Nobody cares, iFixit. You make it sound like anyone cares about repairability except you, which is false. No one cares. Your business must evolve to deal with the changing landscape, or you need to move on altogether. No one should be making products with user-repairability in mind. That is a total waste. I don't want devices that are crippled by that as a priority.
I take the opposite view. Repairability (the user part isn't a must) should be in the design of high priced electronics and be required by legislation if necessary.
So let me get this straight -- you're saying the state of the art technology should not be legally allowed to evolve into new formats even smaller and more efficient, if it prevents guys in the back room from being able to work on them? We should halt all technology progress beyond this arbitrary limit, just because?
I find this very odd. It's like protecting buggy whip makers.
If devices get small and cheaper and reach a point where replacing costs fewer resources than repairing -- let's say everything were integrated into a single chip, which nobody can repair -- that seems to be completely natural. Producing this hypothetical chip would get cheaper over time and require less resources than producing multiple chips and modules. Efficiency is a good thing.
iPhone is easily best in class design.
Reliability far outweighs repairability in iPhone design, as it should for any personal consumer product.
It is only the complete insane people, that think they need legislation to control this, who think companies object to this because they want to build products that self-destruct as soon as the warranty expires.
Which is ironic considering Apple is a banner example of both, 1) a company who thinks repairability is a dumb antiquity, and 2) makes products that last forever.
Even more ironic is that their products are so good, they get recycled and reused and resold many many times over their lifespan, because people continuously upgrade their products, having nothing to do with their long term functional reliability.
It is amazing how dumb some people are.
You don't think you're mixing up the concept of repairability by end-users and unauthorized repair services with just the concept of repairability, which does not imply either? Better go back and rethink your attack. Some folks came to this discussion with the whole repairability by third-parties and end users argument fixed in their heads. Repairability, by the company that designed the device, is a different thing altogether. And that's what the ifixit teardown seems to throw into doubt. Clearly it's preferable that screens, power buttons and batteries should be able to be swapped out, even if only by the company that designed the device, than to manufacture completely unrepairable devices. Whether that should be mandated by law is debatable, i agree, but it's not the same debate as end-user repairability. One could be for mandating one requirement without being for the other.
You invest a lot in words, but you say very little.
You asked for legislation to mandate repairability in consumer electronics technology. I argue that's absurd and explain why. But since you're now moving the goal posts per usual and pretending you never did, I'll requote your claim for a legislative measure:
"Repairability (the user part isn't a must) should be in the design of high priced electronics and be required by legislation if necessary."
Terrible idea.
"If necessary"
I have given you all the context you need.
1) And what do you think would make legislation necessary?
2) The context of your comment reads that every manufacturer should make their devices easy to repair or we should move create laws that force them to, hence the "if necessary" part.
You do this often Soli, inserting words the original commenter never used. Repairability is the term used by Avon B7. He neither used nor implied 'easy' to repair. Repairability means that a device should be able to be repaired, period. Avon B7 even explicitly indicated in his full comment that end-user repairability is not necessary. If the maker of a device cannot repair its own device, that's not a good thing. Read my previous comments here (all of them) to see my reasons why.
Increased repairability means easier to repair. Now, where the fuck did I mention the end-user in the quoted text?
You didn't use the word 'easier.' You used the word 'easy.' Where in my quoted text did I say you mentioned the end user? I mentioned the end user, as an aside to my point that you inserted a word he never used. Read again.
You do this often Soli, inserting words the original commenter never used. Repairability is the term used by Avon B7. He neither used nor implied 'easy' to repair. Repairability means that a device should be able to be repaired, period. Avon B7 even explicitly indicated in his full comment that end-user repairability is not necessary. If the maker of a device cannot repair its own device, that's not a good thing. Read my previous comments here (all of them) to see my reasons why.
Increased repairability means easier to repair. Now, where the fuck did I mention the end-user in the quoted text?
You didn't use the word 'easier.' You used the word 'easy.'
1) Increased repairability makes something more easy whereas decreased repairability makes something difficult. Neither usage means that something would be either easy or difficult for everyone. Repairing any iPhone is easy for me, but it will at least be moderately difficult for anyone on this forum who has never done it before, and would be virtual impossible for a great many number of people regardless of how easy Apple could feasibly make it.
