Hacker News Reader

Comment by formerly_proven | Hacker News Reader

Reduce reuse recycle is fundamentally against the business model of BigCorpos. Of course they will fight tooth and nail against legislation that impinges on their business model [1]. It goes to show how good Apple's PR department is that people view them as an eco-oriented company (hint: they're literally in the "producing consumer e-waste market"). But I mean people these days also think Microsoft are open-source friendly good guys, sooooo

[1] Besides enabling reduce and reuse, right to repair also goes directly the business interests of these companies, because 3rd party repair shops exist under RTR instead of 100 % of the repair revenue going to their franchises or them directly.

View on HN

As someone who used to work in consumer electronics, I don't think HN readers understand exactly how harsh tech reviewers come down on devices that aren't as thin as possible. Add an extra millimeter and all of a sudden "tech companies yet again don't understand female audiences as they make yet another monstrously huge device that only men can use." or "this new version is unbelievably thick, and is another failure compared to Apple's amazing version" where Apple's version is 1 or 2 mm thinner.

Laptops, same thing. Even here on HN I've seen multiple people talk about how the only reason they can even carry a laptop at all is because Apple's newest whatever is so amazingly thin and how even a single extra ounce would make the laptop completely unusable.

So manufacturers have a choice. Glue everything together and make it unrepairable, or get dragged through the mud by reviewers and tech enthusiasts.

> I don't think HN readers understand exactly how harsh tech reviewers come down on devices that aren't as thin as possible.

I don't think it's reviewers being harsh in their judgements independently so much as most press of that kind has a symbiotic relationship with manufacturers. They need new products with new USPs, however trivial, to feature to justify their existence. More product updates mean more marketing, a faster purchase cycle, more decisions for consumers to make and therefore more interest in reviews.

Having sat in on meetings where mechanical engineers reported the results of working massive overtime to shave each fraction of a millimeter off, I am confident in saying that the relationship tends to resemble an abusive one. (FWIW this was wearables, not phones)

To be fair, as a customer, thin and light weight is nice, and given the choice between a phone with a replaceable battery and one that is more mainstream, well, my One Plus doesn't have a replaceable battery.

Motorola tried making cashing in on pent up demand for Android phones with batteries that could be swapped out. It didn't work out too well for them.

At some point, "thin" becomes synonymous with "sharp". As in, "This fucking thing is so thin it cuts my hand just from holding it!"

I submit for debate the proposition that many manufacturers of hand-held electronic devices have already passed this point.

>and all of a sudden "tech companies yet again don't understand female audiences as they make yet another monstrously huge device that only men can use."

In relation to the thinness, it's the other way around, I guess? Last time I checked most women's clothes don't even have pockets (someone should start a movement for that, the right to have pockets in your pants). My wife's got a massively oversized phone with a big battery pack on the back, while I don't even tolerate a case because it's bulky in my pocket.

> I don't think HN readers understand exactly how harsh tech reviewers come down on devices that aren't as thin as possible.

Are you sure that you are the one that "understand" ? It is as possible that reviewers get paid (with money or products) to push for thinness, mega pixels or other numbers so consumers would buy the newest and most expensive versions.

As a slim person with small hands, I can tell you that it’s the weight, the texture, the width, and the ability to add straps etc that makes a difference, not so much the thickness.

When Apple based their keynotes on how this device is "xxx THIN" instead of "xxx THICK"... that really pushed the god-awful trend of making devices thinner at all costs when I never had a problem pocketing my smart phone or bagging my netbook before Apple declared all others to be too thick. I miss having laptops I could actually easily work on and know that it wasn't going to hit thermal throttling due to the lack of fans or proper sized heatsinks.

In the end, people started paying more for things that were built more cheaply. Thinness from Apple wasn't about being sleek and sexy, it was about reducing material costs first and foremost. Surprised that part of it all was completely missed by reviewers. I still think they went too easy on Apple with regards to the iPhone 6 bendgate issue. It, at most, was "oh no, it bends..." and not "What the shit, Apple? You're reducing the aluminum to such thin layers that it's no longer structurally supportive?!"

And what do we see now? Soldered in back glass pieces. Not glued. *SOLDERED.* Environmentally friendly, my ass.

The problem is not the thinness of devices, but the fact that manufacturers go out of their way to make these devices harder to repair.

They include things like special screw, limiting sales of parts, and serializing parts so you can't use replacement parts to repair another.

The fact that certain devices or parts requiring specialist tool is a non-issue.

does serializing parts affect the stolen goods market? I.E. if parts are serialized, presumably they can be made to not be usable in repairs.

Thinness is a totally bogus selling point.

At least as long as manufacturers make the back side of devices so utterly slippery that you have to put them in some kind of shell just to be able to hold them, lest you drop them six times a day.

I don't see how this is not blatantly in violation of anti-trust laws. It seems to me it is clearly harming the best interest of the consumer to have less choice and more expensive repair options due to lack of RTR.

I say this as someone who would still use Apple licenced repair shops. The standard of service quality is high, and the results are dependable and consistent. Why is it not enough to compete on quality, and why do they have to behave in an anti-competitive manner?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com