Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

When a device is broken or outdated, we are at a crossroads: to repair, recycle or discard? We discuss the conceptual models and legal rights (Right-to-Repair Directive) that unpack complexities in affordances and valuations in deciding the death, life and resuscitation of smart devices.

Long abstract:

When a device is broken or outdated, we are at a crossroads: to repair, recycle or discard? Different affordances and valuations come into play: consumer autonomy, competitive advantage, sustainability, availability of time and financial resources, longevity of parts, available infrastructures for recycling, etc.

An additional valuation type follows from the increasing use of semantics of life and death in relation to smart devices. If a smartphone, laptop or robot vacuum stops working one could say it “died”. With adaptive learning capacities, these semantics become even more pervasive. A consumer and a device (such as a companion robot) can develop an individualized relation over time.

According to the waste hierarchy underlying EU policy repair trumps recycling. Especially in the case of smart electronics this simple hierarchy can get muddied. Is it worthwhile to make a phone with hardware that can be repaired for decades if the period of software updates creates a tighter best before date? To offer a long period of software updates for a robot vacuum, if consumers are not committed to regular updating and are part of a culture desiring novelty? If the device depends on external cloud and software support that is no longer economically profitable? If designing a more repairable device increases production costs, decreases functionality, if parts could be recycled and “reincarnation” is easy because all software and data exist in the “cloud”?

We discuss the conceptual models and legal rights (Right-to-Repair) supporting complex valuations in deciding the death, life and resuscitation of smart devices.