>they conclude that we should move back to old mechanical systems. But mechanical systems are not always more reliable.
In general I agree, but I worry this glosses over the subtle cases in the middle.
In a non-zero number of cases, the only reason electronics are "superior" to mechanical solutions is precisely because it's easy to enforce proprietary restrictions. In this subset of cases, it is proper to replace the electronic solution with a (here, superior) mechanical one.
.
My point is, we should acknowledge that there are some cases "right on the edge" that would naturally favor mechanical instead of electronic solutions, but the ability to cheaply enforce proprietary restrictions pushed them "over the edge" to using an electronic solution instead.
In these cases we should indeed consider replacing electronics with mechanical solutions — if not for retrofit, at least for later product iterations.
The cases right on the edge are real, but not common.
All the examples I can think of are hundreds of years old and have no serious competition from digital stuff, like eating utensils (for abled people, stabilized spoons seem to be a great invention for those who need them).
What do you consider an edge case that should be mechanical?
Electronics have wear and tear too because at the end of the day it needs to run on some hardware. Solder joints are never built to last until the end of time, just to not lead to a lot of repair claims within the warranty period and any longer is an opportunity to cut costs for a future manager.
I refurbish a whole lot of ewaste as part of my job, and with a few exceptions any time a device fails it's either the electrolytics in the power supply or something mechanical.
Solid state electronics technically _can_ fail but their expected service life is an order of magnitude more than the mechanical stuff. Same with properly done solder joints. If they crack, it's either due to mechanical stresses (e.g. constant reinsertion on battery jacks) or it's a design fault (Xbox 360, PS3 cold solder).
That order of magnitude longevity gap is a profit opportunity for the component manufacturers, and people are absolutely working to figure out how to make them cheaper.
I dont mean this cynically, only that no one wants to spend extra on overengineered parts.
DRM is a very modern concept. We originally made electronic solutions to mechanical problems because electronics allows for much more complex and nuanced response to input conditions, as well as the physical advantages of size and complexity.
Some systems are better as simple mechanical devices, but I'd put that number at a very, very low percentage.
Take your washer, dryer, dishwasher, or oven. These things can be purely mechanical, and are generally incredibly reliable when they are mechanical. In modern times, we've computerized these things for very dubious reasons mainly down to user tracking and enforced obsolescence. But adding network connectivity can be genuinely useful. Get a notification when your laundry or dishes are done. Automatically turn off the oven if you forget to when you leave the house. Track the runtime of your dishwasher and get notified when you need to clean the filter.
People would use features like that if it were possible to do so without a proprietary app that barely works, but demands your email and phone number and access to your microphone and camera. Or mandatory firmware updates that slowly degrade performance until you buy a new one.
The number of problems that can be solved mechanically and for which electronics cannot provide any extra value for the user is almost certainly very close to zero.
Just to add to your first point, many washers feature digital control of motors at the very low level, especially for BLDC motor types. This can reduce noise, increase efficiency and longevity of a motor. This requires electronics and software for precise timing control.
Eh, I think that's a different thing. The line between machine and electronics is pretty blurry when you get down to it. Is an LED attached to a mechanical switch electronics? What if the switch controls a transistor that switches the light? A relay? A CPU? What if it's an incandescent bulb on a mechanical timer? The distinction isn't super clear, and a lot of electronic circuits are much less complex and more reliable than a mechanical replacement. Is that good or bad?
I think the discussion here is less about "uses any electricity at all" and more "uses internet connected DRM to be actively shitty"
Indeed, I get the gist of the message, however I’m just highlighting how much advanced electronics and software drive something as ‘mundane’ as a washing machine motor to improve its efficiency [0].
This often requires real-time software calculation of precision timing for FETs that control the motors. Very loosely related to what an ECU does in cars.
I agree this is different to the DRM/internet connectivity stuff, but does disservice to the rest of the electronics and software housed within.
[0] Trapezoidal Control of BLDC Motors Using Hall Effect Sensors
> Hm, I disagree. ...
> *Some* systems are better as simple mechanical devices, but I'd put that number at a very, very low percentage.
We actually agree. Yes the number of cases is small (hence my wording "non-zero"). ;-)
I warned everyone I was making a minor point about "subtle cases," right? Both you and eternityforest thought I needed "correction" and pointed out it was a small number of cases, but I already agree. My reasoning process was the same as both of yours, and I came the same conclusion.
But while it's not many cases, we still shouldn't forget it. Imprecise thinking is the mind killer.
If a designer categorically decides (to save time) that we humans should never again revert anything (presumably, that has ever been done electronically, by anyone) back to a mechanical solution, they'll produce a worse solution in certain cases. Probably a lot of cases, actually!
One may counter, "I don't mean anything that's ever been done electronically by anyone, just the ones where electronics are better", but how do we distinguish the two, beyond in obvious cases? Worse yet, if we need to do that analysis anyway, what brainpower is being saved by having a rule to never switch away from electronics? :-\
TL;DR we should resist the temptation to shortcut with a simplifying rule "thou shalt not switch electronics to mechanics", because it neither rules nor simplifies!
Electronics separate form and function. The behavior can be anything we want with almost no extra cost. Plus, we can make module and reuse it in thousands of products with only code changes.
Electronics lets us pack in more complexity, giving us a place to compensate for imperfections elsewhere, such as users leaving babies behind in hot cars.
Plus without proprietary restrictions, nearly every vehicle and appliances in the world could probably use the same 5 modules or so for everything, making repairs rather easy.
But if the electronic design is open then what's would be the point of forcing an electronic solution when its inferior? The hypothetical is that electronic designs are open instead of closed.
It’s easier to fix with off-the-shelf parts (blown capacitor, damaged MOSFET, etc) than a part in which is manufactured for and by the automaker (e.g. variable valve timing component).
In general I agree, but I worry this glosses over the subtle cases in the middle.
In a non-zero number of cases, the only reason electronics are "superior" to mechanical solutions is precisely because it's easy to enforce proprietary restrictions. In this subset of cases, it is proper to replace the electronic solution with a (here, superior) mechanical one. .