3 ms·

It’s economically feasible in countries where labor is almost free. Regardless, at some point you have to replace a part. If your screen is completely shattere

It’s economically feasible in countries where labor is almost free. Regardless, at some point you have to replace a part. If your screen is completely shattered you won’t be gluing back together the glass pieces and recreating the LCD. We got your point, some people have more specialized machines, some people’s time is worth almost nothing, ok cool. Why does it bother you if people demand that companies don’t intentionally make it more difficult for the average person to do a repair?

mrtksn 3y ago
>Why does it bother you if people demand that companies don’t intentionally make it more difficult for the average person to do a repair? That doesn’t bother me, I just find it annoying when you want modularity but claim you want repairability. It usually comes attached with conspiracy theories and long rant. Feels watching a fake movement. Why can’t you accept that the companies don’t necessarily spend resources to make something non-modular? Why just don’t you demand consideration for ease of repair or modularity? Why you have to claim that iPhone’s are hard or impossible to repair when people get repairs all the time? I guess I don’t like the spirit of the movement.
- seec 3y ago
  The question I have is why you are arguing in such bad faith. You argument can be resumed to: if you know how to build electronics, have access to the extremely expensive machine needed and have the skill/knowledge to do it; it is easy. Then you go on conspiracy theories rant (WTF ?). I don't know what your motivations are, but you are so dishonest it is troubling. Nobody is arguing for companies to make special investment in repairs or whatever. What is asked is simply access to parts they ALLREADY MAKE to build their stuff. So that people can avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel every time they need to fix a small part. It is not complicated nor a big demand. Companies making devices should have an obligation to put their parts used for building the devices in the open market. There also should be allowed competition on the supply of compatible parts depending on what are the user's priorities. This is something we already do for cars. But Im sure you rethread your tire by hand (equivalent to the battery), and you glue black together by hand all the broken rear-view mirrors. This is nonsense, it is unbelievable how terrible your take actually is.
  - bimguy 3y ago
    There's no reason to get so one sided about this subject and no reason to attack each other over it. Some people are going to accept modular replacement parts and others will advocate for repairing the part. Apple's approach and the approach of Louis Rossman are completely different and both have their own merits. Like I mentioned in another comment this Right to Repair article is marketing from Apple and doesn't warrant any name calling and disapproving language being thrown back and forth.

mrtksn 3y ago

>Why does it bother you if people demand that companies don’t intentionally make it more difficult for the average person to do a repair? That doesn’t bother me, I just find it annoying when you want modularity but claim you want repairability. It usually comes attached with conspiracy theories and long rant. Feels watching a fake movement. Why can’t you accept that the companies don’t necessarily spend resources to make something non-modular? Why just don’t you demand consideration for ease of repair or modularity? Why you have to claim that iPhone’s are hard or impossible to repair when people get repairs all the time? I guess I don’t like the spirit of the movement.

seec 3y ago
The question I have is why you are arguing in such bad faith. You argument can be resumed to: if you know how to build electronics, have access to the extremely expensive machine needed and have the skill/knowledge to do it; it is easy. Then you go on conspiracy theories rant (WTF ?). I don't know what your motivations are, but you are so dishonest it is troubling. Nobody is arguing for companies to make special investment in repairs or whatever. What is asked is simply access to parts they ALLREADY MAKE to build their stuff. So that people can avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel every time they need to fix a small part. It is not complicated nor a big demand. Companies making devices should have an obligation to put their parts used for building the devices in the open market. There also should be allowed competition on the supply of compatible parts depending on what are the user's priorities. This is something we already do for cars. But Im sure you rethread your tire by hand (equivalent to the battery), and you glue black together by hand all the broken rear-view mirrors. This is nonsense, it is unbelievable how terrible your take actually is.
- bimguy 3y ago
  There's no reason to get so one sided about this subject and no reason to attack each other over it. Some people are going to accept modular replacement parts and others will advocate for repairing the part. Apple's approach and the approach of Louis Rossman are completely different and both have their own merits. Like I mentioned in another comment this Right to Repair article is marketing from Apple and doesn't warrant any name calling and disapproving language being thrown back and forth.