I think that we should insist that parts are replacable - we split the phone into 10-15 parts. But even if I could rule by decree I am not sure I can make the right call what exactly is the right way.
Which would prohibit further innovation and optimization.
I'd like to see smaller devices available. Many people would like phones with smaller screens that better fit their hands, which leaves even less room behind those screens for modular components and batteries.
I'm currently looking forward to the Purism phone, because it'll serve as a platform for Open Source innovation in small touchscreen interfaces. That doesn't mean I have any illusions that it'll be anywhere near as nice as a less modular phone, and I really have no interest in the modularity aspects.
I like the idea proposed elsewhere in this thread, of pushing for standards on recycling and then letting manufacturers innovate on how precisely to meet those standards.
And PCs don't have their architecture determined by legislation, so that further proves the point.
> Having half a dozen standard phone sizes seems reasonable, along with standard sockets for CPU, GPU, memory etc
There are a lot more possible sizes or form factors, CPU and GPU aren't necessarily separate, and memory is typically either soldered-down chips or built into one of the other chips depending on quantity. Separating any of those into removable boards will necessarily make phones larger, heavier, and otherwise suboptimal.
> You should also have a standard battery connector
Modern devices often don't use a single discrete battery; they distribute battery cells through a device anywhere they fit and wire them together.
ATX wasn't a legally mandated standard.
What individuals can do to repair a device isn't particularly relevant to this discussion. The legislation seeks to force manufacturers to make repair manuals available to independent repair shops. It's fairly common for such establishments to have the tools and expertise to replace soldered components.
> On the other hand moving to system on a chip makes sense the way semiconductor have developed.
That's kind of the problem, right? Consumers demand higher performance, higher performance requires higher integration, and higher integration means less repairability.
Given that things in general used to be more repairable than they are now, and that planned obsolescence is absolutely a thing, I highly doubt it.
I doubt that many people re-soldered defective chip on a ram module.
The only way right now to ensure repairability is to legalize how phones should be assembled and basic architecture. The same way eu did with the charging port - although they didn't went after apple for some reason.
On the other hand moving to system on a chip makes sense the way semiconductor have developed.