4 ms·

(Just to steel-man the counterargument) it is not as clear-cut to me that everyone is realistically able to make such choice (depending on the geo, quality cont

by tgma 3y ago

(Just to steel-man the counterargument) it is not as clear-cut to me that everyone is realistically able to make such choice (depending on the geo, quality control of the authorized centers). The repair process is opaque enough that you are compromising the user who is choosing to pay for premium parts to get ripped off with some probability. Even a small percentage of bad parts in the ecosystem will disproportionally diminish the value of used/repaired iPhones so there is a non-trivial calculation to be done on the social impact of such individual choice.

jwells89 3y ago
There should probably be regulations mandating that electronics replacement parts meet certain minimum QA and performance standards, particularly those with the significant capacity for harm such as batteries and components handling power. Parts not meeting these standards would get rejected at the border.
jtode 3y ago
Perhaps they should design the machines so that they are user-serviceable. This was the default at one point. Look at the manual for any home appliance from the 1950s. The difficulty in replacing an iphone screen is not that it's hard to plug it into its receptacle - the difficulty is in acquiring a part (they won't sell them) and then in opening the device, which requires skill and a specialized tool in pretty much every case. Maybe, hold them together with small screws, instead of that. "but then it will weigh an extra .237oz!" Shut up.
- nemothekid 3y ago
  >"but then it will weigh an extra .237oz!" Shut up. It's not fair to dismiss this argument. The vast majority of people don't care if it's user serviceable and will prefer that the device weighs .237oz less than be user serviceable. This isn't some niche market we are talking about, we are 16 years after the release of the first iPhone. My account on this forum is 11 years old, and this point has been argued for almost that entire time. As much as been hand wringing about customers not caring about .237oz in favor of user serviceability, there have been countless smartphones released that people didn't buy. "Shut up" isn't a product strategy. "Perhaps they should design something users don't want" is a silly statement at this point.
  - tgma 3y ago
    Exactly. The whole "modular phone" and related phenomena are effectively nerd porn and against 50+ years of industry progress towards cheaper, better, denser integration.
    - dpkonofa 3y ago
      I’m glad that the nerd porn exists because I do care about sustainability but operating on Apple’s scale means those devices are a fantasy for the majority of people. Apple’s approach seems more sustainable considering how many claims they can continue to make. Maybe it’s all marketing but I can’t find anyone that invalidates their claims without mischaracterizing them (as this article does a ton).
      - b112 3y ago
        The problem is, you have two ways to build. One way, is to make it non-user serviceable, the other, to make it user serviceable. Now, which do you spend immense sums researching? Which people do you hire for your company? And after you spend years down this path, tooling, hiring, designing, someone says "the environment counts, it should be user serviceable". Well of course, with billions spent designing, and predicated upon current methods, AND with all the people you hire experts in closed, non-servicable design? What sort of answer will you get? Apple, and others, the entire industry, has created this industry to be like this. If the same R&D was spent on user serviceable, it would happen. Cheaply. Easily. So of course it's "very hard" to do user serviceable, because no one knows how, and no one has the experience, and no one is researching it. And no, these little firms working at it, don't equate to Apple working at it. It may not be on purpose, but to claim it isn't possible is unfair. You know if the auto industry was left to its own devices, it would still be claiming electric cars weren't feasible too, right? And from their perspective, they were not! Because without billions in research, and iteration, it wasn't. Just like with Apple and user serviceable parts. Just as with cars, and bags, and everything else, we should legislate such requirements. So all players in the market must comply.
        3y ago
kuchenbecker 3y ago
Standards are preferable, and I'd like to pick and choose which portions of the ecosystem I like, and others where I'd like to use something different. Android isn't a malware riddled ecosystem and you can install 3rd party hardware and software.
- tgma 3y ago
  > Android isn't a malware riddled ecosystem and you can install 3rd party hardware and software Not sure if this is serious or sarcastic.

by tgma 3y ago

jwells89 3y ago

There should probably be regulations mandating that electronics replacement parts meet certain minimum QA and performance standards, particularly those with the significant capacity for harm such as batteries and components handling power. Parts not meeting these standards would get rejected at the border.

jtode 3y ago

Perhaps they should design the machines so that they are user-serviceable. This was the default at one point. Look at the manual for any home appliance from the 1950s. The difficulty in replacing an iphone screen is not that it's hard to plug it into its receptacle - the difficulty is in acquiring a part (they won't sell them) and then in opening the device, which requires skill and a specialized tool in pretty much every case. Maybe, hold them together with small screws, instead of that. "but then it will weigh an extra .237oz!" Shut up.

nemothekid 3y ago
>"but then it will weigh an extra .237oz!" Shut up. It's not fair to dismiss this argument. The vast majority of people don't care if it's user serviceable and will prefer that the device weighs .237oz less than be user serviceable. This isn't some niche market we are talking about, we are 16 years after the release of the first iPhone. My account on this forum is 11 years old, and this point has been argued for almost that entire time. As much as been hand wringing about customers not caring about .237oz in favor of user serviceability, there have been countless smartphones released that people didn't buy. "Shut up" isn't a product strategy. "Perhaps they should design something users don't want" is a silly statement at this point.
- tgma 3y ago
  Exactly. The whole "modular phone" and related phenomena are effectively nerd porn and against 50+ years of industry progress towards cheaper, better, denser integration.
  - dpkonofa 3y ago
    I’m glad that the nerd porn exists because I do care about sustainability but operating on Apple’s scale means those devices are a fantasy for the majority of people. Apple’s approach seems more sustainable considering how many claims they can continue to make. Maybe it’s all marketing but I can’t find anyone that invalidates their claims without mischaracterizing them (as this article does a ton).
    - b112 3y ago
      The problem is, you have two ways to build. One way, is to make it non-user serviceable, the other, to make it user serviceable. Now, which do you spend immense sums researching? Which people do you hire for your company? And after you spend years down this path, tooling, hiring, designing, someone says "the environment counts, it should be user serviceable". Well of course, with billions spent designing, and predicated upon current methods, AND with all the people you hire experts in closed, non-servicable design? What sort of answer will you get? Apple, and others, the entire industry, has created this industry to be like this. If the same R&D was spent on user serviceable, it would happen. Cheaply. Easily. So of course it's "very hard" to do user serviceable, because no one knows how, and no one has the experience, and no one is researching it. And no, these little firms working at it, don't equate to Apple working at it. It may not be on purpose, but to claim it isn't possible is unfair. You know if the auto industry was left to its own devices, it would still be claiming electric cars weren't feasible too, right? And from their perspective, they were not! Because without billions in research, and iteration, it wasn't. Just like with Apple and user serviceable parts. Just as with cars, and bags, and everything else, we should legislate such requirements. So all players in the market must comply.
      - 3y ago

kuchenbecker 3y ago

Standards are preferable, and I'd like to pick and choose which portions of the ecosystem I like, and others where I'd like to use something different. Android isn't a malware riddled ecosystem and you can install 3rd party hardware and software.

tgma 3y ago
> Android isn't a malware riddled ecosystem and you can install 3rd party hardware and software Not sure if this is serious or sarcastic.