The current version of Google’s smartwatch isn’t repairable, but for the first time the company is figuring out how to fix that.
  • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    2 months ago

    Nope. I quit their Google bullshit ages ago. Moto 360 was a brutal betrayal.

    Get a withings scanwatch or something that is “dumb” enough to be an excellent and nice looking watch, hugely long battery life, and has all the health features that matter.

    It looks sharply professional, I charge it once a month, and the updates for it don’t constantly make it run worse to push features in a different part of their product line…

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
    13·
    2 months ago

    Btw there are things called “screws” and they can look cool on a more traditionally male watch or you can put it on the back plate androgynous or female watch. You dont need glue for waterproofing, thats just anti-repair propaganda. Look at every mechanical watch, gshock, garmin, etc they all have screws and 100,200 or even more meters of water resistance. If the battery, screen, back assembly and maybe the buttons are repairable thats already good for a smartwatch.

  • militaryintelligence@lemmy.worldEnglish
    142·
    2 months ago

    Make parts available. Right to repair isn’t wholly about designing products a certain way, but not allowing apple to monopolize certain parts.

  • umami_wasabiEnglish
    71·
    2 months ago

    Actually, how hard can it be? My old cheap ass Casio can have its battery replaced and waterproof already.

    Sure, smartwatches have more bells and whistles but not as complicated as a mechanical watch, right?

      • Teils13@lemmy.eco.brEnglish
        2·
        2 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.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 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 Arc@social.packetloss.ggEnglish
            2·
            2 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.

    • interurbain1er@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      It is. Making anything easier to disassemble requires connectors which are a huge tradeoff in terms of space Vs features. Screws take a whole lot of space especially in something you want as thin as possible such as a watch.

      Nowadays the direction is embedding of passive and even active components directly into the PCB layers and an increase of the number of layers. That means that if any of them fails there’s nothing to be done, or at least not without equipments that cost way too much to be worthwhile to anyone.

      In a few years, microelectronic systems will be mostly just one big custom die with the processing units and all accompanying mosfet, inductors, capacitors and resistors directly etched into a 25 layers PCB with barely any surface mounted components. Even lithium batteries can been embedded and most likely will.

      If you want something totally serviceable you will have to sacrifice on size.

  • ftbd@feddit.orgEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    Seems like something you would think about while, you know, designign a product? And not after its release?