Designing for a right to repair(interactionmagic.com)
interactionmagic.com
Designing for a right to repair
https://interactionmagic.com/Design-for-repair
95 comments
It might be a technique thing, although you are correct that those maligned "modern" screw designs do not strip as easily.
It is crucial to get the right type and size of screwdriver - look for the markings on the screw to differentiate Philips from Pozidrive (mixing them up will chew up screws). Give a test wiggle before trying to turn the screw - there should be minimal slop, and the bit shouldn't immediately try to "cam out".
Apart from that, the trick is maximal downward force. Push the screwdriver into the screw as you're turning - most cross-head designs will try to "cam out" due to tapered sections of the interface, and that's what chews up the screws. I rarely strip screw heads, even on cheap consumer products.
It is crucial to get the right type and size of screwdriver - look for the markings on the screw to differentiate Philips from Pozidrive (mixing them up will chew up screws). Give a test wiggle before trying to turn the screw - there should be minimal slop, and the bit shouldn't immediately try to "cam out".
Apart from that, the trick is maximal downward force. Push the screwdriver into the screw as you're turning - most cross-head designs will try to "cam out" due to tapered sections of the interface, and that's what chews up the screws. I rarely strip screw heads, even on cheap consumer products.
I learned the difference between Philips and Pozidrive at school, thank goodness, and this has saved countless stripped screw heads. I am surprised how few people know about it, even professionals.
It’s particularly important when using power tools. An electric drill with Philips bit will instantly munch a Pozidrive screw.
It is the 45 degree markings you’re looking for, in case that isn’t clear: https://shop4fasteners.co.uk/blog/pozidriv-vs-phillips/
It’s particularly important when using power tools. An electric drill with Philips bit will instantly munch a Pozidrive screw.
It is the 45 degree markings you’re looking for, in case that isn’t clear: https://shop4fasteners.co.uk/blog/pozidriv-vs-phillips/
Thank you for this. As an amateur I knew the difference existed, but I was never sure how to tell them apart. And if I had ever actually thought about it I would have googled, but it's one of those things that never occurred to me until I was knee deep into a repair.
[deleted]
JIS is still a thing as well. Look a lot like Philips except that it's way easier than normal to cam out.
It's supposed to be much harder to cam out with JIS, unless you try to use a Philips screwdriver on a JIS screw (which will most definitely cam out and chew up). I treated myself to a JIS screwdriver, for the rare occasions I adjust my (Japanese) bicycle groupset.
JIS, as far as I know, is the technically superior cross-head design.
JIS, as far as I know, is the technically superior cross-head design.
JIS screws will strip/cam out if you use a Philips, where I misunderstood this when replacing a rear lamp assembly on a 2016 Subaru, destroyed the JIS screw head where it had to be removed using the 10mm socket instead.
I've now used JIS bits for JIS screws and had no issues further than the initial.
I've now used JIS bits for JIS screws and had no issues further than the initial.
Easier to cam out than Philips? Yuck!
It's generally better to cam out without wrecking the head than to cam out only under sufficient force as to tear up the slots.
Philips usually damage the head when camming out because as they cam out the total contact surface slowly goes to zero, so at some point the pressure exceeds the strength of the metal.
Exactly this - camming out as a protective feature is hugely over-blown and possibly totally false. In my experience, only the very cheapest of cheese-grade screws (a la Aliexpress) chew up without camming out.
camming out wasn't to protect the screws, it was to protect the sheet metal...
Right. In my experience, JIS screwdrivers lose contact faster if you're off-angle so they don't have the same opportunity to trash the head.
> Give a test wiggle before trying to turn the screw - there should be minimal slop, and the bit shouldn't immediately try to "cam out".
This is the number one trick I've learned working at a repair shop. If you learn to do this, you can almost always get the screw out. In a worst case scenario, I've found that a flathead can sometimes get out a stripped torx screw, though don't try this unless there's no other option.
This is the number one trick I've learned working at a repair shop. If you learn to do this, you can almost always get the screw out. In a worst case scenario, I've found that a flathead can sometimes get out a stripped torx screw, though don't try this unless there's no other option.
Thanks for the tips and for the more or less confirmation of my terrible technique. You're right that I pay no attention to Philips vs Pozidrive, will definitely need to start taking that into consideration. When following a guide, I do pay attention to exact bit sizes when they are mentioned , but for guide-less jobs I just go with "this looks like it fits". Will try out wiggling before committing.
I imagine it'll take a while to start to get a feel for it, wonder what's the best way to get a good amount of practice without damaging (useful) things.
I imagine it'll take a while to start to get a feel for it, wonder what's the best way to get a good amount of practice without damaging (useful) things.
Damage useless things? Seriously though, practice and experience are necessary, go and get some! Sadly that sometimes also includes learning how to figure out when you're out of your depth, which can be an annoying lesson to learn when you break something nice.
If you doing a lot of small screws I would suggest getting a Wiha precision screwdriver set. The iFixit set has great cost/value ratio, but there are much better tools on the market.
[deleted]
We switched everything to Torx at one of the companies I do work for (from Phillips) because too many screws would strip out. This is SATCOM stuff, mostly maritime. You get a tiny bit of gunk seizing the thread, and you wouldn’t be able to get screws out because you couldn’t apply enough torque to loosen them without camming out and stripping them. Torx has basically completely solved the problem.
At the factory all the structural screws and bolts go on with torque wrenches (not really necessary for covers etc.). But you can get the feel pretty easily when required in the field - we’ve had so many fewer problems, it’s crazy. I’d never design something with a Phillips screw in it again!
At the factory all the structural screws and bolts go on with torque wrenches (not really necessary for covers etc.). But you can get the feel pretty easily when required in the field - we’ve had so many fewer problems, it’s crazy. I’d never design something with a Phillips screw in it again!
The "stripping in seconds" bit makes me think you might be using a drill / driver to do it instead of a screwdriver. With the former it takes a fair bit of practice to notice imminent slippage, while the latter makes it much easier so that you can avoid it.
You absolutely need to use the correct sized screwdriver for the screw. And then make sure to press the screwdriver firmly into the screw while you turn so it can’t climb out.
You can get away with close enough or lower pressure if the screw is loose. If it is not, one size off and you’re asking for trouble.
If it seems like this is annoying, think of the screw as an interface. One typically works to comply with an interface’s specification, otherwise they likely get unexpected results.
You can get away with close enough or lower pressure if the screw is loose. If it is not, one size off and you’re asking for trouble.
If it seems like this is annoying, think of the screw as an interface. One typically works to comply with an interface’s specification, otherwise they likely get unexpected results.
Not only this, but the correct driver head is designed to spin out before stripping the screw threads or over tightening.
The head stripping instead of the threads or hole is a feature, as the desired point of failure.
