The ‘newer is better’ idea is an interesting concept when it comes to the world of electronics. There is little doubt that computing technology and associated processors advance at a pace over time, but moving away from that particular realm things can be different.
I remember watching a program that showed ‘behind the scenes’ of a vacuum cleaner manufacturer. There was a staff incentive program where if a member of staff made a suggestion for a production line change that saved money, they got a bonus. A lady on the production line commented that the casing had more screws than were truly needed to hold it together. Each screw cost money and took time to install. The number of installed case screws was reduced and she got her bonus. This is a very simple example of what happens in Industry. The same principle is applied to much larger, more expensive items when profit margins are involved. My father worked in the Aero Engine industry and his team were regularly tasked with reviewing the BoM and reduce production costs. There was an awful lot of pressure from above to increase the profit margins but thankfully in that particular product realm, there was an over riding safety requirement that was the ace in the pack for the team that could be played if required. Aero engines must be safe !
When a product is designed, it is often over engineered and then the design team can roll back a little on the BoM cost to please management. Production cost reduction is just part of the design process. The cost reduction process can continue after initial production and also during a design review, update or refresh. The first generation product can turn out to be the better made with subsequent versions cost reduced and of lesser build quality, yet theoretically still meeting the original design criteria. The problem with the first generation design is that it may actually contain defects or vulnerabilities that are corrected in later revisions. It is a difficult choice that ‘early adopters’ of a new technology or products consider when buying such technology. Just take a look at the first generation Philips consumer grade Audio CD players .... they were built like battleships but their error correction was very much first generation and greatly improved in later product releases. That said, later models used plastic where once there had been metal and were of pretty cheap build quality with the OEM not expecting them to have a particularly long operational life. People started to change their Hi-Fi system more often due to lower cost so the operational life of the CD player became less of an issue.
I specialise in thermal camera repair and see exactly how cost reduction techniques have been applied to the technology over the years. Early models were commonly built with a metal chassis, had great temperature stability and served their owners well for many years with little to no calibration issues or failures. Modern versions of those cameras are cheaper to buy, contain highly integrated electronics packages, advanced firmware and higher performance imaging sensor arrays. To offset the clear benefits of these newer models, they are often of less rugged construction and may use cost reduced components and optics that can degrade life expectancy and performance. So which is better ? It can be a hard decision that is driven by the users needs. The original camera cost about the same as a small house and so was limited to those with significant funds. The later models are far more affordable but arguably of lesser build quality. If a camera from either era fails, they can be challenging to repair due to the lack of service data and configuration software
The modern, cheaper camera may be more prone to failure and require expensive OEM repair, but its more modern imaging performance may be better and unit cost significantly lower. Is it better to repair an older camera technology, that is showing its age, or just going out and buying a cheaper, more modern, version that may fail in time but comes with a fresh warranty and OEM support ? That is for the end user to decide.
Sometimes the decision is not an easy one to make due to investment in a particular camera in terms of its expensive accessories. At other times it is a ‘no-brainier’. In situations like Fire Brigade thermal camera usage, the decision is often made based on camera reliability in service, age, support and replacement cost. At some point it is better to replace the cameras than to keep spending money repairing them, if support still exists.
I believe the ‘right to repair’ is what is says. I would like access to the service data and any utilities required from the OEM to repair their equipment. Those ‘tools’ and service information may come at a cost but at least they will be available. This is little different to the situation facing independent garages who use many different Scan and diagnostic tools to diagnose and repair faults on different brands of vehicle. There was a time when 3rd party scan and configuration tools were rare as OEM’s wanted their proprietary service data protected from such independent operators. Times have changed in that Industry and I would like to see the same happen across the electronics industry, but I suspect, as others have already stated, there will be the challenge of whether it is truly financially viable and sensible to repair ageing equipment rather than to buy new.
Hence why I repair thermal cameras as a hobby and not as a business