Blowmymind

Vincent,

Flickr

Loucuse

Lactose

It is surprising how stupid tech reviewers are on tech topic

He literally talks about this on his video about it... Which he says...

@@mad3st Classic case of over thinking it!

You are bang on. 1 of Louis Rossman's bug bears is the software lock attached to the power button on iPhones preventing a simple repair.

artificially marked up in price is definitely a key here for me. I'm no expert, but just a cursory look at how to repair my old iPhone 6s's REALLY banged up, but working screen, as well as getting a new battery in it, through an official apple channel or an authorized apple repairer is LAUGHABLE. Just completely a bizarro world of pricing.

More parts to replace..

Hell, if its a 2nm chip, then it can also be replaced if that's the only faulty thing on the device. It isn't like it'd be absolutely impossible to replace the chip. People replace CPU's in various devices now. www.eweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IBM-Worldu2019s-First-2-Nanometer-Chip.jpg This is an image from an article and video of the new 2nm chip, unless I'm mistaken. It isn't so small that it'd be impossible to replace. Repair? Sure, but replace? No.

The 2nm CPU thing was just a straw man argument from that guy. CPUs don't really break. They're just silicon and metal, there's nothing delicate that could break, and they can last 25 years. We're actually concerned about lithium ion batteries and SSDs, which significantly degrade over time and last 2-5 years under normal conditions and take the rest of the device with them when they die.

PREACH

@@PiousSlayer Absolutely, I'm sure the chip is still BGA. Those can be replaced. People do this successfully everyday. The real problem is the way manufacturers key the chips together on the board. Even with an OEM replacement the rest of the chips won't accept it, because it has the wrong code. It should be perfectly functional, but there is only one arrangement of chips in the world that will allow the device to work. So in many (most?) devices now it is possible to replace the CPU, but basically pointless to do it. And I've never heard a manufacturer give a good reason for keying the chips together. How are practices like this innovation?

Or even the ability to purchase a new motherboard with a new chip on it

Seriously!!! It's ridiculous to suggest these types of things. You replace a PART, you don't get out your atomic force microscope you have in your backyard laboratory and try and fix the parts of the nanoscale structure that have broken down. Sheesh! It's such a horrible straw man argument.

honestly common sense ., how are they confused? error codes? people will learn them. the machine will run over a barrel?? dude the simplest command is stop. no avoidance technology? wtf. if they hurt themselves it’s not their problem people will understand this and john dear won’t lose business. no . people will understand that a person messed up. this is bs? or i’m stupid i’m high for sure

Exactly why we created the podcast!

Ex

E

This. Majority of the discussion was completely derailed by Marques' premise of "better products with more integrated technology". I think he completely missed the point of Louis' reply, and I understand that it's easy to get lost on the tangents (since it is linked to several topics and issues). Louis already mentioned that it was the third-party's problem to figure out how to repair them. It's the effort of companies to prevent people from repairing/modifying the products they bought that's the problem. Just don't block them from getting legitimate parts. Just don't prevent them from using other legitimate parts via serialization. Especially when the company itself is unable to fix their own products. But their discussion did get one reason right: it's basically companies avoiding bad PR.

@@JyuzouNT Not to mention the fact that "more integrated technology" doesn't hurt repairability! People talk about highly optimized or integrated systems like they're some sort of "magic" that let highly precise machining come together to make innovation happen. But the reality is that systems that have this level of integration are often capable (or can be easily modified to be) of self-calibration. There are companies that will let you order hot-swappable parts that will self-calibrate as they install themselves! Furthermore, this goes beyond companies avoiding bad PR. Apple will lie to you about their poor engineering decisions and CHARGE YOU to repair THEIR MISTAKES simply because it makes them look better. They've crossed the line of PR into the realm of illegal behavior that no one calls them out on.

@@andrewcopple7075, I like that you pointed out how technology is treated these days as magic, and I totally agree. Just a few years ago, people are able to tinker with their stuff and repair it on their own with no issues. But these days, it's just something that you have to send to the shop. It's the kind of mentality that's been slowly fed to consumers until it's became the norm. I also briefly mentioned that the topic is quite complex, in the sense that it is related to multiple topics and excuses; bad PR is just one of them. To name another one, right-to-repair is also related to another issue: planned obsolescence, which ties in to one of the examples you've mentioned. A mistake by companies like Apple at face value, but if you watch Louis Rossman's vids, anyone would argue that it's completely intentional. The way Marques looks into the problem is a bit skewed, I feel. I guess his experience in the tech world made his vision of the topic too complex. His original premise and the other ways of him looking into the topic, to be fair, is neutral, as it tries to understand the point of view from both parties, but is also misleading. Let's keep it simple. And that's why I like Paulo's comment so much, since it keeps it simple. It's not about people blocking companies from progressing their tech (if anything, it's about companies trying to suppress their IPs). Right-to-repair is about companies trying to block people from fixing devices that they own. No need to lump in "integrated technology" in there, which I feel becomes a red herring to the conversation.

