This seems to be all about community-based repair events. How about doing some lobby towards legislators and companies to do something about their devices that can't even be opened anymore by end users?
Many of those celebrating are part of Right to Repair campaigns. In Europe, we just launched this campaign: https://repair.eu
Europe just passed the first regulation requiring design for repair for some household appliances, and we are pushing for more products to be included. We're just getting started.
I dunno, is it funny or is it sad that a website that supposedly argues for repairing stuff is obviously not meant to be used on older devices, with gigantic text and huge amounts of whitespace minimizing the content on the screen?
I have repaired my laptop many times, but I'll have to throw it away because websites insist that what you could do with it ten years ago now requires throwing it away, not because it's somehow not in working order.
Community repair is a way to go. Majority of people are incapable repairing a bicycle. For some of them repairing washing machine with connected power plug could be lethal.
The right to repair movement is not about doing everything yourself but making it possible and fast for skilled people to repair.
The cost difference between paying someone to completely deconstruct a MacBook and spent ages with a plastic card and glue melting chemicals and having to source a hard to find unofficial battery vs using a screwdriver and an official battery is enormous.
Heh. How do I lobby to oppose this? I don't want bulkier, thicker and uglier devices just so I can open them, because I have no interest in doing so. And I definitely don't want this written into law...
On the contrary, devices can be made thin and sleek while being repairable. Seems the marketing has worked wonders in making some people believe that thin and sleek can only be achieved by sacrificing repair-ability.
This is not just an issue of corporations greed but an issue of efficient use of finite resources on this planet.
You'll see plenty of nice devices scoring high marks. You'll also find comparable competitors scoring low mark.
Lack of repairability is mostly a choice - an active choice. Browsing the low scores on the list I linked to, you'll see that companies do extra work to reduce repairability, sometimes with express purpose of just making things harder to repair.
There are no technical reasons why so many devices are not repairable. There is only moral bankrupcy at institutional level, and lack of regulation that would force the market players to stop behaving antisocially.
Look closer. Not just at maximum score, but at the spectrum. You can see e.g. iPhones scoring 7 and (for the last two years) 6 out of 10, whereas Samsung Galaxy phones went from 8/10 (S4) to 3/10 (S10) or even 2/10 (Fold).
This list is nice demonstrator that looks have very little to do with repairability.
Of course, you won't see it until the makers get their shit together. Why else would they glue things such that one can't replace even some cheap component and instead having to buy a new phone?
For now the ruse brings the loot, as with everything, it goes in waves, this shall pass and we shall eventually get to a stage where we will find balance in this matter.
Currently, the battery is what pretty much limits the device profile. All the miniaturization achieved on the components should actually aid in nice, modular design that allows replacement of particular faulty part (if you can deglue the whole thing first).
iPhone 4. And probably 5. I've only ever opened a couple of iPhone 4 and 4s, but they were definitely way more repair friendly than an S8 or a HTC One.
And does 1mm under 9mm even matter? Maybe if you're one of those who claim a 15 inch laptop will break your back lol
Is there really no way to manufacture thin and light devices with screws instead of glueing parts together? Do standardized connectors also stand in the way of innovation?
Standards, (almost?) by definition, do stand in the way of innovation.
Think about the standard represented by the micro-USB for low voltage charging and data connection.
If we standardized on power connections in 1990, we'd have barrel jacks on many things instead of micro-USB.
For that matter, if we standardized on USB connectors in 1996, our phones might all have giant USB type-B connectors on them. Can't go against the standard, of course.
They evolve but often are still constrained. USB has evolved but it still forced a type-c connector that still has limited adoption in the market. ATX has evolved, but it is still largely the same form factor it was 20 years ago. The more interesting form factors for computers (like intel's NUC) are eschewing the standard form factors.
I think standards are valuable but they definitely can stifle innovation.
A screw and the attendant material to secure that screw into takes up more space than a bit of glue, and—crucially—is more expensive, both in regards to manufacturing and assembly.
This laws are not targeted only at smatphones or laptops. You do not need a washing machine to be slicker or use some cheap parts so the manufacturer gains 2$ .I would pay those extra 2$ so I get better screws then plastic ones or glue.
Also I have a pump that has a part that breaks 2 times a year and I have to replace that part. I would pay 2 times more on the part if it break 2 times less often, If my pump was made by Apple I would have to send it far away and wait 1 month to have it fixed.
