this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
570 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
70995 readers
3940 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The switch 2 gives out complete apple vibes. It's repairability is pretty horrid after watching the teardown guide.
Controllers will fail sooner or later and will have to be replaced. Here it will end up replacing the whole stick just due to glueing small parts of the controller.
Battery will also fail sooner than later. The whole thing yells planned absolesence...
It absolutely does not. Nintendo hardware is built like a freight truck. The teardown guide references the JerryRigEverything "durability test" and I am pretty sure unless you use it to bash someone's head in this thing will last (and even then).
What it reeks of is Nintendo wanting to make things cheap and sell you multiple of them. Which they do. My launch Switch 1 lasted until I got a Lite and then an Oled and I expect this one will do pretty much the same. That doesn't mean their joycon won't need fixing or replacing (and I did have to open and mod my Lite, which wasn't easy).
I think Nintendo hasn't adjusted its industrial design to modern repairability concerns yet, which is a very Nintendo thing (and definitely not the same as Apple artificially holding down the repair ecosystem to itself artificially). I like neither option, but I'd take Nintendo's approach over Apple's any day. They absolutely need to comply with modern right to repair regulations, though, and that will mean doing more than they're currently doing.
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.
I feel like you're biased in favor of Nintendo. "They make durable products" while also being infamous for the joysticks drifting. Those don't seem to gel together. Maybe they're hard to totally break, but they seem to be fine with selling products that degrade pretty quickly.
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.
I owned a Switch 1, and it certainly was the Nintendo console I touched up the most. I replaced the back panel once before I got a Lite and then an OLED.
I will say given how much I took that thing on the road and the beatings it took I never found the issues unreasonable and I only ever had to fix cosmetic damage (joycons aside). I've seen Switches get a TON of usage, too.
It's not Nintendo's most rugged console, but it's certainly not a "fragile little thing" as I would define it.
Let me put it this way, I'd much rather fix a broken Steam Deck, but I was way less worried about breaking a Switch.
It didn’t break and need repair, except for all the times it broke and needed repair.
Not to mention those things are expensive AF. If I had to replace a part on my car that cost 25% of the cost of the entire car EACH time, I would just not buy from that company any longer (which is what I’m doing). Not sure why this person is writing paragraphs and paragraphs of excuses for Nintendo.
No, the main unit didn't break and need repair beyond cosmetic scuffs. The joycons cycled through the console's lifetime, which is also true of my Xbox (had an Elite controller die on me, that one hurt) and the PS4 (I don't think I have a single DS4 left without a broken usb port).
Accessories are accessories, but the console still works to this day.