I disagree. The lack of repairability has external costs not born by the purchaser or the manufacturer -- more toxic trash unnecessarily added to the environment.

Forcing a particular trade-off on everyone is entirely the point. It's the point of car safety, it's also the point of minimum warranties, electrical emission regulations, safety standards, etc.

▲

VogonPoetry 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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?

That "what if" cost is going to be built into the cost of the laptop. Repairability doesn't always keep the cost low. The purchaser will definitely have to foot the cost otherwise it isn't sustainable.

▲

lelanthran 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

	▲	StingyJelly 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The laptop is deffinitely designed in a way that the keyboard is extremely hard to replace. Took me like 5 hours across 2 days. Rivets are not even the worst part, I used tiny drill and carefully glued in the replacement keyboard using phone screen glue (B7000) between the keys. (glue needs to go both on the frame and on the keyboard as there is a gap that needs to be bridged) Since there are screws along 3 of its edges, I deemed it good enough. drilling and tapping or riveting would have been extra painful. What makes the repair more complicated is that 1) you need to take out basically everything to get to the keyboard. There are many different screws, luckily ifixit has a disassembly guides with their sizes. Still it was a bit painful to reassemble. 2) One of the things you need to take out or at least lift is the glued in battery - this took a lot of careful prying with thin plastic sheet and dousing it in ipa. 3) backlight is glued on to the case in an extremely fragile way, so it needs to be replaced with the keyboard or will probably look uneven after repair. (i reused the old one as I don't mind it but still, it could just have been glued to the keyboard itself and it would be easier to repair.

▲

wvenable 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

	▲	Gigachad 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It won’t self resolve because consumers don’t fully factor in every detail while buying, and they often don’t get such granular choice anyway. It’s easier and more profitable for companies to make a product that catastrophically fails around about when the new model is out. So that’s what they do. Until just now when the EU is reeling them back in line.

▲

southerntofu 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

▲

bloppe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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

A ton of normal users will simply never bother to repair their own laptops no matter how easy it is, but you don't even have to recycle your own bottles and cans to see the effectiveness of bottle deposits work. Someone will usually come and recycle them for you in any big city.

	▲	1718627440 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> 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.
	▲	wvenable 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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).