A quality screw can spin out without too much damage, but often today cheap screws mean trashing it once that's happened.
The head stripping instead of the threads or hole is a feature, as the desired point of failure.
A quality screw can spin out without too much damage, but often today cheap screws mean trashing it once that's happened.
If it comes to the worst, there are still things you can do.
1) If the stripped fastener is accessible (i.e., not down a hole) you can try cutting a new cross slot in a screw head or new flats on a nut using a Dremel tool with a cutoff wheel (or a small file, if you're old-school). This is also an option for any special fasteners that you can't get a driver for.
2) You can (carefully) drill the screw head off, then, once the piece immediately below the screw head is loose and has been removed, grab the stub with a pair of vise grips and turn it out.
3) If it's in plastic, you can heat the screw head with a soldering iron until the plastic surrounding the screw body melts and the whole thing can be pulled off (obviously this is going to result in damaging the plastic to some degree... you may need to use a larger self-tapping screw to put it back together, or you could put a small amount of hot-melt glue down the now-oversized hole, in case you need to do it again).
As others have said, hand drivers are a better choice for this than powered drivers. If you do use a power driver and it has adjustable torque, start at the lowest setting. And yeah, as much downward pressure as you can apply without breaking the case is a good idea.
1) If the stripped fastener is accessible (i.e., not down a hole) you can try cutting a new cross slot in a screw head or new flats on a nut using a Dremel tool with a cutoff wheel (or a small file, if you're old-school). This is also an option for any special fasteners that you can't get a driver for.
2) You can (carefully) drill the screw head off, then, once the piece immediately below the screw head is loose and has been removed, grab the stub with a pair of vise grips and turn it out.
3) If it's in plastic, you can heat the screw head with a soldering iron until the plastic surrounding the screw body melts and the whole thing can be pulled off (obviously this is going to result in damaging the plastic to some degree... you may need to use a larger self-tapping screw to put it back together, or you could put a small amount of hot-melt glue down the now-oversized hole, in case you need to do it again).
As others have said, hand drivers are a better choice for this than powered drivers. If you do use a power driver and it has adjustable torque, start at the lowest setting. And yeah, as much downward pressure as you can apply without breaking the case is a good idea.
If you are stripping Phillips head screws a lot try finding a screwdriver one size larger. I tell people to find the screwdriver that looks like the right size and then go one size up. The head should be snug in the screw, if it is not you are far more likely to strip it.
Also pay attention because some Phillips head screwdrivers are pointy and some are more flat tipped. Using a pointy screwdriver on a flat type screw is a good way to strip them.
With the right tools you will almost never strip a Philips head screw that isn't rusty or glued in. In the latter case you're more likely to snap the head off entirely than to strip it. Finally, when removing the screw remember to push down on it (yes this seems counterproductive) to avoid slipping out of the hole.
Guarantee doesn't include cases where the knucklehead before you used the wrong screwdriver and rounded the crap out of the screw head.
Also pay attention because some Phillips head screwdrivers are pointy and some are more flat tipped. Using a pointy screwdriver on a flat type screw is a good way to strip them.
With the right tools you will almost never strip a Philips head screw that isn't rusty or glued in. In the latter case you're more likely to snap the head off entirely than to strip it. Finally, when removing the screw remember to push down on it (yes this seems counterproductive) to avoid slipping out of the hole.
Guarantee doesn't include cases where the knucklehead before you used the wrong screwdriver and rounded the crap out of the screw head.
Guarantee doesn't include cases where the knucklehead before you used the wrong screwdriver and rounded the crap out of the screw head
For those cases, there's the manual impact driver. Hand-held, whack the end of it with a hammer and it drives the Phillips/whatever bit into the fastener while giving it a little twist. A couple of whacks will remove the most stubborn screw. Or it will tear the head off. Those are the only two outcomes I've ever seen, it never just sits and spins in the rounded slots.
For those cases, there's the manual impact driver. Hand-held, whack the end of it with a hammer and it drives the Phillips/whatever bit into the fastener while giving it a little twist. A couple of whacks will remove the most stubborn screw. Or it will tear the head off. Those are the only two outcomes I've ever seen, it never just sits and spins in the rounded slots.
> some Phillips head screwdrivers are pointy and some are more flat tipped
Some Phillips are not Phillips at all. They are JIS. Or pozidriv.
Some Phillips are not Phillips at all. They are JIS. Or pozidriv.
For me the fragile flat ribbon cables are hindering repair: they either break too easily or they are super hard to put back into their slot. And getting too close with a soldering iron will just melt the whole thing :)
How do you repair a broken flat ribbon? They are often custom sizes, including weird shapes going around corners.
How do you repair a broken flat ribbon? They are often custom sizes, including weird shapes going around corners.
Yes- death to Philips and slotted screw heads. Torx, square/Robertson, or (internal or external) hex heads are all so much better.
Slotted (flat) screw heads at least enable the user to use a 'non-tool' to remove the screw in the case they do not have the necessary tool on hand.
Take for example my front license plate, the flat head screws enabled a random while I was at work to remove the plate from the car, without any specialized screwdriver.
So in some instances flat heads may prove to be useful. Philips however has often led to the screws I need out getting stripped. Torx all the way.
Take for example my front license plate, the flat head screws enabled a random while I was at work to remove the plate from the car, without any specialized screwdriver.
So in some instances flat heads may prove to be useful. Philips however has often led to the screws I need out getting stripped. Torx all the way.
Torx are really good screws actually, I believe you can apply more torque to them without stripping them and they're a staple in any repair kit these days.
Similarly I have screws (and adapters) in my toolkit that look a bit like torx, they inspire me with a lot more confidence than Philips heads.
And my TV is mounted to the wall with 8cm deep screw-bolts. That one didn't come with any tools, but we have a set of ratchet bolt thingymajigs that did the job just fine. My drill bit just was a little too short and the hole was on the wonk so it still took far longer than I would like, but, lessons learned.
Similarly I have screws (and adapters) in my toolkit that look a bit like torx, they inspire me with a lot more confidence than Philips heads.
And my TV is mounted to the wall with 8cm deep screw-bolts. That one didn't come with any tools, but we have a set of ratchet bolt thingymajigs that did the job just fine. My drill bit just was a little too short and the hole was on the wonk so it still took far longer than I would like, but, lessons learned.
Torx and starheads are great for things like soft wood, but too much torque screwing into metal or plastic is going to crack the casing or strip the threads or hole instead of the head.
Similarly they work well for bolt applications with a lock washer or other point of weakness to handle over tightening.
Torx screws really should be used with a driver with an adjustable torque setting, which is pretty standard on most cordless drivers now, but rare for manual ones.
Similarly they work well for bolt applications with a lock washer or other point of weakness to handle over tightening.
