Hacker News Reader

Comment by Abishek_Muthian | Hacker News Reader

I feel sad that we need to educate and demand 'The Right to Repair'.

Yesterday, I accidentally noticed that my iPad Air 2 which I 've been using as a external display for ~ a year has its battery bulged and even pushed out the display[1]. If I hadn't noticed this, It could have ended really bad.

But now I have to wait for the heat gun to arrive to remove the battery for safely discarding it, as Apple has made it really hard to change batteries. I don't intend to replace the battery, as I think any device with battery and without charging pass-through feature is a potential fire hazard when using for any application which involves charging constantly. I have removed other such devices (incl. iPhone) preemptively.

More over I'm tired of spending money on expensive hardware which I don't own completely. There's absolutely no reason for not making user-replaceable batteries other than planned obsolescence, which are bad for the consumers as well as for the planet.

I will vote with my wallet for Fairphone, Pine64 like brands here after.

[1]https://twitter.com/heavyinfo/status/1302310594423345152

View on HN

Right to repair and user-replaceable batteries have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

This misconception comes up every week on HN. I don't know where it came from, but I wish it would go back there.

Right to repair is important! Farmers have been suing John Deere to make it legal to replace the controllers in their tractors with an open-source board, because the company sells tractors with a license that requires farmers to use their 'authorized' repair networks.

Car companies get into this same game, and pushback is important: the playing field for repair should be level, when you buy a physical object, you should own it, and so on; all of this is good. Apple has lobbied against this sort of legislation, and shame on them.

But from where on Earth do you derive the right to repair your tablet easily and without any specialized tools from this?

How does that follow? What right do you have to demand that things be manufactured in a particular way?

I don't want my tablet's battery to be user replaceable! not as much as I want it to be thin, and solid, and resistant to splashes.

It's great that you want to buy those things. I don't. We should both fight for the right to be legally allowed to repair our gizmos, for the right of third parties to do that work, and even demand that companies which sell a manufactured good also sell the consumable components of that good, for some reasonable period after commencing manufacture.

And we should stay out of each other's way on matters of personal preference, such as whether batteries are glued in place or kept in a bay behind a door.

> Car companies get into this same game

Maybe I am not getting your point but I have my car repaired many times outside of the dealer (windshield replacement, stereo fixes etc). Are you saying this is illegal? What Apple is doing is something else, no?

> Within the automotive industry, Massachusetts passed the United States' first Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act in 2012, which required automobile manufacturers to provide the necessary documents and information to allow anyone to repair their vehicles. While not passed at the federal level, the major automobile trade organizations signed a memorandum to agree to abide by Massachusetts' law in all fifty states starting in the 2018 automotive year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair

Which is only of somewhat benefit.

"While Tesla offers mechanics the ability to pay for access to car manuals (as much as $3,000 a year), Benoit says the company limits access to its diagnostic toolkit to official Tesla service partners and attempting to become one could easily cost six figures and still be unsuccessful."

https://www.digitaltrends.com/features/right-to-repair-legis...

And I am firmly on the side of the consumer, and against Tesla, on this one.

It's not a crusade I have much enthusiasm about, because I admire what Tesla is doing more than most companies. But I think they're in the wrong here.

It's not illegal but it's also not required for car manufacturers to give 3rd parties the necessary equipment/parts/documentation required to repair their cars. This allows the manufacturers to have a monopoly on repairs and parts if they want to. It's not prevalent in the automobile industry but Apple and John Deere are two companies that heavily lobby against Right to Repair.

> It's not illegal but it's also not required for car manufacturers to give 3rd parties the necessary equipment/parts/documentation required to repair their cars.

This is where you're wrong though. Car manufacturers are required to provide all of that in the EU, because it's a prerequisite to having competition in that space.

It was codified around 2007-2011 into EU laws, but most European countries already individually had laws for this.

How do EU laws impact the US here? From what I hear it's only thanks to these laws that some independent repair shops in the US are able to fix certain things at all, because they can receive tools and such by proxy of the EU (and other places).

This would be news to every EU car mechanic I ever interacted with.

The US has similar laws. I used to work for third party scan tools, in 2006 every manufacturer was giving us information. The big companies made them available for "a reasonable price" which I'm lead to believe was in the range of 50000. The small companies gave it away and begged us to support them. (small companies knew that if their car broke down in the middle of nowhere the only mechanic would be independent and so they wanted every mechanic to have a chance, big companies knew every mechanic would want to work on their cars so they didn't care to make it easy)

> thin, and solid, and resistant to splashes

I would 100% prefered replaceable battery that does not have to be recharged as often and the damm thing ro fit into pocket.

I can honestly f-ck how thin it is, just make it so that it fits into pocket and is small enough so that my finger comfortably reaches important parts on screen.

And i am not getting any of that.

> And i am not getting any of that.

You can’t expect a mass market product to be designed precisely for you.

Mass market is demanding products nonsensically thin to the detriment of other properties, because it was told to. It could be told otherwise.

You think the consumers are wrong about what they want, and should be told to think like you instead?

Such arrogance!

People just don't want the same thing as you. It's not a conspiracy. Different people have different priorities.

Did the headphone jack get removed because everyone wanted it gone, too? :P

They asked for thin and water-resistant. Apple removed the head-phone jack to achieve that. People were initially surprised but Apple was right that really they didn't need it anyway and they're fine about it now. So much so that other manufacturers copied it. People got what they wanted!

Lol!

I think you need to apply Occam’s razor here:

The iPhone is massively massively successful, iteration after iteration.

Are Apple doing that by not giving people what they want

That doesn’t seem likely to me.

Is it not possible that they give people _almost_ all of what they want, while making one or two changes that are detrimental but not quite dealbreakers?

This is a ridiculous argument against the claims above. If you've invested $100s in iOS apps, you've maybe got homekit, and other apple products, lightning cables, you use iMessage etc, the fact that headphone jacks were removed or batteries are not replaceable and that the products still sold is not proof that's what consumers wanted as there are too many tradeoffs.

The only way to truly tell if that's what consumers wanted would be to go back in time and release 2 nearly identical products. An iPhoneX without headphone jack, non-replaceable battery, water resistant, and an iPhoneX with headphone jack, replaceable battery, same price but not water resistant and see which people choose. I suspect at the time most would have chosen replaceable battery and headphone jack.

Also BTW there are phones that are waterproof that have a headphone jack. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you can chalk apple's success up to the hardware, or at least not just the hardware.

Despite my... dislike for the iPhone ecosystem and the way apple runs their app store, it does produce a level of quality and safety that most other systems don't. It works pretty well for people who don't want to have to google things.

I think that for some people that would be worth it even if they don't get the hardware they want (so long as it meets some theoretical "good enough" threshold).

Apple are giving the best option for their userbase compared to other products on the market. That doesn't mean it's all, or even mostly, what these users want. It only means other products give less.

This is incorrect; there are several phones that are water resistant and thin, despite having a headphone jack.

The primary motivation was to help sell AirPods (which customers then have to discard and buy new ones every year, because of the battery degradation.)

> The primary motivation was to help sell AirPods

This is just cynical and uncharitable.

> Such arrogance!

Or just recognizing that customers choose from what's available on the market, not from the space of all possible design.

I don't think either, of course it is not a conspiracy when it happens very clearly in the open.

Neither the person i responded to. And I along with other people like me do have right to express what we want.

Lastly mass market products dont always follow wishes of customers. They often ognore them in secondary properties.

> What right do you have to demand that things be manufactured in a particular way?

What right does the corporatocracy have to poison the world and create wasteful, planned-obsolescent, proprietary, non-modular tech? What right do Global North countries have to create monopolies for intellectual 'property' that keep people from understanding the basic building blocks of our modern world (and who are therefore easier to rip off/cheat)?

> I don't want my tablet's battery to be user replaceable!

Tell that to the kids in Ghana choking on your (and our) e-waste

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleQVO1Vd1I

Read the comment you were so quick to get enraged about again. They do want their devices to be repairable, just not “user-replacable”. And maybe don’t link a video from a Russian propaganda channel if you want to be taken seriously.

GP didn't demand a flip-up hatch to swap out batteries, just that it be possible on some level. As it is, you generally can't buy even first-party batteries to replace even if you have the 'specialised tools' (aka a screwdriver) to open it up.

> just that it be possible on some level.

Sure, and that's a reasonable thing to want. That's still not what the right to repair is about, though. It's about preventing arbitrary restrictions on your rights to repair, not about forbidding practical limitations on your abilities to repair (unless of course those practical limitations were created in order to impose arbitrary restrictions on your rights).

If Apple decide to integrate the battery & screen to shorten the electrical paths to that power-hungry component, then the battery becomes effectively non-replaceable. That might annoy you, but it's not a violation of the right to repair.

On the other hand, if Apple do things to ensure that only Apple repair shops can replace the battery (eg via cryptographic signing, secret APIs, or physical keys that they prefer to call screwdrivers) then they've run afoul of the right to repair movement.

There may be times when it'd be good to mandate replaceable parts (environmental motivations come to mind), but that shouldn't be the default -- those restrictions should be applied to individual industries in narrow ways and only as needed.

The right to repair movement is pushing for something that reasonably could be the default, and we would instead make exceptions for things that shouldn't be generally repairable (eg, perhaps modifications to an odometer should be tightly controlled.)

Yes it is - if the battery isn't just a dumb power source, and has some kind of ID verification built in, that's a monopoly on repair, and if they don't even sell the replacement part, it's impossible to repair.

>That's still not what the right to repair is about, though.

I'm just curious as to how replacing a battery doesn't fall under right to repair. It's probably one of the simplest 'repairs' you can make to a battery powered device.

Pretty much any battery powered thing, aside from a modern cell phone or tablet, my first go to if it won't turn on is either, take the battery out and put it back in, or try a new battery 90% of the time, this works, even for my old phones, right up to my current one, which is the first i've owned without a replaceable battery.

It's been about two years and as seems to be inevitable with phones, my battery's life has deteriorated, previously, when this has happened with phones, i've replaced the battery and gotten another couple years off it. Now...what am I supposed to do?

