Note: if you find your comment removed by me it's because you have either deliberately become obtuse in an effort to avoid addressing a point of contention with another commenter, or you've become directly insulting to another commenter. These are the only reasons I remove a comment. If a commenter continues along this vein, I will escalate the issue, which could result in the commenter being banned.
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.
I can't be wrong if the issue hasn't reached government for assessment.
First we have to see which way industry moves. If non-repairability by design becomes commonplace and someone takes issue with it, it will be brought up for government review, the usual studies etc will be carried out followed by proposals. It's a long road and we aren't there yet by a long shot. Yes, some devices are already heading that way but there is a long way to go.
One, but not the only reason, for any legislation would obviously be the environment and guarantees of how goods that fall into the unrepairable by design category are recycled or disposed of (reuse isn't possible in this case). As I understand it, the US has been accused of shipping absolutely huge amounts or electrical and electronic waste abroad for 'recycling' as a way to skirt regulations. That's the kind of thing legislation would try to catch. The problem is made worse by our ever increasing desire (created partly by the industry) for new phones in this particular case. WEEE in the EU covers that problem very well but it's the kind thing that would have to be looked at.
Those micro plastic beads in shower gels and cosmetics are also being banned by legislation for contamination of the environment and drinking water. Woven, humid toilet towels are also probably going to be treated via legislation as they are clogging up sewage systems. If manufacturers don't heed the warnings from government they will be forced to eliminate the weave from the design or risk an outright ban. The most logical solution is for them to rethink the design of the product.
On the subject of spare parts, here is something from Bosch specifically on the subject:
"We guarantee you long-term parts availability – even if your tool is no longer in production."
"One of the many benefits of installing Geberit products is the availability of spare parts for all products, including the 25 year spare part availability for all working parts within Geberit concealed cisterns and flush plates. Install Geberit today and be safe in the knowledge your customers products can be serviced for many years to come."
Parts availability is a planned and calculated decision. Of course, some manufacturers would prefer to cut parts availability down to the minimum but if that reaches a point where consumers get a 'short ride' and 'unfair' treatment as a result, expect it to end up being looked at and possibly resolved by legislation.
That could come in any shape or form.
What is potentially worse for the manufacturer is that the legislative process will define terms like "short ride" and "unfair" for them.
Look at what is happening with sugared drinks. Industry is reformulating these drinks (and marketing them as healthier) to avoid outright bans and higher taxes. All this in spite of the sugar lobby and all its power. The same is happening with palm oil.
Manufacturers tend to bow to government and social pressure when they have major interests in their markets and that includes how they design their products.
Do you remember when those metallic, almost impossible to remove, stickers on the backs of CRT TVs vanished almost overnight to be replaced by embossed wording in the plastic? That was a design change to accommodate problems at recycling plants.
Of course, all this has a price. It always has. I remember reading years ago that Apple Computer had a ten-year supply of spare parts and a massive logistics operation to ensure you could get the part you needed in good time.
That cost was included in the price of the product. I think some countries establish warranties based on the price of some products so you would start with a minimum statutory warranty and then it increases up.to a limit. I'm not 100% sure of this though.
All electronic and electrical devices should be recycled. For that to happen, the individual parts need to be separated. The ease of the process will influence the cost of recycling. The decision to make something repairable or not is taken well before the product is manufactured and it's that decision that needs to be put under the spotlight because at the end of the day industry is trying to influence consumer habits. If we ever reach an absurd situation such as buying an expensive phone from anyone, dropping it and cracking the screen, and it resulted in having to get a complete new phone as repair was impossible, government would step in.
Of course, that has already happened with EU statutory warranties. If a product fails under normal use within six months of purchase, it is automatically considered to be a manufacturing defect and the manufacturer must deal with it. Imagine if that period were extended. Would that persuade manufacturers to design for repairability?
Sometimes, to avoid legislative constraints, industry will opt to 'listen' to government and make design changes. That's what happened with feature phone chargers that were becoming a massive environmental problem.
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.
I can't be wrong if the issue hasn't reached government for assessment.
