2 ms·
Exactly. The problem currently is proprietary components (and interfaces between them), and tight integration. When almost anything breaks, you need a proprieta
by jacknews 4y ago
Exactly. The problem currently is proprietary components (and interfaces between them), and tight integration. When almost anything breaks, you need a proprietary part, or even an entire subsystem, which is very often more expensive than junking the entire appliance and buying a new one, and often parts are not even available.
We need modularity, more like a desktop PC or 3d printers, standard parts and interfaces. You don't have to throw that away (including screen, keyboard) when a stick of RAM breaks, for example.
- Gigachad 4y agoWhat if that tight integration brought the price down to what would be the cost of 5 modular and repairable versions? My toaster isn’t modular but it’s lasted 10 years so far and I don’t think I’d pay 5x more for the repairable one.
- jacknews 4y agoIt could be the opposite. Eg, instead of limited runs of electronic boards dedicated to a particular model, you use a collection of standard boards made in the zillions. I think your 5x example is unrealistic. It might be that much currently because long-lived rapairable devices are a boutique niche. But if stuff in general were built more with commodity modules (of whatever quality), it could actually be cheaper than custom designs, with their design overhead and lower-mass production. But the thing is, even if it's slightly more expensive to manufacture initially (and with electronics, it's often about mere pennies), the actual cost, if you factor in all the external costs transport/transport infrastructure, disposal, etc, etc, and especially the environmental cost, it's much higher for 'fast appliances' (ala fast fashion) than for longer-lived, more repairable choices.