Sure, Samsung is bad, but not sure why iFixit pretends to be the embodiment of right to repair. In my opinion they have harmed the cause more than anything else: instead of actual repair material (like schematics or low/high level servicing manuals) they are selling half-devices. And whoever supplies those half devices is called the repairability-king of the day. Neither Nokia, nor any other of their partners are any better. Fairy dust all around, without actual repairability :(
(But I guess it works for everyone: iFixit gets sales, $BRAND gets positive PR. And the customer gets some feel good news. Not actual repairability, but almost as good, I guess)
Products are simply built in a way that true low level repairs are impractical (ie: more expensive than replacing the device), and replacing bulk components is the only viable option. iFixit advocates for better repairability that would make individual component repair processes viable.
iFixit is not really about hobbyists doing tinkering repairs. It's for consumers who want more out of their devices and business in the repair ecosystem. That is the bulk of the community and iFixit doesn't have an obligation leave room in the conversation for others.
That's one of the most important point of the right-to-repair movement. Devices are intentionally made unrepairable. And iFixit, by supporting these devices, doesn't help anyone, but themselves. While right-to-repair doesn't exclude everyday folks, it is about the possibility to repair your devices, either DIY (if you have the skills), or by going to a professional. But as it stands today, a device only lives as long the manufacturer wants it to, and not as long as one would want to use it.
On a related note, the devices are actually repairable, if you have the know how. Have you noticed that Samsung and Apple are very happy to sell refurbished phones at discounted prices? If they would really contain 1.5 phones' worth of parts, selling them at a discount would be crazy... of course if they just change a blown cap, that brings down the extra cost to $0.0001, which doesn't sound that bad anymore.
> In my opinion they have harmed the cause more than anything else: instead of actual repair material (like schematics or low/high level servicing manuals)
Not sure I understand this take.
$BRAND's role is to sell devices. IFixit's role is to make repairs more accessible to the average Joe. Obviously for more tech-literate device owners this might not be needed, but everyone else it is.
The incentives for this dynamic are pretty confusing (understandably). $BRAND and IFixit need to work together for repairability to work, but companies don't really have a strong business incentive to do this outside of regulation.
Obviously nothing about this dynamic is perfect, but the claim that IFixit harms the push for more repairable devices just isn't correct.
> IFixit's role is to make repairs more accessible to the average Joe.
Which is fine, if they would not pose as right-to-repair champions. They claim that selling a phone in 3 parts somehow helps R-T-R, that it's a great step forward. It is not. It doesn't change anything. The device is not any more repairable than any other device.
What they claim basically is that if you buy your TV as separate parts (remote controller, TV and TV stand instead of all of these in one box), that somehow makes the TV repairable. It does not, however.
(But I guess it works for everyone: iFixit gets sales, $BRAND gets positive PR. And the customer gets some feel good news. Not actual repairability, but almost as good, I guess)