Yeah, I will pay more for a device that is designed to be repaired.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Apple could probably sell the devices at a loss and still make money overall on App Store commissions.
Apple is on record saying they lose money on repair services. Or do you think they're just lying about that too?
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.
[1] according to this book i read in highschool, it was called Candide
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.
"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)
If you want a high-end-ish car with a manual in the US, there’s the Golf R.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree about electric, but I expect 2/3 speed gearboxes for the same reason your drill had multiple speeds.
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.
This seems to be happening in Europe as well where historically over 80% of cars have been sold with manual transmissions.
…other than truck drivers!
maniacal laughter as the clutch is released into 18th gear
For some cars are a hobby, but for many people they’re most another tool in our lives.
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
As it is I don’t deal with traffic so a manual is a more fun “tool” to drive.
Hard to find this in any current cars, especially affordable ones.
If you want a crossover I think the only new one that still has a manual is the Crosstrek.
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.
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
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.
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.