> The goal was to aim for perfection, a machine that is so reliable it wouldn't need to repair in the first place.
You will have to excuse me, but that is a load of bullcrap.
Let's take the case that irritates me the most: The SSD.
By definition of the technology that is NAND storage, an SSD will be able to operate "within norm" and without bit errors for so long. Rewrite for long enough and you'll see your data waving you good-bye.
As for your other claims about recording errors and whatnot, you can EASILY achieve those (matter of fact it's already implemented in UEFI by some manufacturers), and NOT disallow people from repairing their computer.
Sure the lifespan of an SSD is ideally 5/7 years. But that is a death sentence, not a search for perfection.
Also, what happens if Apple simply refuses to fix your computer, or supply your with parts ! And yes this has happened rather publicly (Linus Sebastian's Mac Pro)
So again, apologies for the language but that is a load of bullcrap
> By definition of the technology that is NAND storage, an SSD will be able to operate "within norm" and without bit errors for so long. Rewrite for long enough and you'll see your data waving you good-bye.
The guarantee of a popular modern 1Tb NVME SSD is you'll at least be able to write 600Tb. I don't know your usage pattern, but those are a lot of write actions.
Remember every component in any electronic device has a finite age: the fan cooling the cpu, keyboards have max. presses, hinges wear out, sockets have a maximum amount of plug/unplug actions.
There's an advantage to soldering on memory, SSD etc: no chance of a bad connector causing problems. The entire class of problems fixed by 'reseating your DIMMS' is gone.
That Linus is a YouTube star who reviews computer stuff. I like to think he got popular because his name is Linus and people mistook him for Torvalds or he came up in searches. I've seen a couple of his videos and he talks to the camera in a manner reminiscent of a young kids show host. I half expected him to start reciting the basic colors to me during a video about doing direct GPU passthrough on multiple VMs. Tone aside, and I know I'm not his core audience, it was a good presentation.
>By definition of the technology that is NAND storage, an SSD
You see, I dont disagree. Apple was striving for an ideal that is not achievable. What they are aiming, trying and actually doing are three different thing.
Consider that their machines maintain the biggest resale value in the PC market (pointing to less long-term issues) and keep working fine for most people for close to a decade or so (including demanding pros in video, music, and graphics), they're doing a bad job at it...
That more or less proves the point. There is very strong demand for old MacBooks because they last. Planned obsolescence is needed to ensure that people upgrade. That can be done multiple ways. This is just one of the approaches and will of course take time to settle in.
>There is very strong demand for old MacBooks because they last.
No, by "old Macbooks" I mean "including current and last year models". Not that only past macbooks had large resale value...
>Planned obsolescence is needed to ensure that people upgrade.
In the Apple world, upgrading is part of the idea and appeal -- you're not supposed to be running a 10 year old laptop or 2-3 versions old OS. The OS is not about backwards compatibility, it's about moving forward faster...
That's part of the appeal of the thing, and part of the reason for the extra control.
I don't want legacy 10/20 year old apps and frameworks to be supported, I don't want apps that don't take advantage of the latest frameworks, hardware and OS features, and so on...
If "compatible with 30 year old programs" is a desirable feature, there's always Windows.
>keep working fine for most people for close to a decade or so
doesn't mesh with -
>you're not supposed to be running a 10 year old laptop or 2-3 versions old OS
Planned obsolescence just means artificially shortening the upgrade cycle. That's it. And Apple has been doing this in the Mac world through different methods.
>Planned obsolescence just means artificially shortening the upgrade cycle.
No, it doesn't not. Planned obsolescence, just the like the actual words in the term are defined, means planning for the fact that technology and the components it's made from has a finite lifespan and that, at some point, users of that technology will have to upgrade. You're inferring that companies are intentionally sabotaging their products to compel and force people to upgrade and that might be the stupidest take I've ever heard.
>In economics and industrial design, planned obsolescence (also called built-in obsolescence or premature obsolescence) is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so that it becomes obsolete (i.e., unfashionable, or no longer functional) after a certain period of time.[1] The rationale behind this strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle").[2] It is the deliberate shortening of a lifespan of a product to force consumers to purchase replacements.[3]
Apple does this with their hardware by limiting the software support period and economical hardware repair. Having something like the T2 ensures that third parties are not able to extend the life of their systems in a reasonable manner.