Torx screws really should be used with a driver with an adjustable torque setting, which is pretty standard on most cordless drivers now, but rare for manual ones.
FYI, Phillips screwdrivers are often referred to as "star" in my experience by average people. Best to just use the proper terms.
>FYI, Phillips screwdrivers are often referred to as "star" in my experience by average people.
FYI, that's wrong. The proper generic term for Phillips, Frearson, Posidrive, and similar is cruciform or cross drive, not star.
>Best to just use the proper terms.
"Star drive" is the proper generic term inclusive of the trademarked Torx, its security Torx version, and similar 6-sided drivers.
Just as Robertson is a tradename for a type of square drive.
A quick search seems to only list Phillips as "star" drive for some Indian web sites.
[0]The hexalobular socket screw drive, often referred to by the original proprietary brand name Torx or by the alternative generic name star drive, uses a star-shaped recess in the fastener with six rounded points.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives
Also: https://www.sizes.com/tools//screw_drive.htm
FYI, that's wrong. The proper generic term for Phillips, Frearson, Posidrive, and similar is cruciform or cross drive, not star.
>Best to just use the proper terms.
"Star drive" is the proper generic term inclusive of the trademarked Torx, its security Torx version, and similar 6-sided drivers.
Just as Robertson is a tradename for a type of square drive.
A quick search seems to only list Phillips as "star" drive for some Indian web sites.
[0]The hexalobular socket screw drive, often referred to by the original proprietary brand name Torx or by the alternative generic name star drive, uses a star-shaped recess in the fastener with six rounded points.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives
Also: https://www.sizes.com/tools//screw_drive.htm
FYI, it's not wrong, because it's my lived experience: all my life a Phillips screwdriver has been called a "star screwdriver" by everyone around me (I'm in Ontario). I'm not saying to use the generic terms, but the actual terms; that is, Phillips, Torx, Robertson, etc., because those are unambiguous. The generic or "official" terms are irrelevant, just as the generic term for velcro, hook-and-loop, is irrelevant, because everyone calls it velcro.
Also, as far as I know, Robertson is the only tapered square drive.
Also, as far as I know, Robertson is the only tapered square drive.
I, too, struggle with stripping screws. It gets better, but you have to be careful. For one, don't ever use a power tool. Second, find a screwdriver that fits the actual screw's dimensions--not just the screw type and rough size, but actually fits the depth of the (e.g. Philips) head. Too narrow/sharp of a screwdriver can easily strip screws. I found a magnetic tip helps a lot too, if only because the driver is a different, grippier material.
There are ways to recover stripped screws, e.g. by using a bit of rubber band between the screwdriver and the head. There are tons of YouTube videos. But if you can't, you are probably better off drilling it out than destroying the case.
> The much maligned in right-to-repair circles Torx and Apple pentalobe screws
I have no idea why they invented those; hex (Allen) screws are better. I don't have these tools and neither does practically anyone else. Oh, that's why they invented them.
There are ways to recover stripped screws, e.g. by using a bit of rubber band between the screwdriver and the head. There are tons of YouTube videos. But if you can't, you are probably better off drilling it out than destroying the case.
> The much maligned in right-to-repair circles Torx and Apple pentalobe screws
I have no idea why they invented those; hex (Allen) screws are better. I don't have these tools and neither does practically anyone else. Oh, that's why they invented them.
Hex screws strip extremely easily and if you use a bit too much force the hex bit easily gets stuck in the screw and you have to wiggle it free, further damaging the screw.
Torx bits are much better, and they are very common, at least in Europe.
Pentalobe on the other hand, is just Apple being Apple. They don't want you opening their devices (with some exceptions, like the remarkable RAM upgrade mechanism in the old 27" iMac, or the various fancy ways of opening Mac Pros.
Torx bits are much better, and they are very common, at least in Europe.
Pentalobe on the other hand, is just Apple being Apple. They don't want you opening their devices (with some exceptions, like the remarkable RAM upgrade mechanism in the old 27" iMac, or the various fancy ways of opening Mac Pros.
Was going to say this - there are a lot of hex head screws out there whose slots are now nearly perfect circles.
I use some in the shop, but they're exclusively ones where the head can be a full-depth socket, at least as deep as the screw threading is wide. And when I have to tighten or loosen a hex head, it's always with a T-handle wrench to ensure I've got the thing squared.
I use some in the shop, but they're exclusively ones where the head can be a full-depth socket, at least as deep as the screw threading is wide. And when I have to tighten or loosen a hex head, it's always with a T-handle wrench to ensure I've got the thing squared.
Pentalobe is simply there to make repairs harder.
Torx was specifically designed to allow transferring more torque with less wear and not meant for user hostility. It was certainly used that way for some time in some applications (while in others Torx was chosen mainly for its original intended purpose), but I'd say nowadays the bits are so common that it's not really effective as an annoyance for the user.
Torx was specifically designed to allow transferring more torque with less wear and not meant for user hostility. It was certainly used that way for some time in some applications (while in others Torx was chosen mainly for its original intended purpose), but I'd say nowadays the bits are so common that it's not really effective as an annoyance for the user.
The patent on Torx ran out a few years ago if I remember correctly, and I have any Torx bit at home for small devices, while only missing the bit for wood screws and larger.
Torx can take more torque than a hex (due to the much smaller driving angle at the tool/bolt contact point). Bolts that take the same torque can thus have a thinner head.
Aluminium is weak as piss. I get verbally abused by our machinist for simply asking for an M2 tapped hole. Even on a CNC, your tap can break during a run and you will have a vey bad day. How any of those tiny screw holes is machined in mass production is beyond me.
I did a fair amount of threads as small as M1.2 in aluminium and brass by hand. You absolutely want to use two number sets of taps (undersize and finishing) for that.
Second the call for quality screwdrivers.
You might be encountering thread locker too. You’ll notice a residue on the threads of screws.
I’ve used a narrow tip on a hot air reflow gun to heat up fasteners I know have a thread locker on them. Do need to be aware of what is heat sensitive and how the hearts spreading. Is sometimes not an option.
You might be encountering thread locker too. You’ll notice a residue on the threads of screws.
I’ve used a narrow tip on a hot air reflow gun to heat up fasteners I know have a thread locker on them. Do need to be aware of what is heat sensitive and how the hearts spreading. Is sometimes not an option.
Give rusty screws a shot of WD40 and let soak for a while. Overnight if it's really bad. Clean the WD40 off the screw before starting to unscrew, then proceed as required.
I use Wiha screwdrivers for that very reason. Buy some good, German ones; inspect your old ones, and give most of them away.
