> Now everything is a black box you're expected to never open and if it breaks and the manufacturer doesn't deign to fix it you go to the store and buy another one.
Do you own a PinePhone?
Or do you own a higher-spec, more familiar iPhone or Android that can't be opened up?
It's the second one, isn't it. Who made you choose it?
Yes. Its a piece of junk. Why do I own it? I like to throw my money away on ideals I never actually follow. Its sitting next to my unplayed guitar, my list of books on how to effectively get A's in college (I ended up a C+ student) and my Raspberry Pi that has only ever been powered on once.
I think they're trying to convey "don't throw stones at glass houses." It sounds like they're trying to make the argument that if you're not practicing what you're preaching then you shouldn't preach. Not saying I agree with the sentiment; but I think that's what they're going for.
The reality is that you can have it both ways. I own an iPhone, I know how to build a computer, I buy software, and I know how to code. There is value in understanding how the things you have work, but that doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't buy a high quality product just because you can't take it apart.
The comment I responded to implies a lack of availability of repairable devices. I'm trying to make the point that the market does in fact offer them, but that consumer choice is overwhelmingly in favour of locked-down shiny things -- leading to wild proliferation of the latter. This preference is so strong that even those who complain about the lack of repairability choose locked-down-and-shiny over repairability, perhaps without even consciously realising it.
It's tiring to read again and again about evil external forces wrecking the world, when the choices are our own, and right in front of our faces.
Look, there is a large difference between certain state of the art devices that I would not have a hope of repairing, and things that can be simple to repair like major appliances, cars, etc. I'm currently doing a load of clothes in my washer and drier. They're commercial grade beasts from the 90's, and when they've broken, we've been able to fix them with cheap replacement parts.
But you understand that the quality of those repairdble devices that exist on the mark is far less than the quality of the standard devices on the market because more money goes into their R&D due to the scale of entrenched players and that this means that these goods aren't directly comparable.
I would prefer a scenario where monopolists were broken up and regulators mandated open designs that can be repaired.
The PinePhone still has to be good enough to make it a sensible choice over the iPhone. Ideology can't be the only selling point.
Compare the market success of the PinePhone to the Framework laptop. Their laptops are technically competitive with the Dells and the HPs of the world, while also being repairable.
The PinePhone doesn't even beat the until-recently-current iPhone SE in performance. It's a terrible choice, technically speaking.
The thing is that most of the public demand 2025 technogic “marvels” with the accessibility of the 80’s, for a device like a phone to be able to fit in your pocket and have a battery that can make it run the whole day and beyond some compromises need to be made. https://cdn.pressebox.de/a/48cf30b132272045/attachments/0663...
Let's consider a market that still works basically like it's supposed to: Desktop PCs. You have your ATX standard PC, it came with a Core i3 processor which is getting a little long in the tooth, but you can drop in a Core i7 and double the number of cores. Not only that, the parts are all modular and standard. You take your ten year old i3 6100 dual core, swap out the motherboard and CPU and now it's a 16-core Ryzen 9 5900XT from 2024, but it still supports the same memory, GPU, SSD, chassis, power supply, etc., any of which you could also have independently replaced before or after this.
So now I go and buy a PinePhone, and after a couple years the CPU seems a little anemic. No problem, it's modular, I'll just buy one of those fancy chips they put in the iPhones and put that in there. Or at least the top end things from Samsung or Qualcomm. No? That's not available?
Okay, but at least I can put whatever software I want on it. Now the way this works is, people can improve their own devices in collaboration with other people. Adding a new subsystem to your phone would be a full time job, but it could also be a dozen part time jobs. Somebody does a barebones implementation and throws it on github, then you personally only need it to do one extra thing and all you have to do is add the extra thing instead of starting from scratch, which is a tractable problem instead of a hopeless pipe dream. But when each person contributes a little part, you ultimately end up with a complete implementation. Most of the users don't even have to contribute anything, as long as there is a large enough community of people who do.
Except that 99% of people have locked down devices, so the community is suppressed and then even if you buy the device that allows you to do it, you're the only one working on that subsystem and it's too much work for you to do yourself, so you don't even make the attempt. And then what good is the device?
It's an ecosystem problem. A cultural issue. It can't be just you. You need the default attitude of the common customer to be "this despotism will not stand" and to give the finger to any company that locks you out of your own property. Regardless of whether you personally actually upgrade your own device or write your own code, you need everyone to have the ability to do it, because the alternative is a friction that erodes the community and in turn destroys a backstop against involuntary captivity.
Do you own a PinePhone?
Or do you own a higher-spec, more familiar iPhone or Android that can't be opened up?
It's the second one, isn't it. Who made you choose it?