First we have to see which way industry moves. If non-repairability by design becomes commonplace and someone takes issue with it, it will be brought up for government review, the usual studies etc will be carried out followed by proposals. It's a long road and we aren't there yet by a long shot. Yes, some devices are already heading that way but there is a long way to go.
One, but not the only reason, for any legislation would obviously be the environment and guarantees of how goods that fall into the unrepairable by design category are recycled or disposed of (reuse isn't possible in this case). As I understand it, the US has been accused of shipping absolutely huge amounts or electrical and electronic waste abroad for 'recycling' as a way to skirt regulations. That's the kind of thing legislation would try to catch. The problem is made worse by our ever increasing desire (created partly by the industry) for new phones in this particular case. WEEE in the EU covers that problem very well but it's the kind thing that would have to be looked at.
Those micro plastic beads in shower gels and cosmetics are also being banned by legislation for contamination of the environment and drinking water. Woven, humid toilet towels are also probably going to be treated via legislation as they are clogging up sewage systems. If manufacturers don't heed the warnings from government they will be forced to eliminate the weave from the design or risk an outright ban. The most logical solution is for them to rethink the design of the product.
On the subject of spare parts, here is something from Bosch specifically on the subject:
"We guarantee you long-term parts availability – even if your tool is no longer in production."
"One of the many benefits of installing Geberit products is the availability of spare parts for all products, including the 25 year spare part availability for all working parts within Geberit concealed cisterns and flush plates. Install Geberit today and be safe in the knowledge your customers products can be serviced for many years to come."
Parts availability is a planned and calculated decision. Of course, some manufacturers would prefer to cut parts availability down to the minimum but if that reaches a point where consumers get a 'short ride' and 'unfair' treatment as a result, expect it to end up being looked at and possibly resolved by legislation.
That could come in any shape or form.
What is potentially worse for the manufacturer is that the legislative process will define terms like "short ride" and "unfair" for them.
Look at what is happening with sugared drinks. Industry is reformulating these drinks (and marketing them as healthier) to avoid outright bans and higher taxes. All this in spite of the sugar lobby and all its power. The same is happening with palm oil.
Manufacturers tend to bow to government and social pressure when they have major interests in their markets and that includes how they design their products.
Do you remember when those metallic, almost impossible to remove, stickers on the backs of CRT TVs vanished almost overnight to be replaced by embossed wording in the plastic? That was a design change to accommodate problems at recycling plants.
Of course, all this has a price. It always has. I remember reading years ago that Apple Computer had a ten-year supply of spare parts and a massive logistics operation to ensure you could get the part you needed in good time.
That cost was included in the price of the product. I think some countries establish warranties based on the price of some products so you would start with a minimum statutory warranty and then it increases up.to a limit. I'm not 100% sure of this though.
All electronic and electrical devices should be recycled. For that to happen, the individual parts need to be separated. The ease of the process will influence the cost of recycling. The decision to make something repairable or not is taken well before the product is manufactured and it's that decision that needs to be put under the spotlight because at the end of the day industry is trying to influence consumer habits. If we ever reach an absurd situation such as buying an expensive phone from anyone, dropping it and cracking the screen, and it resulted in having to get a complete new phone as repair was impossible, government would step in.
Of course, that has already happened with EU statutory warranties. If a product fails under normal use within six months of purchase, it is automatically considered to be a manufacturing defect and the manufacturer must deal with it. Imagine if that period were extended. Would that persuade manufacturers to design for repairability?
Sometimes, to avoid legislative constraints, industry will opt to 'listen' to government and make design changes. That's what happened with feature phone chargers that were becoming a massive environmental problem.
Here, in the USA, a manufacturer only needs to have parts available for 7 years after discontinuance of a product. This is far more serious for electronic products than for cisterns, which don’t change much, decade to decade. Hp, for example, will cut you off the day after the 7 years period is over. That, I can state as a fact.
the only legislation involving this, nationwide, is the 7 year rule. And that rule doesn’t require those parts to be available to YOU, just authorized repair services, and the company itself. So no guarantee of self repair there.
i honestly don’t know what most of your post has to do with the two questions here, that of self repair, and whether an electronic device can be repaired at all.
in fact, most of your post has nothing to do with those two issues at all. Why don’t you just stick to that?