2) So you have a problem with -y over -ier, but you moved the conversation from manufacturer to end-user without so much as a second thought, and then completely ignored it when it was brought up. :sigh:
You do this often Soli, inserting words the original commenter never used. Repairability is the term used by Avon B7. He neither used nor implied 'easy' to repair. Repairability means that a device should be able to be repaired, period. Avon B7 even explicitly indicated in his full comment that end-user repairability is not necessary. If the maker of a device cannot repair its own device, that's not a good thing. Read my previous comments here (all of them) to see my reasons why.
Increased repairability means easier to repair. Now, where the fuck did I mention the end-user in the quoted text?
You didn't use the word 'easier.' You used the word 'easy.'
1) Increased repairability makes something more easy whereas decreased repairability makes something difficult. Neither usage means that something would be either easy or difficult for everyone. Repairing any iPhone is easy for me, but it will at least be moderately difficult for anyone on this forum who has never done it before, and would be virtual impossible for a great many number of people regardless of how easy Apple could feasibly make it.
2) So you have a problem with -y over -ier, but you moved the conversation from manufacturer to end-user without so much as a second thought, and then completely ignored it when it was brought up. :sigh:
You know what you did. You did the same thing to me on the Sept 12th event article. And I've seen you do it to others since. You put words in the mouths of commenters you're responding to. Avon B7 never used either 'easy' or 'easier' for the record, but putting 'easy' into his comment had a specific intent; to shift the meaning of his comment. You did this. And I see a pattern of you doing this as a debate strategy to discredit commenters you disagree with.
Nobody cares, iFixit. You make it sound like anyone cares about repairability except you, which is false. No one cares. Your business must evolve to deal with the changing landscape, or you need to move on altogether. No one should be making products with user-repairability in mind. That is a total waste. I don't want devices that are crippled by that as a priority.
I take the opposite view. Repairability (the user part isn't a must) should be in the design of high priced electronics and be required by legislation if necessary.
This phone looks to be a very bad example. If it is impossible to replace the battery without breaking the unit or leaving it in a worse state than when you began the process, a good idea would be to give it a very healthy warranty.
If not, you are basically purchasing a time-bomb with a one year delay on the countdown.
required by legislation if necessary.??? By legislation? Don't buy it. The company will go under. Problem solved. But legislation??? I hope never to see a law like that where I live.
It's better to focus the issue as one for the industry rather than a specific company.
It would be preferable to not have to reach the point of requiring legislation.
Not long ago I posted a link to a presentation on repairability and designing for it at the outset. At the time, I posted it because someone alleged that phones probably had to be irreparable because of waterproofing aspects of the design. My link showed that wasn't true at all said that it was possible to waterproof on a nano component level.
This is possible today but the product must be designed with repairability in mind.
It seems the Essential Phone was designed to make repair virtually impossible or extremely difficult.
Nobody cares, iFixit. You make it sound like anyone cares about repairability except you, which is false. No one cares. Your business must evolve to deal with the changing landscape, or you need to move on altogether. No one should be making products with user-repairability in mind. That is a total waste. I don't want devices that are crippled by that as a priority.
That's why you only see only one maybe three phone repair booths in every shopping contre.
No, those exist to prey on people who are gullible enough to go in for unauthorized amateur hour repairs.
Nobody cares, iFixit. You make it sound like anyone cares about repairability except you, which is false. No one cares. Your business must evolve to deal with the changing landscape, or you need to move on altogether. No one should be making products with user-repairability in mind. That is a total waste. I don't want devices that are crippled by that as a priority.
I take the opposite view. Repairability (the user part isn't a must) should be in the design of high priced electronics and be required by legislation if necessary.
So let me get this straight -- you're saying the state of the art technology should not be legally allowed to evolve into new formats even smaller and more efficient, if it prevents guys in the back room from being able to work on them? We should halt all technology progress beyond this arbitrary limit, just because?
I find this very odd. It's like protecting buggy whip makers.
