And that is why I cannot stand the current state of repairs in the electronic world. I am especially looking at Apple in this respect, because they have demonstrated a surprising skill at making things repairable, which they want to be serviceable. Just look at the brilliant mount for the USB ports in the new Air.
While end-user serviceability might not be desirable for something highly-integrated, the benchmark really should be whether someone trained like a watch-maker has the ability to service a device. Which would be great for the local economy wherever in the world a customer is, because traditionally most towns would have at least one watchmaker, a well paid professional who would keep the money local vs. creating more electronic waste and shipping a new device around the world.
I imagine this will only become worse as they switch to their own CPUs in the near future. I expect that Macs will become more like iPhones in that Apple will restrict more and more which software you can easily run on them and how you can extend the devices.
Other manufacturers like Dell or Lenovo do a much better job in terms of repairability IMHO: They build their machines with mostly standard components that can be easily replaced and make them easy to open and service. Compare that to recent Apple devices: If you want more RAM or storage in your device they charge you 5-10 times the market price. They also make sure you will never be able to upgrade those things yourself by soldering them to the mainboard.
It really reduced my TCO instead of letting that get captured by 3rd party manufactures.
One could make a good argument that circuit board repair is outside the realm of right to repair as in many applications you simply buy a new module or board; see automotive repairs, appliance repair, and similar.
It is the difference between swapping out the a water pump and repair one yourself. Right to Repair makes it possible to get new water pumps from any vendor as that is the extent by which the common consumer would need. So in the case of Apple products Right to Repair would include replacement circuit boards which could include a mainboard, battery modules, and any individual component which simply plugs in. Also covered would be the ability to open an close an item without having to damage it to do so to get at the internals.
I'm not sure what the point here is, a CPU contains 50 billion parts in a tiny volume, it's impossible to fix things this small if they break.
If a capacitor or resistor burns, you can probably open up your PC, look at the motherboard, find the faulty component visually (it'll usually be black), desolder it and solder a new one. It's just that they're so small that it's really hard.
Many manufacturers (looking at you, Apple) are designing things so they're hard to repair, but it won't be easy to repair electronics, no matter how much you plan for it. The best compromise is to design them so the user has to replace small modules rather than the entire thing.
Manufacturers are slowly pushing toward making those replacements impossible.
Just people in my family have replaced camera lenses, body, LCD, and battery. Just imagine how much waste it was if they couldn't repair those issue and had to buy a new device.
Same goes with other devices. Just a simple upgrade on old Macbook Pros gave them at least 5 extra years of life. That's now nearly impossible with new Macbook Pros.
The Apple product brand image is that these are sleek smart unified objects. All from hardware to software should be looked at as a singular entity, a well designed black box for my satisfaction as the customer.
Opening it up, gutting it out and seeing wires and mechanical parts destroys the illusion. Just as it's not fitting/elegant to think of a celebrity diva or queen farting on the toilet or examining their smelly tooth cavities or whatever, it's not fitting to lay an Apple product barren with all the broken parts sticking out.
Because then it looks like just any other contraption, not this futuristic sleek intelligent product.
I claim that tinkering (and even just imagining the possibility of someone else tinkering) is in direct opposition to Apple branding strategy. It should just work. If it doesn't work, it should be disposed of, replaced, forgotten.
No screwdriver required!(with option to have a security screw)
While removing battery you can press a latch to remove the back cover.
Then you have easy access to everything that a consumer could possible want replacing(HDD/SDD,DVD->HDD, RAM, WIFI).
I recently upgraded a cousins 2560p to 16GB and SSD and it was a breeze, took a few minutes at most.
Sadly HP stopped offering this kind of notebook case around Haswell in 2014.
For example, I think it is unreasonable to expect that a smartphone's battery be replaceable with 0 tools and 0 consumables (gaskets, glues, etc).
However, those tools and consumables _should_ be expected to to be reasonably standard and reasonably available.
Mechanical watch functionality evolves extremely slowly - over generations, not years.
Competent Watch repair of actual high end watches is an extremely difficult skill to master taking years.
Read watch forums - repair is often botched.
Computers are almost always redundant before they need repairing, whereas a mechanical watch can last generations, therefore a far higher percentage will need repair.
Watches are not recyclable.
Rolex is an exception. Watches in the price range of computers are mostly electronic and are in fact less repairable than computers in general or any Apple device.
There is literally nothing about this analogy with watch repair that applies to computers.
Also, there is simply nothing to support the hypothesis that Apple makes devices intentionally hard to repair.
They offer good warranties, and a lot of people buy AppleCare.
It is therefore in Apple’s interest to make devices economic to both repair and/or recycle when replaced.
