I think you’re right, but then again, as an exercise in making the point that the AirPods’ design is deliberately adversarial, it works. Imagine if our electronics were designed consciously with repair in mind.
> Imagine if our electronics were designed consciously with repair in mind.
My prediction is that in the majority of cases we'd have slightly bulkier, slightly costlier devices, many likely a bit more prone to damage because of things like less effective seals or connectors failing, and that 1% of users would actually repair them. Probably a net negative in terms of environmental impact.
Years ago there was a push especially in Europe to install dual flush toilets that allow you to perform either a less-water flush. Many years later we find that due to these more complicated mechanisms being just slightly more prone to malfunction, the net impact is actually more water being wasted. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/29/dual-flu...)
You do realize non-repairability was not always the norm? My tape walkman has a dozen phillips screws all over the outside. It has a slide out AA compartment. I'm sure you could mod it to use LiPo with no work. It hasn't failed in almost 40 years, but if it does there's nothing stopping me from opening it up.
Yeah but you're comparing apples and oranges. When I was a kid my dad used to take open up electronics, test the individual components, and remove and solder a replacement (a generic component, purchased at the local electronics store) in. The manufacturer didn't do all that much to make them repairable aside from using screws to close the case instead of welding it shut or whatever...come to think of it, many did use specialized screws to try to prevent you from opening it, so you needed a large set of screwdrivers to open all the different types. Anyway, they could plop everything on a single circuit board, the components were so large that wasn't much of an issue. There was a great deal of margin for designing in "repairability", the components and housings were larger, in general the prices were higher, manufacturing tended to be lower volume, and development timelines were longer. Energy usage tended to be higher and if the device had batteries at all they were disposable. We're speaking in the abstract here (I mean there were no smart phones or wireless earbuds to compare), but generally this was the case.
When you're talking about doing "repairs" on modern electronics, almost always you're really talking about replacing entire modules containing hundreds/thousands/millions of these "components" with a replacement either directly from the manufacturer or designed to be compatible it. These modules need to be intentionally designed to a much greater degree, the manufacturer then needs to allocate extra space for this, decide what components will be located on each module, how many modules to break the design into, provide connectors that are both secure during normal use while also being easily connected/disconnect by users, and maintain a supply chain for each replaceable module long after the design is no longer being manufactured. It's a lot more work than the vast majority manufacturers have ever done (with the exception of auto manufacturers).
My prediction is that in the majority of cases we'd have slightly bulkier, slightly costlier devices, many likely a bit more prone to damage because of things like less effective seals or connectors failing, and that 1% of users would actually repair them. Probably a net negative in terms of environmental impact.
Years ago there was a push especially in Europe to install dual flush toilets that allow you to perform either a less-water flush. Many years later we find that due to these more complicated mechanisms being just slightly more prone to malfunction, the net impact is actually more water being wasted. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/29/dual-flu...)
I'd suspect a similar sort of situation here.