If devices get small and cheaper and reach a point where replacing costs fewer resources than repairing -- let's say everything were integrated into a single chip, which nobody can repair -- that seems to be completely natural. Producing this hypothetical chip would get cheaper over time and require less resources than producing multiple chips and modules. Efficiency is a good thing.
iPhone is easily best in class design.
Reliability far outweighs repairability in iPhone design, as it should for any personal consumer product.
It is only the complete insane people, that think they need legislation to control this, who think companies object to this because they want to build products that self-destruct as soon as the warranty expires.
Which is ironic considering Apple is a banner example of both, 1) a company who thinks repairability is a dumb antiquity, and 2) makes products that last forever.
Even more ironic is that their products are so good, they get recycled and reused and resold many many times over their lifespan, because people continuously upgrade their products, having nothing to do with their long term functional reliability.
It is amazing how dumb some people are.
You don't think you're mixing up the concept of repairability by end-users and unauthorized repair services with just the concept of repairability, which does not imply either? Better go back and rethink your attack. Some folks came to this discussion with the whole repairability by third-parties and end users argument fixed in their heads. Repairability, by the company that designed the device, is a different thing altogether. And that's what the ifixit teardown seems to throw into doubt. Clearly it's preferable that screens, power buttons and batteries should be able to be swapped out, even if only by the company that designed the device, than to manufacture completely unrepairable devices. Whether that should be mandated by law is debatable, i agree, but it's not the same debate as end-user repairability. One could be for mandating one requirement without being for the other.
No I'm not mixing anything up. There is no reason for "authorized repair shops" to even exist. I don't care that this was an ancient part of US consumerism: build junk that breaks easily, create an industry around repairing junk.
The ifixit verdict on this phone seems to go beyond the realm of end-user repairability or even 3rd-party repair shop repairability. Seems like these Essential phones are put together in a manner that would prevent even Essential, the company that designed it, from being able to repair it. And that's a bad thing.
Hey Mr. Rubin , it's not so easy copying great hardware as it was copying great software. Lol
I dunno, sending a new phone out to replace a failed one sounds kinda nice. Why mess with a repair if a customer breaks one while under warranty and the manufacturer is willing to replace with a new unit? Out-of-warranty is on the buyer, so beware, but TBH an Essential Phone buyer gets treated pretty well if they're sending him a new phone instead of insisting on attempting to repair his old one or offering only a refurb'd one in exchange for the new one he bought.
Do they send you a new phone before you send in your old phone?
You they lend you a phone before the old one comes back from repairs? And what do you do, when repairing your own, and mess is up somthat it doesn’t go back together properly, or you break something else, or, very likely, strip small screws that are soft, and are using Locktight to prevent them from vibrating loose?
Nobody cares, iFixit. You make it sound like anyone cares about repairability except you, which is false. No one cares. Your business must evolve to deal with the changing landscape, or you need to move on altogether. No one should be making products with user-repairability in mind. That is a total waste. I don't want devices that are crippled by that as a priority.
I take the opposite view. Repairability (the user part isn't a must) should be in the design of high priced electronics and be required by legislation if necessary.
This phone looks to be a very bad example. If it is impossible to replace the battery without breaking the unit or leaving it in a worse state than when you began the process, a good idea would be to give it a very healthy warranty.
If not, you are basically purchasing a time-bomb with a one year delay on the countdown.
The market response to that kind of bullshit legislation is, "Fine we don't have to make you anything then."
What absurd liberal nonsense. Don't buy the product if you, in your amateur opinion, don't like some aspect of it.
This has nothing to do with political viewpoints, so don’t insult people by trying to make it so. I don’t agree with him on this, but it’s not a political issue. I have right wing friends that would take his side on this.
The ifixit verdict on this phone seems to go beyond the realm of end-user repairability or even 3rd-party repair shop repairability. Seems like these Essential phones are put together in a manner that would prevent even Essential, the company that designed it, from being able to repair it. And that's a bad thing.
Hey Mr. Rubin , it's not so easy copying great hardware as it was copying great software. Lol
I dunno, sending a new phone out to replace a failed one sounds kinda nice. Why mess with a repair if a customer breaks one while under warranty and the manufacturer is willing to replace with a new unit? Out-of-warranty is on the buyer, so beware, but TBH an Essential Phone buyer gets treated pretty well if they're sending him a new phone instead of insisting on attempting to repair his old one or offering only a refurb'd one in exchange for the new one he bought.