I can't repair it by replacing the battery. The phone is fine, the screen is.fine, it functions fine. But the battery dies noticably faster and from what I've read, this is directly because of the high speed charger i've been using and my charging habits in regards to these kinda of batteries.

Changing the battery absolutely falls under the category of repair. Changing my battery would restor my phone to a better state than now. Yet by design, I am unable to easily do this.

The reasoning is that the internal design of devices like phones/tablets/etc cannot take self-repair into account when the priorities of most manufacturers these days are to make them small and light (not to mention things like water resistance which also poses design problems). Focusing on user-replaceability makes the design process much harder with these restrictions.

Personally I doubt that's the _only_ reason things have gone in this direction, but it's certainly one of them.

>most manufacturers these days are to make them small and light

I bought pretty much the smallest phone with decent specs I could find when I bought my last phone. Most of the new flagship phones were huge. Like things that would not fit in my jeans pocket with my wallet. None had a replaceable battery. Yet, i've had plenty of small, light, sturdy, water resistant phones with replaceable batteries.

I really have a hard time believing that argument i'm sorry. The only real reason I can see not to allow replaceable batteries is to increase profit for manufacturers. Same with every other 'feature' i've seen marketed to people with the same excuse.

It's nonsense. There's alway a profit motive behind things and the bottom line is...

The less modular consumer devices are, the more restricted our abilities to repair, modify and use our devices become, the less user friendly they become. The only ones benefiting from removing modularity, repairability and turning devices into black boxes without standardized parts requiring either replacement of the entire device or specialized repair services are the manufacturers period.

It's not consumer friendly. Anything else is marketing bullshit to make people accept less control over their devices and more profit for device makers.

There's zero legitimate consumer friendly reason not to standardize things and allow easy repair of devices, including replacing batteries, again a long standard feature in consumer electronics.

Just because it takes a couple years for batteries to die now, doesn't mean they don't die and need to eventually be replaced like old alkaline batteries. The time scale doesn't change the fact that eventually, yes they do need to be replaced, like any other batteries in battery powered devices.

The manufacturers are benefiting, but’s its reductive to say the benefit is solely keeping the walled garden. I work in consumer electronics (but not phones). Here’s a breakdown of your stakeholders when you’re going through the design

-ID, who have a particular vision of what the device should look and feel like. They probably want things thin

-Manufacturing/automation, who wants something production line friendly. They’ll probably be angry if you replace a stamped adhesive sheet with 6 screws

-You and your manager, who want you to keep COGS as low as possible

-The reliability team, who will raise a fuss if you keep failing your drop tests and water/salt spray ingress tests

-HW compliance, who aside from ROHS FCC certs are mostly concerned with battery safety

-Whoever is keeper of the PRD (PM, lead engineer). This is where concerns about user friendliness of the assembly will show up

Given all the other things you need to juggle, and how many of them can be solved with judicious use of adhesives, the line item about user replaceable batteries is going to drop off very quickly at most companies. You can argue that this PRD doesn’t capture your needs, or that incentives are misaligned, and that’s fair. What you’re looking for is a company with industrial designers and product managers that deeply care about repairability and there aren’t many. But the status quo isn’t a nefarious plot, they’re just prioritizing other consumer and company needs over this one particular consumer need.

>all the corporate structure and every middle man

>over this one particular consumer need.

Sorry, i'm glad the needs of everyone trying to make money off me and everyone adding to the worth of their shares comes before the consumers you're squeezing every fucking penny out of.

>More corporate marketing bullshit

Yes...things looking sleek and shiny as opposed to functional and long lasting is exactly what marketers tell consumers they want so they waste more money lining shareholders' pockets.

>before the consumers you're squeezing every fucking penny out of

No one, except for Apple and Samsung, is making any meaningful margin on consumer handsets. Many people would prefer a cheaper device vs a replaceable battery.

>Many people would prefer a cheaper device vs a replaceable battery.

Yet, my new phone without a replaceable battery cost more than my last phone with one.

Did your new phone have the exact same specs and dimensions? Or is this a worthless observation without a control variable?

I have a cell phone on my wrist.

It's about 40x40x10mm, and I can dive wearing it, as long as I don't get too crazy.

Here's the trick: write the legislation, before this object is invented, which allows it to exist, while still mandating that cell phones have replaceable batteries.

Can't? Great. Let's not make laws like this.

Diving computers definitely have replaceable batteries. And they exist.

> I'm just curious as to how replacing a battery doesn't fall under right to repair.

Right to Repair means manufacturers must release the necessary documentation and technical information required for repairing the product, to remove artificial legal and technical restrictions (trade secret, copyright, authorization, DRM), and possibly to provide replaceable parts, and even to allow third-party modification... So that the end user (or a 3rd-party repair technician) would theoretically be able to repair it independently.

But it has nothing to do with the underlying (not artificial) difficulty of the repair, and rightfully so (otherwise it's out of its scope, and you need a different set of regulations to address that) - Right to Repair asks manufacturers to open up the design, not to dictate how it's supposed to be designed. It doesn't matter if troubleshooting requires an EE degree, it doesn't matter if the repair requires a $1000 machine, it doesn't matter if the device is so delicate that it would only ever be successfully repaired by a trained technician with 100 hours of experience.

Using battery replacement as an example: Right to Repair means you should be able to get a service manual, a new battery, a set of tools, and possibly the technical specification of the battery management protocol from the OEM to replace the battery. But if your phone has been completely sealed for waterproofing by design, it can be extremely difficult to open the cover, remove the battery, and put a new one in without damaging anything - but you still have your Right to Repair, and you should support Right to Repair legislations, since it's still possible for you to find a skilled technician to repair it. On the other hand, without your Right to Repair, you won't even get the service manual, and the OEM can brick your device after you've replaced the battery via DRM.

Just like the Right to Free Speech, the Right to Repair is mostly a negative right, in the sense that it must eliminate restrictions on the (theoretical) exercise of the right, on the other hand, it does not actively empower an individual to exercise the right. The government cannot take my blog down, but I may be unable to get any meaningful traffic from the web.

What I understood, the right to repair is more about the papers than the actual device. The manufacturer can write on the contract that only they have the right to repair the device you bought. It does not mean that it has to be easy to repair it but you should be allowed to try it without them suing you.

>I'm just curious as to how replacing a battery doesn't fall under right to repair. It's probably one of the simplest 'repairs' you can make to a battery powered device.

I think the GP is making an important distinction in the technical aspects of the law in order to ensure that this legalislation doesn't create an undue burden on manufacturers and the government that would get this bill killed easily.

What does it mean for the government to regulate that a device must have a user replaceable battery? Does that mean the device must use phillips head? A clip on pack? What about the battery? Does the battery size have to be standardized? Must it use AA batteries? Any of these will make our current devices inoperable. Likewise if we just take the standards today and encode them into law, we could be crippling devices in the future. I don't think it's a pedantic point - when you say "replaceable", it also means by ""whom"? You the user? You can't assume everyone is as technically sound as you - if grandma can't replace her battery then does the manufacturer fall into hot water?

Next, why stop at the battery? Almost every device has some sort of radio that if rendered inoperable would brick the device, just like a battery. Does this bill now mean that the radio of every device now has to be user replaceable? Standardized? Modular? It's easy to see how such a bill is must more hairer than a law that just says "Provide documentation, and don't add legal restrictions on repair".

>What does it mean for the government to regulate that a device must have a user replaceable battery?

Seems pretty simple...

'Manufacturers must not knowingly make batteries inaccessible and irreplaceable without standardly available tools'

Your whole post is just quibbling and semantics making what is a pretty clear issue to be more complicated than it is.

Again, it's been standard for years and years for batteries to be contained below a cover that can be either pulled off or screwed off.

Trying to act like a phone is somehow more complicated and all these factors matter and some poor device manufacturer might sued because grandma can't take her battery out is....

So much disingenuous corporate lawyer babble bullshit.

>Next, why stop at the battery? Almost every device has some sort of radio that if rendered inoperable would brick the device, just like a battery.

You're absolutely right. I should be able to replace the individual components of my phone, the way I can replace components in my computer, car, bike, stove, most of my appliances, my guitar, nearly everything else I own to be honest. I completely agree with you.

>So much disingenuous corporate lawyer babble bullshit.

Surprise, surprise, that is exactly what you sign up for when you ask the government to get involved. Who do you think is going to write up these laws? What are standardly available tools? Who defines the standard? What defines inaccessible? If you are going to make a law these things have to be defined, or else Apple will just pay $10MM to a lobbyist to make sure that Apple iScrew is a standard. If you make it too strict, some troll will sue will you for everything because grandma couldn't reasonably repair the device.

Batteries are designed to be degraded so it's good start to get repair rights.

I agree that the right to repair needn't overlap with user replacable batteries but it seems a false choice that we have to make between thin and replacable batteries. In the time of the Walkman there were some seriously compact devices and I realise that expectations have moved on, but the most compact Walkman designs were all thinner than the average without resorting to sealed units. I'm sure there is some structural impact from removable parts but if they were end loaded (as has been done with lots of compact consumer electronics) they could still be pretty sturdy and deliver a better experience for users tired of their devices' poor performance from something like 8 months to a year after purchase.

The galaxy S3 and 4 both had user replaceable batteries and where thin. Though IDK how water resistant they where.

This doesn’t tell us much. Could the batteries have been larger and/or the device even thinner if the batteries weren’t user replaceable? (I don’t know the answer, but it seems plausible.)

My old phone was as thin as my new one but it had a larger batter and was replaceable. I always chosed the replaceable battery first if I had a choice. Last time however I didn't find a phone that had a replaceable battery. I usually use my phones a lot longer than most. My first one lasted for more than 10 years with several battery changes (Nokia 3210)

> "But from where on Earth do you derive the right to repair your tablet easily and without any specialized tools from this?"

Suppose you have passed your right to repair. I can design a device so that it takes unreasonable effort and eqipment to repair it. Makes it more expensive to repair than to buy a new one. You would have achieved nothing.

