Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Do we really want our devices to stop working physically, at the chip level, in less than a decade?

Unfortunately, "we" aren't really considered in the decisions. The math from a company's perspective is mostly, "Will this last the expected warranty period?" And, to a lesser extent, "Will the ill will caused by these catastrophically failing right outside warranty be a problem?" See RRoD and such.

But the problem is that "solid state" does wear out - this article is a list of causes of it. It's reasonably true that the older solid state technologies lasted extremely long, but as you start to push them, they don't last as long, and even things like power transistors eventually start to fail - there are a few companies that rebuild old Tesla Roadster power conversion equipment, because the transistors wear out and fail (at least one of those companies seems to regularly burn down their shop as well).

> It would suck so bad if we nickel and dimed what should be fundamentally physically robust devices to last for much less time than complicated mechanical devices from the past.

For you, sure. For the people in business selling replacement, a widget that lasts 30 years is an annoying pain in the ass to them.

GMC used to build transit buses (beautiful aluminum chassis, slanted windows, the works), and eventually stopped. Talking to the bus mechanics when I used to drive, their theory was that GMC couldn't sell new ones, because damned near every single one they'd made was still on the road. They didn't corrode, and a properly maintained chassis would last basically forever. In the early 2000s, we had 40 year old buses that were on their 4th engine, 3rd transmission, up near a million miles. They just kept trucking along.

Now, it seems consumer stuff is lucky to last 5 years before needing major repairs.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: