This was my first thought too.
Not everything you personally dislike needs to be illegal.
MacBooks are great as long as you have the money. OP could keep looking for 3rd party repairs, etc.
Not everything you personally dislike needs to be illegal.
MacBooks are great as long as you have the money. OP could keep looking for 3rd party repairs, etc.
I'm having a hard time seeing why making stuff more difficult to repair just so that people are incentivized to throw it away and buy a new one, should not be illegal. If not for the anti-customer attitude, at least for the amount of waste and environmental destruction it results in.
There's more to the world than banned / not banned.
In this instance, people might want a sensible pragmatic government to levy against companies that have high numbers of items ending up in eWaste processing (or discarded in fly tipping) and offer reductions to companies that invest in eWaste processing and collection.
There are also legitimate total lifetime cost of item models that suggest clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct might actually be "cheaper" in time, resources, and energy across a large consumer population than a functionally equivalent item designed to be "unbuilt" and rebuilt (ie repaired).
This seems like a total fantasy. Do you actually have any examples of non-repairability making the process cheaper?
Sure there are lots of economical incentives to making stuff that you use until it breaks and then throw away, but that's just because the cost of e.g. mining metals or taking care of e-waste are externalized, due to using unethical labor in third world countries. If the "large consumer population" of the west actually had to bear the real cost of the electronics they produce, things would be vastly different.
Even then, if I want a new ultra thin device that doesn’t have replaceable storage or user input devices, that’s my right to buy.
Who is going to magically determine what replaceable means ? From the post it looks like OP tried to fix it incorrectly.
Does apple owe op a new laptop even if they damaged it ?
Why are you so adamant about protecting your "right" to buy a worse product?
Should the government have a reparability board ? Who gets to be on it ?
If it pleases the King , may I buy a laptop while traveling and bring it home.
An argument could be made for a refundable recycling fee. Say 5% that gets returned when you take the device to a recycling center after your done with it
And who's talking about banning private import of laptops? You do know that you can regulate national sales without controlling absolutely everything right? Whoever bothers to travel to a different country just to buy a worse laptop should be allowed to do so, it's whatever.
Regarding "recycling", that's all a show in order to seem more environmentally friendly with very little actual impact. You can look up how electronics "recycling" usually works in practice, which normally entails sending the waste to third world countries to have some precious metals extracted using dangerous and not exactly environmentally friendly processes.
In the US this is why so many wagons have turned into SUVs which have more lax fuel efficiency requirements. They find ways around the regulations.
All Apple laptops have hard soldered SSDs. SSDs have to go bad eventually.
Should the government force apple to only sell laptops with replaceable ssds ?
The most environmentally friendly laptop is a used Thinkpad. But I respect others have a right to buy what they want.
Back to the original point, the laptop isn’t even hard to fix. OP just didn’t do there research.
Should the government force Apple to sell laptops with replaceable SSDs? Perhaps. What's the upside of having to desolder it when it goes bad? What's the upside of riveting the keyboard to the frame?
You're also dodging the question of my right to buy vegetables with high levels of PFAS and drink water with high levels of lead.
> Back to the original point, the laptop isn’t even hard to fix. OP just didn’t do [their] research.
The original point was never whether some guy did a good job fixing his laptop or not, but rather whether there's any point to riveting the keyboard, and more generally, whether it's worth defending companies' "rights" to sell intentionally crippled products and pollute the environment.