@@JyuzouNT I totally agree with you. I begin to listen to Marques from the beginning of his channel and i think he is deeply influenced by the new way things are made it. It's a generational thing. Then i found Rossman's videos and wow i think "he is so clever" but companies don't like it. In fact this is the same discussion when free software begin to go mainstream and many compare to a communist vision. Stallman has to go out so many times to clarify about term and avoid the political issue but in the end, free software is a political movement deeply affecting the way companies conduct businesses. Right to repair can not make the minimal damage that is making cryptocurrency to the computer market in compare. But when Elon Musk irresponsibly tweet about the subject no one criticize how his influence can alter the behavior of the market because a lot of people admire him. Marques is a big influencer in the community and i think his opinions can have a big impact in the consumers. I not say he is PR for companies but i think he begin to change from his beginnings. Because i don't agree with many of his new assumptions, I unsubscribe to his channel and i advice many of my college in my country to make the same.

@@pubdigitalix, I didn't get one of your examples for cryptocurrency regarding "damages" compared to the right-to-repair movement, tho I think your main point is how Marques is affecting how viewers interpret the conversation, and I agree as well. Right now, I'm not certain if Louis would consider his participation in the discussion more of a benefit due to rabbit holes Marques included in the discussion, which is confusing and misleading imo. Does it outweight the benefits of potentially having the word out to a bigger audience if the same audience has a skewed POV of the movement? His discussions will play a major part; he is for sure one of the top (if not the top) Tech UKpostsrs right now and will be guaranteed to have a huge influence to other people. There could be (and probably is) some level of conflict of interest involved here, but I think that Marques was doing his best to be as neutral as possible. He's been neutral throughout all of his topics so far, though not going so far as to scare off device manufacturers. I can also relate to their discussion somehow; they obviously don't have enough knowledge about right-to-repair. I've been watching Louis for a LONG time and you really can't condense his involvement in the movement within 1 hr. It's also one of his challenges when introducing spreading the movement to other people because of misinformation. It's frustrating to watch the 3 of them process the information on their own. I understand that they did some research, but the topic got so out of hand. What I think would be best is to have Louis on the show to discuss the movement with them, rather than them speculating on stuff and going off course somewhere related but misses the point entirely. I understand Marques's point that more integrated units will be harder to fix, but it's not about that. I believe that devices will still have some level of modularity in the future. And if ever it doesn't, it still isn't about that. It's about companies not wanting people to mess with the stuff that they bought. They should have a redo.

This is exactly the comment I came to make. Thanks. I believe that the whole podcast completely missed the point of right to repair.

I'll play devil's advocate in this scenario. How would you know if he has the skill to fix a Tesla? Would it be based on his claims, because I doubt anyone will turn down a customer. An electric drive train is much different than an ICE drive train so its not like asking an android repair guy to fix an iPhone. Tesla probably has people get licensed to work on their cars so they can actually do it correctly and therefore not have to worry of any bad PR from shotty work done by a random mechanic.

@@jatinkulkarni2428 as things stand now its hard or next to impossible to find a random garage with the skill. Just like with phones the more of them there are the more motivated independent people will be to pick up the skills. In 5-10 years when electric cars are more common, one crashing or breaking down wont be news. The same scenario can be put forward for current ICE engines, when they started out it was new and only a handful of people could fix them. Now the options are endless, the same will happen with electric and i dont want a future where a software/hardware barrier is put on to force me to go back to them and pay more than the service is actually worth.

@@jatinkulkarni2428 Dave's reputation, and my past experience, like for anything else.

@@kudaa8969 I was thinking near future, but definitely in the future I would want any garage to fix any car.

Idgap

Yes that would

Well I think technically it was a documentary, but it was an audio-only documentary.

I concur with this statement. Also, some big non-American tech youtubers so this right-to-repair goes worldwide. Because think about how many people will have to send their devices to Apple to america to get it fixed. It will be a huge pain, not to mention tractor parts that need to be fixed. The farmers worldwide needing to send parts to far away spots to be fixed by official repairmen certified by the corporation? That sounds like a massive headache compared to repair yourself.

@@dertythegrower geekyranjit is trying to address it in India, absolutely need this.

😎

I'm going to print this comment and hang it in my office.

@@Manganellia1 @Mitch Swartout OMG I‘m dying, the comment and the printer hurting xDD

Been thinking of grabbing myself a pair lol

lol

Yeah what is a computer

Not to mention that your options for that part are Deere or Deere.

They use the C500s!

@@MaxBalzer That’s a great camera to be fair

You can't make future proof specs in an environment in which transistor counts double every few years.

Yea that was my main issue with the video. Companies can still make tractors that save 90% of pesticide, just provide manuals and schematics; and don't tell the source of their parts to not sell it to anyone else. They don't have to throttle the innovations at all. I have no idea where this idea comes from.

A rational reason for many users to buy Apple products was productivity. I have been in mixed PC/Apple Mac environments and have seen cheap PCs fail, while the Macs would soldier on for many years without a hitch. Where time is money that's actually a very valid concern and buying a slightly more expensive Apple design will, over the long run, very often returns its money. Now, mind you, this is a statement about older iMacs, I have heard that MacBook users are not always having such a positive experience lately, so one has to decide on a case by case basis. I consider phones as throw-away hardware anyway. They age out and that's how one should treat them after three or four years.