Hacker News Reader

Comment by honkdaddy | Hacker News Reader

I ran an iOS sales and repairs service for years, eventually stopping around the iPhone X era. I had decent third-party tools, but despite being careful, I'd still break peoples' devices on rare occasion and have to eat the cost.

The adhesive they use to bind the screen to the body has gotten consistently tougher over the years, to the point where there really isn't a reliable way for someone to do it correctly on their first try without specialized tech like this. You WILL underestimate the amount of heat required and either crack your screen or break your tool when trying to pry them apart. It's incredibly frustrating and delicate work if you're just using a heat gun and a screwdriver.

If they shipped him a "warming sock" and some kludgers like iFixit used to do, I'm sure a quarter of the people who attempt the repair would end up breaking their device and the whole program would be a failure.

Unless they ditch the adhesive and return to the iPhone 4/4S design of a back-cover which slides off easily, I actually think the 70lbs of equipment might be their best path forward.

View on HN

> The adhesive they use to bind the screen to the body has gotten consistently tougher over the years... Unless they ditch the adhesive...

We talk about this adhesive as if it's easily replaced with some screws, but I wonder if that's really true anymore. I can imagine that as devices and their tolerances get smaller that simply screwing something together might actually make the device a lot more delicate. Do you know if this is the case here?

The adhesive makes the phone waterproof.

I recently replaced my gf's iPhone screen and all I really needed was a hairdryer to heat up the adhesive, a suction cup to pull it off, and a screwdriver. I guess with these tools it'd be safer, but it worked well regardless.

> The adhesive makes the phone waterproof.

So would a rubber o-ring.

O-rings are known to fail.

O-rings are the standard seal technology in waterproof watches, and also in scuba diving equipment where lives literally depend on them. They are actually extraordinarily reliable.

But at the same time, a diver is trained to look for leaks as part of their pre-divw checklist, and oring replacements are fairly common. On my last liveaboard, the crew replaced probably good 1-2 dozen tank orings over the course of a week. One of my LP hose orings had frayed as well and needed to be replaced.

It might be the standard, but it's not exactly the best experience either.

The o-rings that require regular attention are the ones that handle high-pressure air. Run-of-the-mill waterproofing o-rings, like the ones used to seal dive watches and dive computers, are fire-and-forget. And yes, dive watches and dive computer have beefier housings than iPhones, but iPhones don't need to be waterproof to 150m.

(I am a certified scuba diver.)

Dive computers with replaceable batteries 100% have user-serviceable o-rings that need lubing and eventual replacement. My Shearwater came with both grease and 2 replacement o-rings.

HP hoses and o-rings also can and do fail, and, once again, divers are trained to look for signs like the rubber bubbling. There is also not really a difference between the o-rings used in HP and LP hoses and equipment outside the size, and I gave examples of LP hoses failing.

These all require regular maintenance and replacement, and, once again, divers are trained and should be checking their equipment regularly.

But that's all beside the point, which is that your claim is that "[o-rings] are extraordinarily reliable". Except they are not, they require replacing all the time. They may be industry standard, but they are fall from infallible.

Scuba equipment is most often used in saltwater and is subjected to increased pressure while underwater. The conditions scuba equipment is subjected to vs what waterproof cell phones are rated for are very different.

> need lubing and eventual replacement

Yes. Every couple of years. After being subjected to a lot of pressure cycling.

If you do nothing but take it into the shower or a swimming pool the o-rings will last longer than the batteries.

Chlorine isn't friendly to o-rings, but I'm not sure where someone would put their phone while in a pool anyways. Mine comes in the tub with me for soaks for sure though.

Do o-rings have a dramatically high failure rate that I don't know about? It can dry rot or otherwise break down, but as a seal on the back of a phone, I've found them 100% reliable.

I assume they're referring to the Challenger explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...), although it's a pretty poor comparison.

Adhesives are also known to fail. They almost certainly have a higher failure rate even.

Given a relatively high and sufficiently uniform clamping pressure on the entire o-ring. Which then requires high-stiffness parts (bulky, heavy, high material usage) or a lot of fasteners (take up space, potentially add to the oh-so-hated bezel width depending on how they have to be implemented).

Actually, no, this is not necessary for 1atm water resistance. See: the Samsung Galaxy S5 that was made out of ABS plastic, and had an easily removable battery with 0 fasteners. It was IP67 rated.

The reality is that with the way devices are designed to be IP rated and as compact as possible, your only option is these fancy PSA adhesives.

There is a direct disagreement between what a consumer wants in their device and making it easy to repair, especially since most people don't expect to repair the device they are buying.

I've got a Samsung Xcover pro. It has an easily removable back plate and a replaceable battery and is IP-68 rated. My old Casio was in the same vein. Maybe you couldn't get it quite as thin, but they did away with the easily removable battery long before they started trying to waterproof it.

The S5 was thinner than the contemporary iPhone and within 1mm of the 13 Pro Max

Uhh are we all kind of forgetting the Samsung S5?

A phone with ip67 rating, a microsd card slot, headphone jack and removable battery?

Yea I am calling nonsense on this being an engineering limitation.

I have an xCover FieldPro from Samsung because it is one of two devices they make that are waterproof with a removable battery. It is marketed as a device for first responders and is built with field use in mind. It even comes with a spare battery.

I decided after my S4 Active battery died and I broke the screen trying to replace it that I wouldn't buy a phone without a removable battery. Not easy to find anymore. I did have to sacrifice Qi charging. But the xCover phones have pogo pin charging docks that suited my nightstand charging needs.

Like 50 years of wrist watches kinda calls BS on that. Mass produced, low cost, waterproof devices with easily removable batteries used to be the norm. We as a species certainly haven't forgotten how to do that, these adhesives are far from necessary.

They exist not for IP rating, but to make the device appear to not have any screws. Both for aesthetic reasons and to keep people out reasons.

An Omega Seamaster weighs anywhere between 100 and 200 grams, depending on the model. Extrapolating that to the size of a phone, you'd have to lug around a 1kg brick. Now, I'm not a fan of the trend of thinness and lightness above all, I'd prefer a slightly beefier phone but one that weighs a kilo is ridiculous.

Why do you go immediately for an Omega Seamaster? There are a thousand other waterproof watches out there with removable batteries that don't weigh near as much as a dive watch. It's rated for 300 meters. I don't think anyone is expecting a phone to be thin and light and waterproof under 300 meters of water.

Because it's well known enough. 200g is the heavier end, sure, but 100g seems pretty light for a wristwatch anyway. The Seiko 5 is one of the lightest watches at about 70 grams, and that thing is tiny. That's to say, the Seamaster isn't really much more heavier than others, unless you're going for some mickey mouse watches.

I've repaired / modded non-iphones that bind display / covers with adhesive. Both broke them in various ways the process and saved them later.

Using screwdrivers to pry will very likely crack the screen and if that's the only tool available, one ought to wait on repairs the right tools are available. Using a screwdriver would otherwise introduce scratches / chips in the areas you'd insert / slide it through. One has to use a material that's softer than the contact material and non-abrasive. It also requires a lot of patience, but it pays off. I don't really know if that's knowledge someone can get in under 30 minutes of internet research, but if it is, I don't expect that onus to fall on a manufacturer.

Yeah, I will pay more for a device that is designed to be repaired.

... and when there's enough of you for this to represent an actual, realistic target market you will then find someone who will sell you one.

Personally, my perspective on this is that it's a lot like the kind of complaining that gets a lot of play in the motoring press about the disappearance of the manual transmission (like Car and Driver's "Save the Manuals" thing). Lots of people will claim they would like the choice, but virtually no-one actually buys them when they're available on mainstream models.

> ... and when there's enough of you for this to represent an actual, realistic target market you will then find someone who will sell you one.

Probably not, considering the very high cost of entry in the target market, it is unlikely to be offset by the marginal amount of additional money people are ready to invest into such devices. Markets don't produce goods out of nothing. Especially if that person specifically wants an iphone for whatever (objective or subjective) reason, the market cannot deliver that.

the iPhone Mini was a testament to that Apple themselves will respond to a certain amount of market demand, however its inability to sell well (with reportedly under 4% of total iPhone sales) is probably going to be a lesson for Apple to heavily consider whether or not extra SKUs are really worth it.

