3 ms·
I don’t think that distinction necessarily needs to be made if the third-party repair industry is allowed to thrive. If getting your phone repaired and given ne
by nkrisc 4y ago
I don’t think that distinction necessarily needs to be made if the third-party repair industry is allowed to thrive. If getting your phone repaired and given new life was a common thing everyone did, Pennie’s that couldn’t be repaired or were expensive to repair might not sell as well.
As it stands glueing the phone shut isn’t an issue for most consumers because they expect to throw away and buy a new phone every year or two.
- constantcrying 4y agoThe glue has a legitimiate purpose. I wouldn't have had my phone for 5 years without it being water tight. Third party repair being allowed to thrive (e.g. being allowed to buy parts) is something totally different to restricting good engineering practices.
- nkrisc 4y agoRight, which is exactly the point I'm making. If third-party repair was common, consumers could decide if the advantages of having a phone glued together outweigh the advantages of a more repairable phone. My whole point was that the solution is not to force phones to be more repairable, but to stop manufacturers from strangling the repair industry and give consumers actual choice.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]