Do they send you a new phone before you send in your old phone?
You they lend you a phone before the old one comes back from repairs? And what do you do, when repairing your own, and mess is up somthat it doesn’t go back together properly, or you break something else, or, very likely, strip small screws that are soft, and are using Locktight to prevent them from vibrating loose?
If they handle it like some other OEM's they'll ship out a new one and allow x-number of days after receipt before you send the old one in. Much preferred to sending your phone in for repair and waiting, or nearly as inconveniently having to take a loaner and load your apps and data, then when you get back your repaired phone reversing the whole process and returning the loaner. That's an hassle for a buyer.
You invest a lot in words, but you say very little.
You asked for legislation to mandate repairability in consumer electronics technology. I argue that's absurd and explain why. But since you're now moving the goal posts per usual and pretending you never did, I'll requote your claim for a legislative measure:
"Repairability (the user part isn't a must) should be in the design of high priced electronics and be required by legislation if necessary."
Terrible idea.
"If necessary"
I have given you all the context you need.
1) And what do you think would make legislation necessary?
2) The context of your comment reads that every manufacturer should make their devices easy to repair or we should move create laws that force them to, hence the "if necessary" part.
If we did move to a situation where expensive smartphones became irreparable by design and required out of warranty or in warranty but non-covered substitution (effectively having to buy a new unit and put the damaged one in for recycling) I would prefer that legislation stepped in to protect consumers from the design decisions that led to that situation.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the EU at least would evaluate the situation if we reached that point and I'm also pretty sure that there are many consumer groups ready to escalate the issue if it ever became an industry-wide practice.
Quite honestly, you are wrong on this issue. For decades, at least, we have been buying products with “no user serviceable parts inside”. And often, they really mean it. Many electronics products have proprietary parts only obtainable from the manufacturer. And often, you can’t buy these parts unless you’re an authorized repair shop. Once the product is discontinued, the parts can quickly become unattainable. In the USA, in theory, parts must be available for 7 years after a product’s discontinuance, but good luck with that.
in addition, manufacturers are very concerned with liability. Many won’t honor the warrantee if you break that sticker that says that doing so will invalidate the warrantee. Many won’t service it at all. That goes for third party service. A problem is that most people who convince themselves that they are qualified, or just competent to service something, aren’t. There’s a lot of self deception out there.
improperly servicing something can cause the product to not work properly, or to become dangerous. Manufacturers are wary of this because, and we’ve seen it ourselves, peoplewill botch an attempted repair, and then sue the company over it.
You invest a lot in words, but you say very little.
You asked for legislation to mandate repairability in consumer electronics technology. I argue that's absurd and explain why. But since you're now moving the goal posts per usual and pretending you never did, I'll requote your claim for a legislative measure:
"Repairability (the user part isn't a must) should be in the design of high priced electronics and be required by legislation if necessary."
Terrible idea.
"If necessary"
I have given you all the context you need.
1) And what do you think would make legislation necessary?
2) The context of your comment reads that every manufacturer should make their devices easy to repair or we should move create laws that force them to, hence the "if necessary" part.
If we did move to a situation where expensive smartphones became irreparable by design and required out of warranty or in warranty but non-covered substitution (effectively having to buy a new unit and put the damaged one in for recycling) I would prefer that legislation stepped in to protect consumers from the design decisions that led to that situation.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the EU at least would evaluate the situation if we reached that point and I'm also pretty sure that there are many consumer groups ready to escalate the issue if it ever became an industry-wide practice.
I'm going to break my own rule here (sorry) and comment that the folks that incessantly inject the term "nanny state" into every damn thread on AI needs to move to the EU and live there for a while, then move the China and live there for a while before coming back to the US and finally STFU about how the US is a nanny state because OMG we have some regulations.
There is middle ground. We're living in it and I wouldn't trade it for all the tea in China or the EU.
While it's only your one opinion it would be kind of interesting if we could pose your question to the entire populations of three areas you mention and see who would like to switch (based on current knowledge and without having lived in the other two).