Furthermore Apple has stated that it is their strategy to maximize the useful life of their devices (presumably so they can continue to sell services to users who don’t need new devices).
Increasing the device life is not the same as making it repairable.
Many things that make a device easier to repair, also make it more likely to fail.
People who demand repairability without taking this into account may well be harming the environment, and economically disadvantaged users without realizing it.
Difference? First 3 were connected to internet, last one, mine, was on stock firmware, never connected anywhere (I have computer near it and lately raspberry pi 4).
Coincidence?
The whole idea of servicing modern electronics is romantic nonsense. The hourly rate of an expert will make it too expensive quickly, because industrialized mass production is too effective.
(Edit: according to this link on Quora, several billion transistors are not unrealistic in a smartphone https://www.quora.com/How-many-transistors-are-there-in-the-... )
What is the hourly rate of a watchmaker?
I don't know the going rate for a watch maker, it is probably not cheap. But I know what I paid for servicing my watches before and a multiple of that for having my dealer upgrade the disk in my iMac. Which still has an internal SATA port, but unfortunately is glued together. This is something which should cost less than a watch service, even at the same rate.
Ofc, there are billions of transistors in a phone - that doesn't mean anything at all.
Repeatability depends on being able to open a device/tool non-destructively, being able to assemble it back - glue/epoxy used as cheap fastening/engineering tools is the bane of. Ability to find spare parts and service manuals, schematics and the like. The count of transistors is irrelevant as even a simple and single MOSFET driver is enough to prevent a device being operational.
The comment comes off extremely misguided and ill-informed.
That's because mechanical watches are an outdated design. Good luck to them trying to service a quartz watch.
OPs point is that in many cases, products are being intentionally designed to be difficult to service. It's one thing to introduce a complex component that's not reasonably serviceable and make it modular to replace, it's an entirely different story when you make that modular piece difficult to replace when it doesn't need to be.
This is what a lot of product vendors are doing, intentionally designing products to force vendor servicing. It's not a new trick, some auto manufacturers used to and still do it for certain cases.
Due to the complexity of the situation, there's usually ambiguity that the product needed to be designed that way to meet some specification/constraint. What usually happens is that a specification/feature/constraint that forces such designs is often sought after or identified, then the design follows suit.
These are the types of shenanigans you have accountants and financing involved in the design process of anything. They want to maximize ROI and know engineers are good at optimization problems, so ultimately, we end up with products designed to be more business friendly and less consumer friendly. I know for a fact it happens because I've been in this scenario countless times during product or service development, then someone chimes in, "is there a way we can... so we can get more money."
Well, no. A wealthy time traveler could buy a current Rolex. Rolex is a terrible example. I'd love to learn about high quality, affordable brands. Also, only being able to know the time is very little information nowadays; smartwatches can do so much more (I have a Fossil Hybrid HR).
Many other countries follow EU regulations directly or indirectly so let's hope for some easily repairable products in the future!
Some have suggested that it could make the UK's desire to set its own regulatory standards after leaving the EU rather an uphill struggle. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/how-the-bruss...
[3] https://www.ft.com/content/7059dbf8-a82a-11e7-ab66-21cc87a2e...
I don't know (talking as fairly pro-EU kind of person). I kind liked washing machines that properly heated to 90C and vacuum cleaners that actually picked up dirt. But the EU are only partly to blame. Companies are relentless in their pursuit of cutting production costs. Going "green" just excused their greed for a while. And these newer machines feature more plastic parts, are harder to repair and generally considered disposable (e.g. I'm happy that a dishwasher/washing machine/fridge lasts 5 years). How's that good for the planet?
I will be honest with you this one I just don't understand. My washing machine is A+ in EU norms and it heats properly. Maybe you bought a not so good model ?
If anything those norms should be re-evaluated with new tougher levels now, you have to go out of your way to buy something that's not at least A (which is good and it means it worked, but also that it's time to ask for more).
> vacuum cleaners that actually picked up dirt
Again, if you buy a Dyson that follows EU norms it still works great. But if at the same time as those norms arrived you also switched from being main brand product to cheaper off brands, then you're confusing the two.
It's easy to find a vacuum cleaner that works great, but they're not at the same price as most models, because the market aligned with the cheap ones that people actually buy.
Yes, LIDL and similar often have special sales on vacuum cleaner, yes they're frankly cheap, and no, they're not as good as "the vacuum cleaners of old". They're barely adequate, which is fine for most customers and allow a cheap price, that's why they sell this.
> And these newer machines feature more plastic parts, are harder to repair and generally considered disposable (e.g. I'm happy that a dishwasher/washing machine/fridge lasts 5 years). How's that good for the planet?
That is quite literally the point of the anti waste regulation (the last one and the future one), and of the repair law being discussed here.
