[makeitdouble]

I'm not sure it has ever been about complexity or cost.

Right now no regular user has the technical ability to fiddle with a phone's laminated screen glued to a touch matrix paired with a fingerprint sensor and a camera, so we're alreay past the complexity threshold.

But we could still reuse a screen block from phone A on phone B, except that's been forbidden by technical measures specially added to prevent it.

The same way we could probably replace a whole leg with another from a robot from the same series, except it will be DRMed to death.

We'll have to eternally push for regulation I think, companies will always try their best to fuck with repairability.

[serf]

It's absolutely about complexity. Complexity always allows companies to explain why they should be the only hands that touch something, lest a laymen fumbles it.

[kaba0]

Could you materially affect a half-century old internal combustion engine? Sure. Can you do so after decades of miniaturization/optimization, to make it as efficient as they are today?

Mobiles are similar, they are filled to the brim with various electronics, connected together into a huge mash. why would you even expect to fix that?

[rozap]

This is a bad analogy because the hardware in engines of today is actually not that different or hard to work on fundamentally, but manufacturers do intentionally lock down software to make diagnostics very tricky. They became more efficient and complex, but people still hack on even the most modern engines, usually by tossing the OEM software.

Aftermarket ECUs (even the open source ones like rusEFI and speeduino) show that you can actually do the stuff required to make modern engines go vroom, but manufacturers have no desire to make that process easy out of the box.

[robertlagrant]

They're much more complicated today. Much more. My Dad rebuilt the engine of our old Morris Minor, but even in the 1990s he would say he wouldn't have a hope of doing the same thing in a modern car.

[ryandrake]

OK so why don't these companies let the users try? If you are right, they won't be able to do it anyway, so no harm done. Why do companies use every technical and legal trick in the book to prevent people from even trying? It's obviously about what makes the company more money.

[8n4vidtmkvmk]

Because even if individual users can't, the nerds a few blocks over can and they're charging half price.

[chefandy]

That's different. Most PR justification of anti-consumer behavior deliberately avoids what the topic is really about to control public perception... While complexity is what the PR campaign is about, it's still really about control and artificially creating new revenue streams.

[robertlagrant]

I don't think it's worth declaring what things are really about. There can be various factors involved. It's more likely to be it costs way more to make as nice a device that people want, that's also repairable. How many people would pay that premium when they're never going to service it anyway?

[chefandy]

> I don't think it's worth declaring what things are really about

I could not possibly agree less. You wouldn't happen to work in a related industry, would you?

> It's more likely to be it costs way more to make as nice a device that people want, that's also repairable.

Based on what evidence? Current practices like locked engines, propeitary versions of standard interfaces, drm in printer cartridges, deliberately overbundled parts, deliberate incompatibility doing things like reversing screw threads on one type of screw for no mechanical benefit, planned obsolecence, etc don't support your take. These things aren't free to implement– there's a calculable ROI that they feel is worth spending millions of engineering and lobbying dollars to implement.

> How many people would pay that premium when they're never going to service it anyway?

Considering the current state is needlessly buying an entirely new device every time something breaks, which not only costs money, it uses a ton of resources, and the alternative is better engineered products and competitive local repair options, I don't think it will be a hard sell. If corporations screwed up the market bad enough to undervalue their products because they're mislabeled disposables, well then that's on them. If they can't make it work, I guarantee someone else will. Will there be downsides? There's downsides to everything. So far "stuff theoretically might be more expensive up-front even though this limits their ability to artificially extract money from customers later on without disclosing it" isn't quite a showstopper.

[robertlagrant]

> You wouldn't happen to work in a related industry, would you?

No, and this is a bit of a giveaway that you're not thinking clearly. Just goodies vs baddies nonsense.