While I obviously disagree with the term 'nanny state' which is just a cheap, senseless shot towards the EU, I think more than a few of your countrymen and women would actually like to give living in the nanny state an opportunity.
It's worth noting that as a result of RoHS and its intended goals, other parts of the world are following suit and trying to put some order into the situation. Of course, if they plan to do business with the EU, they have to take heed of RoHS anyway.
To my knowledge the US is largely lagging in this area. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. Can we say that the nanny state has at least helped to reduce the presence of hazardous materials in the US as a by product of RoHS manufacturing obligations?
Ive been in Europe more than a few times over the years, and know a lot of people over there. It seems that you depend on the state to do things you could do for yourselves. They go way overboard there. They are also too literal. They assume people in Europe are stupid, and people there are ok with that. So companies can’t even have Ads that lift their product over another in a way that can possibly be interpreted as having said something that just might be an exaggeration. It’s all too much.
Nobody cares, iFixit. You make it sound like anyone cares about repairability except you, which is false. No one cares. Your business must evolve to deal with the changing landscape, or you need to move on altogether. No one should be making products with user-repairability in mind. That is a total waste. I don't want devices that are crippled by that as a priority.
iFixit demonstrates that in order to change the battery or repair the smallest little part inside like the charge port, you basically have to destroy the phone. Not you. A repair shop. You don't care that a repair shop can't change the used-up battery of your phone? That is ludicrous.
Since Apple can do it, it has to be assumed that repair shops, properly equipped, could also do it too. Authorized repair shops are so equipped. Unauthorized ones almost always aren’t. Companies don’t authorize just anyone.
Well, I doubt Apple has spent any time at all determining whether they can repair an Essential phone, which is excoriated by ifixit as the subject of this article. IPhones got a 7 out of 10, meaning they are designed rather better in terms of being repaired.
Well, yes. I’m talking about industries wide principles.
Ive been in Europe more than a few times over the years, and know a lot of people over there. It seems that you depend on the state to do things you could do for yourselves. They go way overboard there. They are also to literal. They assume peop,e in Europe are stupid. So companies can’t even have Ads that lift their product over another in a way that can possibly be interpreted as having said something that just might be an exaggeration. It’s all too much.
The ifixit verdict on this phone seems to go beyond the realm of end-user repairability or even 3rd-party repair shop repairability. Seems like these Essential phones are put together in a manner that would prevent even Essential, the company that designed it, from being able to repair it. And that's a bad thing.
Hey Mr. Rubin , it's not so easy copying great hardware as it was copying great software. Lol
I dunno, sending a new phone out to replace a failed one sounds kinda nice. Why mess with a repair if a customer breaks one while under warranty and the manufacturer is willing to replace with a new unit? Out-of-warranty is on the buyer, so beware, but TBH an Essential Phone buyer gets treated pretty well if they're sending him a new phone instead of insisting on attempting to repair his old one or offering only a refurb'd one in exchange for the new one he bought.
Do they send you a new phone before you send in your old phone?
You they lend you a phone before the old one comes back from repairs? And what do you do, when repairing your own, and mess is up somthat it doesn’t go back together properly, or you break something else, or, very likely, strip small screws that are soft, and are using Locktight to prevent them from vibrating loose?
If they handle it like some other OEM's they'll ship out a new one and allow x-number of days after receipt before you send the old one in. Much preferred to sending your phone in for repair and waiting, or nearly as inconveniently having to take a loaner and load your apps and data, then when you get back your repaired phone reversing the whole process and returning the loaner. That's an hassle for a buyer.
Well, that’s not a complete response. And “if” is part of the issue, isn’t it? It could very easily be most of the issue. And the part about breaking it when attempting g a repair is an important one, as many companies will send it right bank to you without repairing it if they see that. When bringing it into a repair shop that of the manufacturer, or an authorized one, the same thing will occur.
Ive been in Europe more than a few times over the years, and know a lot of people over there. It seems that you depend on the state to do things you could do for yourselves. They go way overboard there. They are also to literal. They assume peop,e in Europe are stupid. So companies can’t even have Ads that lift their product over another in a way that can possibly be interpreted as having said something that just might be an exaggeration. It’s all too much.
