6 ms·

MHBKD recently made a video on Apple testing lab [1], and one thing he talked about and that was kinda new to me is seeing repairability as a spectrum. I.e. on

by divan 2y ago

MHBKD recently made a video on Apple testing lab [1], and one thing he talked about and that was kinda new to me is seeing repairability as a spectrum. I.e. on one side is "indestructible" product and on the other is "perfectly repairable". And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive. In a hindsight it seems obvious, still this video was the first time I've heard this verbalized so clearly. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8reaJG7z-is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8reaJG7z-is

Rygian 2y ago
In France, the "Repairability Index" was mandatory since 2021 [1, in French], and will be superseded by the "Durability Index" starting on 2025 [2, in French] [1] https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite [2] https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-durabilite https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-durabilite
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Is the idea of these indices to encourage buyers to choose more repairable / durable goods? I can remember shopping for a new fridge with my parents as a kid: The energy efficiency labels (mandated by the gov't) made a big difference on their purchasing decisions.
  - miki123211 2y ago
    I'm of the opinion that manufacturers should be required to prominently list the "expected total monthly price" on their packaging, calculated as product_price / months_of_warranty. This basically assumes that the product may break immediately after the warranty expires. Such a price would incentivize manufacturers to make warranties last as long as possible. This encourages repairability where it's economically and physically viable, without the tradeoffs necessary if repairability is mandated by law.
    - aembleton 2y ago
      > Such a price would incentivize manufacturers to make warranties last as long as possible. Or keep warranties short, but push consumers into a pay by month model, because the amount per month is less than than the advertised "expected monthly price". The company then gets a regular income stream.
      - poincaredisk 2y ago
        I think that would be one last straw that would make customers rebel. But I heard apple managed to pull this off, so maybe I'm out of touch.
    - poincaredisk 2y ago
      I like this idea. Currently I usually buy cheapest things available, because I assume they break immediately after the (mandatory) 2 year guarantee.
user_7832 2y ago
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the video (I'm in a quiet place right now.) > And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive. I disagree on a fundamental level. You could say such a thing when talking about really small (micro/miniature) devices. But as size increases, the validity of such arguments rapidly goes down. A phone case/bumper for example - makes the device larger, yes - but increases strength while not hurting reparability. The "problem", imo, is two-fold: 1. Apple does not care too much about making repairs easy. If it costs $100 to make a board they can charge a customer $500 to repair, or $800 for a new phone, it's easy for them. 2. (Some) people prefer sleeker designs. Samsung has its active range of phones, CAT makes durable phones - but many prefer a smaller thickness/bezel etc. This means that when tech improves to make smaller bezels, manufacturers decrease the bezel a little and add protective padding a little... haha no. It's only bezel reduction. Because it sell, I suppose. For example gorilla glass/protective glass has improved in technology, but thinner screens (for thinner devices) have eaten up the benefits of stronger tech. The real "killer" argument? The presence of companies like Framework. I'm typing this out on my FW13 & its build quality is really good. Perhaps a 10 year old thinkpad may be similar or better, but this is almost certainly thinner. But it is almost definitely more repairable. It's possible, but requires companies to offer products, and people to use and buy them.
- divan 2y ago
  > I haven't seen the video ... I disagree on a fundamental level. Right )
  - divan 2y ago
    For those who are downvoting. This was an extreme example of a debate not worth having. There is no better way to show that you don't care about truth and only care about defending your current opinion than to say "I don't know your arguments, but I disagree".
    - hobs 2y ago
      It's not on people to watch hour long youtube videos to rejoin your argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
eemil 2y ago
It's more of a triangle really. Size/packaging being the third corner. Plenty of devices are indestructible and repairable, they're just bulky.

by divan 2y ago

Rygian 2y ago

In France, the "Repairability Index" was mandatory since 2021 [1, in French], and will be superseded by the "Durability Index" starting on 2025 [2, in French] [1] https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite [2] https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-durabilite https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-durabilite

throwaway2037 2y ago
Is the idea of these indices to encourage buyers to choose more repairable / durable goods? I can remember shopping for a new fridge with my parents as a kid: The energy efficiency labels (mandated by the gov't) made a big difference on their purchasing decisions.
- miki123211 2y ago
  I'm of the opinion that manufacturers should be required to prominently list the "expected total monthly price" on their packaging, calculated as product_price / months_of_warranty. This basically assumes that the product may break immediately after the warranty expires. Such a price would incentivize manufacturers to make warranties last as long as possible. This encourages repairability where it's economically and physically viable, without the tradeoffs necessary if repairability is mandated by law.
  - aembleton 2y ago
    > Such a price would incentivize manufacturers to make warranties last as long as possible. Or keep warranties short, but push consumers into a pay by month model, because the amount per month is less than than the advertised "expected monthly price". The company then gets a regular income stream.
    - poincaredisk 2y ago
      I think that would be one last straw that would make customers rebel. But I heard apple managed to pull this off, so maybe I'm out of touch.
  - poincaredisk 2y ago
    I like this idea. Currently I usually buy cheapest things available, because I assume they break immediately after the (mandatory) 2 year guarantee.

user_7832 2y ago

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the video (I'm in a quiet place right now.) > And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive. I disagree on a fundamental level. You could say such a thing when talking about really small (micro/miniature) devices. But as size increases, the validity of such arguments rapidly goes down. A phone case/bumper for example - makes the device larger, yes - but increases strength while not hurting reparability. The "problem", imo, is two-fold: 1. Apple does not care too much about making repairs easy. If it costs $100 to make a board they can charge a customer $500 to repair, or $800 for a new phone, it's easy for them. 2. (Some) people prefer sleeker designs. Samsung has its active range of phones, CAT makes durable phones - but many prefer a smaller thickness/bezel etc. This means that when tech improves to make smaller bezels, manufacturers decrease the bezel a little and add protective padding a little... haha no. It's only bezel reduction. Because it sell, I suppose. For example gorilla glass/protective glass has improved in technology, but thinner screens (for thinner devices) have eaten up the benefits of stronger tech. The real "killer" argument? The presence of companies like Framework. I'm typing this out on my FW13 & its build quality is really good. Perhaps a 10 year old thinkpad may be similar or better, but this is almost certainly thinner. But it is almost definitely more repairable. It's possible, but requires companies to offer products, and people to use and buy them.

divan 2y ago
> I haven't seen the video ... I disagree on a fundamental level. Right )
- divan 2y ago
  For those who are downvoting. This was an extreme example of a debate not worth having. There is no better way to show that you don't care about truth and only care about defending your current opinion than to say "I don't know your arguments, but I disagree".
  - hobs 2y ago
    It's not on people to watch hour long youtube videos to rejoin your argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

eemil 2y ago

It's more of a triangle really. Size/packaging being the third corner. Plenty of devices are indestructible and repairable, they're just bulky.