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.
I can't be wrong if the issue hasn't reached government for assessment.
First we have to see which way industry moves. If non-repairability by design becomes commonplace and someone takes issue with it, it will be brought up for government review, the usual studies etc will be carried out followed by proposals. It's a long road and we aren't there yet by a long shot. Yes, some devices are already heading that way but there is a long way to go.
One, but not the only reason, for any legislation would obviously be the environment and guarantees of how goods that fall into the unrepairable by design category are recycled or disposed of (reuse isn't possible in this case). As I understand it, the US has been accused of shipping absolutely huge amounts or electrical and electronic waste abroad for 'recycling' as a way to skirt regulations. That's the kind of thing legislation would try to catch. The problem is made worse by our ever increasing desire (created partly by the industry) for new phones in this particular case. WEEE in the EU covers that problem very well but it's the kind thing that would have to be looked at.
Those micro plastic beads in shower gels and cosmetics are also being banned by legislation for contamination of the environment and drinking water. Woven, humid toilet towels are also probably going to be treated via legislation as they are clogging up sewage systems. If manufacturers don't heed the warnings from government they will be forced to eliminate the weave from the design or risk an outright ban. The most logical solution is for them to rethink the design of the product.
On the subject of spare parts, here is something from Bosch specifically on the subject:
"We guarantee you long-term parts availability – even if your tool is no longer in production."
"One of the many benefits of installing Geberit products is the availability of spare parts for all products, including the 25 year spare part availability for all working parts within Geberit concealed cisterns and flush plates. Install Geberit today and be safe in the knowledge your customers products can be serviced for many years to come."
Parts availability is a planned and calculated decision. Of course, some manufacturers would prefer to cut parts availability down to the minimum but if that reaches a point where consumers get a 'short ride' and 'unfair' treatment as a result, expect it to end up being looked at and possibly resolved by legislation.
That could come in any shape or form.
What is potentially worse for the manufacturer is that the legislative process will define terms like "short ride" and "unfair" for them.
Look at what is happening with sugared drinks. Industry is reformulating these drinks (and marketing them as healthier) to avoid outright bans and higher taxes. All this in spite of the sugar lobby and all its power. The same is happening with palm oil.
Manufacturers tend to bow to government and social pressure when they have major interests in their markets and that includes how they design their products.
Do you remember when those metallic, almost impossible to remove, stickers on the backs of CRT TVs vanished almost overnight to be replaced by embossed wording in the plastic? That was a design change to accommodate problems at recycling plants.
Of course, all this has a price. It always has. I remember reading years ago that Apple Computer had a ten-year supply of spare parts and a massive logistics operation to ensure you could get the part you needed in good time.
That cost was included in the price of the product. I think some countries establish warranties based on the price of some products so you would start with a minimum statutory warranty and then it increases up.to a limit. I'm not 100% sure of this though.
All electronic and electrical devices should be recycled. For that to happen, the individual parts need to be separated. The ease of the process will influence the cost of recycling. The decision to make something repairable or not is taken well before the product is manufactured and it's that decision that needs to be put under the spotlight because at the end of the day industry is trying to influence consumer habits. If we ever reach an absurd situation such as buying an expensive phone from anyone, dropping it and cracking the screen, and it resulted in having to get a complete new phone as repair was impossible, government would step in.
Of course, that has already happened with EU statutory warranties. If a product fails under normal use within six months of purchase, it is automatically considered to be a manufacturing defect and the manufacturer must deal with it. Imagine if that period were extended. Would that persuade manufacturers to design for repairability?
Sometimes, to avoid legislative constraints, industry will opt to 'listen' to government and make design changes. That's what happened with feature phone chargers that were becoming a massive environmental problem.
Here, in the USA, a manufacturer only needs to have parts available for 7 years after discontinuance of a product. This is far more serious for electronic products than for cisterns, which don’t change much, decade to decade. Hp, for example, will cut you off the day after the 7 years period is over. That, I can state as a fact.
the only legislation involving this, nationwide, is the 7 year rule. And that rule doesn’t require those parts to be available to YOU, just authorized repair services, and the company itself. So no guarantee of self repair there.
i honestly don’t know what most of your post has to do with the two questions here, that of self repair, and whether an electronic device can be repaired at all.
in fact, most of your post has nothing to do with those two issues at all. Why don’t you just stick to that?