Do you have any examples of this?
Apple had an Ad that was removed a few years ago because it compared Apple’s product to another. I really don’t remember the details because I didn’t think it would come up anywhere. The ruling was that a company couldn’t do that, because it denigrated the other product. I suppose you could find it if you really wanted to. It’s far from the only example.
another, somewhat more recently, which I really hope Apple is appealing, is where someone sued Apple because they gave him a fully warranted, repaired product as a replacement for the broken one he handed in. He claimed, and the court agreed, that Apple should have given him a new product in exchange for his broken, used one. That’s ridiculous!
The ifixit verdict on this phone seems to go beyond the realm of end-user repairability or even 3rd-party repair shop repairability. Seems like these Essential phones are put together in a manner that would prevent even Essential, the company that designed it, from being able to repair it. And that's a bad thing.
Hey Mr. Rubin , it's not so easy copying great hardware as it was copying great software. Lol
I dunno, sending a new phone out to replace a failed one sounds kinda nice. Why mess with a repair if a customer breaks one while under warranty and the manufacturer is willing to replace with a new unit? Out-of-warranty is on the buyer, so beware, but TBH an Essential Phone buyer gets treated pretty well if they're sending him a new phone instead of insisting on attempting to repair his old one or offering only a refurb'd one in exchange for the new one he bought.
Do they send you a new phone before you send in your old phone?
You they lend you a phone before the old one comes back from repairs? And what do you do, when repairing your own, and mess is up somthat it doesn’t go back together properly, or you break something else, or, very likely, strip small screws that are soft, and are using Locktight to prevent them from vibrating loose?
If they handle it like some other OEM's they'll ship out a new one and allow x-number of days after receipt before you send the old one in. Much preferred to sending your phone in for repair and waiting, or nearly as inconveniently having to take a loaner and load your apps and data, then when you get back your repaired phone reversing the whole process and returning the loaner. That's an hassle for a buyer.
Well, that’s not a complete response. And “if” is part of the issue, isn’t it? It could very easily be most of the issue. And the part about breaking it when attempting g a repair is an important one, as many companies will send it right bank to you without repairing it if they see that. When bringing it into a repair shop that of the manufacturer, or an authorized one, the same thing will occur.
so, as with most things, it’s not that simple.
Examples which apply to both of the "repair' issues I've had, and the only ones encountered in 8 years of smartphone use:
Moto X: display pixel issue after nearly a year of use. Motorola sent me a new phone, and a link to a prepaid return label for my old one once I had the new one in hand.
ZTE Axon7: One half of screen dead after about 4 months. ZTE sent out a brand new phone (not refurb) and a link to a return label for my old phone after the new one was received, with x-number of days (maybe 14?) to return it.
So yes it was that simple.
If the Essential Phone is as "unrepairable" as the article claims then of course Essential would have to do the same thing. They won't be repairing, they'll be replacing, just as Moto and ZTE did.
Ive been in Europe more than a few times over the years, and know a lot of people over there. It seems that you depend on the state to do things you could do for yourselves. They go way overboard there. They are also to literal. They assume peop,e in Europe are stupid. So companies can’t even have Ads that lift their product over another in a way that can possibly be interpreted as having said something that just might be an exaggeration. It’s all too much.
Do you have any examples of this?
Apple had an Ad that was removed a few years ago because it compared Apple’s product to another. I really don’t remember the details because I didn’t think it would come up anywhere. The ruling was that a company couldn’t do that, because it denigrated the other product. I suppose you could find it if you really wanted to. It’s far from the only example.
another, somewhat more recently, which I really hope Apple is appealing, is where someone sued Apple because they gave him a fully warranted, repaired product as a replacement for the broken one he handed in. He claimed, and the court agreed, that Apple should have given him a new product in exchange for his broken, used one. That’s ridiculous!
I seem to remember that Apple had to pull an iPhoned in the UK because they used shortened sequences which the UK deemed unlawful for being misleading, even though they included text like "sequences shortened" or "speeds my vary." I know the UK is very strict about literal truth in advertising, but I'm not familiar with this being the case of all of Europe or a requirement of the EU.
edit: I think this is it. I'm not seeing any disclaimer in the ad. If that's the case, then that is disingenuous.
