What it reeks of is Nintendo wanting to make things cheap and sell you multiple of them
That’s the “apple like” planned obsolesence part I was refering to. Think about airpods for example.
The teardown doesn’t touch on part serialization, although the ability to brick your device if they “feel like it” is on PAR with Apple.
Although I’m not sure we should be arguing about which of the two is shittier when both are already deep in non compliance of “modern right to repair regulations (lmao)”
No, big differences at play here. Nintendo won’t plan obsolescence, they will give you a base version at launch (multiple, if they can, since they’re handheld devices and a single family may conceivably want a couple) and then they will iterate on the form factor with a cheaper, slimmer alternative and a bigger, premium alternative. None of those will stop working or break at any point, though. They don’t care about them being replaced. In fact, they prefer if they aren’t, given they make a cut of the software, too.
They are planned to stack on each other. Sell you multiples for multiple users. Apple can’t do that trick, because everybody already owns a phone and the software is backwards compatible and interoperable, so they need to push you to replacement hardware. Nintendo’s on a different business.
The remote bricking is not planned obsolescence, it’s Nintendo’s draconian opinion that they own every part of the hardware and the software fundamentally, so emulation, user modding and jailbreaking are crimes against humanity. They are wrong, but they will continue to enforce it aggressively even beyond what is legally established. This is because it goes fundamentally counter to their hardware design, which relies on cheap-but-robust devices you can give to kids that are built with imaginatively repurposed older tech. They see enthusiasts improving on their price-optimal design as a threat and will send ninjas to stab you if you disagree.
I disagree, but there are degrees of separation here. Nintendo still needs to be forced to provide replacement parts, specs and so forth, though.
If you design a product to be intentionally difficult to repair, using subpar parts, is it not planned obsolescence? I really don’t get what you are about there. Unless you require some sort of an internal clock to force brick the device to be considered planned?
It’s not planned obsolescence if your device is meant to last for decades. You could argue about the joycon if they had done that on purpose, but given that they ended up having to replace a bunch of them it seems pretty likely that their business model is to sell you four pairs to play with friends, not to keep reselling you more as they break.
Nintendo’s business is not based on the product becoming worse artificially to upsell you on a replacement. Their model is to keep making incremental replacements and then drop a generational upgrade every decade or so. That’s not how planned obsolescence works. You don’t get artificial performance degradation, deliberately fragile parts or artifical restrictions to repair via signed components. People can (and many do) repair Nintendo hardware on third party repair services with third party replacement parts, and from what iFixIt is saying that doesn’t seem to have changed.
Which is not to say Nintendo put ANY thought into repairability here. They clearly expect you to buy a Switch 2 and keep it until you buy a Switch 2 Lite. This thing is very new and that may yet change in both directions. But so far all I see here is the same old “we built this to be cheap and durable”, which is fundamentally not Apple’s “you’ll buy one of these every two years and if it breaks you will come to us for a replacement and like it” approach.
That’s the “apple like” planned obsolesence part I was refering to. Think about airpods for example.
The teardown doesn’t touch on part serialization, although the ability to brick your device if they “feel like it” is on PAR with Apple.
Although I’m not sure we should be arguing about which of the two is shittier when both are already deep in non compliance of “modern right to repair regulations (lmao)”
No, big differences at play here. Nintendo won’t plan obsolescence, they will give you a base version at launch (multiple, if they can, since they’re handheld devices and a single family may conceivably want a couple) and then they will iterate on the form factor with a cheaper, slimmer alternative and a bigger, premium alternative. None of those will stop working or break at any point, though. They don’t care about them being replaced. In fact, they prefer if they aren’t, given they make a cut of the software, too.
They are planned to stack on each other. Sell you multiples for multiple users. Apple can’t do that trick, because everybody already owns a phone and the software is backwards compatible and interoperable, so they need to push you to replacement hardware. Nintendo’s on a different business.
The remote bricking is not planned obsolescence, it’s Nintendo’s draconian opinion that they own every part of the hardware and the software fundamentally, so emulation, user modding and jailbreaking are crimes against humanity. They are wrong, but they will continue to enforce it aggressively even beyond what is legally established. This is because it goes fundamentally counter to their hardware design, which relies on cheap-but-robust devices you can give to kids that are built with imaginatively repurposed older tech. They see enthusiasts improving on their price-optimal design as a threat and will send ninjas to stab you if you disagree.
I disagree, but there are degrees of separation here. Nintendo still needs to be forced to provide replacement parts, specs and so forth, though.
If you design a product to be intentionally difficult to repair, using subpar parts, is it not planned obsolescence? I really don’t get what you are about there. Unless you require some sort of an internal clock to force brick the device to be considered planned?
Everything else is correct and I agree.
It’s not planned obsolescence if your device is meant to last for decades. You could argue about the joycon if they had done that on purpose, but given that they ended up having to replace a bunch of them it seems pretty likely that their business model is to sell you four pairs to play with friends, not to keep reselling you more as they break.
Nintendo’s business is not based on the product becoming worse artificially to upsell you on a replacement. Their model is to keep making incremental replacements and then drop a generational upgrade every decade or so. That’s not how planned obsolescence works. You don’t get artificial performance degradation, deliberately fragile parts or artifical restrictions to repair via signed components. People can (and many do) repair Nintendo hardware on third party repair services with third party replacement parts, and from what iFixIt is saying that doesn’t seem to have changed.
Which is not to say Nintendo put ANY thought into repairability here. They clearly expect you to buy a Switch 2 and keep it until you buy a Switch 2 Lite. This thing is very new and that may yet change in both directions. But so far all I see here is the same old “we built this to be cheap and durable”, which is fundamentally not Apple’s “you’ll buy one of these every two years and if it breaks you will come to us for a replacement and like it” approach.