'Self' repair isn't what I said. See my first post.
The question of 'if necessary' hinged on which way the industry went.
The spare parts section was to highlight that we are nowhere near that the point of industry making things impossible to repair, in spite of this phone and the decisions they have taken.
As I said, the Geberit example was an extreme one. The seven year question isn't relevant here as my point was about future design decisions and if we ever see truly 'disposable' hardware across the industry and I only highlighted the spare parts precisely to make it clear that that isn't the case.
Btw, be careful with cisterns and tech :-)
I just spent a lot of money on a Grohe toilet and wanted to marry it to a Geberit cistern for their lateral, pneumatic flush mechanism. No go :-(
If you want auto flush you need the Grohe autoflush mechanism (sold separately) and a Grohe RAPID cistern. My original plan was to marry the Geberit with a Roca Inspira system. No go! Roca 'works better' with its own cistern according to the people in the know.
When you put tech into toilets it seems incompatibilities bloom :-(
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.
I can't be wrong if the issue hasn't reached government for assessment.
First we have to see which way industry moves. If non-repairability by design becomes commonplace and someone takes issue with it, it will be brought up for government review, the usual studies etc will be carried out followed by proposals. It's a long road and we aren't there yet by a long shot. Yes, some devices are already heading that way but there is a long way to go.
One, but not the only reason, for any legislation would obviously be the environment and guarantees of how goods that fall into the unrepairable by design category are recycled or disposed of (reuse isn't possible in this case). As I understand it, the US has been accused of shipping absolutely huge amounts or electrical and electronic waste abroad for 'recycling' as a way to skirt regulations. That's the kind of thing legislation would try to catch. The problem is made worse by our ever increasing desire (created partly by the industry) for new phones in this particular case. WEEE in the EU covers that problem very well but it's the kind thing that would have to be looked at.
Those micro plastic beads in shower gels and cosmetics are also being banned by legislation for contamination of the environment and drinking water. Woven, humid toilet towels are also probably going to be treated via legislation as they are clogging up sewage systems. If manufacturers don't heed the warnings from government they will be forced to eliminate the weave from the design or risk an outright ban. The most logical solution is for them to rethink the design of the product.
On the subject of spare parts, here is something from Bosch specifically on the subject:
"We guarantee you long-term parts availability – even if your tool is no longer in production."
"One of the many benefits of installing Geberit products is the availability of spare parts for all products, including the 25 year spare part availability for all working parts within Geberit concealed cisterns and flush plates. Install Geberit today and be safe in the knowledge your customers products can be serviced for many years to come."
Parts availability is a planned and calculated decision. Of course, some manufacturers would prefer to cut parts availability down to the minimum but if that reaches a point where consumers get a 'short ride' and 'unfair' treatment as a result, expect it to end up being looked at and possibly resolved by legislation.
That could come in any shape or form.
What is potentially worse for the manufacturer is that the legislative process will define terms like "short ride" and "unfair" for them.
Look at what is happening with sugared drinks. Industry is reformulating these drinks (and marketing them as healthier) to avoid outright bans and higher taxes. All this in spite of the sugar lobby and all its power. The same is happening with palm oil.
Manufacturers tend to bow to government and social pressure when they have major interests in their markets and that includes how they design their products.
Do you remember when those metallic, almost impossible to remove, stickers on the backs of CRT TVs vanished almost overnight to be replaced by embossed wording in the plastic? That was a design change to accommodate problems at recycling plants.
Of course, all this has a price. It always has. I remember reading years ago that Apple Computer had a ten-year supply of spare parts and a massive logistics operation to ensure you could get the part you needed in good time.
That cost was included in the price of the product. I think some countries establish warranties based on the price of some products so you would start with a minimum statutory warranty and then it increases up.to a limit. I'm not 100% sure of this though.
