I recently read a blog by Richard Taylor titled “They call it hardware because it’s bloody hard”, and it’s one that stayed with me.
Richard puts into words something most of us in this industry recognise, but don’t often say out loud. Hardware is where edtech gets tested. The piece walks through decades of innovation, investment and ambition. Great products, strong ideas, serious backing and still, a familiar pattern.
Because hardware has a lifecycle that doesn’t bend to optimism; it ages, it fails and it becomes harder and more expensive to support. And no amount of clever software or good intention really changes that. What’s interesting is how little attention we give to that reality once a product is installed.
As an industry, we’re very good at the front end. Specification, funding, rollout, training. A huge amount of effort goes into getting technology into classrooms, and rightly so. But over time, the model quietly shifts.
Support windows close and responsibility moves. What was once a supported asset becomes something the school is expected to manage, often without a clear plan in place. Not by design, necessarily, but by default.
And that’s where budget starts to bite.
Because these decisions don’t sit in isolation. They compete with device refresh cycles, infrastructure upgrades, estate costs, energy bills. All the things schools are already balancing.
So, when a screen fails in year six or seven, it isn’t just a technical issue. It’s a financial one, and often an unplanned one. The result is where we find ourselves now.
Hundreds of thousands of classroom screens moving beyond warranty, and schools left navigating what happens next. When something fails, the decision isn’t theoretical. It’s immediate. Fix it, if possible, replace it, if it isn’t. Find budget, manage disruption, keep things running.
And more often than not, that budget wasn’t set aside for this.
It’s not that anyone has done anything wrong. It’s just that the system has been built around the point of sale, rather than the full lifecycle. And that’s where the pressure shows up most clearly, both operationally and financially.
PanelWise comes from recognising that gap for what it is.
Not trying to change the nature of hardware, or pretend these challenges don’t exist, but offering a more considered way to manage the years that sit between “fully covered” and “fully replaced”.
A fixed, planned approach to support. A way to move from reactive spend to something more predictable. A clear route when something goes wrong, without the immediate pressure of finding capital.
It isn’t the most visible part of the conversation, but it’s one of the most important. Because if there’s one thing that experience teaches you in this space, it’s this:
Hardware is still the hard part.
I’d be interested to hear how others are seeing this play out.
Are you seeing the same pressure points once devices move out of warranty, or a different picture entirely?