They're keeping the same number of SKUs, but they just want a cheap(er) but bigger phone. They're looking at how many Pro Maxes they sold in China and thinking "We could make a lot more money making a big model that was slightly cheaper."

The mini iPhones seem in an odd position between SE and "normal". As far as I know, the SE models have always been quite popular.

If it was, say $40 more or even $100 and was marketed as being repairable, I bet a lot of people would buy it. They would after all be actually likely to get that money back over the lifetime of the phone, and it’s much more environmentally friendly.

This isn’t a case of “market doesn’t want it”, this is a case of Apple don’t want to offer that choice because they make money off of the repairs.

From the layperson’s perspective they already are repairable. Apple offers repair programs at a somewhat reasonable cost already. I doubt the average person will care if they themselves can repair it at home.

>this is a case of Apple don’t want to offer that choice because they make money off of the repairs.

Apple is on record saying they lose money on repair services. Or do you think they're just lying about that too?

Apple can say many things, that doesn't make them true. Of course they loose potential money on repairs if they can get customers to buy a new phone instead, that's how consumer electronics make Money.

I can’t see how Apple can make a net profit on the repair itself at $69 for modern phones, so the profit motive/outcome must come from tilting people towards replacing a phone with a trade-in credit.

There is a sliver of the market who would rather replace their own battery on a 30 month old phone.

There is a gigantic wedge of the market who looks forward to their battery dying so they can get the swankiest new phone for just $39/month.

The repair is not $69. That one is purely for battery replacement in an otherwise-intact phone.

Screen replacements are more expensive, but the worst is actually damage that's neither the screen nor the battery - for example just a scratch on the housing or a cracked back glass are actually the most expensive options (even though said housing on eBay is around 20 bucks).

Similarly, water damage can usually be fixed by just cleaning the board and replacing a few mainboard components - that's something Apple will outright not do (good luck if you have valuable data on the device), and yet there's clearly a business there as both Louis Rossmann and Jessa Jones (from iPad Rehab) have been able to build profitable businesses on it.

> I can’t see how Apple can make a net profit on the repair itself at $69 for modern phones, so the profit motive/outcome must come from tilting people towards replacing a phone with a trade-in credit.

Apple could probably sell the devices at a loss and still make money overall on App Store commissions.

> If it was, say $40 more or even $100 and was marketed as being repairable, I bet a lot of people would buy it.

Not all the costs are denominated in dollars.

You want a small phone with little wasted volume and waterproofness, you're using adhesive everywhere. There's not room for O-ring seals and flanges and fittings.

My phone being small makes it more practical.

My phone being waterproof makes it less likely to need repair.

My old Samsung Galaxy S4 was water proof and had a removable battery. At least, it was waterproof enough to be able to answer a call in the shower, if need be. I never fully submerged the phone, but casual exposure to water was absolutely fine. Oh, and it had O-rings around the edge of the battery cover. It was a pretty great phone. Its downfall was being too thin. It didn't fit great in my pocket and it ended up getting bent when I sat down. Didn't break the phone, but was enough to leave aermanent bend in the phone about 3/4 of an inch from the top and a little bit of delamination in the one corner. Even with the bend, I kept the phone for quite a while before it finally met its demise falling out of a coat pocket onto asphalt exiting a car.

Galaxy S4: 136.60 x 69.80 x 7.90mm -- 75.3 cm^3 -- 68 cm^2 screen, volume to screen area ratio 1.10 cm.

IP67, 1m 30 minutes (AKA don't really immerse this-- even if you drop it in a puddle it may not be OK).

iPhone 13 Mini: 131.5 x 64.2 x 7.65mm -- 64.6 cm^3 -- 72 cm^2 screen, volume to screen area ratio 0.9 cm.

IP68, maximum depth 6m 30 minutes (AKA brief immersion in depths of less than a couple meters is OK).

There's a reason why all these adhesives are used everywhere.

There are bezels on the top and bottom because the S4 came out in 2013, not because of the waterproofing method.

IP67 is enough for me, and I will happily trade .3mm of thickness for a removable battery.

Not that we should assume that IP68 has to be sacrificed. There aren't a lot of comparison points on that specific attribute. A Galaxy Xcover Pro is bulky but that's because it's much more ruggedized in general.

> There are bezels on the top and bottom because the S4 came out in 2013, not because of the waterproofing method.

There are bezels on the top and bottom because older phones were less volume efficient than they are today-- something that is enabled by the use of adhesive.

> IP67 is enough for me, and I will happily trade .3mm of thickness for a removable battery.

OK, but, I believe the penalty would be significantly more than .3mm, and most people won't.

> There are bezels on the top and bottom because older phones were less volume efficient than they are today-- something that is enabled by the use of adhesive.

Adhesive on the front of the phone, where the screen is, is just fine as far as battery removability is concerned. Are you sure that's a real factor in this comparison?

> I believe the penalty would be significantly more than .3mm

Well I'm trying to use the example you gave...

> and most people won't.

Citation needed. I've never seen anyone mention sub-millimeter differences in choosing one phone over another.

> Adhesive on the front of the phone, where the screen is, is just fine as far as battery removability is concerned. Are you sure that's a real factor in this comparison?

Adhesive all over the place helps remove volume. So does using annoying connector types, and putting together the parts of the phone in crazy jenga-like assemblies.

The reason why phones are less serviceable today is because they are packed tight. This packed-tight characteristic is harder to manufacture, but much harder to service. The reason why it is there is because the designers of the phone think it is necessary to make a phone that is desirable to the market.

> Well I'm trying to use the example you gave...

OK, so look at total volume vs. screen area, because I think this is really actually the important metric. In less volume, we got basically the same volume of battery and a bigger screen. The metric swung by 20%.

> Citation needed. I've never seen anyone mention sub-millimeter differences in choosing one phone over another.

Phones with replaceable batteries didn't do very well versus their competition, which is a pretty good hint that the ease of replacing batteries was not the primary buying factor. Phone size-- both thinness and total volume-- and screen size-- are unquestionably important buying factors.

A think a right to repair badge on products that promises schematics, parts, etc for a modest premium, would be a key selling feature for many important consumer purchases for a small but influential group of consumers.

Cars, appliances, tech, it’s all the same and some people are happy with replacing everything every couple years on obsolescence schedules, but some people hate it and want good quality stuff that works and lasts for a fair price.

Yeah, but my understanding is that the manual issue is compounded by the fuel efficiency gains in newer automatic transmissions using these 8-speed designs, with minimum efficiency rules meaning it's impossible to match in a manual. I've noticed that in the handful of models still offering manual, often the manual is not offered with the top performance engine.

This seems to be happening in Europe as well where historically over 80% of cars have been sold with manual transmissions.

The other issue (at least in the US) is that automatic cars can be programmed to “game” the fuel economy tests by having shorter gears and shifting early, etc. The automatic winds up being faster and reporting better fuel economy, but the manual would perform the same if it had more similar gearing. (I heard recently that first gear is like 60% shorter in the automatic version of one of the BMW M series cars than the manual version.) Combined with engine auto stopping in automatics, etc., and it’s not really an equivalent comparison anymore.

Automatic transmissions now have 8, 9 or 10 gears which means that engines can spend more time in efficient parts of their range; I don't think people would put up with a manual transmission with that many gears. Newer automatic transmissions also have better control of lock-up, so that you're spending less time with torque-converter losses.

> I don't think people would put up with a manual transmission with that many gears

…other than truck drivers!

maniacal laughter as the clutch is released into 18th gear

I would definitely buy a manual if I could. Just more fun to drive. I think Honda civic’s lowest model might still have one. Not sure of anything else.

Golf R

Corolla comes in a hatchback with a manual.

Pretty much every compact/subcompact still has a manual option.

If you want a crossover I think the only new one that still has a manual is the Crosstrek.

If “fun” is the primary advantage (I know there are others) then it’s no wonder there’s fewer manuals in the US, at least. I think for many people, myself included, a car is a tool. I don’t need it to be fun. I need it to be reliable, easy to use, and as efficient as possible.

For some cars are a hobby, but for many people they’re most another tool in our lives.

Manuals have an advantage in some situations (off roading, transmission doesn’t overheat, better performance with skill, repairability) and autos have theirs (easy, better fuel economy)

If I commuted to an office every day I’d get an auto (actually these days an EV), but working in the bush/backroads? Manual

All those points, except for repairability, are arguable for modern gearboxes such as DSG.

Modern autos still have the overheating issue? Not an issue on road, becomes an issue offroad when your really pushing the vehicle

Yeah if I still lived in Seattle area and drove to work I’d want an automatic.

As it is I don’t deal with traffic so a manual is a more fun “tool” to drive.

Well, and fun on a windy country road is a heck of a lot less fun commuting in stop and go traffic.

Even in a stop-and-go traffic jam, a manual transmission will be the least of your worries.

Looking at what cars people buy, fun and prestige seem huge contributers to purchasing decision. Otherwise there is really no way to explain how SUVs are the best selling cars and how a significant portion of buyers opts for way overpowered cars.

As someone who just owned a manual Mini Cooper for about 18 years, I recommend that. The manual combined with the way the Mini is designed, with the wheels pushed way out to the corners, firm suspension and incredibly responsive steering, is a real joy. It's a feeling of complete control of the car and constant awareness of exactly where all four corners of the car are. So easy to parallel park these older Minis, too, before they kept making them larger and larger.

Hard to find this in any current cars, especially affordable ones.

I did my part and bought a manual VW. The problem was reselling it. Nobody wanted it.

This is a largely a U.S. specific thing. In Europe, manual transmission is still commonly available.

If you want a high-end-ish car with a manual in the US, there’s the Golf R.

That's somewhat a quirk of your displacement taxes resulting in tiny engines.

When the choice is between a CVT or automatic that has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the upper RPM ranges (because how else are you gonna get acceptable performance out of a tiny engine) and a clutch pedal many people choose the clutch pedal.

You might just as well argue the opposite: American gas and car prices don't factor in the huge externalities of a badly engineered gas guzzler (and I don't think they are priced in in the EU either). So you get around in things that are far too heavy and need huge engines. Granted, the real solution would be to get rid of most personal vehicles with engines, but you can just look at the displacement of F1 cars to know you are arguing in bad faith.

>You might just as well argue the opposite: American gas and car prices don't >Oh FFS quit with the trope slinging.factor in the huge externalities

It takes a special kind of insanity to argue in favor of displacement taxes. The environment doesn't care how wide your pistons are or how far they move. It cares about the fuel burned. If you wanna tax the externality tax fuel.

>of a badly engineered gas guzzler

Because Toyota and Mercedes are so good at it? Ha.

If there's one thing the Americans are very good at it's getting big engines to consume less fuel than you'd expect from their size.

Regardless, your typical sedans, hatches and crossovers are available on both sides of the pond and gets the same fuel economy on both sides because fuel economy is dominated by the weight of the vehicle and aerodynamics.

> but you can just look at the displacement of F1 cars to know you are arguing in bad faith.

What's the operating RPM of an F1 engine? You're the one arguing in bad faith here.

Imagine you're cruising down the road ad 1200rpm (because fuel economy) and you want to step on it for whatever reason. With a CVT you get to sit there waiting while it slowly revs its way there. With an automatic you get to sit there a second and a half waiting while the computer decides that yes, you do actually mean to be flooring it and then shifts for you. With a manual you shifted before you even stomped the skinny pedal. Smaller displacement engines with less low end grunt exacerbate this hence the European preference for the 3rd pedal.

It is somewhat funny how you argue that American engines are quite economical for their size. So you agree that in comparison to small engines they are less fuel efficient? Also just looking at how many European and Japanese cars are sold in the US vs the other way around is pretty telling.

That said I agree that taxing fuel over car taxes would likely be a good thing, however I think there is also the view of taxing car ownership because they take up space in particular in cities.

I don't think you understand how fuel economy works. It's dominated by the size of the thing you have to move and how big of a hole you need to punch in the air to do it.

