In a hindsight it seems obvious, still this video was the first time I've heard this verbalized so clearly.
> And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive.
I disagree on a fundamental level.
You could say such a thing when talking about really small (micro/miniature) devices. But as size increases, the validity of such arguments rapidly goes down. A phone case/bumper for example - makes the device larger, yes - but increases strength while not hurting reparability.
The "problem", imo, is two-fold: 1. Apple does not care too much about making repairs easy. If it costs $100 to make a board they can charge a customer $500 to repair, or $800 for a new phone, it's easy for them.
2. (Some) people prefer sleeker designs. Samsung has its active range of phones, CAT makes durable phones - but many prefer a smaller thickness/bezel etc. This means that when tech improves to make smaller bezels, manufacturers decrease the bezel a little and add protective padding a little... haha no. It's only bezel reduction. Because it sell, I suppose.
For example gorilla glass/protective glass has improved in technology, but thinner screens (for thinner devices) have eaten up the benefits of stronger tech.
The real "killer" argument? The presence of companies like Framework. I'm typing this out on my FW13 & its build quality is really good. Perhaps a 10 year old thinkpad may be similar or better, but this is almost certainly thinner. But it is almost definitely more repairable.
It's possible, but requires companies to offer products, and people to use and buy them.
Right )
There is no better way to show that you don't care about truth and only care about defending your current opinion than to say "I don't know your arguments, but I disagree".
The thing is, all the theories of communication for persuasion (Social Judgement Theory and Elaboration Likelihood Model mostly) boil down to "hear your audience". If you really want to convince or persuade anyone, the starting point is to understand what's in the head of the audience you are trying to persuade. It's not often easy to get this information, so you start by expressing your views and carefully listening to the answers and arguments of those who have different views.
So if you have a chance to get the arguments in advance – before communicating your opinion – it's a blessing. It's a free lunch for persuasive communication. You're given people's opinions and arguments on the plate, basically.
And here this free lunch is thrown away just to be replaced with "here is my opinion and I don't care about arguments" communication style. That's not a starting point for debate at all.
I'm sorry if it came across that way but I absolutely didn't mean it like that. I'm happy to have my point refuted. I am a (mechanical) engineer but haven't worked in this specific field professionally, so I felt I might be able to contribute, as making devices sturdier is something I think a lot about. I normally don't mind watching MKBHD's videos, at that point of time I was in a silent place where I couldn't have done it.
I fail to understand the link here. The video contains arguments and examples of that premise. Dismissing arguments and jumping straight into the "here's my opinion" is exactly the communication style I chuckled upon.
There would not be an issue for Apple or Samsung to design a backplane that uses screws to hold the phone together, eliminating the need for glue entirely.
It just looks a bit ugly.
But most people are going to buy what their telco offers on sale, and that is iPhones and Samsung Galaxy S series. Everything else is specialty that you need to buy in cash.
> For example gorilla glass/protective glass has improved in technology, but thinner screens (for thinner devices) have eaten up the benefits of stronger tech.
Manufacturers also keep making phones with headphone jacks, sd slots, swappable batteries, and all the other features that people loudly insist they want in their phones, right until it comes to choosing a new phone to buy. Then they buy something thin and flimsy again and repeat the whine cycle; and every year another manufacturer drops their sturdy&servicable line because nobody cares enough to actually buy it.
They do. iPhone 14 internals was redesigned to be more repairable [0], which extended to pro models with iPhone 15 [1].
[0] https://www.ifixit.com/News/64865/iphone-14-teardown
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/News/82867/iphone-15-teardown-reveals...
Historically, Apple made sourcing genuine parts an impossible feat. This potentially wouldn't even be a problem, if Apple didn't go to such great lengths to detect "non authentic parts". They changed that somewhat, but only for private consumers. Their model for their repair/replacement parts program still makes it borderline impossible to operate an independent repair service business, effectively protecting Apple from any competition.
[1] https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite [2] https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-durabilite
Such a price would incentivize manufacturers to make warranties last as long as possible. This encourages repairability where it's economically and physically viable, without the tradeoffs necessary if repairability is mandated by law.
Or keep warranties short, but push consumers into a pay by month model, because the amount per month is less than than the advertised "expected monthly price". The company then gets a regular income stream.
Plenty of devices are indestructible and repairable, they're just bulky.