This has already happened - have a Samsung A50 with a broken screen, and you can buy a new screen for £40. However the phone is basically a glue sandwitch, and it costs the same to repair and to buy a new one.

On another note, Microsoft Surface laptop is unrepairable - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...

If you pass right to repair without any provisions for ease of repair, it will be a toothless, useless tragedy of a law.

> Suppose you have passed your right to repair. I can design a device so that it takes unreasonable effort and eqipment to repair it. Makes it more expensive to repair than to buy a new one. You would have achieved nothing.

No-one is going to buy a car or tractor that can't be repaired at all. And it'll hit pretty hard if people realise even apple can't replace their screen and they'll need to buy a new thousand-dollar device every time the screen breaks. Apple and John Deere have a huge incentive to make devices repairable, they just want to monopolize that repair business. That's the problem here.

Oh boy, do you know that device manufacturers are actually refusing to repair plenty of devices - I am not talking about warranty shenanigans, but refusing to repair for any money at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE

I have taken my A50 to Samsung, and they are not fixing it no matter how much I pay them. On my Withings smartwatch the glass cracked, and was considered under warranty. They explicitly told me it is unrepairable, and replaced the watch with a new one! How the Fk are they unable to replace glass on a watch?

Just about everything has already became either unrepairable, or uneconomic to repair, from fridges to TVs to phones to smartwatches. The are a few exception like vehicles or large equipment, but the events so far indicate that people will buy unrepairable equipment because they have already done so in many industries. Consumers generally have no way to know how repairable something is, especially for a new product.

Lastly, a device does not have to be completely unrepairable - it could require absurdly specialised and expensive equipment, that only the OEM will ever afford, so you will be back at the monopoly problem.

To play devils advocate: It might just not have been possible. The only way to "repair" many devices today is put a whole new PCB in Perhaps ypur A50 was no longer stocked or made. Does your "pay any price" include 100k%USD to spin up a whe production line and its supply chain to make 1 replacement PCB for you?

The problem with the imac pro repair is not that apple couldn't repair it, they're perfectly capable of doing so, it's that they refused to. Under right to repair Linus would have been able to purchase replacement parts and either repair it himself or get it repaired by someone professionally. You've given a perfect example of a case where right to repair is absolutely necessary.

There's plenty of devices that are still (with some effort) repairable. And there's plenty of consumers who take repairability into account when purchasing, like me and probably yourself after your experience with the A50. Also it's difficult, but the A50 is certainly repairable: https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Samsung_Galaxy_A50

I had a slightly different issue. I had a Samsung Smart Watch (Samsung Gear Live) the charger was a cheap custom POGO pin cradle. After a month of use the cradle assembly cracked. I contacted Samsung for a warranty repair and they were going to charge over $50 to replace. I decided not to get it replaced and sold the device on eBay.

Couldn't they just use a standard USB micro interface or Qi standard charger?

I have not purchased a Samsung device since.

I guess usb might have compromised water proofing but certainly a qi charger interface makes a lot of sense.

I worked delivery in the past at a big box home improvement store. Samsung and LG fridges, if anything happens (such as the ice maker stops working), in some cases the otherwise perfectly working fridge is just thrown out and a new one is shipped. Somehow it costs less that way, I was told.

>The are a few exception like vehicles or large equipment, but the events so far indicate that people will buy unrepairable equipment because they have already done so in many industries. Consumers generally have no way to know how repairable something is, especially for a new product.

But this is only because people have no choice but to buy unrepairable fridges and phones. If people could buy repairable ones then that would factor into brand reputation and people would buy the fridge or phone that's got 3% lesser specs for the same price for the peace of mind that being able to repair it in the future brings.

> No-one is going to buy a car or tractor that can't be repaired at all.

I respectfully disagree, most buyers don't consider repairability. Things just need to last a reasonable time given their initial cost and expectation for level of duty.

If a car could be made that was economically reliable for a 7 year warranty period plus another 3 years (10 years in total) without maintenance, yet be totally unrepairable at the end of its life, would consumers care? Not if it was cheap and had the right amount of cup holders.

I just had a Bosch electric hedger fail on me. I opened it up and discovered the bearings had been sitting in slots moulded into the plastic shell; one bearing had seized and spun causing the plastic to wear/break/melt making the unit unrepairable. I was surprised, since it was a Bosch, and expected better. I then realised I bought it over 15 years ago, and it had worked flawlessly without maintenance of any kind. Therefore the engineering was superb and totally fit for purpose.

UPDATE: I will add that farm tractors are different. These are capital equipment and have an economic life that could span decades.

End of life is important to cars. Many cars are leased, calculation of the resale value at the end of the lease is important to the price you pay. Then the next buyer expects to have some value in the now 7-10 year old car to apply to the next one. That is only possible because it is repairable for the most part.

Of course computers are cheaper, nobody really expects a computer to last more than 5 years, so repair isn't nearly as important.

I'm still using a late `09 Mac Mini I bought new, so over 10 years old now and I still have no imperative reason to replace it. I've replace the HD and maxed out the RAM about six years ago and it's still all I need to get my work done. And a newer "faster" PC won't improve my productivity. I write code and use BBEdit to do that.

Back in the 80s and 90s the tech was changing so fast I had to purchase a new Mac every couple years to run the software I needed, but I've not done that for over 10 years now and I don't see any good reason at all why a new PC can't or shouldn't last ten years for the average user.

Aside from gaming and video editing, neither of which I do much of, there's really no compelling reason for me to want a new Mac.

> I respectfully disagree, most buyers don't consider repairability.

That is... incomplete. A buyer's lack of conscious consideration of something is not the same thing as placing no value on it. They simply assume it is present and not substantially different than the norm.

> Therefore the engineering was superb and totally fit for purpose.

I disagree. Now your tool is polluting somewhere in a landfill. With superb engineering this tool would have been repaired and be of use.

My late grandmother bought a fridge in the sixties. She kept it all her life (she passed away 5 years ago), the thing never failed and was as much cold as a new one. Afaik it was bought by someone that thought it looked cool and is probably still working right now.

And was probably so inefficient it caused far more damage than replacing it with the latest model every 10 years

> And it'll hit pretty hard if people realise even apple can't replace their screen and they'll need to buy a new thousand-dollar device every time the screen breaks.

That’s almost word for words what an Apple Genius employee told me the other day when I wanted to repair an iPad. He told me very clearly that Apple doesn’t repair and only replace iOS devices, and I would lose any data that isn’t backed up.

> On another note, Microsoft Surface laptop is unrepairable - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2....

Not just the laptop. The entire surface line is a nightmare to try to work on. Recently, I was doing a "simple" repair on a Surface Keyboard -- just trying to flatten out some dents from the inside, so the power port would fit in right.

It took 4+ hours -- to get it open. After that, it took another 15-20 min to remove the mobo on the inside, 30 to try to fix the dents, 15-20 to put the mobo back in, and another 10-20 to get the back on again.

All for a repair which may or may not actually work, because MS doesn't sell parts.

iFixit gave the latest Surface a fairly decent reparability rating. I was surprised to see how much more improved the teardown was compared to the mess of the earlier versions.

Interesting. I'll have to check that out.

Thanks for letting me know.

> I don't want my tablet's battery to be user replaceable! not as much as I want it to be thin, and solid, and resistant to splashes

Why do you think these things are mutually exclusive? Every time some manufacture has made a phone without a replaceable battery there has been some other manufacture making a device the same or smaller or thinner or lighter that had a replaceable battery and that was splash proof proving this is not some tradeoff that has to be made.

The phone market is pretty competitive these days. Why don't you see Chinese brands capitalising on this unmet demand? They seem pretty aggressive in every other respect.

Right to repair isn’t about giving every single user the ability to repair their own device. Without right to repair, a shop can’t replace the battery in your tablet for you, it has to go back to the manufacturer who says “oh this is 2 years old you need to buy a new one”, or “there’s water damage so you need to fork out $700 on your $800 device so you may as well buy this $1000 model as we don’t sell the $800 anymore”

Instead of taking it into the shop down the road that has all the tools and who can do it for $60.

+1. Right to Repair is about not allowing artificial legal and technical restrictions on repairs, it's about providing necessary technical information, diagnostic software, and parts, but it has nothing do with the underlying difficulty of the repair.

Without Right to Repair, you won't get essential service manuals or schematics, the vendor can brick your device after you've replaced the battery via DRM, the vendor can refuse to provide replacement parts. With Right to Repair, you'll be able to get service manuals, schematics, replacement parts, and there won't be anti-repair DRM - which is why you should support Right to Repair legislations.

However, it has nothing to do on whether the repair should be technically easy. Under the Right to Repair, a device can still be so delicate that it would only ever be successfully repaired by a trained technician with 100 hours of experience with $1000 dollar rework equipment - if it's the case, your best hope is to find a repair shop with skilled technicians and adequate equipment, and maybe you'll get it fixed at a lower-than-official cost - which is certainly a possibility - but without your Right to Repair, even this possibility cannot exist.

If someone really wants to make something easier to repair by everyone (in other words, impose legal restrictions on how a device should be designed), you'll need a different set of regulations to address that. But at the present stage, I recommend to get your Right to Repair first, and understand what does it really mean - similar misunderstandings of Right to Right (= the vendor must make repair easy for everyone) has already been used in many strawman arguments by its opponents in the industry, using excuses such as safety, portability or costs, and in reality none of them really applies.

Does this also hold for the software installed on the device? Would a company be required to provide access to the system, and to provide all possible documentation?

Newer ThinkPads have encrypted DRM for batteries - and I'm sure they're not the only offender. Even if it were difficult to do, removing crap like that would make it a completely different game.

>Right to repair and user-replaceable batteries have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

I never said they are the same, my statement on 'Right to repair' ends with this -

> I feel sad that we need to educate and demand 'The Right to Repair'.

