3 ms·

The engineering feats are indeed remarkable! But so were the engineering feats of the desktop PC era. Previously it was unbelievable that you could make a compu

The engineering feats are indeed remarkable! But so were the engineering feats of the desktop PC era. Previously it was unbelievable that you could make a computer small enough to sit on somebody's desk. So those guys were learning how to miniaturize things too -- and somehow, along the way, they ended up building systems that had interchangeable parts. The current crop of device manufacturers, on the other handed, punted on this goal. Is it really because this generation's engineers aren't good enough to solve an engineering problem? Is it coincidental that failure to solve this engineering problem results in higher profits? I don't think that's the case -- I think the business planners in the current generation of manufacturers saw interchangeable components as a feature which would results in consumers saving money and buying fewer new phones, gave us the middle finger and never bothered to do it.

pjc50 10y ago
The history of computers is one of higher and higher levels of integration. Single transistors -> gate ICs on wiring boards -> processor with support chipset on PCB with peripherals on daughterboards -> system-on-a-chip. Each time it's improved performance and reduced cost. > failure to solve this engineering problem results in higher profits? Ultimately all engineering in a capitalist business is value engineering. Cost is not something that can be removed from the metric in people's heads which they use to choose solutions. There are only two ways I can see out of this: a move towards lease-like arrangements for phones, where the manufacturer has an incentive for something other than obsolecence; or the EU pushing WEEE harder.
- apatters 10y ago
  Well, maybe less of the engineering should be done by capitalist businesses. The more open platforms and protocols that the PC and Internet were built on usually weren't developed by private companies with profit motives. They came from researchers, hobbyists, foundations, and companies with other profit centers which weren't focused on squeezing every possible dollar out of that particular technology. How we can encourage more of that is a tricky question. I certainly don't want a world where profit-motivated private companies can't build hardware and software. But I don't like the direction this current crop of businesses is taking us. I do think essential infrastructure doesn't belong in the hands of a single party -- we should have learned that lesson and internalized the risks of single vendor lock-in long ago.
pjmlp 10y ago
You already had such computers, but the C64, Spectrum, BBC, Atari, Amiga and many others were following the same architectures we are going back to. It was the PC that lead the way into user customization, but the ever decreasing thin margins seem to have killed it

pjc50 10y ago

The history of computers is one of higher and higher levels of integration. Single transistors -> gate ICs on wiring boards -> processor with support chipset on PCB with peripherals on daughterboards -> system-on-a-chip. Each time it's improved performance and reduced cost. > failure to solve this engineering problem results in higher profits? Ultimately all engineering in a capitalist business is value engineering. Cost is not something that can be removed from the metric in people's heads which they use to choose solutions. There are only two ways I can see out of this: a move towards lease-like arrangements for phones, where the manufacturer has an incentive for something other than obsolecence; or the EU pushing WEEE harder.

apatters 10y ago
Well, maybe less of the engineering should be done by capitalist businesses. The more open platforms and protocols that the PC and Internet were built on usually weren't developed by private companies with profit motives. They came from researchers, hobbyists, foundations, and companies with other profit centers which weren't focused on squeezing every possible dollar out of that particular technology. How we can encourage more of that is a tricky question. I certainly don't want a world where profit-motivated private companies can't build hardware and software. But I don't like the direction this current crop of businesses is taking us. I do think essential infrastructure doesn't belong in the hands of a single party -- we should have learned that lesson and internalized the risks of single vendor lock-in long ago.

pjmlp 10y ago

You already had such computers, but the C64, Spectrum, BBC, Atari, Amiga and many others were following the same architectures we are going back to. It was the PC that lead the way into user customization, but the ever decreasing thin margins seem to have killed it