I recently bought an antique chair, literally from the 1800s. It is a little thing, probably a child's chair. One of the legs broke. At first I was sad since it was a nice buy ($15?) and fit exactly into a little space I had for it. I mean, it survives a hundred years and then gets broken by my idiocy within weeks? Then I had a look. The thing is put together with no screws. It's literally a friction fit for every one of the 4 legs and cross braces. So fixing it is as easy as spinning up a wood lathe and making a new leg. And it turns out...it has been repaired already. This is why it has lasted 100 years.
Chair of Theseus...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
like most GA planes. Eventually you'll replace _almost_ everything in them :)
Quite possibly it was green woodworking. When the greenwood dries, it increase the tightness of the joining.
>So fixing it is as easy as spinning up a wood lathe and making a new leg.
Which, for 99.99% of humanity, equates to "not easy".
Which, for 99.99% of humanity, equates to "not easy".
That's just if you want to match the actual leg style. A round stick of wood with a hole in the right spot would technically work :-)
I don't have a lathe, but when I run across one, I'll give it a go, or ask a friend.
I don't have a lathe, but when I run across one, I'll give it a go, or ask a friend.
The trick is hand carving the pegs exactly the right size to friction fit in the hole. Without a lathe that is tall ask.
But also I wonder if they didn't include some glue to hold that chair together originally. Screws in furniture are mostly just there to keep the thing together while the glue cures.
But also I wonder if they didn't include some glue to hold that chair together originally. Screws in furniture are mostly just there to keep the thing together while the glue cures.
From the old wood work I've seen around the house, most appear to have glue with a wood dowel, pin, or shim to lock the glued piece into place while it dries, and aren't applying excess pressure to the grain causing a split piece of wood.
Yeah, on said antique chair there is some old wood glue. I imagine the friction joints wore down over time and the glue was poorly slopped in in an attempt to keep the thing together, but that glue, too, failed. I suspect the original did not have glue.
Things wear down, and about the only thing you can hope for is replaceable parts. Chair of Theseus, indeed!
Things wear down, and about the only thing you can hope for is replaceable parts. Chair of Theseus, indeed!
I recently had the unfortunate experience of attempting to recycle a Sonicair toothbrush. The "disassembly" process to extract the (dead) battery did not work as advertised, and I had to attack the case with several additional implements of destruction besides a hammer. I was shocked at how difficult it was. There is absolutely no way that the average consumer is going to succeed in extracting the battery, and so all those toxic materials are going to end up in landfills. Unfortunately, I've also tried many other electric toothbrushes and none of them work as well as my Sonicair. So I'm left with the horrible choice of either polluting the environment or settling for substandard care for my teeth.
:-( :-( :-(
:-( :-( :-(
> There is absolutely no way that the average consumer is going to succeed in extracting the battery, and so all those toxic materials are going to end up in landfills.
Only if your country / region's waste processing sucks. There are separate hand-in points for things like electronics, and garbage should be sorted before yote into landfill to sort out recyclables and toxins. I believe that they can't just put chemical waste (e.g. batteries) into landfills in most countries.
Only if your country / region's waste processing sucks. There are separate hand-in points for things like electronics, and garbage should be sorted before yote into landfill to sort out recyclables and toxins. I believe that they can't just put chemical waste (e.g. batteries) into landfills in most countries.
Even the most basic municipal landfill is lined, capped, and waterproofed such that even hazardous materials that might end up there aren't "polluting the environment".
There are reasons to sort out certain waste, usually as a precaution to chemical reactions, but not leeching, but its mistaken to assume only "toxic" waste is isolated from the environment,
The reason they are called "sanitary" landfills is that they already safely contain concentrated sewage, and prevent it from infiltrating water supplies.
There are reasons to sort out certain waste, usually as a precaution to chemical reactions, but not leeching, but its mistaken to assume only "toxic" waste is isolated from the environment,
The reason they are called "sanitary" landfills is that they already safely contain concentrated sewage, and prevent it from infiltrating water supplies.
I think "Design for repair" (based on post link) is a better title than "The last design you'll ever make"
Interesting that he mentions the Dave Smith Instruments (now Sequential) Prophet 12. I have a Prophet P08, and have opened it up to repair it, and it is a work of design elegance. It contains five boards, each connected via an easily removed ribbon cable, attached to a metal body with just a few screws. You can trivially remove all the boards, and in fact I did exactly this to ship the boards to the company for a minor repair rather than shipping the entire unit.
Another work of design beauty was the NeXTstation, NeXT's pizza-box shaped workstation. A solid magnesium case with an elegant molded heat sink on bottom, opens with a single screw in the back. Inside there's a fan (two screws), a power supply attached directly to the case over the heat sink (one screw), a mount for the floppy drive (one screw), a mount for the hard drive (one screw), and the motherboard (one or two screws). And that's it -- that's the entire thing! You can break down the entire machine in less than five minutes. Did I mention it's made of solid magnesium?
How NeXT/Apple has fallen.
Another work of design beauty was the NeXTstation, NeXT's pizza-box shaped workstation. A solid magnesium case with an elegant molded heat sink on bottom, opens with a single screw in the back. Inside there's a fan (two screws), a power supply attached directly to the case over the heat sink (one screw), a mount for the floppy drive (one screw), a mount for the hard drive (one screw), and the motherboard (one or two screws). And that's it -- that's the entire thing! You can break down the entire machine in less than five minutes. Did I mention it's made of solid magnesium?
How NeXT/Apple has fallen.
But compare the NeXT Station to the current Mac Pro. This is a similar product with similar use cases and price tag.
The current Mac Pro gets a 9/10 repairability score on iFixit[1]
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Pro+2019+Teardown/128922
The current Mac Pro gets a 9/10 repairability score on iFixit[1]
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Pro+2019+Teardown/128922
The iFixit team clearly has not been asked to remove the WiFi from those Mac Pros.
Funny, I have a DSI PolyEvolver, and when one voice decided to go on the fritz with an intermittent issue, I couldn't find a schematic anywhere (that's because DSI hasn't made a technical service manual available for years). Not that other synth manufacturers are more forthcoming with service manuals, but they are at least "available", which helps immensely when troubleshooting. DSI was very helpful, but in the end, the issue turned out to be a lead-free solder joint issue on one the DSP legs (early lead-free solder was prone to cracking under repeated heating and cooling cycles).
Not sure what the article is implying by saying the Prophet has interesting silkscreen designs or instructions - that may help remove the right components to send back to DSI, but doesn't help someone diagnose and repair the board themselves. Oh, also, I have successfully replaced the battery in a Sonicare toothbrush without destroying it - still working to this day.
Not sure what the article is implying by saying the Prophet has interesting silkscreen designs or instructions - that may help remove the right components to send back to DSI, but doesn't help someone diagnose and repair the board themselves. Oh, also, I have successfully replaced the battery in a Sonicare toothbrush without destroying it - still working to this day.
If you get frustrated with your PolyEvolver, feel free to ship it directly to me :-)
Seriously though, I build patch editors in my spare time (https://github.com/eclab/edisyn) and would really like to make an editor for the PolyEvolver.