The ifixit verdict on this phone seems to go beyond the realm of end-user repairability or even 3rd-party repair shop repairability. Seems like these Essential phones are put together in a manner that would prevent even Essential, the company that designed it, from being able to repair it. And that's a bad thing.
Hey Mr. Rubin , it's not so easy copying great hardware as it was copying great software. Lol
I dunno, sending a new phone out to replace a failed one sounds kinda nice. Why mess with a repair if a customer breaks one while under warranty and the manufacturer is willing to replace with a new unit? Out-of-warranty is on the buyer, so beware, but TBH an Essential Phone buyer gets treated pretty well if they're sending him a new phone instead of insisting on attempting to repair his old one or offering only a refurb'd one in exchange for the new one he bought.
Do they send you a new phone before you send in your old phone?
You they lend you a phone before the old one comes back from repairs? And what do you do, when repairing your own, and mess is up somthat it doesn’t go back together properly, or you break something else, or, very likely, strip small screws that are soft, and are using Locktight to prevent them from vibrating loose?
If they handle it like some other OEM's they'll ship out a new one and allow x-number of days after receipt before you send the old one in. Much preferred to sending your phone in for repair and waiting, or nearly as inconveniently having to take a loaner and load your apps and data, then when you get back your repaired phone reversing the whole process and returning the loaner. That's an hassle for a buyer.
Well, that’s not a complete response. And “if” is part of the issue, isn’t it? It could very easily be most of the issue. And the part about breaking it when attempting g a repair is an important one, as many companies will send it right bank to you without repairing it if they see that. When bringing it into a repair shop that of the manufacturer, or an authorized one, the same thing will occur.
so, as with most things, it’s not that simple.
Examples which apply to both of the "repair' issues I've had, and the only ones encountered in 8 years of smartphone use:
Moto X: display pixel issue after nearly a year of us. Motorola sent me a new phone, and a link to a prepaid return label for my old one once I had the new one in hand.
ZTE
Axon7: One half of screen dead after about 4 months. ZTE sent out a brand new phone (not refurb) and a link to a return label for my old phone after the new one was received, with x-number of days (maybe 14?) to return it.
So yes it was that simple.
If the Essential Phone is as "unrepairable" as the article claims then of course Essential would have to do the same thing. They won't be repairing, they'll be replacing, just as Moto and ZTE did.
Oh boy, somehow, I seem to have replaced Soli with you in this. I don’t know how I did that, but I did. That’s why I’ve been saying you’re not responding to the other part of my post. So, forget what I’ve been saying to you.
The ifixit verdict on this phone seems to go beyond the realm of end-user repairability or even 3rd-party repair shop repairability. Seems like these Essential phones are put together in a manner that would prevent even Essential, the company that designed it, from being able to repair it. And that's a bad thing.
Hey Mr. Rubin , it's not so easy copying great hardware as it was copying great software. Lol
I dunno, sending a new phone out to replace a failed one sounds kinda nice. Why mess with a repair if a customer breaks one while under warranty and the manufacturer is willing to replace with a new unit? Out-of-warranty is on the buyer, so beware, but TBH an Essential Phone buyer gets treated pretty well if they're sending him a new phone instead of insisting on attempting to repair his old one or offering only a refurb'd one in exchange for the new one he bought.
Do they send you a new phone before you send in your old phone?
You they lend you a phone before the old one comes back from repairs? And what do you do, when repairing your own, and mess is up somthat it doesn’t go back together properly, or you break something else, or, very likely, strip small screws that are soft, and are using Locktight to prevent them from vibrating loose?
If they handle it like some other OEM's they'll ship out a new one and allow x-number of days after receipt before you send the old one in. Much preferred to sending your phone in for repair and waiting, or nearly as inconveniently having to take a loaner and load your apps and data, then when you get back your repaired phone reversing the whole process and returning the loaner. That's an hassle for a buyer.
