There's a trade off between modularity and sleek design as Apple has proven better than anyone.<p>They were arguably the first PC manufacturer to take design seriously and while Macs began to become more difficult to repair beginning with the iMac in 1998, there's no questioning that the component choices (from the external to the internal) lent itself to an increasingly sleek design that eventually led Apple to create the best-in-class laptops and desktops.<p>This push towards sleek design also gave Apple the chops to create the original iPod in the first place...which eventually lead to the revolutionary iPhone...which completely upended the mobile phone industry.<p>As a PC fan, I love creating and building my own box...carefully selecting my motherboard, case, processor, and memory in the process...and I rest easy knowing I can upgrade my machine over time...<p>But I wouldn't question the value that highly integrated designs that Apple and others have brought to the table. You can feel the quality in the products they make. There's a lot of careful thought and design. Modularity and repairability are a necessary sacrifice to build products that sleek.<p>Take a look at the failed Project Ara by Google: <a href="https://atap.google.com/ara/" rel="nofollow">https://atap.google.com/ara/</a>. It would have brought modular parts and design to the mobile phone industry. While a great concept, and something that appeals to my custom rig PC roots, it may not actually have been that useful in practice for the vast majority of the general public.
I am reminded of that company from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy whose products were built so they could not possibly fail - and then it turned out they were impossible to repair when they did.<p>It's a shame companies do this, not just to phones. Laptops and small-form-factor desktops have the same problem.<p>A few years back, a coworker had a problem with a laptop, Lenovo R500, I think, that required replacing something inside the laptop (I forgot what part exactly). I found this maintenance manual, and it was exemplary, with lots of diagrams and drawings that made taking this machine apart and putting it back together a cakewalk even for somebody as clumsy as me (meaning, I successfully performed the "operation", with hardly a clue what I was doing guided solely by the excellent manual, and it ____ing worked!)<p>That is the standard, vendors should aspire to. And I think, Douglas Adams was on to something - if you design something with repairability (is that a word?) as a goal, I would not bet surprised if the result was also more reliable.
From the article, Apple's statement:<p>“Highly-integrated design allows us to make products that are not only beautiful, thin and powerful, but also durable, so they can last for many years,” the company said. “When repairs are needed, authorized providers can ensure the quality, safety, and security of repairs for customers. And when products do reach end of life, Apple takes responsibility for recycling them safely and responsibly.”<p>Sounds reasonable to me.
Its not just about repair-ability, its about software support too.<p>Apple, when compared with the android phone manufactures is probably a better choice for long term use. That is because while my android phone (asus) has a battery I can replace in under 1 minute, the software support probably won't last for 5 years like my daughters iphone5 which after a new battery is a perfectly functional updated device. So if you want to do something about the throwaway culture, minimum support periods might be a good thing to look at too.
One alternative is "impossible to repair, but rugged". Encapsulate the whole thing and make it watertight, dusttight, and airtight. (Yes, you can get microphones and speakers for that environment.) Lose the connectors and have wireless charging and audio out. The problem with Apple's products is fragility, not repairability.
Nokia had this nailed over a decade ago. I have a Caterpillar B15 phone, which is the modern equivalent of "doesn't break".<p>Here's one of my projects, restoring a Teletype Model 15 from the 1930s.[1] This one was in bad shape. Those machines are 100% repairable; any part can be removed and replaced with common hand tools, usually just with a screwdriver.
It took about a month to overhaul. I have it running, connected to a laptop computer. The typing quality isn't very good; I could do a rebuild on the type basket but haven't done so. The price of this repairability is a big, heavy machine.<p>There are people in Shenzhen who repair iPhones at that level. They un-solder chips with a hot air rework station, put down a solder paste stencil, put in a good chip from another broken phone, heat up the new chip to solder it in, and have a working board. It's feasible because it's such a monoculture - there are so many identical phones, and you don't need a broad parts stock. For brands with a lot of models, and a smaller markup over parts cost, few people bother.<p>[1] <a href="http://brassgoggles.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,43672.25.html" rel="nofollow">http://brassgoggles.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,43672.25.htm...</a>
It's a shame that smart phones are so hard to repair these days. Ben Evans from a16z even argued that "selling smartphones is a subscription business" and that "You pay an average of $700 or so every two years (i.e. $30/month) and Apple gives you a new phone." [1]<p>I think the car industry is probably similar in that so many parts become more electronic and less mechanic and if a sensor is gone, the entire part has to be replaced. (Not a car geek, but the ones who are, please feel free to chime in here!). And with the EV revolution, that trend is going to be accelerated.<p>[1]: <a href="http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/7/13/content-isnt-king" rel="nofollow">http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/7/13/content-isnt-ki...</a>
My cousin's iPhone 6 stopped charging a few days ago. Everything works, but it seems like the port for charging is worn out or something and wouldn't recognize/charge when being plugged in. He is visiting from Australia and he took a lot of pictures lately with his phone. So he went to the Apple store in New York to get it fixed (in the hope to save his photos/data). They told him that they'll give him a discount for a new iPhone 6 (same model) for just ~$270 or there's no way to fix it.<p>I thought changing the charging port should be relatively easy. Now it is certain that my cousin will lose all of his photos in the old phone unless he gets it fixed at an unauthorized repair center.