Seriously though, I build patch editors in my spare time (https://github.com/eclab/edisyn) and would really like to make an editor for the PolyEvolver.
The PolyEvolver is one of my favourites - the sounds haven't 'aged' much, unlike most of the 90s synths; would be difficult to let that one go!
Woah - you wrote and maintain Edisyn? Excellent software, and pretty much vital to the productivity (and sanity) of synthesists worldwide; thanks very much for your work!
I use Edisyn for my Kawai K3 (which has an unusable button-and-dial interface for wavetable editing), although it's not on your list in GitHub for some reason. I have the SoundTower PolyEvolver editor, and it's quite functional (albeit within a quirky interface). It also 'unlocks' custom user wavetables, which is helpful. Not sure if that influences your decision to tackle another editor, but I'm sure it would round out your DSI list (and the MonoEvolver would be a natural leader/follower).
Woah - you wrote and maintain Edisyn? Excellent software, and pretty much vital to the productivity (and sanity) of synthesists worldwide; thanks very much for your work!
I use Edisyn for my Kawai K3 (which has an unusable button-and-dial interface for wavetable editing), although it's not on your list in GitHub for some reason. I have the SoundTower PolyEvolver editor, and it's quite functional (albeit within a quirky interface). It also 'unlocks' custom user wavetables, which is helpful. Not sure if that influences your decision to tackle another editor, but I'm sure it would round out your DSI list (and the MonoEvolver would be a natural leader/follower).
Yes, I wrote Edisyn. Hmm, Edisyn has never had a K3 editor; it's on my list if I ever come across a unit. It's got a K1, K4 and K5 editor. How are you using Edisyn with your K3?
Apologies - I just looked for the software and can't seem to find it on my machine - may have been on an old iPad, but not likely to have been your excellent software.
I as almost able to get a K3m locally a while back, but no... :-(
Very trivial to include a bill of materials and/or a link to the schematic on most PCB's I do it with all my industrial designs but it doesnt necessarily help if 99% of the logic is in the microcontroller flash unless you also publish documented source code. Once you've done that it is game over as a business as it will be copied mercilessly unless you have some sort of "platform as a service" or ability to exclude copies.
A BOM would be lovely and glad that you include a link right on the board, but isn't a showstopper - most components are fairly obvious on inspection/testing (not so much when manufacturers sand off/exclude/obscure IC identifiers), but a list would definitely be a huge timesaver. A schematic is almost essential though - I think the PolyEvolver board is 6 layers and would take ages to map out.
Oddly enough, someone else mentioned the other day that Sequential started a cloud-based service for converting wavetables to a usable format for the new Pro3 [0] - it's free now, but maybe a service after DSI was bought out by Focusrite?
As for source code, updates are still downloadable from DSI, plus the microcontroller has an I2C or JTAG interface and isn't protected AFAIK; wouldn't be overly difficult to extract the source (albeit in machine code). I think I previously ordered backups of the DSP and microcontroller when they were still available - just in case, but there are a bunch of components that aren't available from DSI or supply shops anymore (e.g., the custom CEM chips). I think that's an aspect of the right to repair that may be overlooked - component availability.
[0]: https://www.sequentialwaves.com/
Oddly enough, someone else mentioned the other day that Sequential started a cloud-based service for converting wavetables to a usable format for the new Pro3 [0] - it's free now, but maybe a service after DSI was bought out by Focusrite?
As for source code, updates are still downloadable from DSI, plus the microcontroller has an I2C or JTAG interface and isn't protected AFAIK; wouldn't be overly difficult to extract the source (albeit in machine code). I think I previously ordered backups of the DSP and microcontroller when they were still available - just in case, but there are a bunch of components that aren't available from DSI or supply shops anymore (e.g., the custom CEM chips). I think that's an aspect of the right to repair that may be overlooked - component availability.
[0]: https://www.sequentialwaves.com/
[deleted]
Adding my experience (automotive components engineer for OEMs).
There is currently no push to make parts repairable.
What our cusomers (OEMs) care is: price, safety, reliability, quality, performance, compliance to standards, fast developmnent, fast introduction to production
In my 20 year career I never ever got a request regarding making parts repairable. The target is that the part must not break down in the life of the product (10-15 years). After that nobody cares.
We are more or less moving away from screwing parts together - instead of this welding/gluing/press fiting joints are used. This is just to save 0.1-0.2 € per part by removing few screws, using lower quality polymeric materials, etc. (the cost of complete assembly for OEM is in the range of 20-30€).
As long as the part is cheap, meets performance, safety, life requirements the OEMs are happy.
Until there will be no law that will require manufacturers to make parts repairable nothing will change. We as parts suppliers will strive to make parts as reliable as possible, but just enough to meet life requirements and not comprimise safety.
There is currently no push to make parts repairable.
What our cusomers (OEMs) care is: price, safety, reliability, quality, performance, compliance to standards, fast developmnent, fast introduction to production
In my 20 year career I never ever got a request regarding making parts repairable. The target is that the part must not break down in the life of the product (10-15 years). After that nobody cares.
We are more or less moving away from screwing parts together - instead of this welding/gluing/press fiting joints are used. This is just to save 0.1-0.2 € per part by removing few screws, using lower quality polymeric materials, etc. (the cost of complete assembly for OEM is in the range of 20-30€).
As long as the part is cheap, meets performance, safety, life requirements the OEMs are happy.
Until there will be no law that will require manufacturers to make parts repairable nothing will change. We as parts suppliers will strive to make parts as reliable as possible, but just enough to meet life requirements and not comprimise safety.
In terms of automotive manufacturing, I've heard it said: "Cars aren't designed to be easily repaired. They're designed to be easily assembled, once."
The article links to the Billy disassembly instructions (https://rabbitholeprodorch001.blob.core.windows.net/plugins/...)
I thought this a great idea until I have seen step 5. This step is exactly the reason why I opened the document as every other step is straight forward. "Just magically remove the 18 nails that you hammered into the back." If you have ever tried to do that you have noticed that this is hard to do without damaging yourself or your furniture. On the same level the instructions could tell me to remove the glue or unweld a seam.
The disassembly instructions are not more than the assembly in descending order.
I thought this a great idea until I have seen step 5. This step is exactly the reason why I opened the document as every other step is straight forward. "Just magically remove the 18 nails that you hammered into the back." If you have ever tried to do that you have noticed that this is hard to do without damaging yourself or your furniture. On the same level the instructions could tell me to remove the glue or unweld a seam.
The disassembly instructions are not more than the assembly in descending order.
Unwelding is just grinding out the weld and maybe some of the other heat affected zone. It isn't super uncommon.
