MplsP

Be clear about this from the start -- it is a curiosity, it is not an actually useful magnetic connection for chargers. The iPhone 16e does lack MagSafe, and that is a problem, but MagSafe chargers will still connect magnetically to the metals inside it.

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.

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?

DAalseth said:

Or just how Apple has specifically and directly told Gruber that its market doesn't care about MagSafe. Charging speeds and methods do get more attention from long-term or technical users than they do from regular consumers. Nobody really cares about the difference between 7.5W and 15W, because nobody really notices

OK, but when they rolled out MagSafe that was true of pretty much all iPhone users. Nobody had used it. Nobody had seen the difference between 7.5W and 15W. Nobody cared about it until they tried it. Saying 16e users don’t know any better seems a bit dismissive.