4 ms·

The pessimist in me is inclined to believe that this is just another empty gesture to ward off the specter of right-to-repair legislation that's looming over te

by hda2 5y ago

The pessimist in me is inclined to believe that this is just another empty gesture to ward off the specter of right-to-repair legislation that's looming over tech giants. Louis Rossmann made a grate video about why these programs are almost useless (samsung) to downright harmful (apple). I think the only reason Google and their friends are doing this is to remain in control (how, when, if). They don't want to end up like the car industry. I hope regulators don't fall for this trap.

brogrammernot 5y ago
I read it the exact opposite way. Google sees the writing on the wall that this is coming sooner rather than later to the US so with a “bit” more work they can have their common components of the phone be manufactured as OEM parts essentially & provide that direct line to iFixIt. They give great pricing to iFixIt and there you go, the margin they may lose on the phones through this is off-set to an extent via the common parts they’re now supplying. They also know if they don’t provide the parts, which is to say they need to produce the top 5-10 components in a single fashion instead of an assembly line, someone else will so they seem to be getting ahead of the game. They are actually modeling the car industry because folks are insanely specific about wanting OEM parts to the extent you have to specify in many contracts you can use OEM or equal quality 3rd party parts. There are even some warranties (which cost more) that specify they will only use OEM parts so Google probably also sees they can charge a premium for “OEM” similar to the auto industry. (I work in Auto)
hackernewds 5y ago
Thought the Louis Rossmann video was too cheesy to grate to be honest
M4v3R 5y ago
I watch Louis regularly and this seems different from what Samsung and Apple are doing, in a good way. First of all it seems to include more parts - they’ve mentioned batteries, camera modules, etc. Second - they provide it to a range of devices, starting with Pixel 2 so that’s great. And third - they are also providing software for calibrating the fingerprint reader after replacing it. Seems like a pretty good start to me. Of course we need to be skeptical of programs that are just designed to look like they promote repair while being useless. But we also should give credit where credits is due.

by hda2 5y ago

brogrammernot 5y ago

I read it the exact opposite way. Google sees the writing on the wall that this is coming sooner rather than later to the US so with a “bit” more work they can have their common components of the phone be manufactured as OEM parts essentially & provide that direct line to iFixIt. They give great pricing to iFixIt and there you go, the margin they may lose on the phones through this is off-set to an extent via the common parts they’re now supplying. They also know if they don’t provide the parts, which is to say they need to produce the top 5-10 components in a single fashion instead of an assembly line, someone else will so they seem to be getting ahead of the game. They are actually modeling the car industry because folks are insanely specific about wanting OEM parts to the extent you have to specify in many contracts you can use OEM or equal quality 3rd party parts. There are even some warranties (which cost more) that specify they will only use OEM parts so Google probably also sees they can charge a premium for “OEM” similar to the auto industry. (I work in Auto)

hackernewds 5y ago

Thought the Louis Rossmann video was too cheesy to grate to be honest

M4v3R 5y ago

I watch Louis regularly and this seems different from what Samsung and Apple are doing, in a good way. First of all it seems to include more parts - they’ve mentioned batteries, camera modules, etc. Second - they provide it to a range of devices, starting with Pixel 2 so that’s great. And third - they are also providing software for calibrating the fingerprint reader after replacing it. Seems like a pretty good start to me. Of course we need to be skeptical of programs that are just designed to look like they promote repair while being useless. But we also should give credit where credits is due.