Perhaps you didn't have the right tool to remove the nails, or they had just been freshly installed. Their grip strength in particle board / chip board isn't that strong, and with just a little play it is easy to slip a small pry bar under the head. Something like the little one here will help a lot: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Dasco-Pro-7-5-in-Ultra-Bar-II-wi...
To be fair, those are just little brads that just hold the backing on, which is a step above cardboard. I think it wouldn't be too hard to remove them with a nail puller while keeping the front unblemished.
Just use the backing as the nail puller, soft kick from inside the cabinet does it just fine.
Haven’t done this with a Billy in particular, but in my experience flimsy backings give out before the nails do.
Slip a putty knife between the backing and the nails and use it to pry.
If the backing fails then you can remove the nails using a pair of pliers but you'll need to find a new backing.
This of course assumes the person who assembled the furniture originally didn't use glue on all of the joints like I do. I've found that if you glue all of the joints in a flat pack when building it the expected lifetime can be improved by an order of magnitude or more, especially if you're moving it around regularly. Seriously it is night and day between the wobbly one you only followed the directions on and completely solid one that's fully glued.
If the backing fails then you can remove the nails using a pair of pliers but you'll need to find a new backing.
This of course assumes the person who assembled the furniture originally didn't use glue on all of the joints like I do. I've found that if you glue all of the joints in a flat pack when building it the expected lifetime can be improved by an order of magnitude or more, especially if you're moving it around regularly. Seriously it is night and day between the wobbly one you only followed the directions on and completely solid one that's fully glued.
For electronic devices, this would also mean the ability to load on your own SW on any processor. That means the manufacturer needs to provide the toolchain, relevant specs, and source code (basically whatever they used for development) in escrow. Additionally, many updates are now cryptographically signed which means you'd need to put keys in escrow that get released when support from the manufacturer ends (which itself has serious security implications since the escrow holder, in addition to the manufacturer, now has root access to all devices).
This is actually very hard to define. Ideally it would also include any code that's updateable including firmware, but then are you including things like CPU firmware?
This is actually very hard to define. Ideally it would also include any code that's updateable including firmware, but then are you including things like CPU firmware?
They could transfer escrow to a trusted international org that can provide keys to users.
I've been using some Leopold mechanical keyboards for 10 years now. I've had one dead keyswitch and one chattering one, and both were extremely easy replacements, needing just a little bit of soldering.
I've been preaching this exact thing for a long time. Little annoys me more than a design that is not repairable.
As an aside, Österreich has two R's, and "Österreich Post" isn't inflected correctly, and would more likely be something like "Österreichische Post" (depending on the context, but mixing languages makes inflection weird).
I've been preaching this exact thing for a long time. Little annoys me more than a design that is not repairable.
As an aside, Österreich has two R's, and "Österreich Post" isn't inflected correctly, and would more likely be something like "Österreichische Post" (depending on the context, but mixing languages makes inflection weird).
I ordered a Framework laptop and hope that this the laptop that will stay for decades with me till I die.
https://frame.work
https://frame.work
As an American I learned a lot from this article. The idea of encouraging product design that is specifically repairable with the same parts that went into it during the initial manufacturing seems like an obviously great idea, but I know enough about planned obsolescence to know why that isn't the world we live in. The examples here about irreversible disassembly (breaking things) was also eye opening. It makes perfect sense but I had never considered or really noticed this phenomenon. Of course it should be possible to take an electric toothbrush completely apart and recycle the components, but that's often so difficult that the entire thing gets thrown away, wasting all the components, recyclable or not.
I am sensitive to environmental problems but hadn't ever really thought about it at the level of these products, thinking such waste was just an inevitable feature of Capitalism. I'm very heartened to learn that there is a legislative effort in the EU, however nascent, to try and change these patterns and create a better future through design. I will never think about "right to repair" the same way again.
I am sensitive to environmental problems but hadn't ever really thought about it at the level of these products, thinking such waste was just an inevitable feature of Capitalism. I'm very heartened to learn that there is a legislative effort in the EU, however nascent, to try and change these patterns and create a better future through design. I will never think about "right to repair" the same way again.
I remember watching a video by industry insider taking apart Tesla and VW electric motors and comparing them. And he was constantly complaining that VW uses too many bolts and screws where they could make snap-in connections that are cheaper and less likely to vibrate loose.
Like there wasn't even a thought in his mind that making it possible to disassemble and reassemble an engine is a good thing.
Like there wasn't even a thought in his mind that making it possible to disassemble and reassemble an engine is a good thing.
Kind of an aside, but can anyone recommend an online (preferably free) product/industrial design class? I am interested in learning about making a physical product, something like furniture or small consumer goods. Just curious but havent found a good one on edx or the like yet...
Not a class or course per-se, but I've found the New Yankee Workshop TV show to be really helpful and informative:
https://www.newyankee.com/watch/
https://www.newyankee.com/watch/
I think one of the better examples of design-for-repair is mid-century cars. They are spacious to work on, few special tools are necessary beyond the usual things you can find in a machine shop, and parts and documentation are plentiful. Of course it could be argued that they had to be, because they were designed for periodic maintenance rather than to last a "lifetime" without.
Nobody does design for disassembly better than the Phillips Sonicare toothbrush, whose manual notes "this process is not reversible" before graphically wrapping the toothbrush in a cloth and smashing with a hammer to access the battery.
I've seen ones where the bottom is screwed on and they supply the "wrench" as part of the base, although it is intended for "recycling":
http://www.davidgunter.com/2021/01/25/braun-oral-b-electric-...
Thinking about the design, it's clear that they actively designed against you replacing the batteries or attempting to repair --- instead of a simple threaded cap with an o-ring for sealing and spring contacts for the battery inside, like a flashlight or vape mod, they decided to solder the battery and make it harder to or even impossible to open non-destructively. In other words, they decided to make their own assembly process slightly harder as well.
Nobody does design for disassembly better than the Phillips Sonicare toothbrush, whose manual notes "this process is not reversible" before graphically wrapping the toothbrush in a cloth and smashing with a hammer to access the battery.
I've seen ones where the bottom is screwed on and they supply the "wrench" as part of the base, although it is intended for "recycling":
http://www.davidgunter.com/2021/01/25/braun-oral-b-electric-...
Thinking about the design, it's clear that they actively designed against you replacing the batteries or attempting to repair --- instead of a simple threaded cap with an o-ring for sealing and spring contacts for the battery inside, like a flashlight or vape mod, they decided to solder the battery and make it harder to or even impossible to open non-destructively. In other words, they decided to make their own assembly process slightly harder as well.
Sometimes documentation can be redundant. Strip down an Anker USB cable and you'll find four coloured-coded wires: red, black, green and white. Presumably this helps during the assembly process, but it also makes repair work a breeze. UK and EU mains wiring is similarly colour coded. Software developers will joke about self-documenting code that's so clear it doesn't even need comments. Maybe this is the hardware equivalent?
