Hacker News Reader

Comment by s_dev | Hacker News Reader

A lot of scores on the doors are often faked defeating their purpose. Helpful but not bullet proof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SO8KcfhJmc

Old school methods like what McDonald's use, literally allow the customer to see in to the kitchen are very effective.

Not always ideal for every type establishment but I've seen high end Indian restaurants even do it by having the POS at the back where you can see the kitchen when paying which keeps the noise separate for the desired quiet atmosphere of a fine dining restaurant

I'm not sure how to translate this to the smartphone market though. Fairphone and LaJolla seem to do well in this regard though so back to brand reputation for a lot of this.

View on HN

> I'm not sure how to translate this to the smartphone market though. Fairphone and LaJolla seem to do well in this regard though so back to brand reputation for a lot of this.

I'm not here with a silver bullet or anything, but I'd say the EU's energy efficiency labeling works well and has a fairly low level of being gamed/falsified.

I don't think there's any big reason why the EU couldn't enforce labeling of a similar kind to IFixit's repair-ability scoring[0] for set devices.

On a separate note, the article mentions the lousy attempts some smart phone makers are guilty of with regards to repair instructions:

> Some records even refer customers to Temu or AliExpress for spare parts and repair instructions.

There are at least a lot less smart phone manufacturers than restaurants and cafes (comparing to scores on the doors) - if the EU really wanted to, it wouldn't be a huge resource to produce clear guidance on what expectations are for smart phone spare part provision, and issue fines whenever they're violated (you might think is a bad idea, and too much regulation, but my point is just that it's at least feasible)

[0] https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/smartphone-repairabilit...

>LaJolla

*Jolla, pronounced yolla. It's a Finnish word. Maybe a bad choice given the geography of tech.

>> labeling of a similar kind to IFixit's repair-ability

Because the public generally does not care one iota about repairability. Phones are more robust these days than ever. A fatal flaw like a screen break occures on the order of years. People just assume that, if something bad does happen, the phone will be out of date and/or no longer getting updates anyway. Many also get thier phones as part of a service plan and so dont even view them as an expense.

Look at desktop PCs. Infinitely repairable. But 90% of people will just buy a new one the moment anything significant fails.

> Phones are more robust these days than ever.

They are certainly not more robust than ever. The trend of screen glass extending all the way to the edge of the phone and around it has ensured that most people need a case. Back in the 2010s I never used one and my phone would survive many drops.

>Old school methods like what McDonald's use, literally allow the customer to see in to the kitchen are very effective.

Guess that's why the new refits have a giant wall to stop you seeing into the kitchen.

I don't recall any where it was every easy to see into the kitchen. Yes you could see some of the fryers where they made french fries, and sort of see into the kitchen but there was a lot of food-holding bins, drink dispensers, and other equipment etc. obscuring most of it.

SOrry, yes I should point out its not perfect. The scores on the doors website is also a partial remedy for this. But I should concede that no solution is perfect, and you still need to allow for the evolution of fraudsters.

> I'm not sure how to translate this to the smartphone market though

Me neither, The pre-existing ways are independent lab testing ( euro-ncap for cars, or ifixit) or the "you have to pay for testing" like for large white goods. None of those work if they are not enforced though....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com