this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
103 points (94.0% liked)

Technology

59612 readers
3179 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Actually, how hard can it be? My old cheap ass Casio can have its battery replaced and waterproof already.

Sure, smartwatches have more bells and whistles but not as complicated as a mechanical watch, right?

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not as complicated, but the parts are bigger. Few would want an even bigger smart watch just to get repairability.

[–] Teils13@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

just make it easily repairable by third stores with minimally qualified people and cheap tools, like digital watches already were and are. Or, make a full collecting and recycling tax to be paid by those uncaring clients.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Or, make a full collecting and recycling tax to be paid by those uncaring clients.

No, that's not good enough. "Right to repair" is kind of an unfortunate name, because it really shouldn't be just about repair. My property rights include a right to modify, too, and letting manufacturers off the hook by doing first-party replacements instead of facilitating work by third-parties is not sufficient to protect that right!

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'd settle for first party repair and a repair window of up to 20 years.

Modification is great and should always be legal... But I'd take the win to get away from so much throwaway technology.

[–] interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is. Making anything easier to disassemble requires connectors which are a huge tradeoff in terms of space Vs features. Screws take a whole lot of space especially in something you want as thin as possible such as a watch.

Nowadays the direction is embedding of passive and even active components directly into the PCB layers and an increase of the number of layers. That means that if any of them fails there's nothing to be done, or at least not without equipments that cost way too much to be worthwhile to anyone.

In a few years, microelectronic systems will be mostly just one big custom die with the processing units and all accompanying mosfet, inductors, capacitors and resistors directly etched into a 25 layers PCB with barely any surface mounted components. Even lithium batteries can been embedded and most likely will.

If you want something totally serviceable you will have to sacrifice on size.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 3 points 2 months ago

Sure, but people probably don't expect ram slots on a smart watch. Just a replaceable screen, housing, mobo, dials, and battery would do a lot.