Rest of my comment are about user-repairability and I disagree that it's just a matter of personal preference. In most parts of the world, electronics recycling is unheard of; longevity of a device is improved when there are user-replaceable parts. Even in the countries where there is proper electronics recycling infrastructure - there are numerous complaints on how these products are becoming harder to recycle(especially the batteries) by 3rd party recycling companies.

In short, environmental pollution is not a matter of personal preference and everyone has a right to demand good practices from the manufacturer for the sake of the planet.

When you talk about a concept, then talk about a personal anecdote, people are going to assume they're related.

> What right do you have to demand that things be manufactured in a particular way

Is this meant seriously? You don't, you can opt not to buy. Otherwise the customer can demand anything, especially large buyers like public educators.

The thing it gets conflated isn't accidental, since batteries need maintenance and are very often the part that needs replacement most often.

Technically you are correct, but it is naive to think that lock-in ambitions of manufacturers don't touch both topics.

> It's great that you want to buy those things. I don't. We should both fight for the right to be legally allowed to repair our gizmos, for the right of third parties to do that work, and even demand that companies which sell a manufactured good also sell the consumable components of that good, for some reasonable period after commencing manufacture.

The problem is that the market will only serve the majority well. Most people don't need general purpose computers. Following your logic, why should a company be required to make a computer accessible to hackers?

> How does that follow? What right do you have to demand that things be manufactured in a particular way?

They have every right to demand something be manufactured a specific way. The manufacturer doesn’t have to listen but the consumer has the right to demand. Manufacturing is not some black box process that happens “over there” and you get whatever rolls out of it. Consumers have every right to give feedback to manufacturers and request for the production of products that better suit their needs, and if the manufacturer fails to do that the consumer can go somewhere else. The whole point of this is preference

This sounds like the usual free speech debate. There is a difference between the legal protection of free speech and a culture valuing free speech. Yes, legally farmers should br able to repair their tractors on their own, but the spirit of the right to repair is that manufacturers should not intentionally put up user hostile barriers to repair--especially if solely to make repair difficult.

because we have these things called screws that have worked fine for hundreds of years and greatly enhance the repairability of devices.

> There's absolutely no reason for not making user-replaceable batteries other than planned obsolescence

Sure there is a reason (thinner devices, easier water resistance, harder for users to damage, etc.).

I'm not saying the reasons are necessarily worth the tradeoffs made, but this is not malicious planned obsolescence. The term "planned obsolescence" has become overused in my opinion, mostly in reference to Apple devices.

No one asked for their phones, tablets, and laptops to be even thinner, especially at the expense of serviceability. Everyone knows that batteries stop holding charge after a while. General public knows it and engineers know it. But nope, let's build a device that's ridiculously thin and not designed to come apart at all because screws are so not pretty, right?

Water resistance is a feature that most people don't need (me included). It's nice to have, sure, but how many people choose one device over another because of it?

As for damage resistance, are you sure about that? Modern gadgets are ridiculously fragile for no good reason.

A few counterpoints:

- A thinner device is likely lighter as well, which people do want. And, people do like the things they own to look good, which subjectively can include “thinness” - Water resistance is very nice for normal use, even if you don’t explicitly want to use your device in wet places. You can use it near the kitchen sink, in the rain, or even in the bath without damaging it. This plays into the next point: - Anecdotally, I think at least iPhones are getting less fragile. I had a lot of problems with earlier iPhones, like bendgate and cracked screens. Not only have I not cracked my screen with recent iPhones, I’ve gotten significantly fewer requests from folks for me to repair their screens. I drop my phone all the time, and it basically refuses to break. And I just use a cheap bumper case. Similar for other folks I know. Along with water resistance (which would come alongside dust resistance), I think devices are pretty sturdy.

All of that said, I’m a huge supporter of the right to repair. And I don’t think we have to give up nice designs and even thinness at the cost of repairability. I think if Apple even just changed their stance to be pro-repairability (even selling replacement parts), I’d be happier. I think a heatgun and some torx screwdrivers are cheap enough that it’s not that difficult to teardown an iPhone with some knowledge and practice.

My main gripes with repairing iPhones are the lack of quality parts. Buying cheap replacement parts is possible, but they are worse quality, and some things (like Touch ID) don’t work properly.

On top of that, I imagine you can still achieve thinness and water resistance with screws rather than glue. So I’m with you there, they could design the products to give us the same features and also be more repairable.

> A thinner device is likely lighter as well, which people do want

I want think and light devices - but not at the cost of everything else. A replaceable battery is important - realistically, how much thinner and lighter does a fixed battery make it?

I fully agree that some manufacturers (cough Apple) are obsessed with thinness, but I strongly believe the main driver behind fixed batteries is planned obsolescence.

> I fully agree that some manufacturers (cough Apple) are obsessed with thinness, but I strongly believe the main driver behind fixed batteries is planned obsolescence.

i've worked with companies making the kinds of products you're concerned about. this never comes up. they are however terrified about lithium batteries in consumer products catching fire, and want to keep you, the user, far away from them. thin flat batteries also tend to stay a bit cooler, which helps in multiple ways.

> A thinner device is likely lighter as well, which people do want.

I really wish it was. Nowadays devices are thin but heavy so it's unrelated.

> No one asked for their phones, tablets, and laptops to be even thinner

I asked for this.

> Water resistance is a feature that most people don't need

I need this.

So how can Apple satisfy both of us? How about let them research the market and decide what to do themselves?

There's something so arrogant about the right-to-repair and user-serviceable crowd who think devices should be crippled to suit their minority requirements at the expense of the majority.

> There's something so arrogant about the right-to-repair and user-serviceable crowd who think devices should be crippled to suit their minority requirements at the expense of the majority.

I want to buy a device once and use it forever. That's it. It's that simple. The glued-together construction artificially limits the lifespan of the device.

And, actually, it's possible to have both. I remember there were water-resistant Sony phones that had user-replaceable batteries.

> I want to buy a device once and use it forever.

Ok... but most people don't. So you aren't going to get that. You can't expect phone development projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars to cater to your particular views. And guess what more: people who buy a device just once aren't going to be anyone's priority for anything.

> And, actually, it's possible to have both. I remember there were water-resistant Sony phones that had user-replaceable batteries.

How thick were they, though?

> Ok... but most people don't. So you aren't going to get that. You can't expect phone development projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars to cater to your particular views.

Imagine HTC unveiled a new phone that is the Desire S but with a modern-ish multi-core CPU and a non-potato camera. Everything else — the design, the size, the screen, the removable battery — is the same. How many people would buy one, given that the current 7" glass slabs remain a (prevalent) option?

And, I mean, people buy and keep iPhone SE (1st gen) and 5S for that same reason. The SE wasn't a flop, despite having a small screen no waterproofing. There's definitely a market for these.

> How thick were they, though?

I don't remember the exact model to google it, so given the period, I'd bet at least 8 mm.

When we charge properly for the high cost of throwaway devices, I expect this to change.

What we do right now is toxic and wasteful.

Apple will re-furbish or re-cycle your device for free. In fact they'll pay you for it.

Plus how many devices does Apple save from needing to be replaced by adding water resistance?

Water resistance is not new, nor required to be as repair toxic as Apple methods often are.

And the recycling is itself toxic. Recycling, in the view of people seeking more robust, enduring gear, is mitigation, not a solution.

It is entirely possible to make things that last.

Like big pharma sees real cures as bad for business, buy once, use for a very long time is also bad for business.

There are huge costs associated with both ideas.

Then why aren’t you rocking an iPhone 5s? Still gets security updates. Or an iPhone 4? Probably still works on all phone networks.

The problem is you don’t see your own cognitive dissonance in demanding the latest most powerful phones last longer, but refusing to use old phones longer.

And iPhones are held together by screws, the glue just holds the components together better making it harder for falls and bumps to break connections, which makes the phone last longer without any repairs.

> Then why aren’t you rocking an iPhone 5s? Still gets security updates. Or an iPhone 4? Probably still works on all phone networks.

Well, close to that, I have a first-generation Google Pixel because iOS is too crippled for my taste. And, yes, I've replaced the battery twice and the glued-down screen is a major nuisance.

Sales of devices in the real world rebut every single one of your points. Customers notice lightness and thinness when they heft phones and tankers, and overwhelmingly choose light and thin.

If only there was any choice.

There is, but Samsung, Apple, etc. are under no obligation to cater to you.

There isn't, not along the axes GP is talking about. Which makes the "market data" irrelevant.

Okay, where do I get my 4" flagship with a removable battery and a headphone jack, eh? Nowhere? Then you can't call that a choice.

In 2020, all phones are the exact same thing with minor differences.

That’s not true but don’t let it stop you from demanding phone makers make custom models for every handful of people who want unique features.

Of course if you believe your design actually has a market, it’s never been an easier time in world history to manufacture your own smartphone designs with easy availability of parts, android, Kickstarter, Chinese contract manufacturers, etc.

Are you are the type of person who complains but never does anything about it?

User replaceable doesn't need to mean tool-free removal.

You can use tiny phillips/hex/torx screws instead of glue to hold the back in place.

You can use thin rubber gaskets and silicone grease to seal the case instead of a custom punched adhesive sheet that is nearly impossible to replace without destroying the device or compromising future water resistance. Literally every water resistant wristwatch made before Apple entered the market used to work this way. They're designed to have batteries replaced or mechanical bits serviced every few years and are expected to continue to be water resistant, and many of them are extremely thin. I'm surprised that no phones do this, as it seems like it could be marketed as a super premium build-quality feature ("built like a dive watch").

The batteries are already connectorized instead of soldered. You can use replaceable pull-tab-removable adhesive strips to hold the battery in place if needed, instead of glue that exceeds the yield strength of the material it's attached to.

Some of these things might cost a few cents more, but none of them should materially affect thinness, rigidity, water resistance, etc.

Gluing everything together will absolutely affect your drop tests, and your conversations with ID, and your conversations with manufacturing who don’t want to have 18 screws in the assembly. There are many more stakeholders other than consumers and evil bean counters who don’t want you buy a third party battery. I’ve seen drop tests alone dictate the use of adehesives.

> There's absolutely no reason for not making user-replaceable batteries other than planned obsolescence

Come on, it doesn’t take much effort to think of the benefits of controlling the quality of batteries that are put in the devices.

I agree with your sentiment, but it doesn’t help to pretend like there aren’t benefits to supply chain control. Just look at Amazon.

Even genuine batteries fail, if your device can't cope (eg shutdown) with batteries with low current/voltage then it's defective.

Then it's a case of testing the battery is providing the right current/voltage and continuing.

iPhones at least can cope with defective batteries, by throttling the processor, so presumably other companies can do the same and just not try to hide it from users.

There is no reason to make that supply chain control mandatory. If I want to risk a third party battery on my phone that’s my business is it not? It’s my phone, it’s my third party battery.

I think the concern is less about “people with DIY skills making informed tradeoffs” and more about “sketchy repair places using poor quality or dangerous batteries”. Then somebody’s phone catches fire on a plane and becomes a PR trainwreck for the phone manufacturer.

I also support right to repair, but I think we should be realistic about the objections and concerns the opposition has.

We've had replaceable batteries for decades prior, and the only time there was a PR nightmare over phones catching fire was when Samsung itself supplied phones with faulty batteries that caught fire .

Otherwise i have never come across a story of this happening, so it seems lime a fantasy scenario thats just used as a talking point.

There have been a lot of stories about iphone chargers catching fire and it ends up being some $1 ali express charger. I still think a companies right to good PR is lower priority than right to repair.

Fun fact, a company has no right to good PR. You're welcome to champion an effort to put a "right to good PR" into law, while the rest of us champion right to repair.

Don't you think it would be better to, for instance, regulate dangerous components instead of preventing me from repairing the device that I own with parts I procure? Wouldn't the world be better off if all parts were good, instead of if companies had the right to look good at all times?

Sure. And while a company has no right to good PR, you currently also have no right to support from manufacturers when repairing products you own. As such, we are discussing new legislation for this ‘right to repair’ where (as with all new legislation) the wants of various parties are relevant because it affects the ability of that legislation to get passed.

You can argue that the wants of multi billion dollar corporations should be irrelevant, but the current political system nonetheless allows their option to carry weight.

> And while a company has no right to good PR, you currently also have no right to support from manufacturers when repairing products you own.

Which is why I'm advocating right to repair legislation, not right to good PR legislation.

With reference to GP: "I still think a companies right to good PR is lower priority than right to repair."

I find it really strange when individuals, against their own interests, advocate for the "rights" of a giant multi-trillion dollar company. Especially silly ones like Apple's right to look good. They can advocate for themselves. Let's look out for us, and let them look out for them. They've already paid lobbyists and lawyers to do so -- why do it for free?

I’m not arguing against R2R - I’m just saying that we should be realistic about the objections and opposition we will face.

What if the corner repair store does it? It's still the user's problem, but this time it's just because they went to a non-Apple store/non-Apple certified store. If the battery is defective, that becomes Apple's problem when it swells, starts smoking, or has 50% capacity within a year.

> but this time it's just because they went to a non-Apple store/non-Apple certified store. If the battery is defective, that becomes Apple's problem when it swells, starts smoking, or has 50% capacity within a year.

The user chose to go to a non-Apple certified store. After that, there is no warranty and Apple is no longer responsible.

Except we don't live in Fantasy World.

Here in the Real World, Apple is responsible and would be held responsible and would suffer reputation damage if a device exploded, regardless of details that might be reported later about whether a substandard part or non-Apple repair caused it.

Apple must prove any damage happened because of the third party battery or its installation. I know you're probably assuming the battery is bad or explodes, but the nuance is important as the manufacturer warranty and their obligation to sell working devices is not abrogated by repairing it yourself.

My right to be able to swap out batteries on devices is more important than Apple's reputation.

I agree 100% with regard to most components but there needs to be a balance with regard to unregulated hazardous parts, such as li-ion batteries.

If your phone explodes in your hand because of something you did to the phone, then that's your problem. If you happen to be on an airliner at the time, however, your exploding phone is suddenly the problem of everyone else on the airliner and everyone the airliner will fall on if it crashes.

Similarly, if you're hiking in wildfire season and your phone explodes, that exploding phone is the problem of everyone in the surrounding area.

Further, not everyone who might want to use a third-party battery will have the know-how to appreciate these risks or appreciate that the civil liability from starting a wildfire will vastly exceed the amount of insurance coverage they could buy. The public needs some degree of protection against these kinds of risks because it's not reasonable to expect average people to understand the full implications of buying a cheaper battery.

It's not in the public interest to have widely-used consumer products randomly exploding, which is why people aren't generally allowed to do things like manufacture their own propane cylinders or gasoline cans. Large lithium batteries are similarly hazardous and should be treated similarly.

I think the ideal solution would be something along the lines of a right to repair combined with mandatory safety standards for lithium batteries. There wouldn't be as much of a safety issue if both OEM and 3rd party batteries were required to pass the same requirements and testing.

Weve had replaceable batteries on laptops and phones for decades, and that was fine somehow. Has either of these scenarios ever happened?

The wildlife scenario is particularly fantastical - people have campfires, they carry gas stoves, torches, guns, drones, cameras (with replaceable batteries!), candles, bikes, and hundreds of other things far more dangerous.

Just another point -> "Anyone in the UK can start a car repair business without needing a certain level of experience or expertise. This is completely legal"

In most places you can repair your own car, buy parts, change breaks, Pour any liquid you want into the petrol tank, or the motor oil compartment. Imagine how dangerous that is!

And people sit here making up contrived scenarios "what if you repair your iphone battery, and then eat the old iphone battery! While on a plane! With a gas leak! With kids nearby!"

In 2016, Samsung's Galaxy S7 phone was the subject of a world-wide ban from aircraft (and eventual product recall) after battery defects caused at least one S7 to catch fire while on an airliner[0].

This is far from the only incident of li-ion batteries exploding on aircraft; indeed the FAA estimated that li-ion batteries exploded at a rate of once every ten days on US-controlled aircraft in 2017[1].

Terrestrial lithium battery fires are at least as frequent[2] and have been far more destructive[3]. Given that litihum battery fires have burned down houses, it's only a matter of luck whether one eventually starts a wildfire or not.

Given the established risks of even OEM lithium batteries, making it easier for the public to use lithium batteries of dubious origin and quality is not prudent.

With specific regard to wildfires, I take it you don't live in an area where wildfires are a serious risk. Open flames and other sources of ignition, including cigarettes, vehicles, and camp stoves are banned in wildlands during fire season. If cell phones exploded more regularly, they would, by necessity, be added to the list of prohibited items.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37570100

[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/product-safety/whats-behind-...

[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-07/lithium-batteries-in-...

[3] https://loudounnow.com/2020/08/23/faulty-lithium-ion-battery...

> Samsung's Galaxy S7 phone was the subject of a world-wide ban from aircraft

No, it wasn't. That was Galaxy Note 7, which was a different phone.

(I still own and use a S7, btw.)

That couldn't be further from the point.

You've demonstrated that this is a significant issue, but to impose any restrictions on the user you should be trying to demonstrate that unreplaceable OEM batteries are significantly safer, you are proving the opposite! Your example is of a major OEM screwup does not help your case!

For decades batteries were replaceable, and now they are not. If it were true that OEM are more responsible with batteries, then we should have seen a massive decline in lithium battery caused fires. We seem to be observing the opposite?

Maybe rigid replaceable batteries, lile the ones found in cameras, are actually safer and better protected!

Secondly if this is a genuine safety solution, then it should deal with laptops, cameras, electric bikes, drones and other devices that have much larger batteries and which are user-replaceable, and where they have to be.

Thirdly, an unreplaceable battery turns a durable good into a throw-away device. Then it becomes e-waste and might kill more people through lead poisoning than it ever could from a minor fire.

Can't they control the quality of external or replaceable batteries in exactly the same way?

This seems like a reasonable point, until you note that Apple explicitly forbids their manufacturers from selling genuine batteries to anyone. If the issue was simply that Apple didn't want their brand to be tarnished due to low quality third party batteries, they could do what Samsung does and provide public access to their manufacturers so anyone can buy genuine parts.

This is a legit complaint, but none else is. Apple makes better products for their customers by using glue and integrated batteries.

Right to repair should exist, but not at the expense of forcing design changes.

The glue does not make better products. For ages macbooks used a plastic bracket to hold the battery down but now they use glue thats insanely hard to remove. The Dell XPS is a great example of why this is not needed, the battery is still fixed in place with screws and a bracket and the ram is removable while the laptop is slightly thinner than a macbook pro.

The 15" MacBook Pro went from a 50 watt-hour removable battery to a 77.5 watt-hour plastic bracket battery to a 99.5 watt-hour glued in battery (in a thinner chassis). Dell is putting an 86 watt-hour battery in their current XPS 15.

You may not like what Apple is getting out of gluing in their fragile batteries but I certainly appreciate getting as much battery that can be crammed into the laptop using any means necessary in lieu of having an easier time swapping the battery once every three years (which Apple will do for me for basically the cost of a new battery).

I’ve dropped so many MacBooks and never had one break. I’m betting that super hard to remove glue has something to do with it.

It probably has more to do with the move to SSDs and their aluminum chassis. Other than physical destruction of the case and screen there is not much that can go wrong with a dropped laptop.

> Come on, it doesn’t take much effort to think of the benefits of controlling the quality of batteries that are put in the devices.

Nobody's barring Apple / John Deere to provide the replacement parts.

You don't have to solder and glue batteries to control what gets put in the device. Supply chain control has zero to do with this practice.

> Supply chain control has zero to do with this practice.

This is a completely separate issue—I don’t know Apple’s rationale for this practice.

The issue we’re talking about is whether there are reasons to do it at all, and I still think there are obvious benefits for customers to making it difficult to put defective or dangerous batteries in their devices.

(Just to reiterate, as a technical consumer I’d prefer to be able to swap batteries myself. But I get the tradeoffs that Apple is making, and whether they make sense or not for a given company is a complicated decision that I don’t feel qualified to judge.)

> There's absolutely no reason for not making user-replaceable batteries other than planned obsolescence…

Sure there is. Battery bays are a source of water intrusion.

For the last 10 years that I own smart devices somehow I managed to not cause a water damage in any of them.

I also have to mention that Pebble watches exposed to me planned obsolesce. I purchased Pebble Time in 2015. Yes, the battery is also sealed, because the way is water proof (well, they said it is water resistant, but people were swimming with them). After 5 years of use it every day the battery did degrade, but it still lasts longer than Apple Watch.

It is so sad that the company went out of business.

There are plenty of original Apple Watches from 2015 still in service. Including mine. I gave it to a friend and he's still using it. Apple did battery service on the unit.

I did not have any service on my unit yet. That's the point.

There's a reason why cell phone batteries die after year or two, while batteries in hybrids or EVs can last 10 years.

Yes, that's the reason everyone seems to be doing it. The other one is making them slimmer.

I've yet to take a tablet for a swim myself.

I could, maybe, be convinced having waterproofing on phones could be such an important feature that it trumps everything else, but I really doubt it's truly (as opposed to: "wow, cool, I can dive to 20000ft and still take a selfie. Best. Phone. Evar.") important to that many people.

The slimness appears to be a good marketing gimmick. And, yes, "pocketability" is important.

It’s not about taking the device swimming it’s about accidentally dropping the device in the water and being able to retrieve it and have it still work.

What bodies of water do you regularly dangle your phone over?

Besides toilet drops I once doused my phone in a pool when I was grabbing my daughter when I thought she was caught under a raft.

Water proofing isn’t for swimmers doing laps, though I’m sure many use it for that. It’s primarily for accident protection.

What percentage of cellphone owners would you guess have accidentally dunked their cellphones in water, incl. toilets?

At what percentage would waterproofing be so important that it means compromising on the phone design in ways that are consumer hostile?

Casio solved that problem 40 years ago with 4 screws and a rubberband. It is what it is, the same with soldered ram in laptops. Cheaper manufacturing + worse repairability == bigger earnings per quarter

Two screws on each side of the battery so it doesn’t move and a back cover with screws would get you the same waterproofing as glue. Instead a broken glass back will get you 600€ of repair in an Apple Service Center

The present trend of screws+glue doesn’t make devices easily repairable, but it does make them much tougher and break far less.

I dropped my MacBooks at lest a dozens times and never had anything ever break or stop working.

Somehow, I have never caused any kind of liquid damage to any electronics I've ever owned. IMO, waterproofing is overrated — especially with capacitive touchscreens that refuse to work with as much as some raindrops on them.

> Somehow, I have never caused any kind of liquid damage to any electronics I've ever owned.

It wasn't until recently that the general public would be carrying around an electronic device 24/7, including in such common situations as: sitting in the bathtub, holding the device around a toilet, using the device on a pier over water, etc. Waterproofing as standard has definitely saved myriad people from having to buy a new phone or ebook reader.

See, everyone is different. My phone never comes close enough to my bathroom to end up in the toilet or the bathtub.

It shouldn't be this all-or-nothing approach. We need choice and diversity in these markets. Same applies to screen sizes, btw — everyone's different, some people do watch video on their phone, some are disgusted by the very idea of it.

> It shouldn't be this all-or-nothing approach

I dont understand your point, so you want companies to build two types of devices, one which is not water resistant/proof but can be easily repaired and another device which is water resistant but hard to repair?

He wants a diverse market with options. Not 3 companies telling you what to do.

There are lots of companies manufacturing phones not just 3.

Yes but there's not much diversity in the phones themselves. Whichever company you choose, you're most likely getting an impenetrable giant glass slab.

> Whichever company you choose, you're most likely getting an impenetrable giant glass slab.

Which is probably a good indication that the market for other styles of devices is quite small, right?

> Yes but there's not much diversity in the phones themselves.

There used to lots of diversity but after the Iphone the market wants an impenetrable giant glass slab.

> It shouldn't be this all-or-nothing approach.

Agreed. It's shame that all Android device manufacturers similar devices.

>> common situations as: sitting in the bathtub

What? ...what?!

Please tell me you're kidding. I would never, nor do I know anyone who would ever - be so shockingly daft as to use a phone or tablet in the bathtub. Come on. Even if it was 'waterproof', I still would be too paranoid to see it as a shocking hazard...we learn as kids not to put electronics in the bath; at least everyone I know did...

On the toilet, all the time. In the bathtub?! Let's give human beings some credit. We're not daft.

Waterproofing is ideally for the time you accidentally drop your phone into the toilet, and that alone. Just because it's gotten really great doesn't mean people's attitudes on this has suddenly changed.

Electronics and water don't mix. I can't imagine sitting in the bathtub with an iPhone, iPad or laptop. Nor could I imagine anyone I know doing so. o.o

Unless it's plugged in to charge, or otherwise hooked up to something with a cable, it should be safe to use your phone in the bathtub. Though, I'm not condoning this life choice.

Live a little. One of the great ways to relax in life is reading hacker news in a warm tub of water. Instead of mocking it you should try it. Of course most tubs are not big enough for adults so this isn't easy.

Amazon knows that people read in the bathtub and want to continue doing so in the age of ebooks, which is one of the main reasons why recent Kindle generations are advertised as waterproof. You misunderstand the risk involved; a sealed low-voltage device is not a toaster connected to the mains.

I’ve never needed car airbags, but it’s good they’re there. I have dropped a phone in a toilet.

Hmm, I just realised the same thing - in almost 20 years of owning mobile electronic devices, I've never once had water damage to a device. I don't use electronics in the bath, shower, on the toilet or anything else random.

Strangely, when I last bought a mobile phone I made sure it had waterproofing... I guess marketing won here, since it's not something I actually need.

> since it's not something I actually need.

Its like insurance, you almost never use it but when things go wrong you are glad you have it.

> I've never once had water damage to a device.

Its both, your conscious effort not to take the phone where there is higher risk of water damage and its also luck that your child/friend/colleague did not accidentally spill water on it.

You’ve never dropped a phone into a toilet? I’ve done it at least a half dozen times.

It’s disgusting but I’m not tossing my phone away afterwards, UNLESS IT STOPS WORKING BECAUSE OF WATER FANSGE.

> You’ve never dropped a phone into a toilet?

No and every time this comes up I'm having trouble imagining how exactly, physically, could that happen by accident.

I had shorts with pockets that made it feel like the phone was put away, but when I stood up they would catch the phone and tumble out.

Sit on a toilet and hold a phone up near your face (not over the front of the toilet). It’s easy to see in this situation how a slippery phone or sweaty palms could cause the phone to fall down and between your thighs.

Solution: Think some "shower thoughts" during your bathroom break.

A shirt pocket. I've dropped a phone in the toilet twice and in a bathtub once this way - it slipped out of the pocket as I was bending to wash my hands or pick up the toilet cleaning brush.

(I've since then stopped carrying anything in open pockets above the waist.)

Not OP, but just a data point, Only once in my 30+ years of life I have dropped my key ring into a toilet, a squat one, so unrecoverable. Otherwise 20+ years of squat & 10+ years of western toilet use, never ever anything has fallen from my hands or pockets into toilet.

People use their phones as social devices, maps, and cameras.

The probability of spilling a drink on them, being out in the rain, or dropping them in a puddle is pretty high. That probability goes up the more a person is outside.

I've never dropped my phone in a bucket of water, but it's definitely gotten absolutely soaked in my pockets when rain suddenly hit or when a faucet in a public bathroom had its pressure set too high and sprayed me like a hose. I've lost a few keyboards to drips of condensation from my cup falling on just a single key, and I'd hate to have my other electronics be that sensitive.

The samsung s5 solved this already. You put a rubber seal around the back plate. This is basic engineering and every other waterproof product does exactly the same thing.

My own S5 still works fine, almost six years later, and is going strong on its third battery.

I'm not looking forward to finding a replacement, since it seems like every newer phone drops one or more features that I care about.

Never heard of the Fairphone before. Seems like a good product, and the price is fairly reasonable for a smartphone. Anyone here have experience with one?

I've seen plenty of good reviews on the r/fairphone subreddit and have been thinking of getting one even though I'm not in Europe, since similar to GP I'm also having issues with a battery that I can't replace without needing a heat gun (Samsung galaxy phone)

I believe Apple will just replace the whole device—as wasteful as that is—if you bring it into the Apple Store.

@mdryja on Twitter also recommended this. It seems like you have a point, but are being intentionally somewhat obtuse. You obviously put the device to good use for a year, and are now saying you don't want it. Apple also has a process for recycling the devices they replace, which would save you the trouble. Is it that you have no means to get it to them or what's the deal?

If I've learned anything from my time in IT, it's that absolutely nothing is obvious to everyone

Got a Google Pixel 1 a few months ago. Great hardware and goes for about $50 as "second hand", but actually like new. Very happy with it.

Unfortunately Google stopped providing updates in Dec 2019 (just 3 years after first device was sold) and many models by Verizon are locked, so it's impossible to use third-party ROMs.

It's disappointing that there are no vendor security updates, even though there are so many devices in active use and being sold. And even worse, Verizon prevents you from using your own ROM.

I think there is a case for mandating security updates for at least 3-5 years after the last new device is sold and removing protections, like bootloader locks after that.

It's hard to believe that we can buy $2000 smartphones which will get security updates for utmost 3 years if lucky.

Can we imagine a computer manufacturer pulling this off with a $2000 computer i.e. where we cannot use the operating system of our choice? Although we are getting closer with integration of proprietary hardware without proper Linux driver support and of-course abysmal user-repairability score(don't tell that's it's for water proofing laptops).

Smartphones are and should be treated as portable computers. we need international regulations to force smartphone manufacturers to allow installation of any 'operating system of choice', else they are just forced e-junk; This can help address anti-trust issues concerning Appstore/Playstore as well.

$2000 is outlier product, maybe have some special features like Galaxy Fold so owner won't think it lasts long time.

