It was my Droid Turbo, which was known for having a shatter-proof screen. In those 12 years, I've only cracked a single one, and there were extenuating circumstances. In my opinion, the concerns are much ado about nothing. The degree of corner cutting going on today to get the smallest possible footprint is insane (and yes, I've opened up a reasonably modern phone the latest being an iPhone XS.) We were perfectly happy with significantly more repairable phones that were not much bulkier. ![]() I also think people are imagining that the result will be phones that all look and feel like the PinePhone (which, BTW, feels pretty nice in my opinion) but honestly, I seriously doubt that's the case. It seems like the perfect place for regulation, because it puts everyone on a level playing field. ![]() I really don't think corporations will magically decide to all agree to stop this completely unsustainable and pointless madness. At best, real meaningful differences occur around every three years or so now. People have been saying this for a while, but it just gets truer every year. Granted, there was obviously rapid progress for quite a while, but it has slowed down a considerable amount it's hard to argue that this year's phone line ups offers something significantly game changing versus last year's. Everyone's just trying to make phones with increasingly greater sex appeal every year so that they can convince consumers to throw out their perfectly working phones. The problem is that today, the incentives are all fucked up. After a couple years of value depreciation, it is often questionable whether it's even worth it. Even with the correct tools, and decent skills, repairing a lot of common issues on modern phones is really expensive and complex. ![]() It would also be great if they were more robust in general. No, it's about making the phones themselves more repairable so that it makes financial sense to have them repaired versus buying new ones all the time. They might say now it's a priority, but when they paid for the machine it clearly wasn't. They went and choose a machine without bothering to consider if the battery was user serviceable. I'm arguing it wasn't really a priority, I'm sure they were plenty satisfied with that device the day they bought it. The knowledge was there, if it was a priority they could have easily known. There were teardown reviews of the MBA almost instantly when it came out. I just didn't bother investigating the specs and figure out there are machines much more suited for my demands. If I claim having a lot of RAM is important for my machine, and then I buy a laptop with 2GB, I can't really go about arguing I didn't have a choice but to buy the 2GB machine. If it was their priority, you'd think they would have bothered checking. ![]() There were laptops on the market with replaceable batteries, it just wasn't really their priority as they claim. No, the poster chose that machine at the time. People are acting like they didn't have a choice but to choose a laptop with a battery glued in. If it was such a priority, there were plenty of options. There were lots of thicker laptops out there with obviously replaceable batteries. The poster claimed to prefer thicker laptops with replaceable batteries.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |