Apple, Microsoft and Google All Receive Poor Grades on Repairability Report Card (theverge.com) 20
Laptops and smartphones made by Apple, Microsoft, and Google are considerably less repair-friendly than those made by competitors Asus, Dell, and Motorola, according to a new report. From a report: These findings may be unsurprising to people who like to fix gadgets, but the data to back them up comes from an unusual source: the companies themselves. The report, released today by the US Public Research Interest Group's Education Fund, draws on data companies are now releasing in France to comply with the government's world-first "repairability index" law, which went into effect last year. The law requires manufacturers of certain electronic devices, including cell phones and laptops, to score each of their products based on how easily repairable it is and make that score, along with the data that went into it, available to consumers at point-of-sale.
Maybe the grading should be on a curve (Score:2)
Great point (Score:1)
Most CPUs would fail repairability too, but form factor demands that.
I can't replace a broken transistor in this RAM chip? Worthless!
Re: Great point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a smart phone that fits in my pocket, is IP 67, works well. The battery can be replaced by mere mortals using simple tools for less than the cost of gas to get to an apple store. Other repairs are possible. Any decent tech with a hot air station can replace just about anything that will commonly break on a phone.
Don't drink the cool aid. Manufacturers are making excuses, not providing reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I think issues of chances that a part will fail should be factored in as well.
In the old days, drives failed all the time, as well as the RAM chips, The Pin connectors for Serial, parallel, and display ports suffer a lot of damage and wear. Despite what the Slashdot users think, modern technology is really damn reliable compared to the old stuff, even with the cheap consumer stuff.
Now I am not staying these systems should be locked down so we can't fix anything, however in grading a products repairability
Re: (Score:2)
CPU, RAM and storage
While the former two are very unlikely to fail in the device's useful lifetime, my experience has been different when it comes to the latter. Sure flash storage today is more reliable than a spinning disk or the flash storage of old, but power users in particular may still test the limits of TBW, and drives still fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple, Microsoft, and Google are considerably less repair-friendly than those made by competitors Asus, Dell, and Motorola.
They compared similar form factors from different companies.
Some are more satisfactory than others (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No curve for phones. Better form factors are available for phones, nobody needs to chop onions with their phone and most stick them in a bulkier protector anyway. There are phones that fit in your pocket and aren't terribly heavy that get better scores. CPUs get a pass because a room sized mainframe with discrete components can't work for a phone or be afforded by mere mortals.
Re: (Score:2)
Done on purpose. They will sometimes claim it's because of the IP68 rating, but we all know it's mostly because they want to make it impossible to repair, so you'll just toss it and buy a new one.
When a wristwatch can be both 100m water resistant and battery replaceable by any 3rd party shops, so should all the phones, tablets and laptops.
Hard, but not impossible (Score:2)
I just finished replacing the battery in my Samsung phone. It was not easy, but it was doable, and I did a better job than the last repair shop I used. What I don't understand is why the back panel needs to be made from glass.
Consumers *Choose* Poor Grades on Repairability (Score:2)
See subject. So long as a significant portion of consumers continue to place a low value on repairability, we'll see that preference reflected in manufacturers' design choices.
Re: (Score:2)
People who buy gadgets often and resell / throw them away often dominate the market. People who like to keep their electronic devices as long as they function well then face a lack of choice.
Let say if 1/3 of consumers buy new stuff often and don't care repairability, while the 2/3 care. And then let the consumers who buy often purchase stuff 3x more frequent. What is the end result? 60% of the purchases will be from the frequent buyers who don't care repairability. Companies then got incentive to appeal
I miss the old Nokias (Score:1)
Had a Great Experience (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are beautifully modular pieces of kit. I was marginally annoyed that the bumper screws and the under-brush screws are very close to the same size but not quite identical, but aside from that I'm a big fan of them.
On mine I noticed a a jtag interface on the board near the MCU.
That just begs for some hardware tomfoolery.
AVOID Lenovo & MS Surface Pro (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a surface pro x the ssd is removable. AFAIK all of the other relatively recent models have the storage soldered in.
I'm not a fan of that design either, FWIW.
Get with it you greedy companies (Score:2)
Greedy, bad for the environment, bad for the everyday user who can't afford $2000 a year phone bills. Big brother anti-privacy. Shit, can they at least let us keep the crap we buy from them so we can use it longer?