Well, that’s not a complete response. And “if” is part of the issue, isn’t it? It could very easily be most of the issue. And the part about breaking it when attempting g a repair is an important one, as many companies will send it right bank to you without repairing it if they see that. When bringing it into a repair shop that of the manufacturer, or an authorized one, the same thing will occur.
so, as with most things, it’s not that simple.
Examples which apply to both of the "repair' issues I've had, and the only ones encountered in 8 years of smartphone use:
Moto X: display pixel issue after nearly a year of us. Motorola sent me a new phone, and a link to a prepaid return label for my old one once I had the new one in hand.
ZTE
Axon7: One half of screen dead after about 4 months. ZTE sent out a brand new phone (not refurb) and a link to a return label for my old phone after the new one was received, with x-number of days (maybe 14?) to return it.
So yes it was that simple.
If the Essential Phone is as "unrepairable" as the article claims then of course Essential would have to do the same thing. They won't be repairing, they'll be replacing, just as Moto and ZTE did.
Oh boy, somehow, I seem to have replaced Soli with you in this. I don’t know how I did that, but I did. That’s why I’ve been saying you’re not responding to the other part of my post. So, forget what I’ve been saying to you.
Comments
You didn't use the word 'easier.' You used the word 'easy.' Where in my quoted text did I say you mentioned the end user? I mentioned the end user, as an aside to my point that you inserted a word he never used. Read again.
2) So you have a problem with -y over -ier, but you moved the conversation from manufacturer to end-user without so much as a second thought, and then completely ignored it when it was brought up. :sigh:
It would be preferable to not have to reach the point of requiring legislation.
Not long ago I posted a link to a presentation on repairability and designing for it at the outset. At the time, I posted it because someone alleged that phones probably had to be irreparable because of waterproofing aspects of the design. My link showed that wasn't true at all said that it was possible to waterproof on a nano component level.
This is possible today but the product must be designed with repairability in mind.
It seems the Essential Phone was designed to make repair virtually impossible or extremely difficult.
in addition, manufacturers are very concerned with liability. Many won’t honor the warrantee if you break that sticker that says that doing so will invalidate the warrantee. Many won’t service it at all. That goes for third party service. A problem is that most people who convince themselves that they are qualified, or just competent to service something, aren’t. There’s a lot of self deception out there.
improperly servicing something can cause the product to not work properly, or to become dangerous. Manufacturers are wary of this because, and we’ve seen it ourselves, peoplewill botch an attempted repair, and then sue the company over it.
Ive been in Europe more than a few times over the years, and know a lot of people over there. It seems that you depend on the state to do things you could do for yourselves. They go way overboard there. They are also too literal. They assume people in Europe are stupid, and people there are ok with that. So companies can’t even have Ads that lift their product over another in a way that can possibly be interpreted as having said something that just might be an exaggeration. It’s all too much.
Well, yes. I’m talking about industries wide principles.
so, as with most things, it’s not that simple.
Apple had an Ad that was removed a few years ago because it compared Apple’s product to another. I really don’t remember the details because I didn’t think it would come up anywhere. The ruling was that a company couldn’t do that, because it denigrated the other product. I suppose you could find it if you really wanted to. It’s far from the only example.
another, somewhat more recently, which I really hope Apple is appealing, is where someone sued Apple because they gave him a fully warranted, repaired product as a replacement for the broken one he handed in. He claimed, and the court agreed, that Apple should have given him a new product in exchange for his broken, used one. That’s ridiculous!
Moto X: display pixel issue after nearly a year of use. Motorola sent me a new phone, and a link to a prepaid return label for my old one once I had the new one in hand.
ZTE Axon7: One half of screen dead after about 4 months. ZTE sent out a brand new phone (not refurb) and a link to a return label for my old phone after the new one was received, with x-number of days (maybe 14?) to return it. So yes it was that simple.
If the Essential Phone is as "unrepairable" as the article claims then of course Essential would have to do the same thing. They won't be repairing, they'll be replacing, just as Moto and ZTE did.
EDIT: Here ya go Mel
https://shop.essential.com/pages/essential-extended-care
edit: I think this is it. I'm not seeing any disclaimer in the ad. If that's the case, then that is disingenuous.
It it turns out that we actually agree on this.