> Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped?

None of that is relevant in this context: The parts are available, but the laptop is designed and built such that the alone keyboard cannot be replaced.[1]

[1] Not sure if this is possible on that specific laptop, but with a steady hand, a tiny drill, maybe a magnifiying glass too, you can maybe drill out the rivets, then replace the keyboard, then either re-rivet it back again or tap very tiny thread into the laptop and use screws.

Repairability definitely doesn't keep the costs low. If it was cheaper and easier, it wouldn't have to be regulated. As for supply chain management, companies that get that equation correct are going to benefit. Which is exactly how it should be.

We define the rules of the game and companies that can best implement those rules will succeed. That is capitalism.

> Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years

Why not? I don't understand how it's legal for manufacturers to produce absolute trash that can't be replaced and will just end up in a landfill. I think 7 years is far from enough, but because computers evolve quickly maybe 15 years is ok. For the rest of electro-mechanical goods, 50 years should be the baseline.

If a car or fridge from 50 years ago is still working with proper maintenance, that should be the minimum to be expected from products released today.

> It's much more effective and economically efficient to deal with externalized pollution costs with deposits to incentivize proper disposal.

Or to just mandate devices that doesn't need to be dispose so often.

> A ton of normal users will simply never bother to repair their own laptops no matter how easy it is

Doesn't matter, because simplicity contributes directly to prize and when you can get your existing device fixed for cheaper than getting a new one, you likely will do it.

I already pay a deposit and "recycle" all my electronics. And some recycled electronics are already repaired and repurposed. If that was easier, more electronics would get a second chance at life.

Right now if you have two broken MacBook Neos, one with a broken motherboard and the other with a broken screen, you can make one working MacBook Neo without even needing to solder anything in just the time to takes disassemble both and reassemble one (which has been demonstrated in minutes).

> It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have.

Most of the PC competitors of the last 15 years have struggled to even come close to achieving similar build quality.

I'm not sure who this mythical competitor could be, who is supposed to not only match unibody aluminium MacBook build quality, but also solve repairability, and come in with a final product that is cheaper?

It kind of sounds like you are saying it is impossible to improve on the current state of the world.

That if it was possible to improve things, someone would have already done it. And they haven’t, so it must not be possible.

That feels a bit extreme… Maybe I’m misunderstanding?

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/whats-making-car-repair-so-expe...

Cars have much longer lifecycles that the repurposed consumer technology in the ADAS. A camera module is cheap, but a camera model for this particular make/model/year is outrageously expensive if not unobtanium 10 years later. Theres the famous f150 story where the tail light housing with blind spot monitoring cost $5k.

Lack of regulation resulting in worse outcomes is also a data point for regulation being able to solve problems.

Well yes, which is why most American cars are not approved for sale over here.

>>It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars.

Only partialy agree. As in - yes I agree in principle, but I don't agree it would be trivial.

My sister had insurance with a black box policy, where everything she did in the car was recorded. And on her drive to work, she would always get a threatening email saying "we've recorded you going 70mph in a 20mph zone, if this continues we will cancel your policy". We had to ring them up and demand the GPS trace, and guess what - at one point she was going on the motorway above a 20mph road, but the system probably just did "what is the speed limit at X/Y coordinates" and was getting 20mph for the nearest road. We've had to do this several times when she had the policy.

My own Volvo XC60 frequently tells me I'm going over the speed limit as it thinks the road I'm on has a 50mph limit when in fact it's 70, and in another place it thinks it's 30 when in fact it's also 70.

Not to mention that the speeds entered on Google Maps are often just wrong and take forever to update. And it's funny when people like Harry Metcalf say that every new car he tests insists that his own private drive has a 20mph limit when obviously there is none. Imagine if you couldn't turn that off!

So yeah, very easy to implement(and it's a great idea!) but in practice it's one of these "looks easy on paper, but in reality it's super hard to do reliably".

I don't understand your math. The 1mm (the wall) was there already, so why is it being counted here? Plus, multiplying by 1 doesn't do anything? Also, the 2mm extra won't be solid plastic (they'll be solid air, since that's why we're adding the extra thickness, for the room.

If anything, the extra material for the case would be the perimeter length times the perimeter wall width times the height.

and less broken devices hitting landfill

No, they are more nutritious just like that bland protein-shake is. All those cool hot-rods from the 70s will crush you to death easily while wasting more gas to do it.

My father thinks all cars look the same now. Do you mean that?

For my part, cars are more comfortable (bar all controls in a touch panel and ever more propietary software) and fuel efficient

I don't believe other paths would yield better results.

It took Apple a looong time to adapt USB-C, which was already running circles around Lightning five years after the introduction of the latter. Ironically Apple participated in the development of the standard. They just couldn't be arsed to implement it.

Multinationals don't do anything unless they absolutely have to. Apple notably all but threatened to move out of the EU due to USB-C regulations. They were actively preventing their users from having a better standard because it hurt their bottom line in the field of accessories.