Metriacanthosaurus

suddenly newton said:

bitmod said:

I sense more pirating and lower profits for all. 
Why do these corporations never learn? 

Pirates don't need an excuse to pirate.

radarthekat said:

Metriacanthosaurus said:

tmay said:

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

Metriacanthosaurus said:

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.