MHBKD recently made a video on Apple testing lab [1], and one thing he talked about and that was kinda new to me is seeing repairability as a spectrum. I.e. on one side is "indestructible" product and on the other is "perfectly repairable". And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive.
In a hindsight it seems obvious, still this video was the first time I've heard this verbalized so clearly.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the video (I'm in a quiet place right now.)
> And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive.
I disagree on a fundamental level.
You could say such a thing when talking about really small (micro/miniature) devices. But as size increases, the validity of such arguments rapidly goes down. A phone case/bumper for example - makes the device larger, yes - but increases strength while not hurting reparability.
The "problem", imo, is two-fold:
1. Apple does not care too much about making repairs easy. If it costs $100 to make a board they can charge a customer $500 to repair, or $800 for a new phone, it's easy for them.
2. (Some) people prefer sleeker designs. Samsung has its active range of phones, CAT makes durable phones - but many prefer a smaller thickness/bezel etc. This means that when tech improves to make smaller bezels, manufacturers decrease the bezel a little and add protective padding a little... haha no. It's only bezel reduction. Because it sell, I suppose.
For example gorilla glass/protective glass has improved in technology, but thinner screens (for thinner devices) have eaten up the benefits of stronger tech.
The real "killer" argument? The presence of companies like Framework. I'm typing this out on my FW13 & its build quality is really good. Perhaps a 10 year old thinkpad may be similar or better, but this is almost certainly thinner. But it is almost definitely more repairable.
It's possible, but requires companies to offer products, and people to use and buy them.
But repairability isn't only about the components being accessible (the glue holding in the battery is an absolute nightmare). It is also about the availability of authentic parts.
Historically, Apple made sourcing genuine parts an impossible feat. This potentially wouldn't even be a problem, if Apple didn't go to such great lengths to detect "non authentic parts". They changed that somewhat, but only for private consumers. Their model for their repair/replacement parts program still makes it borderline impossible to operate an independent repair service business, effectively protecting Apple from any competition.
There would not be an issue for Apple or Samsung to design a backplane that uses screws to hold the phone together, eliminating the need for glue entirely.
It is so easy indeed that Samsung has been making such phones for over a decade. If people started putting their money where their mouth is, maybe they'd even sell.
People buy what is advertised to them, let's be real. Yes, Samsung offers such devices, and I for example have an Active Tab 3 as my daily driver (despite its issues, such as the screen being glued to the case, and the glue is not water-tight when it gets even remotely warm).
But most people are going to buy what their telco offers on sale, and that is iPhones and Samsung Galaxy S series. Everything else is specialty that you need to buy in cash.
> For example gorilla glass/protective glass has improved in technology, but thinner screens (for thinner devices) have eaten up the benefits of stronger tech.
This is an interesting point. I didn't think about it, but it makes sense. Are there any "chonky" mobile phones with very thick cases & screens... like the Panasonic ToughBook?
A variety of manufacturers has them, CAT e.g., but even Samsung has been having a line of them for over a decade.
Manufacturers also keep making phones with headphone jacks, sd slots, swappable batteries, and all the other features that people loudly insist they want in their phones, right until it comes to choosing a new phone to buy. Then they buy something thin and flimsy again and repeat the whine cycle; and every year another manufacturer drops their sturdy&servicable line because nobody cares enough to actually buy it.
I mean, if you want a supported phone with a headphone jack and swappable battery, you're pretty much just down to the Samsung Galaxy Xcover now, which has a CPU from 6 years ago and no fingerprint reader. It's definitely possible, but nowadays there's major tradeoffs to get features that used to be standard.
Parent of parent explained the premise of the video correctly. For someone who's complaining about the parent not watching the video, it really comes off as you having not even watched the video.
> it really comes off as you having not even watched the video.
I fail to understand the link here. The video contains arguments and examples of that premise. Dismissing arguments and jumping straight into the "here's my opinion" is exactly the communication style I chuckled upon.
For those who are downvoting. This was an extreme example of a debate not worth having.
There is no better way to show that you don't care about truth and only care about defending your current opinion than to say "I don't know your arguments, but I disagree".
Good point, but this would apply to ongoing debate. In this case person jumped in into conversation with the premise "I don't have time to listen to arguments but here's mine opinion".
The thing is, all the theories of communication for persuasion (Social Judgement Theory and Elaboration Likelihood Model mostly) boil down to "hear your audience". If you really want to convince or persuade anyone, the starting point is to understand what's in the head of the audience you are trying to persuade. It's not often easy to get this information, so you start by expressing your views and carefully listening to the answers and arguments of those who have different views.
So if you have a chance to get the arguments in advance – before communicating your opinion – it's a blessing. It's a free lunch for persuasive communication. You're given people's opinions and arguments on the plate, basically.
And here this free lunch is thrown away just to be replaced with "here is my opinion and I don't care about arguments" communication style. That's not a starting point for debate at all.
> And here this free lunch is thrown away just to be replaced with "here is my opinion and I don't care about arguments" communication style. That's not a starting point for debate at all.
I'm sorry if it came across that way but I absolutely didn't mean it like that. I'm happy to have my point refuted. I am a (mechanical) engineer but haven't worked in this specific field professionally, so I felt I might be able to contribute, as making devices sturdier is something I think a lot about. I normally don't mind watching MKBHD's videos, at that point of time I was in a silent place where I couldn't have done it.
In France, the "Repairability Index" was mandatory since 2021 [1, in French], and will be superseded by the "Durability Index" starting on 2025 [2, in French]
Is the idea of these indices to encourage buyers to choose more repairable / durable goods? I can remember shopping for a new fridge with my parents as a kid: The energy efficiency labels (mandated by the gov't) made a big difference on their purchasing decisions.
I'm of the opinion that manufacturers should be required to prominently list the "expected total monthly price" on their packaging, calculated as product_price / months_of_warranty. This basically assumes that the product may break immediately after the warranty expires.
Such a price would incentivize manufacturers to make warranties last as long as possible. This encourages repairability where it's economically and physically viable, without the tradeoffs necessary if repairability is mandated by law.
> Such a price would incentivize manufacturers to make warranties last as long as possible.
Or keep warranties short, but push consumers into a pay by month model, because the amount per month is less than than the advertised "expected monthly price". The company then gets a regular income stream.
In a hindsight it seems obvious, still this video was the first time I've heard this verbalized so clearly.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8reaJG7z-is