Do you feel like you bought, and thus own, something which you were surprised was designed to maximize integration for minimal size? I mean, it might not be what you want, but doesn't Apple explicitly state that like everywhere?

Android phones have routinely fit bigger batteries in the same form factor with the same water/dust resistances with much higher reparability.

The over reliance on glue does not make apple devices more "integrated", it only makes them harder to repair.

I'll happily pick something that is harder to break, even if that means it's harder to repair. Other people may have other priorities, and that's okay. That doesn't make one choice better than the other.

As for removing the battery to run only on powersupply: Some devices need so much power that the charger can't deliver it fast enough and the device just shuts down. This is when the battery is supposed to take over to provide enough power for the temporary surge. This is more a question for laptops I guess since surfpads and phones are optimised for battery only usage.

> I feel sad that we need to educate

Why? Education is never finished. New people are born every day and they do not know anything. If it was not necessary to educate people on "the right to repair", that would mean that this idea is not useful nor interesting. Now, that would be sad!

So, the fact that the battery is glued into the tablet the way it is, is part of why it was at a certain $ price and had the form factor it did.

Would you buy an iPad that cost say $100 more, and was twice as thick, so that you could repair it? I don't know, but that's not for me to mandate.

If people are willing to buy what is being offered, why put a requirement that they build something different, by law?

Let people/companies build what they think people will want, and have the market decide whether it survives. Nothing is stopping you from offering that product.

Companies don't want to offer that product because then you wouldn't have to replace it as often. For example, point me to the iPad with the replaceable battery. How can the market decide if the product isn't available? More people would buy it, but then they wouldn't have to buy it as often, so the overall number of sales would go down, so companies stop offering that.

In theory in a competitive market you would then expect someone to defect and gain that business, but that doesn't work in highly concentrated markets. Apple and Samsung together have more than 70% of the US market. So you can either have right to repair, or you can do some trust busting. Or both.

It's much easier to do battery replacements on apple products then almost any of their competitors.

Seriously - you can go in and just pay them to do it. It's something like $99 for parts and labor all included for ipads.

What other tablet provider even offers this as a service? I'm serious - can you provide some names and examples with this level of convience?

I ask because my parents used an ipad for something like 7 years, and it got updates FAR longer than ANY competitor out there, and they got the battery updated. One of the reasons apple gets to charge a premium is BECAUSE their items hold value for so long relative to the competition.

Look at used prices for tablets (or phones). Some android phones ship with a 2 year old OS and NEVER get an update. The value of these phones after 2 years is basically zero.

Well you can pretty much take products made by anyone else to any town repair shop (in UK) and have it replaced for far less than £80 (~$100).

That Apple repair probably costs them a tenner, and they're presumably primarily bringing you in to market new products to you.

Apple offer battery repair as part of their anti-competitive practices - they legally hassle other companies who offer repairs, because they want to make it hard and costly to drive the idea of disposability and sell more new products.

Can you name a single one of these tablet makers that you can go into any town repair shop to get repaired?

Apple and Samsung are both repaired at the "phone shop" I used to pass on my way to work (I don't work in town now). Can't imagine a MS Surface, or a LG/Huawei/whatever device is much different if they can get an aftermarket battery.

Fair point - checking the local repair places to me - they all actually lead with apple repairs in terms of being able to give a price / in stock etc. LG I guess they need to order LG Tab 10.1 - they were not actually stocking parts for at least that brand.

> It's much easier to do battery replacements on apple products

> just pay them...$99...to do it [for you].

That's not doing the replacement, that's paying a significant amount of money to have a specialist do it for you. Having the specialist available does not remove the original problem, it solves it with the side effect of cost and inconvenience.

Just because the side effects don't bother you doesn't mean everyone should be subjected to them. Replacing a battery should not require a specialist in the first place. Most people consider $99 a very expensive repair.

OS updates are orthogonal. We are talking about hardware.

The more I hear other engineers discuss this type of thing on HN the more I realize how unique apple is.

They look at their products as a whole. So in the apple model, hardware and software run together. Seeing this with my parents and when I resell stuff you see the payoff. The apple products are usable FAR longer then competitors and sell for more even after a year or two.

You are not "subject" to buying an apple product. Apple has obviously chosen to optimize for a different user group than you are in. The market seems to appreciate that, their margins are nuts (they sell $100 worth of stuff for $200).

I say this has someone who used to by batteries for my laptop and other devices online, who did the ifixit stuff. The problem, the quality is wildly variable when you order online - so I at least can see that for the VAST majority of folks, apple's approach results in a pretty reliable / high quality result. And they charge and get paid a remarkable premium for the trust users have in them as a result of this.

> you can go in and just pay them to do it.

If Apple Store is located nearly.

There are plenty of ways that you can get batteries replaced. I replaced the battery in my iPhone 6s before batteryGate and my son kept it until earlier this year - 5 years.

Yet I have a PC laptop from 2009 that still runs the latest version of Windows and Linux and has a battery that I can replace in three point four seconds which costs less than $30.

Yes and I have a Dell E6500 laptop that was my work laptop in 2010.

https://www.cnet.com/reviews/dell-latitude-e6500-review/

It was my Plex server until earlier this year. It’s thick, it weighs over six pounds, it runs hot and even with a new battery it wouldn’t last more than a couple of hours.

What’s the point?

> What’s the point?

That it was still useful to you until it was ten years old, and it should be the same for phones.

My iPhone 6s was useful to me for five years.

Apple just released a bug fix update for the 2011 iPhone 4s, June of last year. How many Android phones got security patch/bug fix releases for a 9 year old phone? Yes you can still get the battery replaced for it.

Have you tried using a ten year old Android phone?

And for fruit. I hate having to throw out apples every week, when my canned tuna keeps for ages.

I can’t believe we’ve gotten to the point where there is even an argument about this! Every single consumer electronics device in my home that has batteries makes it easy to replace them—except my cell phones. Everything from remote controls, UPS backups, alarm system, smoke detectors, computers, toys, even my car. They are all end user serviceable. This is how it’s supposed to be! I shouldn’t need to take anything to a business in order to replace a battery. How did this become a weird point of view?

Smartphones are power hungry. In order to keep them running for more than a few minutes they need high capacity batteries. In order to put suitably high capacity batteries in smartphones that fit in pockets manufacturers have gone to lithium polymer batteries. In order to get the most capacity out of the available volume manufacturers have done away with hard puncture resistant casings on the batteries, letting the phone chassis be the protective shell. Without a protective shell no insurance underwriter or regulatory body is going to approve the batteries as user serviceable.

You could make a LiPoly battery with a hard user serviceable hard shell but it would have far less capacity than a glued in battery. Not only would the volume of the hard case take away from electrical storage volume but there needs to be free space for the electrolyte material to expand when it heats up. Batteries heat up when charging and discharging in addition to heat absorbed from components like a phone's internal circuitry. Without expansion space the battery is just a small bomb.

Older cell phones and smartphones had far less power draw than modern smartphones. The old Nokia BL-4 batteries were around 800 mAh. The original iPhone's battery was almost twice the capacity and a modern iPhone is 3-4 times that capacity. Smartphones would weigh twice as much and easily be twice as thick if they had replaceable batteries with the same capacity as their non-replaceable ones. While you might be fine with phones being thicker most buyers would rather have the thinner and lighter phone if the extra weight and bulk didn't offer any extra run time. They definitely wouldn't go for phones that had a quarter of the run time because they could replace the battery themselves.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just battery technology and physics. Also concerns about safety by way of insurance liability.

yet the new Samsung Xcover Pro, targeted for the rugged/business market, managed to make a modern high quality phone with a removable battery: https://www.samsung.com/us/business/products/mobile/phones/g... .

Edit0: specs: https://www.samsung.com/us/business/products/mobile/phones/g... - 4000+mAh battery.

And it has a substandard camera, heavier, thicker, face detection that is not secure, a less than top end processor and a fingerprint reader that isn’t reliable.

https://www.samsung.com/us/business/products/mobile/phones/g...

And since it is a Samsung device, by the time you get ready to change the battery, Samsung more than likely won’t be updating the operating system.

The $399 iPhone SE has a better processor, camera, finger print sensor and given Apple’s history, will probably get operating system updates for five years.

You could get the battery replaced, and have an updated operating system for years and still be at slightly less than $499.

These are irrelevant digressions to the post that I was responding. The parent comment appeared to be implying it was technically impossible and that does not seem to be true. Your ad hominem and irrelevant attack on Samsung is weird: 1) you don't know the support cycle of this commercial device, and 2) often options such as LineageOS become available for such devices.

Yes it’s technically possible if you want a heavier, thicker device.

And you don’t save any money. The $399 iPhone SE with a battery replacement will be cheaper, smaller, lighter, supported, and faster.

you don't know the support cycle of this commercial device

Has any Samsung device ever had six years of upgrades like the original SE/6S?

often options such as LineageOS become available for such devices.

Yeah that’s something most consumers are going to do. As opposed to just going to settings and click upgrade.

So tell me again what is the advantage of the phone again? It’s not price, longevity, weight, size, or performance.

You keep changing the narrative to one that favors your Apple advocacy. You can think of no reason why I might strongly prefer this Samsung over your Apple? Not one? I have seen hundreds of your comments on this site on Apple threads and you never seem interested in seeing the opposing parties point of view. Why? Before you accuse me of the same, know that I have a MBP 2020/16, an iPhone 6s, and other Apple devices. I have recommended Apple to people to whom I felt it would be a fit. I ask you again: can you think of any reasons why I would prefer this particular Samsung?

Your “advocacy” is that a replaceable battery increases the longevity of the device. But how does it increase longevity of a device if it is not going to be supported by the vendor for more than a couple of years instead of six like the original SE? How is it better for the consumer if the phone you linked to is more expensive than the iPhone SE + one battery replacement.

The phone you linked to is worse in every objective measure.

The fact is that even the best Android phones also don’t have a replaceable battery. Are all the manufacturers under the same delusion that consumers don’t care about replaceable batteries?

