|
|
|
|
|
by Daishiman
2241 days ago
|
|
It's entirely a business decision that's profit-driven. There's nothing technically limiting these manufacturers from making reparable devices. It may extend their development cycle by a month or more for a product though, as they need to settle on standardized parts, keep stock of materials for repair, produce readable manuals, and make alterations to make components accessible. It is not in their interest to make any of this available, and it is entirely in their interest at the same time to discourage repairability, through marketing of new products and suppression of right-to-repair movements. Ironically, a right-to-repair law would at least put everyone on equal ground as far as having to comply to a minimum standard. But tragedy of the commons and all that. |
|
Thinking more on this, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out for Nikon. They have serious competition from Canon, Sony and others and if they keep their repairs open, Nikon will just end up hurting themselves in the long-run.
Apple on the other hand, is in a much safer position. There is no real competitor when it comes to macOS and so they can make these profit-driven decisions without any serious consequences.
I'd like to point out that when I say "no real competition" to macOS, I don't mean it's better than Windows or Linux. Rather, people who prefer macOS will keep using it, just like people who prefer Windows will keep using it. The force required to make them move to a different platform, change your entire workflow etc, is, in my opinion, much higher than switching cameras. Yes, changing the glass costs a small-fortune, but you have adapters, and image formats are standards.