Your washing machine is likely defective. Nothing about the rules makes this particularly difficult and modern machines with good energy ratings can do it (though, mind you, you'll notice if you read the small print that the energy rating is pretty much just for the mode they expect people to use; the 90 degree mode will use quite a lot of power).
> vacuum cleaners that actually picked up dirt
Your vacuum cleaner is definitely defective. At best, the functional advantage provided by super-high-wattage machines over ~1kW ones was marginal and hard to measure, in many cases it was non-existent. Super-high wattage vacuum cleaners were primarily a marketing thing; 1600 is a better number than 1400 so people buy the 1600.
(Note that appliance manufacturers continue to do that where allowed; most washing machine manufacturers perform market segregation on 1200 vs 1400 vs 1600 rpm spin, for instance, even though once you go over a 1000 or so improvement is very marginal, and your machine will likely never actually reach the sticker rate anyway due to damage protection system)
> And these newer machines feature more plastic parts, are harder to repair and generally considered disposable
You're talking about two separate issues. Cheap shit washing machines existed both before and after the regulations. You can still get a washing machine with longevity similar to 70s/80s models (Miele in particular makes these) but it'll be expensive. As it was in the 80s; look at the inflation-adjusted costs.
Washing machines sold in the EU can (we have one in the basement). But heating to 90°C is extremely inefficient if 60°C is sufficient, and it is in most cases (we are not any more using just soap for laundry like in the 19th century). In fact, recommended temperatures have fallen so much that it is now recommended to wash with 60°C once in a while to prevent mould and smell. And more and more clothes such as shirts and tresses, but even socks, have a washing temperature of 40°C recommended.
The wider issue is that energy conservation will not come by itself. Self-regulation will not give the speed of change that we need. With self-regulation alone, Americans would still use leaded gasoline which was obsolete in the 1960ies.
I always feel the alternative is the web, where everything gets twice as large every few years. if washing machines were as free-wheeling as webapps I can only assume one would fill the entire garage
I read that manufacturers were actually happy about the new regulation. Before, customers only looked at W for performance which made any innovation useless. With the new rules, manufacturers that are able to provide the same suction at a fraction of the power are actually at an advantage.
Similar with fridges, new rules put manufacturers with heavy R&D at an advantage.
Is there a regulation that forbids it or it is merely an energy efficiency thing?
(Btw don't do it unless, I don't know, you're washing something heavy and very dirty https://www.cda.eu/laundry/washing-machine-temperature-guide... )
This is a problem if you have one rule for different countries, although the EU should be praised that it made an effort at least.
In my region drinking water is no problem. On the contrary, due to washing machines and appliances using less water, waterworks needs to pump water through the pipes regularly to keep them clean. It is also advisable to do that in your home from time to time.
The vacuum cleaners decision was just bad in my opinion. You will take a longer time to use it which removes the energy advantages.
The lighting stuff they did was decent, although I think that light bulbs would have been a thing of the past without regulation due to high energy costs.
As for machines with plastic parts, there should be a standard that machines need to last ten years. And if one shows up at the dump before then the manufacturer has to buy it back from dump for the prorated list price.
Have you ever heard of delta electronics? They manufacture 90% of power supplies on the planet and their CEO is a huge environmentalist. They have a philosophy of improving efficient for the hell of it, because a 1% improvement in their efficiency = thousands of megawatts saved due to their sheer volume.
Modern front-loading washing machines still heat to 90°C. What's changed is that modern washing machines use less water than older models.
This is one of those dilemmas with older appliances: the older appliance is in perfect working condition, but uses much more water per wash (or more electricity). Do you keep the older appliance? Or buy a modern model that will save you water (or electricity)?
When I brought my washing machine, I made sure it had a proper barrel mixer and properly filled with water. That means it's not on the top green category, it's two pegs lower. Yet, it existed, and those weren't the only hidden features I had to compare anyway. When I brought my vacuum cleaner, I made sure it had proper suction. It's also no on the top green category, only near it, but that also didn't make it unavailable.
On the other hand, when I brought my fridge, I made sure it was on the top category, because my interests here were completely aligned with the classification.
Anyway, my point is that informative labels are always great. If you don't want a top performer, just don't get one, the label being there won't harm you.
By combining parts from mine and his phone, I now have a properly working phone again with very little effort. This is so important.
(That said, the reason I started having issues in the first place was because some connections didn't fit as tightly anymore. This is supposedly better with the latest model, whose screen you can no longer replace without tools, but needs a regular Philips screwdriver that actually comes with the phone. Less gimmicky on parties, but should be an improvement.)
But we have both since moved on. Why? Because the Fairphone 2 was slow when it was released, and things got unbearable in the end. They still technically work perfectly, but software demands simply outgrew the hardware. At the end, the battery (a new one) would barely last half a day, and google maps or websites would frequently evict background audio due to memory pressure.