The only axiom that holds true is a cable’s wiring is only how it probes out, and whether that is correct or not is an exercise for the engineer to determine.
- Top image search results for USB wiring show green and white flipped, and they are not wrong, because they often are. The standard is only between the connectors, the exact wiring doesn’t matter if it works.
- Cheap cables won’t have a black wire, they reuse the cable shield as ground return. Funnily enough, cheap cables also use a cheap shield bread which isn’t flex appropriate, so 95% this will fail first.
- Cheap products that come with their own appropriately cheap USB cable often take liberties with USB standards, such as actually using the connector shield as ground return and leave the ground pin disconnect, because they know their product does this internally. You will have a great day when you pull this cable out of your draw.
The only axiom that holds true is a cable’s wiring is only how it probes out, and whether that is correct or not is an exercise for the engineer to determine.
- Top image search results for USB wiring show green and white flipped, and they are not wrong, because they often are. The standard is only between the connectors, the exact wiring doesn’t matter if it works.
- Cheap cables won’t have a black wire, they reuse the cable shield as ground return. Funnily enough, cheap cables also use a cheap shield bread which isn’t flex appropriate, so 95% this will fail first.
- Cheap products that come with their own appropriately cheap USB cable often take liberties with USB standards, such as actually using the connector shield as ground return and leave the ground pin disconnect, because they know their product does this internally. You will have a great day when you pull this cable out of your draw.
The linked PDF about illegal build configurations in LEGO was an interesting read: http://casadebricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Stressing...
For those who like to read more about designing for product EOL, I highly encourage Ends. by Joe MacLeod.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35857076-ends
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35857076-ends
Aside from all of the planned obsolescence that others are talking about in the comments (which rightfully deserves discussion), i can't help but to feel like this hardly works for information and communication technology devices - smartphones, tablets, laptops/netbooks, desktop computers, consoles etc.
The industry as a whole has this odd desire to always push for better hardware and newer things, to the point where Windows 11 refused to support older AMD processors and whatnot. At the same time, Android 8.1 (the OS on one of my older phones) has been abandoned and thus makes the device not an entirely viable backup phone; unless i'm okay with running insecure software, or want to install custom ROMs that will break things, especially in the case of a non-mainstream vendor.
To me, it feels like we should stop forcing progress before its time has come, which we currently do with better hardware that is used in suboptimal ways and tossing aside everything that can't keep up, as opposed to actually investing decades to write better software.
Right now, my desktop PC has a 1st gen Ryzen 3 1200. If it were not for the OS, the browser and almost every piece of software and even game that i want to play becoming more bloated, i could safely use it for a decade with no issues, Wirth's law be damned. In my servers i have 200GEs that are similarly old and yet, are fully sufficient for my homelab needs, but eventually you won't be able to buy any old new stock for reasonable prices, because AMD will be off chasing whatever new skew or technology they need to remain competitive.
Even Firefox, the browser that was supposed to be "the good one" (e.g. default in most Linux distros, less controversial than Chrome/Chromium) got noticeably worse sometime around the Quantum upgrade in regards to its RAM usage, even when you limit its content process count to just 1. Similarly, it feels like most IDEs nowadays are also somewhat heavyweight - why can't i have exceedingly boring looking software that has a lot of the smart autocomplete that i'd expect, yet doesn't slow the whole machine down when things need to be re-rendered because of a non-native UI toolkit? Just look at how snappy Lazarus is: https://www.lazarus-ide.org/ And yet, i cannot feasibly do webdev or many projects with it, because no hype means no new tools, no ecosystem support and so on, so i'm essentially dragged along to use whatever the modern tech choices are, like JetBrains products which are admittedly otherwise great and allow me to work with almost every popular tech stack, yet still eat lots of RAM.
I guess this is less of a rant and more of a question to the people here: how do you fight back against this supposed progress, that somehow manages to couple security updates and feature updates with otherwise unnecessary bells, whistles and unreasonable amount of browser tech and whitespace in most software? How do you fight back against your hand being forced to create e-waste?
Do you use Alpine, Debian (LXDE, LXQt or even XFCE) or another lightweight Linux distro (or even something of the BSD variety) as a daily driver and live with the fact that some software and most of gaming will often be a no-go (about 30/120 games that i have on Steam are even supported on Linux)? Do you do complicated setups with Windows VMs and GPU passthrough and relative mouse movement modes or something? Maybe you try to cut down your Windows installs as much as possible, removing bloat regularly, attempting to match Microsoft's ability to put it in, in combination with dual booting? Or do you just have a dedicated machine or two that (hopefully) aren't connected to the network and run EOL software (i've personally seen folks doing that with Windows XP), thus freeing you from updates that do things that you don't want? Or is there a really nice solution that i'm not aware of?
The industry as a whole has this odd desire to always push for better hardware and newer things, to the point where Windows 11 refused to support older AMD processors and whatnot. At the same time, Android 8.1 (the OS on one of my older phones) has been abandoned and thus makes the device not an entirely viable backup phone; unless i'm okay with running insecure software, or want to install custom ROMs that will break things, especially in the case of a non-mainstream vendor.
To me, it feels like we should stop forcing progress before its time has come, which we currently do with better hardware that is used in suboptimal ways and tossing aside everything that can't keep up, as opposed to actually investing decades to write better software.
Right now, my desktop PC has a 1st gen Ryzen 3 1200. If it were not for the OS, the browser and almost every piece of software and even game that i want to play becoming more bloated, i could safely use it for a decade with no issues, Wirth's law be damned. In my servers i have 200GEs that are similarly old and yet, are fully sufficient for my homelab needs, but eventually you won't be able to buy any old new stock for reasonable prices, because AMD will be off chasing whatever new skew or technology they need to remain competitive.
Even Firefox, the browser that was supposed to be "the good one" (e.g. default in most Linux distros, less controversial than Chrome/Chromium) got noticeably worse sometime around the Quantum upgrade in regards to its RAM usage, even when you limit its content process count to just 1. Similarly, it feels like most IDEs nowadays are also somewhat heavyweight - why can't i have exceedingly boring looking software that has a lot of the smart autocomplete that i'd expect, yet doesn't slow the whole machine down when things need to be re-rendered because of a non-native UI toolkit? Just look at how snappy Lazarus is: https://www.lazarus-ide.org/ And yet, i cannot feasibly do webdev or many projects with it, because no hype means no new tools, no ecosystem support and so on, so i'm essentially dragged along to use whatever the modern tech choices are, like JetBrains products which are admittedly otherwise great and allow me to work with almost every popular tech stack, yet still eat lots of RAM.