I know what the definition is. Your second statement doesn't support your first one. Apple provides hardware and software support for their devices at a far greater level and duration than nearly every other hardware manufacturer. They're not artificially limiting the lifetime of their products, they're ending support for devices that, in most cases, literally can't support new features that they're adding.
The T2 is a security chip. It ensures the integrity of the system. If that integrity is compromised, the chip shouldn't allow third parties to replace components unless those components can be replaced and the integrity restored. You're acting like the T2 was added just to make repairs harder instead of to make the device more secure which, by design, makes repairs more difficult.
It's the same reason that car manufacturers don't let repair shops generate new key fobs unless they're registered with the manufacturer.
Sure it's a security chip but why is it they didn't make it so the owner can do a one-way unlock (like Android's bootloader unlock) so people can fix their own Macs?
Because preventing repairs is one of the desirable side effect of this design.
Because even a one-way unlock can be exploited and is a vector for compromised security.
Apple has no need to prevent people from repairing their devices. They lose money on most repairs they do. What they're concerned about is their brand. If someone gets their device repaired at a shitty shop that isn't Apple certified and uses parts that aren't real Apple parts (like every screen repair kiosk in your local mall), people don't see future screen issues as issues with that repair or screen. They see a problem with an iPhone. That's what the desirable side-effect is. Apple doesn't want to prevent repairs, they want to prevent shitty repairs and security breaches.
>Because even a one-way unlock can be exploited and is a vector for compromised security.
Evidence doesn't support this at all. When was the last root exploit due to an bootloader unlock?
Towing the Apple line gets you nowhere. There is overwhelming support for companies to allow for a right of repair. Most people don't have any issues with security advances, but they do have a problem with companies using this as an excuse to further lock-in to devices that are fully paid for by consumers.
What has changed in the last 5 years? MacOS users have no legitimate alternative if they want to keep their desktop on macOS. If you want a macOS system legally, there's two options, either buy a new Mac, or an old one.
The competition has just done a lot of catching up in the last few years.
Hardware: Other vendors have trackpads with multi-touch (which for me was one of the most amazing things about the first Macbook I ever owned), super high-res screens, and other such features these days. The form factors are thin and stylish as well (there are other aluminum unibody laptops these days).
Software: MacOS has gotten worse, Linux distros have continued to catch up, both in the look and behavior of the OS itself but also in terms of the app ecosystem, esp with companies like Valve spending the big bucks to get lots of games running well on Linux. Speaking of games, MacOS continues to suck when it comes to gaming anyway – so for example I do a bit of gaming on my new MBP 16" and the mild chore of dual-booting continues to irk me. I also splashed out for the 8GB GPU upgrade and performance is still not great. Not quite enough for me to make the switch but I'm not a very hardcore gamer. I know people that need a workhorse a bit more than I do (professional video editors and such) who have recently (last 5 years) made the switch from macbooks to things like razers because they want to be able to really push through serious workloads on the go.
We're not on the same page. My point being that the macOS users that Apple are targeting with this policy has the choice between a new Mac and an used one.
That's where they make their money. People that just want good specs at cheap prices are not their target market.
Replying from my 6 year old Macbook pro, I would definitely consider buying a new one (space on my 256 GB SSD is getting tight, and it seems a bit of a waste to just upgrade that), but I am hesitant about the newer models.
You will have to excuse me, but that is a load of bullcrap.
Let's take the case that irritates me the most: The SSD.
By definition of the technology that is NAND storage, an SSD will be able to operate "within norm" and without bit errors for so long. Rewrite for long enough and you'll see your data waving you good-bye.
As for your other claims about recording errors and whatnot, you can EASILY achieve those (matter of fact it's already implemented in UEFI by some manufacturers), and NOT disallow people from repairing their computer.
Sure the lifespan of an SSD is ideally 5/7 years. But that is a death sentence, not a search for perfection.
Also, what happens if Apple simply refuses to fix your computer, or supply your with parts ! And yes this has happened rather publicly (Linus Sebastian's Mac Pro)
So again, apologies for the language but that is a load of bullcrap