avon b7

Xed said:

MplsP said:

Xed said:

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

Considering that I replied to a comment that stated "easier for everyone" it should be clear to you why I used the phrasing that I did. And if you then read another sentence further you'd see that I very clearly wrote, "If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?" So where do you draw the line?

You can wish that Apple made products easier to repair, but you haven't stated anything that is useful to them or to the consumer to make this possible. Again I'll ask how you would design AirPods to make their batteries user replaceable?

The bottom line is that you can't have progress if you want want to enact laws that requires Apple to make all these components user replaceable. It just can't happen. You can want this to be how the technology evolves — I certainly do — but making pie eyed comments about how great it would be to replace, say, the camera model on the iPhone 17 like it was on the original iPhone is meaningless techjackulation. When you consider waste you need to consider more than just what suits your particular needs.

At one point people expected transistors to be user replaceable, but that day is long past. Components will get smaller and more integrated which will affect the repairability of individual components, but this will also lead to opportunities for certain other components to be more repairable just as we've sene in the few years, but this is not by any means a set cadence for progress.

PS: LCD refers to the lowest level of a consumer group.

danox said:

avon b7 said:

danox said:

gatorguy said:

9secondkox2 said:

I doubt apple will be pursuing 5g only with this modem. They’ll need for for fallback and likely borrow the tech, leading to some fees paid to due the minefield of 5g patents. 

But 6g… that’s likely what apple is spending their respurces on, possibly being the first to get there and be a big part of setting the standard. 

I understood that 6G was still 5 years off, minimally. Has the timeline changed? 

EDIT: 3GPP is hoping to finalize the 6G standard by the end of 2028 so that a network can be prepared for 2030 deployment. The standards group also recognized a potential "power grab" by newcomer Apple and has taken steps to neutralize it.

 https://www.lightreading.com/5g/3gpp-moving-to-prevent-power-grab-by-apple-others

Yes it’s a power grab no different than Apple Silicon being released to replace Intel, long-term if Apple wants to build certain devices the way it needs to (a smaller Apple Vision? You know the one that looks like an actual pair of glasses?) they have to leave Qualcomm the patent troll in the dust, and the troll will be kicking and screaming all the way….

Qualcomm will be getting its patent payments from Apple for a long while to come. Same as Huawei, Samsung etc. 

Apple is Five-Six years in? It took thirteen years to get rid of Intel with Apple Silicon, is it a Western problem with playing the long game? Seems to be….

danox said:

gatorguy said:

9secondkox2 said:

I doubt apple will be pursuing 5g only with this modem. They’ll need for for fallback and likely borrow the tech, leading to some fees paid to due the minefield of 5g patents. 

But 6g… that’s likely what apple is spending their respurces on, possibly being the first to get there and be a big part of setting the standard. 

I understood that 6G was still 5 years off, minimally. Has the timeline changed? 

EDIT: 3GPP is hoping to finalize the 6G standard by the end of 2028 so that a network can be prepared for 2030 deployment. The standards group also recognized a potential "power grab" by newcomer Apple and has taken steps to neutralize it.

 https://www.lightreading.com/5g/3gpp-moving-to-prevent-power-grab-by-apple-others

Yes it’s a power grab no different than Apple Silicon being released to replace Intel, long-term if Apple wants to build certain devices the way it needs to (a smaller Apple Vision? You know the one that looks like an actual pair of glasses?) they have to leave Qualcomm the patent troll in the dust, and the troll will be kicking and screaming all the way….

Kwikiwi said:

Like everything in life, there are multiple views on the EU and their regulations - Some are good and some are terrible - The issue I have with the massive fine the placed on Apple for the tex issue in Ireland was that they retrospectively prosecuted Apple for what a country (Ireland) had done in setting up it's tax rules to attract business to the country - Apple did absolutely nothing wrong in this area and complied with every rule Ireland set them - they made massive investments in the country, and received a fair reward. The EU fined Apple - not Ireland - that is absolutely crazy and completely wrong. The USA should hold the EU to account for that as it is totally unjust.

On the other stuff - Apple does not have a monopoly on apps - there are plenty of options open to consumers - people who decide to buy Apple products do so because of quality, security, privacy and the ecosystem safety - for the EU to dictate that should change is just plain wrong and it is just a form of taxation - again the USA should push back on the EU on this.

In some other areas, such as privacy laws - I think the EU is ahead of the USA - also on harmful content and in this areas I think they are more right than wrong.