4 ms·
I wish - for large appliances - where the material weight of the appliance is more than say 95% of the total weight/volume as compared to the electronics PCB, t
by somethoughts 5y ago
I wish - for large appliances - where the material weight of the appliance is more than say 95% of the total weight/volume as compared to the electronics PCB, there should be dumb mode feature (either as a brand differentiation marketing feature or a legislated required feature). Note: I actually believe in free markets and believe this could be a huge selling point feature that consumers would pay extra for if marketed correctly as more sustainable.
By dumb mode, I mean just a basic non internet connected, 1980's style refrigerator/washer/garage door opener/microwave mode. So you have a smart mode that works until Samsung stops providing smartMicrowave 3.0 updates at which point you can flip a DIP switch on the back and just use it as a plain ol' microwave.
- adolph 5y agoI agree with your point, but the % weight might need adjustment. For example, a PCB the size of an iPhone 13 (146x71mm) [0], weighs maybe 40.61g [1]. The PCB in an iPhone is approx .25 of the surface area [2]. The result is right at 5% of the weight of an iPhone 13. (40.61*.25)/204 = 0.05 0. https://www.apple.com/iphone-13-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-13-pro/specs/ 1. https://www.leiton.de/leiton-tools-weight-calculation.html https://www.leiton.de/leiton-tools-weight-calculation.html 2. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+12+and+12+Pro+Teardown/137669 https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+12+and+12+Pro+Teardow...
- somethoughts 5y agoYes upon further reflection perhaps its more a rule of thumb than getting to specific weight ratio. Its mostly for manufacturers where the appliances were historically non internet connected (i.e. microwave, fridge) and much of the functionality is not internet related versus a tablet whose sole purpose is connectedness. Its mostly about providing support for a "non-interconnected" UX mode which doesn't bug to create an account with the manufacturers website or even more frustratingly bug you constantly about being unable to access the manufacturer's cloud servers which are no longer being maintained by the manufacturer themselves. And the point of it is perhaps less of a "there should be regulation" and more of a - as an end consumer - might as well post this on a forum where there are likely consumer electronics product managers for said devices viewing comments and getting some gears and mind shifts going.
- jfrunyon 5y agoThe vast majority of consumers would not be willing to pay the extra cost associated.
- VLM 5y agoThat did not even slow down the "smart TV" phenomena. We do not live in efficient markets.
- wolrah 5y agoThe extra cost would be building the "dumb mode". Smart TVs took over in part because they were cheaper than regular TVs because they could be subsidized by ads, placement deals for apps, etc. Also most normal consumers don't care all that much about the negatives, to them it means they need to figure out one less device, one less remote, etc. to watch Netflix. You can still buy TVs without these things from the vendors' business divisions but you'll be paying more for less features which means it will never catch on with the retail market. Also, in the end, you can just use it without connecting it to the network. I bought a new LG CX soon after a zero-click exploit was discovered affecting them. I just left it offline and used my other devices as sources until that was patched.