solar panel revolution was largely created due to regulation. It is a very neoliberal view to think free markets are the only source of innovation and government is just standing in the way. Governments create lots of different incentives to foster innovation. Patents themselves are a government regulation meant to encourage innovation. Ironically companies have corrupt government to such a degree that patents today is often a hindrance to innovation. However well designed patent laws are likely better than no patent laws at all.

hervature 5y ago

It's different because they are recognizing that the issue isn't binary. It' not "bad for the environment" vs "good for the environment". It's recognizing there is a gradient of solutions ranging from "slowly increasing car efficiencies over time to allow for change" and "outright banning fossil fuels starting tomorrow". It's recognizing that "repairability" isn't the only thing to be optimized for.

saurik 5y ago
...but the other thing being optimized for is "thinness"? As a society, you are saying sometimes we should just accept that things will be bad for the environment, maybe even horribly so and at a massive scale... because, otherwise, they can't be thin enough?
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  Reducing size is always good. It's just one of many metrics of efficiency and greater efficiency is always good. If a new part is smaller than an old part, the new part probably uses less materials. Less heavy metals in the solder and component body etc, less weight for shipping which burns all kinds of fuels, etc etc. Saying "thinness" is kind of stupid, because making the full outside shape of something too tiny to even use, is the stupidest way to use a decrease in the size of all the parts inside. The gains could just as well be taken advantage of by filling the same space with other stuff like more battery or even empty air. Taking the idea to an unlikely extreme just to illustrate: A phone that was the exact same size as my current one, and performed the same jobs no better or worse than my cirrent one, but which was mostly a hollow shell just to give my hand something to hold and screen to see, and all the eletronics were in a little glass thumbnail would be perfectly great on several fronts. Reduced component size has made an infinity of things either more efficient, or made them possible at all instead of impossible. There is no such thing as "small enough already". That's identical to saying "efficient enough already".
- hervature 5y ago
  I believe that's a thinly veiled criticism directed at Apple. Even Apple tries to optimize for cost and what I would label aesthetic. You'd have to convince me that thinness is worse for the environment than having a repairable product that has the extra packaging and delivery wastage of something that is 2x the bulk and weight so that we can make it last a few more years potentially. Again, this isn't a binary problem. Even if we had an "eco-friendly" computer, it doesn't teleport to its destination. Your argument is equivalent to banning all cars because human death is unacceptable. Cars give more than they take, that's why we tolerate the death statistics.
- 5y ago