• Dark ArcA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Not as complicated, but the parts are bigger. Few would want an even bigger smart watch just to get repairability.

    • Teils13@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        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 ArcA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months 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.