This is literally evidence of stuff being designed to fail. An extra diode costs less than a cent at production scale. This was a manufacturing choice, not an error.
This is literally evidence of stuff being designed to fail. An extra diode costs less than a cent at production scale. This was a manufacturing choice, not an error.
nah, this is just not something designer would expect to fail like that. The LED has datasheet, the datasheet have leakage current, it has no data on increased leakage over years, you plan for what you have.
What would help is not randomly planning for some of the segments to fail (they are multiplexed with other things, you'd have to put more diodes), but to just get slightly better/less cheap LED display
Only "choice" made here was sorting by price when buying components for the cheap device.
Sounds like this is far more common a problem with blue LEDs than others, and that was certainly a choice.
As if I needed another reason to detest the eye-searing blue LEDs that have infested every device.
Don't underestimate the appeal of saving one cent per unit. So long as the costs are externalised, anyway...
Eh, I don't agree.
LEDs are diodes (Light emitting diode). Certainly this was a cost saving measure, but it's not a bad assumption that the LED wouldn't allow reverse current flow.
It’s not exactly designed to fail, they just don’t care. If they could add a one-cent part that made it fail sooner, they wouldn’t do that either.
what happens when that diode fails?
Capitalist profit motive strikes again. The invisible hand expands tech and the visible hand keeps making tech worse.
People usually respond to this by saying that it would be absurd to suggest the company did this for its own benefit, when anyone who engineers knows these are often caused by revising design to minimize costs... and increase profits.