Right to Repair - A Discussion

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Microsoft has announced it is taking steps in support of the 'Right to Repair' including making repair manuals and parts available outside of its own authorized repair network, as well as seeing it as helping Microsoft fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon footprint.

 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Microsoft has announced it is taking steps in support of the 'Right to Repair' including making repair manuals and parts available outside of its own authorized repair network, as well as seeing it as helping Microsoft fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon footprint.

Microsoft both in gaming against Sony and in the computer market against Apple, staying winning
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Apple finally supports the right to repair... to a degree.

TechCrunch said:
The company will also be offering up online repair manuals (text, not video), accessible through the new Apple Self Service Repair Online Store. The system is similar to the one the company rolled out for Independent Repair Providers (of which there are currently 2,800 in the U.S. plus 5,000 Apple Authorized Service Providers), beginning with the iPhone 12 and 13, focused on display, battery and camera fixes. A similar service for M1Macs will be launching “soon” after.

“Creating greater access to Apple genuine parts gives our customers even more choice if a repair is needed,” COO Jeff Williams said in a release tied to the announcement. “In the past three years, Apple has nearly doubled the number of service locations with access to Apple genuine parts, tools, and training, and now we’re providing an option for those who wish to complete their own repairs.”

Apple hasn’t listed specific prices yet, but customers will get a credit toward the final fee if they mail in the damaged component for recycling. When it launches in the U.S. in early-2022, the store will offer some 200 parts and tools to consumers. Performing these tasks at home won’t void the device’s warranty, though you might if you manage to further damage the product in the process of repairing it — so hew closely to those manuals. After reviewing that, you can purchase parts from the Apple Self Service Repair Online Store.

For a limited amount of devices, using apple parts and tools, and the warranty could be nullified if it's determined you didn't follow the text manuals directions.

 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
For a limited amount of devices, using apple parts and tools, and the warranty could be nullified if it's determined you didn't follow the text manuals directions.

Third party repair is almost entirely a post-warranty matter, though, and it's entirely reasonable to say that warranty service has to be provided by certified pros -- that's how warranties in general work.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Third party repair is almost entirely a post-warranty matter, though, and it's entirely reasonable to say that warranty service has to be provided by certified pros -- that's how warranties in general work.
Sometimes the damage is not repairable:

 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Sometimes the damage is not repairable:

Having three or four separate critical stress concentrations overlapping is... Not good design... Why the fuck is that thing not compartmentalized so you can at least fucking try to switch out the transmission assembly without ripping apart the bulk of the frame!?
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Having three or four separate critical stress concentrations overlapping is... Not good design... Why the fuck is that thing not compartmentalized so you can at least fucking try to switch out the transmission assembly without ripping apart the bulk of the frame!?
Engineering is an exercise in making compromises: "cost, quality, and time; pick two".

That's if the engineer is lucky and gets to decide.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Engineering is an exercise in making compromises: "cost, quality, and time; pick two".

That's if the engineer is lucky and gets to decide.
Don't forget profitability; that consideration which often seems to force engineers into picking only one out of the three.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Actually built in obsolescence should be done away with. Why? it is not environmentally friendly. What happens to old washers, dryers , and such after you throw them away?

In the real world, so called "planned obsolescence" is far less common then is popularly perceived.

The number one driving factor behind stuff breaking down more often is consumer demand for cheaper, lighter, sleeker stuff (number 2 is government regulation demanding stuff meet certain standards for power consumption, materials used, etc). Everything else is secondary to those concerns and has far less impact.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Phone nerds complain endlessly about the loss of replaceable batteries in the pursuit of thin phones, but if you take a step back and think about it, what actually killed replaceable batteries was the desire for waterproof phones. And the thing is -- while I mocked that feature as absurd when it first came out, I actually take advantage of my phone's waterproofness on a regular basis, throwing it on my bike while riding in the rain, or using my phone while I'm taking a bath...
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Phone nerds complain endlessly about the loss of replaceable batteries in the pursuit of thin phones, but if you take a step back and think about it, what actually killed replaceable batteries was the desire for waterproof phones. And the thing is -- while I mocked that feature as absurd when it first came out, I actually take advantage of my phone's waterproofness on a regular basis, throwing it on my bike while riding in the rain, or using my phone while I'm taking a bath...
It is a curious thing, then, that we've been making watches water-resistant to hundreds of meters (There is no such thing as water-proof and the term is not used in the industry) which can also have their batteries changed, and have been doing so since 1927.
 

Sir 1000

Shitlord
Phone nerds complain endlessly about the loss of replaceable batteries in the pursuit of thin phones, but if you take a step back and think about it, what actually killed replaceable batteries was the desire for waterproof phones. And the thing is -- while I mocked that feature as absurd when it first came out, I actually take advantage of my phone's waterproofness on a regular basis, throwing it on my bike while riding in the rain, or using my phone while I'm taking a bath...
Funny enough i had an old school samsung phone just a couple gens older than the nokia brick that was water proof and shock absorbent to the point i could throw it at concrete walls and swim in the ocean with it. Just needed a good screw latch thingy for the removable battery. Water resistant phones can be done fairly easy and cheaply, 40$ was all it took for the super saiyan of brick phones. So i doubt thats the reason tbh🤔

Edit: Ninja'd by @Bear Ribs in a much better example.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
It is a curious thing, then, that we've been making watches water-resistant to hundreds of meters (There is no such thing as water-proof and the term is not used in the industry) which can also have their batteries changed, and have been doing so since 1927.
Fitting and costs are different.

