this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
104 points (94.1% liked)

Technology

59422 readers
2855 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
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 9 points 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.