After you've applied all the tricks to get a big engine minimize fuel consumption as it cruises down the road the fuel economy basically reflects the operator's propensity to use the skinny pedal. Of course, if you have the power you use the power so that does help the small engine. Look at all the small turbo engines they're putting in trucks and vans these days. They don't put down substantially better fuel economy numbers than the bigger NA engines in the same platforms.

Contrast with manufacturers who haven't learned to apply "all the tricks" yet, their big engines still drink fuel like it's 2019. Look at the fuel economy of Toyota's 4-6L v8s and compare to GMs 4-6L v8s in similiar vehicles.

> Also just looking at how many European and Japanese cars are sold in the US vs the other way around is pretty telling.

I hate to piss on your "euope good murka bad" circle jerk but when you go up the org chart you'll find that plenty of stuff that gets sold globally comes from GM and FCA (I'm sorry, Stellantis, lol sounds like a blood pressure drug) and is just badged as appropriate per locale. Both the big guys and the smaller OEMs do their best to sell boring sedans, crossovers, minivans and midsize SUVs globally though specific models from specific brands or configurations (e.g. can't buy a city van with a manual in USA) will get withheld from specific markets due to stiff competition (e.g. hard to sell an Explorer in Germany) or consumer preference (few wagons in USA). Each region also gets some stuff that is specific to it. In Europe they have their tiny commuter cars. 'Murka gets big SUVs and pickups. Australia gets a bunch of big sedans and big sedans that identify as pickups. South America gets the "greatest hits" from whatever the last generation of vehicles was. Equatorial Asia gets all manner of basic cars and SUVs that are made extra-inexpensive for that market.

Because you are playing with the clutch, it keeps you busy. And the total time it takes to shift feels shorter this way.

CVT are by definition using the best RPM possible from the engine for maximum power and efficiency.

Modern automatics are also quite fast.

Anyways the future is electric without gears.

It's not that it "feels shorter". It's that 9x/10 you've anticipated wanting the lower gear and are already in it.

I agree about electric, but I expect 2/3 speed gearboxes for the same reason your drill had multiple speeds.

Yep, I used to be a manual fanatic, but I realized it's only 'fun' when the engine is slightly underpowered. On a typical modern car sold in USA you'd practically have to take it to a racetrack.

I can testify that a manual transmission is still fun when the engine is adequately power or beyond.

Manual transmissions are less fun when most of the time spent in the car is in gridlock during the twice-daily commute.

I had a 6 cylinder VW and the feeling was more 'any gear is fine', so I lost interest. Also grew up driving manuals so never had a problem commuting, its advantageous sometimes to take it out of gear in stop-n-go traffic.

A stick on unpaved hill and mountain roads is still fun too.

If I look at the stats regarding manual car in Europe, most customer will select the automatic one. Even for high end sports car (most will have better shift performance with a robotic shifter, and will correctly bleep on downshift)

Europe is just lagging the U.S. ... if you look at the take rates for transmissions, more automatics than manuals are now sold in the U.K, and mainland Europe is not far behind.

Those rates are skewed by electric and hybrid cars though. Diesel and petrol cars are still majority manual in the UK.

The irony being that it's the other way around for trucks, where most Europeans have automatic transmission systems while quite a few US ones run on manual.

So actually we live in the best world possible[1] with the best technology possible. If it were possible to make a better iPHone, someone would have made it, but the fact that it doesn't exist means its either not possible or not good to have a removable battery on an iphone.

[1] according to this book i read in highschool, it was called Candide

No; we live in the world of engineering and business compromises where wishes are not, in fact, horses.

>No

You aren't disagreeing with me. The claim is that we live in the best world possible, not the best world imaginable. The compromises you mention are necessary due to the underlying reality of resource scarcity. We may act to change our environment in many ways but can not violate the laws of the universe.

This expansion just makes the claim into a truism with no useful information. It's the same shape as a No True Scotsman reply.

Manufacturer self-interest is not a law of the universe. Manufacturers do what's best for them, and not for some idealized free market. Often,they fail to do what's best for the org in the long term because they comprise humans who mostly care about the short term (bonuses, careers and such).

