3 ms·

> Cheap high-volume glued-together phones will always be cheaper. I appreciate your cost focused perspective on this. I really do. What I'm trying to argue is

> Cheap high-volume glued-together phones will always be cheaper. I appreciate your cost focused perspective on this. I really do. What I'm trying to argue is that it is necessary to stop doing this. I foresee that just like the EU forcing USB-C into the iPhone, we could also see more repair-ability to combat climate issues, e-waste, etc. The world is going to have a hard pill to swallow, not everything is about profits. Sometimes things need to be done because they are good for us and our society. > If people want an iPhone, then the Fairphone is not a solution to that problem either. I don't think the Fairphone is necessarily the solution either. That was never what I was arguing about. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop bringing it up. I'm not talking about the Fairphone. I'm explicitly talking about why an iPhone user might care about repair-ability.

kube-system 3y ago
Cost is a good proxy for resources expended. How many devices exactly are thrown away due to damage vs being EOL'd for other reasons, like vanity, or other obsolescence? Repairability does not equal infinite product lifetime, however it does increase material on the BOM and increase the energy required to manufacture the device. Are you sure that those additional increases in material and energy would be offset by a longer observed lifetime of the device? I mean, I'm not against repairability laws as a matter of consumer protection, but I think it's pure conjecture to jump to the conclusion that it is undoubtably better for the environment. If you add 10% of material to the average device to gain 5% average lifetime, you're not decreasing waste. I don't think it would add any lifetime personally, as repair and refurbishment shops already know how to open phones that are glued together and there is a huge industry that refurbs these phones already. I doubt screws will increase the average lifetime of the average phone, it'll just increase the number of screws in the landfill.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  The thing is, cheap phones are more expensive in the longer term. Legislation should set a minimum on quality, repairability helps on setting quality standards. This goes for many appliances as well as phones. I'd rather have iron screws in landfills than extra glue.

kube-system 3y ago

Cost is a good proxy for resources expended. How many devices exactly are thrown away due to damage vs being EOL'd for other reasons, like vanity, or other obsolescence? Repairability does not equal infinite product lifetime, however it does increase material on the BOM and increase the energy required to manufacture the device. Are you sure that those additional increases in material and energy would be offset by a longer observed lifetime of the device? I mean, I'm not against repairability laws as a matter of consumer protection, but I think it's pure conjecture to jump to the conclusion that it is undoubtably better for the environment. If you add 10% of material to the average device to gain 5% average lifetime, you're not decreasing waste. I don't think it would add any lifetime personally, as repair and refurbishment shops already know how to open phones that are glued together and there is a huge industry that refurbs these phones already. I doubt screws will increase the average lifetime of the average phone, it'll just increase the number of screws in the landfill.

nuancebydefault 3y ago
The thing is, cheap phones are more expensive in the longer term. Legislation should set a minimum on quality, repairability helps on setting quality standards. This goes for many appliances as well as phones. I'd rather have iron screws in landfills than extra glue.