All electronic and electrical devices should be recycled. For that to happen, the individual parts need to be separated. The ease of the process will influence the cost of recycling. The decision to make something repairable or not is taken well before the product is manufactured and it's that decision that needs to be put under the spotlight because at the end of the day industry is trying to influence consumer habits. If we ever reach an absurd situation such as buying an expensive phone from anyone, dropping it and cracking the screen, and it resulted in having to get a complete new phone as repair was impossible, government would step in.
Of course, that has already happened with EU statutory warranties. If a product fails under normal use within six months of purchase, it is automatically considered to be a manufacturing defect and the manufacturer must deal with it. Imagine if that period were extended. Would that persuade manufacturers to design for repairability?
Sometimes, to avoid legislative constraints, industry will opt to 'listen' to government and make design changes. That's what happened with feature phone chargers that were becoming a massive environmental problem.
Here, in the USA, a manufacturer only needs to have parts available for 7 years after discontinuance of a product. This is far more serious for electronic products than for cisterns, which don’t change much, decade to decade. Hp, for example, will cut you off the day after the 7 years period is over. That, I can state as a fact.
the only legislation involving this, nationwide, is the 7 year rule. And that rule doesn’t require those parts to be available to YOU, just authorized repair services, and the company itself. So no guarantee of self repair there.
i honestly don’t know what most of your post has to do with the two questions here, that of self repair, and whether an electronic device can be repaired at all.
in fact, most of your post has nothing to do with those two issues at all. Why don’t you just stick to that?
'Self' repair isn't what I said. See my first post.
The question of 'if necessary' hinged on which way the industry went.
The spare parts section was to highlight that we are nowhere near that the point of industry making things impossible to repair, in spite of this phone and the decisions they have taken.
As I said, the Geberit example was an extreme one. The seven year question isn't relevant here as my point was about future design decisions and if we ever see truly 'disposable' hardware across the industry and I only highlighted the spare parts precisely to make it clear that that isn't the case.
Btw, be careful with cisterns and tech :-)
I just spent a lot of money on a Grohe toilet and wanted to marry it to a Geberit cistern for their lateral, pneumatic flush mechanism. No go :-(
If you want auto flush you need the Grohe autoflush mechanism (sold separately) and a Grohe RAPID cistern. My original plan was to marry the Geberit with a Roca Inspira system. No go! Roca 'works better' with its own cistern according to the people in the know.
When you put tech into toilets it seems incompatibilities bloom :-(
The 7 year law is very important. It assures that manufacturers will have a sufficient supply of parts for those 7 years. This may not apply to most phones, but it does apply. I have some friends with old phones. But it does apply to supposedly more durable goods, such as computers, particularly notebooks, which, due to their vulnerability because of being carried around, do break more often. With the last two models of Surface Books being considered pretty much unrepairable, Microsoft needs to have entire assemblies on stock, as well as entire computers. That’s quite an expense.
if you break something when attempting to open it, even if you’re the manufacturer, how close to unrepairable is that? Pretty close I’d say.
Comments
First we have to see which way industry moves. If non-repairability by design becomes commonplace and someone takes issue with it, it will be brought up for government review, the usual studies etc will be carried out followed by proposals. It's a long road and we aren't there yet by a long shot. Yes, some devices are already heading that way but there is a long way to go.
One, but not the only reason, for any legislation would obviously be the environment and guarantees of how goods that fall into the unrepairable by design category are recycled or disposed of (reuse isn't possible in this case). As I understand it, the US has been accused of shipping absolutely huge amounts or electrical and electronic waste abroad for 'recycling' as a way to skirt regulations. That's the kind of thing legislation would try to catch. The problem is made worse by our ever increasing desire (created partly by the industry) for new phones in this particular case. WEEE in the EU covers that problem very well but it's the kind thing that would have to be looked at.
Those micro plastic beads in shower gels and cosmetics are also being banned by legislation for contamination of the environment and drinking water. Woven, humid toilet towels are also probably going to be treated via legislation as they are clogging up sewage systems. If manufacturers don't heed the warnings from government they will be forced to eliminate the weave from the design or risk an outright ban. The most logical solution is for them to rethink the design of the product.