"If better was possible, it would already exist" can be filed under Capitalism Fantasy because it ignores all confounding factors. It also fails to explain why curremt consumer products are getting worse (for the consumer, but more profitable for the producer e.g. TVs, washing machines, fridges)

It is possible and multiple such phones exist on the market today. But there's a lot more people who want to complain about the iPhone battery than people who want to buy a Nokia 1.3.

We’ll car companies are making it harder and harder to buy manuals so of course it’s disappearing. Can’t speak to American brands but the Toyota 4Runner stopped making a manual trim 20 years ago and the Tacoma while it has one, only 5% of them produced are manual on limited trims making it really hard for people who want one to actually get it without a lot of effort. How much is it people don’t want it/never learned/car companies reducing trim numbers and cost pushing automatics?

Even with performance car enthusiast models, like say the BMW M4, the take rate for the manual is super low.

This article ... https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/07/save-manuals-give-... ... is from 2015, but says that the M4 couple was 83:17 in favor of the automatic gearbox; and I doubt things have gotten better since then.

Automatic gearboxes (whether torque converters, CVT or dual-clutch) have just gotten much better to the point where they're better for both performance and fuel economy.

Manual transmissions are much, much harder to integrate with any kind of hybrid system, stop-start system, power-off coasting etc. which help with fuel economy too.

> Manual transmissions are much, much harder to integrate with any kind of hybrid system, stop-start system, power-off coasting etc. which help with fuel economy too.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but just wanted to say that it certainly is possible. I rented a manual Renault (don't remember the model) a couple of years ago and was surprised how it had a stop-start system power off when coasting system.

That stat is for America, not Europe, where the stats are reversed: https://blog.getmyparking.com/2020/01/20/why-does-europe-pre...

But you are right in that as cars electrify manuals will be less and less common. Not to mention emission regulations are pushing manufacturers to only produce autos

Manuals are still better in some rare situations imho like off-roading where just not having to worry about trans temps is a win

Bullshit.

This is a conscious business decision to not accomodate.

Wanna know how I know? (Besides experience in tech)

Sewing machines.

Millions of ladies with sewing machines out there, and harried husbands/partners/neighborhood mechanics/machinists out there that fix the bloody things. Yet, as a fixer thereof, you'll find the older machines are jealously guarded and highly sought after for reliability, stability through heavy loads, and servicibility.

And yet... All you have is plastic pieces of crap that warp and miss stitches under load, increasing usage of integrated circuit boards and plastic gearing.

A corporation will not optimize for the utility to end user and QoSL (Quality of Service Life). They will optimize for future sales and cheaper production. Literally converging on the worst product people will still pay for.

Stop making platitudes that "Oh the economy would accommodate you if only there were more of you!"

It is grade A, concentrated, unadulterated, Bull. Fucking. Shit. The business world will wring every last cent they can out of the buyer, while spending the absolute minimum required to "solve" the problem they set out to fix, and arguably, don't.

I am Quality Inspector number effing 7. I get into knock down, drag out brawls with management on the crap they expect me to put my seal of approval on for the sake of being there to be sneered at by the by the end user.

Enough is e-frigging-nough.

Since you brought up automotive. Same damn thing. Can you get cars with open-source, well documented software running on the ECM and BCM? No. Is CANBUS free and open? Nope. Are engine compartments built for anything else than the ability to be assembled by automaton? Nope.

Farm tractors and Ag equipment. Same bloody thing. This is all according to plan, because it's the default, and capital decides what the most profitable default is going to be.

Me too, the problem is that for such a thing to exist at scale we have to make the simply awful protoypes that people keep coming up with financially successful. Which means paying as much or more as you would for a cutting edge flagship for a janky mess that uses technology that's several generations behind and hope that it supports our carrier.

This reminds me of the people who laughed at the iPhone because the Blackberry had a real keyboard and was the true professional device. Saying you'll pay for something that probably doesn't have many people behind it is not really going to move mountains. Most people care about this sort of stuff for about a minute when their phone breaks which is something like once every few years max.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com