I guess this is less of a rant and more of a question to the people here: how do you fight back against this supposed progress, that somehow manages to couple security updates and feature updates with otherwise unnecessary bells, whistles and unreasonable amount of browser tech and whitespace in most software? How do you fight back against your hand being forced to create e-waste?
Do you use Alpine, Debian (LXDE, LXQt or even XFCE) or another lightweight Linux distro (or even something of the BSD variety) as a daily driver and live with the fact that some software and most of gaming will often be a no-go (about 30/120 games that i have on Steam are even supported on Linux)? Do you do complicated setups with Windows VMs and GPU passthrough and relative mouse movement modes or something? Maybe you try to cut down your Windows installs as much as possible, removing bloat regularly, attempting to match Microsoft's ability to put it in, in combination with dual booting? Or do you just have a dedicated machine or two that (hopefully) aren't connected to the network and run EOL software (i've personally seen folks doing that with Windows XP), thus freeing you from updates that do things that you don't want? Or is there a really nice solution that i'm not aware of?
I have had similar feelings, and these were made worse when I realized that my XT is actually still perfectly fit for most things people need to do (read some text or send some text on the web, word processing, spreadsheets, email). It can even do these things graphically and with low res photos via Windows 3. This means that for most people, new computers were not truly necessary. Obviously, for any large photos or for video that has even a decent quality, an XT is not enough.
This particular problem generates hundreds of millions of tons of e-waste every single year. The constant churn strips resources during production, and it pollutes during production and disposal as most of this waste is just tossed to the third world and never truly dealt with.
A major driving force behind all of this churn is actually financial. The global financial system is run by a debt based currency. More of this currency is created constantly due to fractional reserve lending, and due to government spending (all government spending in the current system creates money, and the government bonds are treated as an asset by central governments against which still more money is lent and thus created in fractional reserve systems, US dollars are then used by foreign banks as an asset to create still more money). With constant inflation, money must go somewhere. If money is sat on it loses value, thus all investment class assets see ever higher climbing valuations and any dip is temporary even though it shouldn’t be. Companies can therefore get billion dollar valuations without even having revenue (in a rational world the value of such a company is zero or even negative), and they can run off of investment despite losing money year over year. When some of these companies finally go bankrupt it’s only a momentary down turn for a given index of stocks, and nothing else really happens. This is also why, despite the 2008 crash, the housing market is still bananas and over valued. Money must go somewhere and as investors get wary of stocks they drive funds into housing. People buy properties without even seeing them because they know that land at least has some value and inflation is getting stupid… they need to put their money _somewhere_. When people have no real method of holding value and are also too poor to invest, they are incentivized to spend. If some bank actually offered interest on savings that was higher than inflation, people might save. As it is, the poor have no recourse. Spend it is. By spending, businesses get a signal to produce. The production will keep increasing in speed until either the global financial system collapses or until too many jobs are eliminated by automation. The companies using such automation to produce will then be driven into bankruptcy (not enough buyers to pay the bills), people will again gain employment (because the automated companies are no more), and the cycle will repeat. The only way to put a stop to recklessness like this is to have money _cost something_. Either governments must be responsible and have low debt to earnings (think Singapore), or countries must have hard currencies where more is only produced when the value is high enough to warrant very expensive mining operations. Such economic conditions allow for savings and more gradual paces of innovation and development where things actually get tested, go through QA, and so on (as opposed to millions of laptops being shipped with keyboards that are broken by bread crumbs or software that is so bad it allows root access if you knock on the door properly). As it is, companies cannot do those things lest they miss revenue targets and lose whatever the inflation rate is in real terms year over year.
As for dealing with it? I just accept that I will have lower performance starting year 2 of ownership of any new device, and on-going until it is finally not truly usable in the modern world.
This particular problem generates hundreds of millions of tons of e-waste every single year. The constant churn strips resources during production, and it pollutes during production and disposal as most of this waste is just tossed to the third world and never truly dealt with.
A major driving force behind all of this churn is actually financial. The global financial system is run by a debt based currency. More of this currency is created constantly due to fractional reserve lending, and due to government spending (all government spending in the current system creates money, and the government bonds are treated as an asset by central governments against which still more money is lent and thus created in fractional reserve systems, US dollars are then used by foreign banks as an asset to create still more money). With constant inflation, money must go somewhere. If money is sat on it loses value, thus all investment class assets see ever higher climbing valuations and any dip is temporary even though it shouldn’t be. Companies can therefore get billion dollar valuations without even having revenue (in a rational world the value of such a company is zero or even negative), and they can run off of investment despite losing money year over year. When some of these companies finally go bankrupt it’s only a momentary down turn for a given index of stocks, and nothing else really happens. This is also why, despite the 2008 crash, the housing market is still bananas and over valued. Money must go somewhere and as investors get wary of stocks they drive funds into housing. People buy properties without even seeing them because they know that land at least has some value and inflation is getting stupid… they need to put their money _somewhere_. When people have no real method of holding value and are also too poor to invest, they are incentivized to spend. If some bank actually offered interest on savings that was higher than inflation, people might save. As it is, the poor have no recourse. Spend it is. By spending, businesses get a signal to produce. The production will keep increasing in speed until either the global financial system collapses or until too many jobs are eliminated by automation. The companies using such automation to produce will then be driven into bankruptcy (not enough buyers to pay the bills), people will again gain employment (because the automated companies are no more), and the cycle will repeat. The only way to put a stop to recklessness like this is to have money _cost something_. Either governments must be responsible and have low debt to earnings (think Singapore), or countries must have hard currencies where more is only produced when the value is high enough to warrant very expensive mining operations. Such economic conditions allow for savings and more gradual paces of innovation and development where things actually get tested, go through QA, and so on (as opposed to millions of laptops being shipped with keyboards that are broken by bread crumbs or software that is so bad it allows root access if you knock on the door properly). As it is, companies cannot do those things lest they miss revenue targets and lose whatever the inflation rate is in real terms year over year.
As for dealing with it? I just accept that I will have lower performance starting year 2 of ownership of any new device, and on-going until it is finally not truly usable in the modern world.
They show a Playstation 3 controller in the article, which is actually easy to get into... if you don't strip the screws. Just a few seconds of using a PH0 bit instead of the required PH00 the other day lost me a controller that probably could have been saved. Is this a case of bad tools? I can definitely believe that when tackling rusty, big screws: larger and higher quality screwdrivers with good grips definitely made the difference for me in the past. But for precision jobs, I have no clue what I'm doing wrong. I was using an iFixit driver kit for this job. How do you avoid this? Do you absolutely have to know the exact bit to use for every screw beforehand? Is just guessing "eh, this looks about right" just asking for trouble?
The much maligned in right-to-repair circles Torx and Apple pentalobe screws are actually great for me. Never in my life I ruined one of those, where sometimes I feel like I damage one out of five Philips or flat head screws I attempt to unscrew.