Hacker News Reader

Comment by ReptileMan | Hacker News Reader

I think that my generation - with teen years in late 80s to early 00s got spoiled on PC repair ability. And it shaped us about what can we expect. Same with buy computing device, install os of your choosing. The computers were just integrated enough so sizable modules were discreet, but they were running on well defined slots, the crypto was not developed enough to drm components, there were competing players in the market for different parts and repair was 99% of the time just replacing the defective part.

I doubt that many people re-soldered defective chip on a ram module.

The only way right now to ensure repairability is to legalize how phones should be assembled and basic architecture. The same way eu did with the charging port - although they didn't went after apple for some reason.

On the other hand moving to system on a chip makes sense the way semiconductor have developed.

View on HN

The other alternative would be to set standards for recycling to make sure things get really recycled. This would probably drive up cost which then hopefully would make repairing more attractive.

The problem with repairability is that you must decide to what level. Replacing transistor in a chip has been impossible for 50 years. Replacing chip was possible 30 years ago. Right now we have soldiered on ram and storage in phones and glued displays.

I think that we should insist that parts are replacable - we split the phone into 10-15 parts. But even if I could rule by decree I am not sure I can make the right call what exactly is the right way.

At minimum devices should be able to be disassembled without high risk of destroying the device. Some phones are so complex with glue and flex connectors you might accidentally snag or snap something just by trying to look inside.

> The only way right now to ensure repairability is to legalize how phones should be assembled and basic architecture.

Which would prohibit further innovation and optimization.

I'd like to see smaller devices available. Many people would like phones with smaller screens that better fit their hands, which leaves even less room behind those screens for modular components and batteries.

I'm currently looking forward to the Purism phone, because it'll serve as a platform for Open Source innovation in small touchscreen interfaces. That doesn't mean I have any illusions that it'll be anywhere near as nice as a less modular phone, and I really have no interest in the modularity aspects.

I like the idea proposed elsewhere in this thread, of pushing for standards on recycling and then letting manufacturers innovate on how precisely to meet those standards.

It didn't prohibit innovation and optimisation on PC. You just have a few form factors and the motherboard has to have the appropriate dimensions. None of the connectors on a motherboard today fit any of the hardware that was current when the ATX standard came to be except maybe a ps/2 port and a headphone jack. Having half a dozen standard phone sizes seems reasonable, along with standard sockets for CPU, GPU, memory etc. At the small sizes of a cellphone it's quite possible you'll need a special device to actually replace components, but that would be acceptable. You should also have a standard battery connector so you could e.g. buy a super thick case and a 6Ah battery.

> It didn't prohibit innovation and optimisation on PC

And PCs don't have their architecture determined by legislation, so that further proves the point.

> Having half a dozen standard phone sizes seems reasonable, along with standard sockets for CPU, GPU, memory etc

There are a lot more possible sizes or form factors, CPU and GPU aren't necessarily separate, and memory is typically either soldered-down chips or built into one of the other chips depending on quantity. Separating any of those into removable boards will necessarily make phones larger, heavier, and otherwise suboptimal.

> You should also have a standard battery connector

Modern devices often don't use a single discrete battery; they distribute battery cells through a device anywhere they fit and wire them together.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that there were millions of PCs manufactured that weren't ATX, and could not be upgraded.

ATX wasn't a legally mandated standard.

There's little to no innovation anyway so I don't see why this is an issue.

Is it just our generation? My dad was born in the 40s and repaired all sorts of stuff himself. Our furnace, vacuum cleaners, computers, boat, cars, etc. I even helped him change the transmission on our Jeep when I was still in middle school. And take apart and reconstruct our boat's engine. I think its just that the 80s-90s were the last decades where things were repairable.

I specifically mentioned electronics. In the 90s assembling a PC was already like assembling a lego, that didn't require too much knowledge. And computers were usable enough with the internet to become indispensable part of our live.

> I doubt that many people re-soldered defective chip on a ram module.

What individuals can do to repair a device isn't particularly relevant to this discussion. The legislation seeks to force manufacturers to make repair manuals available to independent repair shops. It's fairly common for such establishments to have the tools and expertise to replace soldered components.

>The only way right now to ensure repairability is to legalize how phones should be assembled and basic architecture. The same way eu did with the charging port - although they didn't went after apple for some reason.

> On the other hand moving to system on a chip makes sense the way semiconductor have developed.

That's kind of the problem, right? Consumers demand higher performance, higher performance requires higher integration, and higher integration means less repairability.

> with teen years in late 80s to early 00s got spoiled on PC repair ability.

Given that things in general used to be more repairable than they are now, and that planned obsolescence is absolutely a thing, I highly doubt it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com