Top comment under article:<p>> <i>This is such bs. iPhone is one if not the only smartphone the oem support for about 5 years. My son is rocking a 5s currently with the latest os update. About a year ago, I swapped out the battery myself.</i>
That's a long article to point out the obvious: if you can't fix it, you have to buy a new one.<p>I would've changed the "Why" in the title to "How", since that's where the article really illuminates some industry dynamics I wasn't aware of. Of course, if LIBOR taught us anything, it's that industry shouldn't be left to regulate itself...
There is only one planet earth. Either we decide to take care of the planet together or we do not care.<p>PC computers can be repaired easily and use standardized parts that are user replaceable. Why not make phones the same with standard hardware and open boot loaders?
I think the consumer frustration stems from the desire to buy once, then use it for 10+ years. I'm driving a 17yr old vehicle with 350k+ miles, and just keep taking it in for quarterly tune ups and it runs great. Sure I would love an auto-pilot tesla, but I'm more than happy to save loads of money by maintaining my existing vehicle.
I have only had good experiences repairing iPhones. Most everything can be fixed within an hour and at a reasonable cost.<p>A key factor is the large user base (many million) for each model of the iPhone, so 3rd party parts are usually cheap and diagnostics for almost any problem is easy to google.<p>Compared to e.g washing machines it's a pleasure to have a broken smartphone.
On top of this Apple is forcing Recyclers to shred Phones and Laptops <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks" rel="nofollow">https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recy...</a><p>Not exactly a green thing to do in my opinion.
If consumers wanted an easy to repair product, they would have bought them. What they really want is thin, lightweight phones that are new enough not to be slow.
I understand the sustainability concerns but what is the answer? More regulation from the government that would impact their designs? That doesn't sound right, I don't think there are smart phone designers working for the government.<p>I have replaced screens and batteries on iPhones, it isn't wizardry but does require technical acumen and some special screw-driver/pry tools that won't break things.<p>It isn't an open standard like PC parts but there are lots of other industries that are mostly closed and engineer their products to only last a certain usage threshold. Engineering them to last longer costs way too much.
<i>...at a certain point, the tech industry’s chemical suppliers were enlisting family members to pay for IEEE memberships to help vote down new environmental measures.</i><p>Nothing to see here, just the free market regulating itself. Good job!
I've spent some time thinking about this from an automotive manufacturing perspective (I work for an automotive manufacturer, previously on the shop floor).<p>Engineering is all about trade-offs - both physically/materially/technically, and in time and money.<p>As an engineer/designer you have a set of requirements to meet: Product Safety, Customer Needs, Marketing Needs, and Technical Requirements.<p>Then you can spend some time on Serviceability - but any time and money you spend on Serviceability is time you are not spending on improving the product and hopefully reducing the need to repair and replace parts in the first place.<p>Then you start manufacturing the thing, and problems come out of the woodwork. If you put a thousand parts together that's at least two thousand things to go wrong (and often many more). So you spend time designing for manufacturability/assembly - add an alignment slot to this connector, color coordinate these parts so it's obvious what goes together, make this bolt/fastener easier to insert. This is called Poke-Yoke, or idiot proofing. You spend a lot of time on this because there are a lot of idiots.<p>If you are good at manufacturing you learn how to make the thing quickly, with high quality, and with a small number of workers. This is called Lean Manufacturing.<p>The upshot of all of this, is that the connectors, parts, assemblies, fasteners, adhesives and all of that are designed so that the widget goes together right the first time, in such a way that an idiot can put it together, and it should work for a long time.
I only see this as a good thing. Breeds competition as consumer trust and loyalty degrades. Rather than allow a company to continue doing this and have us still fund their companies, anyone should come forward and provide better products and they'll get the message.
On the other hand you can make a full iPhone by buying each of the components if you know where to find them (disclaimer: I've met Scott before):<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leFuF-zoVzA" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leFuF-zoVzA</a>
In many aspects in ever decreasing size tech the balance between repairable and size come into play.<p>One way to see this aspect would be a PC compared to a laptop
One is larger but you can replace many components with ease to a laptop that has a more limited and indeed costly replacement/repair factor and even then you are constraints limited compared to a PC. But it does get better, I can't but help feel that the lack of standards limit the drive to swap in and out parts. More so when those standards are driven by SOC manufacturers more than most and help to lock in phone manufacturers into certain brands of SOC.
I fail to see the validity of all the conspiracy theory evil claimed around modern manufacturing techniques. The overwhelming majority of consumers have spoken, and what they have said is they will pay more for smaller lighter devices and will not pay more for consumer repairable devices.<p>Manufacturers have responded in exactly the way the majority of consumers asked them to, by making smaller lighter devices rather than repairable ones. Connectors add space and weight, making devices bigger and heavier and less desirable to the vast majority of consumers.
