Guest post by Repairability of electronics is a hot topic when hardware gets discussed, and Dell produced a concept laptop to explore the idea of a highly repairable Dell laptop.
On Tuesday, Dell announced a new design concept for a laptop that’s long lived, easy to take apart and fix, and takes a smaller toll on the climate. It’s a collection of ideas that could go a long way toward making the tech giant’s products more sustainable — depending on whether, and how, Dell decides to implement them.
Called “Concept Luna,” the proof-of-concept laptop dreamed up by Dell’s design team has a number of unusual features that are intended to make repair and maintenance easy. No screwdrivers or glue solvents are needed to pry loose a broken keyboard or peel off a cracked screen; both components simply pop free after a pair of keystones holding them in place are removed. The entire system contains far fewer screws than a typical Dell laptop, reducing the time needed to replace components. And you’ll never have to worry about replacing a broken fan, because there isn’t one: a shrunken-down motherboard placed in the top cover allows the laptop to passively cool itself.
As good as this sounds, there is a red flag.
Dell told The Verge that Concept Luna’s board “doesn’t have any more soldered on or integrated components than a typical laptop we sell today”.
That’s right. Dreams of user replaceable RAM, CPU, and storage are probably going to remain dreams, and consumers are going to be stuck with however the machine was provisioned at build time. Like concept cars, this probably isn’t going to go into production, but the ideas could find their way into future products.
I was waiting for this news to be posted here. (Two days? you are getting slow )
We had several laptops in the recent years, some of them Dells. And by far, they were the most serviceable. They were easy to open with standard tools (torx screws), had ample room inside to work, and many parts were upgradable.
Okay, it seems like advertising the brand. But I feel like I should congratulate a job well done. And this new effort makes it even more hopeful for the future.
(Lenovo: Please read this. Soldered RAM is an abomination. Please stop).
@sukru : not just Lenovo, Asus as well…
But I digress : while Dell computers were pretty much easily upgradable/repairable for a long (long) time (and even provide user maintenance manuals that describes every step to do so) I’d say at that point, who cares ? You can read my comments in those threads :
https://www.osnews.com/story/133094/the-framework-laptop-repairable-upgradeable-sustainable/
https://www.osnews.com/story/133461/framework-laptop-review-hands-on-the-anti-macbook-is-here/
https://www.osnews.com/story/133757/frameworks-modular-repairable-laptop-out-in-the-wild/
In 2012/2013 the Fujitsu project was already paving the road. It took almost 10 years for the market to catch on ? Come on…
And you can fix/repair your device all the way you want (Fairphone, I look at you) but if the software update lags behind, or is boot locked, what’s the point ?
Kochise,
Haven’t bought an ASUS laptop for a long while. But I expect many more manufacturers going onto this wagon, especially after Apple’s M1 did it publicly.
Nevertheless, this particular effort by Dell, plus Microsoft’s recent cooperation with iFixit are good signs. Maybe consumers finally started noticing the benefits of fixable stuff.
sukru,
Yes, they already know, but they don’t care. Upgrading generic components is a viable way to extend a product’s lifecycle, which is bad for manufacturers. Soldering in components means they may save a couple bucks in components, but more importantly it fits into a planned obsolescence strategy. Capitalism is rewarding the corporations who maximize their own profits regardless of things like product longevity, sustainability, environmental destruction, etc.
Alfman,
I would not put the blame on free markets (or the modern capitalism), but rather our human nature.
Of course, I single out Lenovo, not only because I have some of their machines, but they can easily afford to have serviceable offerings. They are not a “discount” producer like the older eMachines.
Yes they are being greedy and/or lazy here.
That being said, I see this as an unfortunate by product of freedom. We have free markets, as we have free elections. And every now and then it produced undesirable results. (It is the same people who buy these inferior machines, who also vote for the politicians to set faulty policies. I have done both, not proud of it).
sukru,
Well, you might additionally blame human nature, but there’s no doubt that the pursuit of profits leads to planned obsolescence too.
The thing to remember about freedom is that it’s actually a relative concept sitting between two competing agendas and that society needs to decide who’s rights are more important in any given case. While not everyone will agree on where to draw the line, one is always implicitly there. Your right to drive recklessly ends at someone else’s right to be safe from your recklessness. You’re right to play a boom box 24×7 is balanced with someone else’s right to sleep in peace. You’re right to relieve yourself ends at someone’s right not to have you pissing in their yard. And so on. The point being rights and restrictions are inherently intertwined.
When it comes to this question of a consumer’s right to repair, the implied restriction is on a corporation’s right to interfere with repairs or upgrades and visa versa. Who’s rights and freedom is more important in this case? In traditional capitalism we get around the problem without answering the question at all by letting the market decide. This can work when the balance of power is even. But if the power is unbalanced in the absence of rules, then the stronger party naturally has all the rights by default. We as a society have to ask ourselves if rights should always be decided by power imbalances as capitalism does. As an example, slavery is easily supported by capitalism, it’s only because society intervened that the right not to be owned triumphed over the right to own someone.
So I hope I’ve made a compelling case for why society cannot always let free markets decide things for us. While I’m not a fan of regulation in principal, for better or worse I recognize that severe imbalances will reshape society around the powerful and that may not be what’s best for a healthy society.
Edit: Hopefully my rant isn’t too O/T, haha.
Alfman,
I get what you are saying. My argument about freedom lacked some nuance I tried to convey.
It is not about freedom of consumers vs producers, but rather for consumer’s own freedom to choose a product… with a soldered RAM. (maybe vs. ecology in that case).
If a nameless bureaucrat were to suddenly ban soldered RAM, that would also disqualify Raspberry PI, almost all phones, game consoles, and many other computing devices.
Or they could go into particulars of what makes a laptop in a legal text, and then we’d see this go to supreme court that could go 50-50 either way. (They decided which companies can produce documentaries with a very peculiar precedent, see: Citizens United v. FEC).
That is why, I see this current state as the lesser of two evils. And really wish consumers demand serviceability with a strong voice.
(Btw, no worries, I think I did my own rant, too).
It shows how braindead and rigged “the market” is when corporates copycat each other to extract maximum wealth and leave the customer and wider economy with an unrepairable turkey on their hands. It’s such a lack of vision and cowardice off nothing men paid millions.