Reply #22: The corporations consciously design products to be unrepairable. It need not be this way.

[AdHocSolver]

Electronics products provide an example of what I mean.

In the early years, radios, TV sets, medical electronic equipment, and so forth were assembled from discrete components: vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, coils, etc. The first solid-state equipment was made the same way, using transistors in place of vacuum tubes.

Solid-state devices were smaller and used less power allowing for smaller parts and miniaturization. This led to modularization of circuitry, that is, a TV set could be built from sub-assemblies based on functionality. This allowed for more components being assembled by automated equipment, but equipment could still be repaired by replacing defective modules or defective components in a module.

With the development of integrated circuits (IC's), troubleshooting and repair became more difficult, but not impossible. IC's are devices containing hundreds, thousands, and even millions of transistors in a single unit (often referred to as a "chip"). The CPU (Central Processing Unit) in your computer is an example.

IC's are relatively cheap to make and allow for extreme automation. Digital IC's can be designed to be general purpose devices, which can be programmed to accomplish practically any task. Your cell phone, printer, monitor, microwave oven, can all use a similar programmable device which can be programmed to perform different tasks by loading it with the appropriate software.

This is where the problem of non-repairability comes in. When equipment was modular, one could find the offending part or module and replace it. That is less profitable than selling the customer an entirely new product. By making products with all functionality on a single chip, if one function goes bad, i.e., one transistor on that chip fails, the whole device becomes useless as there is no way to repair that chip. (in the case of a computer CPU, which is very expensive relative to the cost of the entire computer, the CPU IC itself is socketed so it can be replaced. In the case of most other devices, the programmable chip is soldered in and would require special and expensive equipment to replace.)

Moreover, putting together sub-assemblies requires more labor than having an automated machine install a programmable chip that does everything.

There is a more subtle downside to putting all functionality onto programmable chips, rather than using separate modules based on functionality. Where the device using embedded programmable controllers is too expensive to toss, such as the computer in your car or a piece of medical electronic equipment, subtle errors in operation could go unnoticed, and be extremely difficult to locate and repair.

I read where patients were severely injured, and in some cases died, from malfunctioning radiation therapy equipment, which gave the patients too high a dosage. The operators put too much confidence in the equipment.

In reading about the current problems with Toyota cars, my thinking early on has been that the problems are due to a malfunction in the electronic controls.

In any case, cars, like a lot of appliances and other devices, are over-engineered. They are too complex, too complicated in their operation, too difficult to troubleshoot, and too difficult and expensive to repair.

The Lexus that sped out of control because the driver couldn't shut off the engine is an example of extremely bad and dangerous design. There should be a "kill" switch easily accessed for any potentially dangerous equipment.

Having worked in the electronics field and programmed computers, I don't trust anything I can't see, touch, smell, or hear in operation.

The old saying: "If you want to enjoy eating sausage, don't watch it being made" (or however it goes) applies here. Automation has always been used, not to make products of better quality, but to make them more cheaply and more profitable.