> It's a few cents, and it makes packaging more difficult. If Samsung shaves a single penny off of each phone they sell, they are more a million dollars more profitable per year.
Or they could just raise the price by five cents and make even more money per unit and get more sales because more people are attracted by the upgradeable device than are deterred by a 0.01% difference in price on a $500+ device.
> But most mid-to-high end phones do have a significant number of modular parts. Battery, camera, speakers, displays, and sometimes IO are modular on many phones, and repair shops will fix these for customers.
Modular in the sense that they're intrinsically separate components you have to go out of your way to stick together, not in the sense that they're attached with standard modular connectors and are easy to replace.
> Modular CPUs are generally not available on laptops anymore, that's a thing of the past anymore.
This is basically down to Intel changing their CPU socket every ten seconds, not any actual cost reason. Nobody cares if you can replace the CPU if the upgrade isn't compatible with the socket. The laptops that previously had this didn't have a significantly higher cost.
> Modular memory and wireless are starting to disappear, in part due to latency requirements for the later memory standards, and packaging and power requirements for popular thin-and-light segment devices.
Dell has sorted this and it's on track to become the standard:
https://www.storagereview.com/review/dell-camm-dram-the-new-...
> If you're asking why phones don't have modular memory, the answer is simple: they're optimized for small size and low power, and adding a connector would compromise on that. Also, it would require inventing a new memory standard since modular LPDDR does not exist.
So invent a new standard. All new standards are invented by somebody; see above. If Dell can do it, why not Samsung?
> You see exponential costs if you look at devices that actually have extended lifetimes. I'm not talking about one consumer phone compared to another. In the scheme of things, they really all have expected lifetimes around a handful of years.
You can run the latest version of the Linux kernel on commodity PCs from the 90s. Why can't you do that on a phone half that old? None of the reasons are good.
> Compare the redundancy and expected lifetime of consumer products to industrial products to aerospace products if you want to see how making something last a long time can be very expensive. If you want to double a product's lifetime, you are often looking at 10x the cost, if not more.
These products are expensive because they're purchased primarily by bureaucracies and everything purchased primarily by bureaucracies is cost inflated. Which part of extending the lifetime is the part which is supposed to make it so much more expensive?
> Well, it's not possible to make a phone without relying on vendors for some parts. There are too many specialized parts. Not even Apple has enough resources to in-house it all, and they have been trying.
You don't have to make your own DRAM or display because those were never the issue. The lack of support comes from the SoC whose vendor has published neither driver source code nor documentation sufficient to write one, so when the kernel they gave you a binary blob to go with falls out of support you're screwed.
Qualcomm has been a major offender here and is one of the only suppliers of performant SoCs for phones but they're supposedly getting better. Samsung has no excuse because they make their own chips.
There is a lot of excitement around RISC-V because it could potentially do something about this, if not by actually producing a competitive chip then by putting pressure on the incumbents to get it together and publish open source drivers.