> rrent practices like locked engines, propeitary versions of standard interfaces, drm in printer cartridges, deliberately overbundled parts, deliberate incompatibility doing things like reversing screw threads on one type of screw for no mechanical benefit, planned obsolecence, etc don't support your take

I'm not saying that this never happens; again, you're being far too broad. The topic is phones. Phones used to have removable backs, and they weren't good. The iPhone stopped that, and was way better and more popular.

Things can be made repairable, but only when all actual innovation is done. Like printer cartridges. And even then, your printer may not be very repairable, as it will quickly cost as much to buy a new printer as it will to buy a spare module to replace it, if you even know what to buy and what part is not working.

> Considering the current state is needlessly buying an entirely new device every time something breaks, which not only costs money, it uses a ton of resources, and the alternative is better engineered products and competitive local repair options, I don't think it will be a hard sell

You're missing the point that making the same devices but with spares would be much more expensive. This is why Framework laptops aren't as appealing as other laptops if you factor out repairability.

[chefandy]

> No, and this is a bit of a giveaway that you're not thinking clearly. Just goodies vs baddies nonsense.

Mhmm.

> I'm not saying that this never happens; again, you're being far too broad. The topic is phones. Phones used to have removable backs, and they weren't good.

No, the topic is about RTR in the context of robots and the comment I replied to was discussing phones, robots and tractors.

> The iPhone stopped that, and was way better and more popular.

Were they better specifically because the battery wasn't replaceable without a can opener? Of course not. And some people even still used the can openers. You're not giving a reason, or an excuse... you're giving a justification which doesn't even address the actual point.

> Things can be made repairable, but only when all actual innovation is done. Like printer cartridges. And even then, your printer may not be very repairable, as it will quickly cost as much to buy a new printer as it will to buy a spare module to replace it, if you even know what to buy and what part is not working.

Thanks for bringing up printers. The price for consumer-level printers is far less than they actually cost because they know they'll be able to extract insane profits after the fact from ink sales. Printer ink, as it's priced by these companies, costs about $1,664 – $9,600 per gallon-- more expensive than fresh whole human blood-- and they do everything in their power to force consumers to only buy it from them. They deliberately make the printers shitty and impossible to repair so they can continue to entice customers with the bargain priced newer models with all sorts of fancy marketing bullshit so they can sell them progressively smaller amounts of the same ink in locked-down ink cartridges for even more money.

> You're missing the point that making the same devices but with spares would be much more expensive.

BS. They don't set the price based on their costs, they set the price based on what the market will allow, and this allows them to both manipulate the market by making it seem like their products are cheaper than they are, and extract yet more money out of consumers who have little choice because the majority of consumer goods are made by a handful of vertically integrated companies. Let's take a look at the top lobbiers against RTR legislation and their net worth:

    Apple :   $2.26 trillion Net Worth 
    Microsoft :   $1.97 trillion Net Worth 
    Amazon :   $1.71 trillion Net Worth 
    Google :   $1.57 trillion Net Worth 
    Facebook :   $863 billion Net Worth 
    Tesla :   $709 billion Net Worth 
    J&J  :   $432 billion Net Worth 
    AT&T :   $220 billion Net Worth 
    Lilly, Inc. :   $178 billion Net Worth 
    T-Mobile :   $165 billion Net Worth 
    Medtronic :   $157 billion Net Worth 
    Caterpillar :   $123 billion Net Worth 
    John Deere :   $117 billion Net Worth 
    GE   :   $115 billion Net Worth 
    Philips :   $55 billion Net Worth 
    eBay :   $41 billion Net Worth

Sorry. Less regulation is exactly what created this bullshit situation where huge corporations feel entitled to extract limitless amounts of cash out of consumers that have little if any choice, and the problem is getting worse. If you think this is merely a matter of companies trying to provide the most competitively priced products and not a deliberate attempt to price gouge, you are beyond naive. Anti-consumer practices aren't a neutral facet of corporate behavior, and the organizations that profit most from it are not merely staying afloat... they're unfathomably rich and getting richer, faster, every day.