Smartphones are highly "engineered" products (in the sense that they are more than a simple combination of off-the-shelf parts). And typically the more "engineered" a product is, the more difficult it is for an end-user to service. That goes double if it's extremely space-constrained, as engineers are forced to get "creative" to fit their constraints.<p>As a relatable example, consider PC building. In a standard PC case, you can pretty much throw together any selection of (compatible) parts and expect them to work. In contrast very compact mini-ITX builds can be very challenging, not all combinations of parts will fit in a given case, heat becomes challenging to dissipate without excessive noise, and assembly can be very fiddly, with exactly one right order to put all the parts together. And even if you are doing the smallest fiddliest case you can buy, you still will not actually approach the sizes that are possible with an engineered product like the MSI Trident 3/Corsair One/Zotac Magnus let alone the noise profiles.<p>That said, Apple definitely crosses the line from "compact product that is necessarily difficult to service" into actively obstructing service efforts, which is a problem. For example I accept that soldering parts down is thinner than socketing them, but it's an asshole move to glue components into place.<p>Apple is certainly not alone here, however. It's virtually impossible to find a phone without an integral (non-replaceable) battery nowadays, and MicroSD slots are rather uncommon as well (yes Google, I know there's a lot of bad flash out there, that's why I source nice stuff from camera stores).<p>I don't have any good suggestions to fix this, there's no "but wait there's a better way" at the end of this post. There was a prototype phone a while back that was built from pluggable "modules" but obviously it hasn't taken off. The closest thing is probably a dedicated hacker/tinkerer phone like the Neo900 but you will definitely have to live with it being 3-4x as thick as an iPhone. The iPhone is making enough compromises in terms of functionality (eg battery life, external antenna connector, etc) that there might be a niche for a more full-featured device but it's clearly not what the mass market wants.
When an article is filled with "Advocacy groups say .." and "report by the <we dislike this state of affairs> organization" you can expect it to be filled with poorly sourced 'facts' and weakly reasoned 'conclusions.' And this article does not disappoint in that regard.<p>The industry got hooked on 'upgrade every year or so' it did wonders for the bottom line because you could sell the same high margin product to the consumer again and again. It isn't surprising when you consider the people who designed and built your product are sitting there at the company still, and now what do they do? You can't really just lay them off (not and expect to catch the next wave of what ever) so you start them off designing and building the next version, which, as a requirement is "make it so that someone who owns the old one will want to buy the new one."<p>Great but that is then conflated with the challenge of disposing of the previous one which, for all intents and purposes, can't really be 'recycled' so much as separated into recoverable metal [1][2] and then either burying the rest or incinerating it.<p>And that gets conflated with the 'If you would just support it I could keep it' story line, where new features can't run on the old device (I've got an older iPad for example stuck on IOS 6 for that reason but its a great media player) and of course the FOSS community saying that if you document the device they would build alternative software packages for it.<p>And that gets conflated with 'if I could get it fixed I would' which would support repair shops (which seem to flourish in places like China but less commonly in the US) where problems are diagnosed down to the chip level and fixed on the spot. But that interferes with warranty calculations (you crack a screen and have a shop replace it, but then the mainboard develops an intermittent, was that a manufacturing problem or a repair shop problem? can be impossible to know.)<p>And all of that burys the state of the art which is that most of the toxic stuff has been taken out of electronics, and caveat people who violate the laws, or places which care to little to enforce the laws, the stuff is reasonably disposed and what can be recovered is.<p>What is missing is any sort of vision by either one of the agencies or organizations they talk with about what a better system would look like from an <i>implementation</i> level (we know about lax <i>enforcement</i> of the current stuff).<p>[1] <a href="https://www.oecd.org/env/waste/Case%20Study%20on%20Critical%20Metals%20in%20Mobile%20Phones.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.oecd.org/env/waste/Case%20Study%20on%20Critical%...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://services.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/05/ULE_CellPhone_White_Paper_V2.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://services.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/05/UL...</a>
This is a super disingenuous article from the Verge. It's based on a highly biased "report" by the Repair Association trade group led by iFixit, whose business is impacted by this approach. They are now attempting to make an environmental argument. Pay close attention and you'll note that their premise, that user-repairable devices are better for the environment, is <i>entirely unsupported</i>.<p>Where do you think most user-removed parts end up? In landfill. Whereas devices traded in to Apple can be recycled properly. Apple even has a <i>custom-designed robot</i> to disassemble iPhones to achieve maximum recyclability.[1]<p>They also offer zero support for the claim that Apple's approach shortens the lifetime of devices. Apple offers a battery replacement program![2] You can extend your iPhone's life! And they recycle the old battery properly. iFixit just doesn't like that they can't sell you the kits to do it yourself.<p>Apple's obvious motive, which this sensational article fails to dispute, is to make their devices smaller, watertight, and generally better. That is why they pack and glue the interiors with custom parts and seals.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYshVbcEmUc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYshVbcEmUc</a><p>[2] <a href="https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-power" rel="nofollow">https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-power</a>