You never answered the question. Not once. You are not even trying. You changed the topic to me 'advocating' for this phone when I, to clarify to you for the third time, was responding to someone who I felt was stating that it's technically impossible to build phones with replaceable batteries.

For once, just once, I'd like to hear you say something even slightly bad about Apple. Come on, just once?

No one was saying that it is impossible to create a phone with a replaceable battery. There have been phones with replaceable batteries for four decades.

The argument is that the market doesn’t care.

If the market cared about replaceable batteries why are all phone manufacturers creating high end phones with none replaceable batteries? It’s not just Apple it’s the entire industry.

Engineering is about tradeoffs. The phone you linked to proves exactly that - the phone is bulkier and heavier than the state of the art phones from Samsung

> heavier, thicker, face detection

Isn't that kind of facial detection done in software? How can it be `heavier' or `thicker' if it's software?

Quote out of context much?

> heavier, thicker, face detection that is not secure,

Maybe so, but I still am unsure how the words `heavier' and `thicker' can apply to a software function.

Is it maybe a way of saying more computationally intense or more layers in a neural network? It could be a non-native speaker, but to me those adjectives only really apply to physical things. I'm not sure.

That's just a view from Apple fan to complaining Android.

BTW iPhones are really heavier.

The fact you managed to find one out of dozens of models Samsung sells and it is targeted for business fleet sales is telling. Replaceable batteries are not a hot consumer feature. Samsung's other phones of similar size are thinner and lighter.

Non-replaceable batteries are a net benefit for consumers most of the time. They get the lighter thinner phones with all the features they want. If you want to keep the same phone for a decade, even with a replaceable battery, I wish you the best of luck. In the US I don't think there's any active 2G service and 3G services will be turned off in the near future. It'll make a decent media player or WiFi browser but it won't act as a phone.

That's the one that came to mind - I am sure there are others. You appeared to be claiming it was technically impossible and I found a good example. You keep asserting that you know what is good for me or other consumers with no evidence and this is a pattern I see repeated in this and other threads. Why? What's it to you that I want some control over my device?

Edit0: I've often found much better (repairable, long lasting) products for myself by looking in the enterprise/ fleet catalog. My oft-mentioned HP Elite X360 is another example of a device targeted to the corporate market and as a result, enables easy replacement of the SSD and battery.

I didn't at any point claim it was impossible. I said batteries are a trade off. If you want a thin and lightweight phone with a user serviceable battery, you're going to have to sacrifice capacity. If you want user serviceable and high capacity you're going to at least sacrifice on thickness.

I also didn't claim to know what is good for consumers. It should be obvious that given the choice between thick and heavy or thin and light consumer sales have favored thin and light for the past decade. That's not me dictating what is good, it's just me paying attention to the smartphone market for more than ten minutes.

I am happy for you that you find phones and laptops that last you a long time. Bully for you. But you are not the bulk of the smartphone or laptop market. You represent a tiny portion of both markets. I know this because you have to hunt down phones and laptops with replaceable batteries while pretty much everything on sale at BestBuy is all glued together. Buy the shit that you want but don't pretend that you represent some silent majority quietly yearning to replace batteries in their phones and swap hard drives in their laptops.

I don't understand why this makes you and the other guy so angry. "Bully for you"? "Buy the shit you want.."? It's just sad that you can't or won't appreciate a different viewpoint.

No one is complaining. If you want a phone with a replaceable battery. There is one available. So why complain? I don’t post endlessly complaining about Android manufacturers piss poor support when it comes to upgrades. I just don’t buy them. I don’t look for the government to give me “rights” that I already have by using my own free will and buy a device that meets my needs.

In fact you complain a lot on any thread where Apple or Android are mentioned. Even your response above appears to be dripping with contempt about Android manufacturers and users. Your comment about "rights" sic is surprising: you appear to support corporation's rights to tell me how to spend my money and to pretty much tell us peons to stfu up right to repair. Why? What harm is there to offer an opinion to companies about what they make? You got what you wanted with your sealed/non-repairable black boxes. Companies get repairable devices because they ask for them. Is it wrong for us mere nothings to try to ask for the same? I have read hundreds of your postings and I just don't get you: you would not like it if I did to you what you are doing to me and yet you don't see it. It's sad.

Apple and Samsung, offering laptops and tablets that people buy voluntarily, and have plenty of competitors who offer such products at lower price, are trusts that need to be busted?

People "voluntarily" buy things from trusts all the time. They "voluntarily" subscribe to Comcast.

They "voluntarily" subscribe to Comcast.

Comcast is a clear physical monopoly, the only ones allowed to build and sell internet/cable access to your house.

Your claim is that Apple offers its products at a lower price? Than who?

I never made such a claim. Please read.

So then your claim is that Apple has market power because they can charge higher prices than "competitors" and still do more business. I was confused, I thought you meant to be arguing that they weren't a trust?

> Comcast is a clear physical monopoly, the only ones allowed to build and sell internet/cable access to your house.

And yet people still "voluntarily" subscribe to them rather than some slower services like DSL or Satellite.

Products that can charge a premium because they offer something others don’t, aren’t a trust. Is Nike a “trust” because they can charge more for Air Jordans?

Economies of scale normally mean to sell variants that people want (thicker / more modular / easier to repair) the price may be substantially higher.

You've got to generate a full supply chain, from design, mfg, qualification, qc, parts, diagnoses / repair / maint etc.

Just sell version with normal sim cards (old complaint). Then it was I'll never buy an apple product if it doesn't have a headphone jack. Then it was I think the move in progress to get away from nano sims to things like esims.

I know galaxy and others have been making fun of apple for not having a headphone jack (I'm one of the folks who really misses it because it worked great for making music / audio pass thru stuff with low latency). But do I think there is enough demand to justify the headphone jack vs pushing forward with things like airpods?

I don't think so - proof should be in the pudding. Either airpods are making apple big bucks or without headphone jacks apple should be crushed by samsung galaxy phones.

I've seen a lot of airpods in ears.

You know you can buy other Bluetooth headphones besides AirPods and iPhones come with lightning headphones.

Sure - but apple has pushed forward and at least in my use cases airpods work really really well. The pairing speed / battery life / distance etc are all very nice. So apple has done something with airpods that the old bluetooth headsets didn't have (yes, I used to use a jabra bluetooth on my old cell phone).

So they have done something to dial up the experience? Does my old jabra work as well - no - the audio quality was terrible (and doing bluetooth to my car speakers - also terrible).

I can do a facetime audio call with airpods - they sound great.

I do a facetime audio call on my cars speaker - it sounds horrible (and the car costs 30K+!)

I agree. I like my AirPods also. People act as if Apple forces you to buy AirPods. It supports the standard Bluetooth spec as well as it can and added extra features to its own products.

The post I was replying to acts as if removal of the headphone jack forces people to buy AirPods. As if I would want to use wired headphones on my watch or AppleTV.

The market is incapable of deciding such things. No one has perfect informations and everyone has a finite amount of attention span. People couldn't even be bothered to think of the long-term cost savings of different light bulbs.

My dad was? Sometimes people would rather pay for not having to think about it. There's a whole industry of tax filing when filing taxes is "easy" for the majority of people.

First, I don't agree with your statement that the market / consumers are unable to decide.

Second, you should have a real think about where you want regulation to have ability to dictate what people can do. Energy efficiency is an area where people both 1) don't have clear info from manufacturers, and 2) it leaves a mess for others to clean up.

Owning something that is designed in a way that causes it to have a lower resale price later is not such an area.

> Energy efficiency is an area where people both 1) don't have clear info from manufacturers, and 2) it leaves a mess for others to clean up.

Isn't that very similar to repairability? Certainly the second point, and I've never seen a display in a shop give information on how phone batteries might be replaced.

The market has decided. You just don’t like the decision. The market has the same downsides as direct democracy (tyranny of the majority) but the votes aren’t 1:1 with people.

Only a competitive market with low barriers to entry. That does not apply to electronics (not outside Shenzhen street markets anyway). With high-end hardware, the vendors dictate the trends (based on guessing what they can market the easiest), and customers have little to no voice.

Except it's more like 5% thicker, and BOM cost of a few cents.

People are happy to throw their rubbish (trash) on the ground wherever they are, but that's not a sustainable system. Mandating a tiny degree of greater sustainability seems reasonable to me.

Water generated from obsolescence & irreparability is an “externality” for market mechanisms, and therefore needs an alternative approach to fix (Eg: government regulation, recycling taxes, etc) since prices will not reflect that naturally.

> Would you buy an iPad that cost say $100 more, and was twice as thick, so that you could repair it? I don't know, but that's not for me to mandate.

Ironically, Apple products pioneered the "glue everything, fix nothing" mantra AND costed the $100 more that you're talking about.

AFAIK, before the iphone all phones had a swappable battery.

> AFAIK, before the iphone all phones had a swappable battery.

they also had wildly lower power demands.

Did you leave the ipad plugged in 24/7? FYI, that’s known to cause battery bulging.

FYI that should NOT happen.

Battery bulging is a manufacturing defect, nothing more. Apples battery management technology has gotten incredibly advanced over the years, and it charges and discharges the battery if you leave it plugged in.

Cycling the battery as often as is typically done is worse than doing a bypass around the battery. The purpose it serves is reproducibly wearing the battery, trading battery lifetime for a consistent user experience with the gas gauge.

(Monitoring voltage is not enough, voltage can drop very quickly at end of battery life.)

All it has to do is keep the battery below 4.2v. I don't see anything advanced in purposely cycling the battery. Li-Ion (li-po) chemsitry has not changed much in the latest years. Alternatively if detecting power for prolonged times (say 24-36+ hours, it can keep the battery at 4v)

The reality is that most permanent iPad installations put the charger on a timer.

>FYI, that’s known to cause battery bulging.

That would be a horrid battery charger design, likely keeping the battery overcharged at all times.

It looks like your iPad had a defective battery. You can’t expect 100% defect free - at a large scale.

I, like many other parents who deal with kids throwing these in tubs and toilets, really like devices for being water resistant. It’s just a trade off you’ll have to make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com