Which is terribly sad to me; Fairphone (the company) did everything right, but the market decided against them that old hardware just is not viable. Here's to hoping that smartphone demands have slowed down enough to make the Fairphone 3 last longer than the 2.
But for now, I choose buying used phones over fair new ones. And maybe that is actually better for the environment, too.
It is! And very much in line with the Fairphone philosophy. But yes, definitely still a long way to go in terms of repairability and longevity of Android phones. Fairphone's pushing the limits, but those limits are still disappointingly low.
Hell the fact that they have released one in 2013, 2015 and 2019, kind of goes against their message doesn’t it?
Changing the screen takes ~20 minutes, and a new screen costs ~16$.
I will probably upgrade to the iPhone SE2 at some point, but given that my phone works perfectly for what I use it for, paying 550$ for an upgrade just does not make sense.
"I now have a properly working phone again"
But what about your friend? What did he have to do to call you again, or you guys simply stopped calling each other? ;)
Presumably it covers some of the costs involved in producing the standard.
Library Genesis (sister project to Sci-Hub) archives standards, but doesn't yet have this one.
[1]: https://www.cencenelec.eu/news/articles/Pages/AR-2020-008.as...
[2]: https://www.cenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=104:110:877190265864601::...
If you try to recycle them, someone will have to separate the glued-in lithium-ion battery from the plastic.
If you try to throw them away, you might start a fire in a garbage compactor facility.
If they end up in a landfill, they'll be in earth's crust for thousands of years.
That's before getting into how fast they become obsolete on their own because the battery loses charge (~18 months) and how easy it is to lose them.
[0] Excellent article, in which CEO of iFixit was asked for a comment and simply called them "evil": https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neaz3d/airpods-are-a-trag...
Don't get me wrong: I'm well aware the problem is not exactly easy to solve, but if your answer is to just make it worse with every product release while you could at least attempt to make it better instead, then perhaps this CEO is indeed using the correct term for your (and others') behaviour.
Galaxy S20 Ultra [3/10]: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Galaxy+S20+Ultra+Tea...
iPhone 11 Pro Max [6/10]: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+11+Pro+Max+Teardown/1...
But sure, lets keep bashing Apple because that gives us all the internet kudos, am I right?
From that description it does seem that Apple worries about it:
> Critical display and battery repairs remain a priority in the iPhone's design.
I've seen Android phones where the replacement is simple and others where you have to take the whole phone apart to take the battery out
If you open an iPhone, you will see a very well ordered and packaged arrangement of components. Most Android phones are a hot mess compared with it.
If you need a component for an iPhone, you can get it easily.
What I'm saying is not that electronics should not become more climate-friendly.
What I'm saying is that the focus on Apple is wrong. The business is the problem and companies like Samsung, Motorola, etc. are putting much worse devices on the market.
BTW: iPhones regularly get software updates for around 5 years. How's that for extending the lifetime of devices? Android phones are lucky to get significant software updates for more than one year.
After Android devices stop getting updates, you can continue with alternative OS or you can use F-Droid basically forever. All your apps will have updates.
When Apple devices stop being supported, they turn into bricks.
Really? From where? You call Apple asking for spare parts, they'll tell you to pound sand.
There are shops everywhere that would fix your iPhone at very reasonable prices.
People expect to use the device for 3-5 five years since they pay multiple salaries to buy it in first place and pay it through the years.
If that’s not environmentally friendly, I don’t know what it is.
This is remarkable but unfortunately not sustainable. The manufacturer needs to enable repairs, provide howto's and he needs to guarantee, that you can buy those replacement parts.
At some point after Fairphone 2 was released, which was priced a lot higher, I was unable to download newer android versions even though that was promised. It was just too complex for them provide an update.
That's the sad truth: Support for old hardware diverts manpower from more lucrative things in the business: Creating and selling new phones.
I am now in the situation where I can't bring myself to buy Android again, but don't really have the 500 bucks for the new SE. Honestly, new techy features became the least important factor for decision making for me. Support/security > connectivity > battery > repairability > X.
I got myself a S8 when S10 was about to come out. Fraction of the price and I can keep updating it beyond Samsung efforts.
I still own a Nexus5 5 which seems to be the target of most non-android OS development effort despite its age.
(Another aspect I try to consider is repairability, which phones such as S8 hardly make it easy which it's fragile curve OLED display)
We're past peak smartphones now, I see no need to run after the latest cpu increase or extra camera so that it takes bokeh better. But that's me.
I like my iPhones, and I couldn't care less about their repairability. If they stop working and I'm out of warranty I just buy a new one.