The typical Water Resistant Watch uses a metal on metal screw with fine machining along with a fine O ring to form the seal. The watch battery used is also quite small and does not generate a lot of voltage though it can store it for a long time. The battery in a cell phone is generally much larger and has a higher voltage requirement, plus unlike button batteries, they've never been standardized the way watches have. What this means is that the battery in most phones is designed for that battery. Meanwhile the typical water resistant watch is designed TO the battery standard.

Meanwhile, phones, rather than being made of stainless steel and high resistance glass like the typical water resistant watch, is made of plastics and durable but not as thick or resilient glass (the glass also has to be thin enough to act as a capacitive touchscreen). The reasons for this is weight and bulk, if you made a phone case out of stainless steel you'd then have to insulate the inside completely (since stainless steel is conductive), whereas plastic is a natural insulator and thus electronic components can be fitted directly into it without concern. Plastic is also just lighter than stainless steel.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Fitting and costs are different.

The typical Water Resistant Watch uses a metal on metal screw with fine machining along with a fine O ring to form the seal.
Nonsense. This watch is water-resistant to 200 meters and can have it's battery changed, how water-resistant is your "typical" sealed phone again? Also even if your claim were true, there is no reason they couldn't use metal screws on phones.
RoqYnEy.png


The watch battery used is also quite small and does not generate a lot of voltage though it can store it for a long time. The battery in a cell phone is generally much larger and has a higher voltage requirement, plus unlike button batteries, they've never been standardized the way watches have. What this means is that the battery in most phones is designed for that battery. Meanwhile the typical water resistant watch is designed TO the battery standard.
Nonsense. There are dozens and dozens of watch battery types and different companies use all manner of different types.

Also, this is obviously a nonsensical argument. What does the phone battery being designed for the phone rather than the reverse have to do with water resistance? It actually argues the other way around. The watch has to be built to accommodate the battery but the phone does not, so the phone should be easier to make waterproof as it doesn't have to make compromises for another maker's battery design, the whole thing can be a customized whole.

1920px-Button_cells_and_9v_cells_%283%29.png


Meanwhile, phones, rather than being made of stainless steel and high resistance glass like the typical water resistant watch, is made of plastics and durable but not as thick or resilient glass (the glass also has to be thin enough to act as a capacitive touchscreen). The reasons for this is weight and bulk, if you made a phone case out of stainless steel you'd then have to insulate the inside completely (since stainless steel is conductive), whereas plastic is a natural insulator and thus electronic components can be fitted directly into it without concern. Plastic is also just lighter than stainless steel.
Lies. Watches also have electric components, there are no difficulties with conduction somehow. And given how many people love them some brick phones, I think many users may well appreciate a solid steel case instead of a candyfloss plastic one that breaks from inhaling too sharply when it's in your breast pocket. Too bad that's not an option.
 

Robovski

Well-known member
Customers value different things between watches and phones. A typical smartphone uses a very energy hungry large full front of face screen that is full color, while most watches use low-power LCD displays. Phones use much larger and different technology batteries to even try to give a user sufficient operating life between charges, and that adds weight and bulk. Customers don't seem to like "heavy" phones so compromising on the housing with lighter weight materials is often an approach employed in the design. All of that is not super important as a detail in the wider argument though, really while a phone could be made as water resistant as a watch, there is not really a need to do so unless a company thinks there will be a profit made providing that product. I liked having a removeable battery in my Galaxy Note, but my Pixel 3 doesn't have such a feature and generally the trend has moved away from removeable batteries making the phones more disposable than they were. That doesn't stop me from repairing my phone, just making it much harder to do.
 
Last edited:

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Nonsense. This watch is water-resistant to 200 meters and can have it's battery changed, how water-resistant is your "typical" sealed phone again? Also even if your claim were true, there is no reason they couldn't use metal screws on phones.
RoqYnEy.png

Dude, that G-Shock watch is bulky rubber bumpers around a sealed steel inner case.

Lies. Watches also have electric components, there are no difficulties with conduction somehow.

Your objection is nonsensical. The electronic components of the watch are small enough that it's easy to insulate them from the steel case. The electronic components of a phone are much, much bulkier.

And given how many people love them some brick phones, I think many users may well appreciate a solid steel case instead of a candyfloss plastic one that breaks from inhaling too sharply when it's in your breast pocket. Too bad that's not an option.

This is not even slightly true. There are numerous bulky, ruggedized phones on the market, but they are rarely purchased outside of business users, especially industrial business.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Nonsense. There are dozens and dozens of watch battery types and different companies use all manner of different types.

Technically true, but only technically. The near-totality of digital wristwatches other than smartwatches use silver oxide coin-cell batteries, with a solid majority de facto standardizing on the SR626SW.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top