| > Instead of dictating an arbitrary and likely unrealistic featureset via government force, Strawman. > we can all vote with our wallets and not buy phones that aren't repairable. "Voting with one's wallet" just doesn't work. > Clearly, the demand for repairable phones is not sufficiently high to sway people from buying ones that are not repairable, Yes, that's the problem. > and, more importantly, it may not be possible to make a phone meaningfully repairable with how small delicate technology in phones is nowadays. Then the technology has to get bigger again. It's called a trade-off. > Not to mention, how do we determine what level of repairability is sufficient, and by what metric? What parts should be interchangeable? Battery and camera? Should we merely make the phone's case easy to open? It's almost as if making decisions involved making decisions. What's your point? > Why is any one or a combination of these things something that consumers are entitled to and need to have protected by law? That's in the article. Besides, "because they (resp. their elected representatives) want" is a perfectly valid and sufficient reason. |