On the subject of spare parts, here is something from Bosch specifically on the subject:
"We guarantee you long-term parts availability – even if your tool is no longer in production."
https://www.bosch-do-it.com/ae/en/diy/service/spare-parts-service/index.jsp?no-check
And perhaps an extreme example from Geberit:
"One of the many benefits of installing Geberit products is the availability of spare parts for all products, including the 25 year spare part availability for all working parts within Geberit concealed cisterns and flush plates. Install Geberit today and be safe in the knowledge your customers products can be serviced for many years to come."
http://www.geberit.co.uk/en_uk/target_groups/installer/service/spare_parts_installer/spare_parts_2.html
Parts availability is a planned and calculated decision. Of course, some manufacturers would prefer to cut parts availability down to the minimum but if that reaches a point where consumers get a 'short ride' and 'unfair' treatment as a result, expect it to end up being looked at and possibly resolved by legislation.
That could come in any shape or form.
What is potentially worse for the manufacturer is that the legislative process will define terms like "short ride" and "unfair" for them.
Look at what is happening with sugared drinks. Industry is reformulating these drinks (and marketing them as healthier) to avoid outright bans and higher taxes. All this in spite of the sugar lobby and all its power. The same is happening with palm oil.
Manufacturers tend to bow to government and social pressure when they have major interests in their markets and that includes how they design their products.
Do you remember when those metallic, almost impossible to remove, stickers on the backs of CRT TVs vanished almost overnight to be replaced by embossed wording in the plastic? That was a design change to accommodate problems at recycling plants.
Of course, all this has a price. It always has. I remember reading years ago that Apple Computer had a ten-year supply of spare parts and a massive logistics operation to ensure you could get the part you needed in good time.
That cost was included in the price of the product. I think some countries establish warranties based on the price of some products so you would start with a minimum statutory warranty and then it increases up.to a limit. I'm not 100% sure of this though.
All electronic and electrical devices should be recycled. For that to happen, the individual parts need to be separated. The ease of the process will influence the cost of recycling. The decision to make something repairable or not is taken well before the product is manufactured and it's that decision that needs to be put under the spotlight because at the end of the day industry is trying to influence consumer habits. If we ever reach an absurd situation such as buying an expensive phone from anyone, dropping it and cracking the screen, and it resulted in having to get a complete new phone as repair was impossible, government would step in.
Of course, that has already happened with EU statutory warranties. If a product fails under normal use within six months of purchase, it is automatically considered to be a manufacturing defect and the manufacturer must deal with it. Imagine if that period were extended. Would that persuade manufacturers to design for repairability?
Sometimes, to avoid legislative constraints, industry will opt to 'listen' to government and make design changes. That's what happened with feature phone chargers that were becoming a massive environmental problem.
the only legislation involving this, nationwide, is the 7 year rule. And that rule doesn’t require those parts to be available to YOU, just authorized repair services, and the company itself. So no guarantee of self repair there.
i honestly don’t know what most of your post has to do with the two questions here, that of self repair, and whether an electronic device can be repaired at all.
in fact, most of your post has nothing to do with those two issues at all. Why don’t you just stick to that?
The question of 'if necessary' hinged on which way the industry went.
The spare parts section was to highlight that we are nowhere near that the point of industry making things impossible to repair, in spite of this phone and the decisions they have taken.
As I said, the Geberit example was an extreme one. The seven year question isn't relevant here as my point was about future design decisions and if we ever see truly 'disposable' hardware across the industry and I only highlighted the spare parts precisely to make it clear that that isn't the case.
Btw, be careful with cisterns and tech :-)
I just spent a lot of money on a Grohe toilet and wanted to marry it to a Geberit cistern for their lateral, pneumatic flush mechanism. No go :-(
If you want auto flush you need the Grohe autoflush mechanism (sold separately) and a Grohe RAPID cistern. My original plan was to marry the Geberit with a Roca Inspira system. No go! Roca 'works better' with its own cistern according to the people in the know.
When you put tech into toilets it seems incompatibilities bloom :-(
if you break something when attempting to open it, even if you’re the manufacturer, how close to unrepairable is that? Pretty close I’d say.