9 ms·

I honestly don't understand all these quality sacrifices just to make things thinner. It makes the product actually feel somewhat cheap and brittle. The same t

I honestly don't understand all these quality sacrifices just to make things thinner. It makes the product actually feel somewhat cheap and brittle. The same thing confuses me with smartphones. Everyone keeps making these bacteria and finger print magnets thinner... the minute you drop it, it's shattered or unuseable... and so then you're buying a case to protect it from scratches and shatter... so what's the point of making it thinner in the first place? Gimmicks IMO just to sell things year over year without adding real value or actual features.

blauditore 8y ago
> and so then you're buying a case to protect it from scratches and shatter... so what's the point of making it thinner in the first place? I agree, also in terms of material. I'd love to buy a plastic phone with some bezel that doesn't shatter easily. The Nokia Lumias a couple years back (e.g. the Lumia 800[0]) were good-looking and super robust. But manufacturers obviously don't have much incentive to make hardware more durable, unless customers explicitly look out for that. And currently, many people tend to buy (high-end) phones rather for prestige reasons than actual usefulness. [0]: http://phonesdata.com/files/models/Nokia-Lumia-800-307.jpg http://phonesdata.com/files/models/Nokia-Lumia-800-307.jpg
- Lukas_Skywalker 8y ago
  I (still) own a Lumia 830 from back then. It's incredible what my phone endured (drops from a car roof, down a few stairs, even a short dive in a kitchen sink), and I don't really know why the thing is so sturdy since it truly looks good. I recently bought a spare display for about 40$ and a battery for 20$, just so I can replace them if anything should happen in the future.
  - blauditore 8y ago
    > and I don't really know why the thing is so sturdy since it truly looks good. One factor is that the cover glass doesn't go all the way out to edges and corners. This leaves some "crumble zone", as phones by the laws of probability most often land on edges. What do the corners of your phone look like? I bet they're dented, at least that used to be the case for me.
- seszett 8y ago
  > The Nokia Lumias a couple years back (e.g. the Lumia 800[0]) were good-looking and super robust. Yes, I have a Lumia 640 here and I really like it from a hardware point of view. It's a shame that it only runs Windows Mobile, I wish so much that I was able to just install Android on it.
neuronic 8y ago
Not sure how this can fly over peoples heads, but the point is marketing. There is virtually zero disadvantage in making the phones 2mm thicker and add to their robustness and battery life this way. Virtually zero... except _marketing_ and hence sales.
- sneak 8y ago
  If sales increase when it is thinner, it stands to reason that customers want thinner devices. Just because you disagree with them doesn’t mean you’re not wrong for saying there is zero disadvantage. The disadvantage is not giving customers what they want.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    We can’t know that. There would have to be two otherwise identical devices, one thick; more robust; larger battery.
    - simonh 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure marketers and designers really do know that. How light a device feels in the hand is pretty much the very first thing someone notices when picking up a new device, and sets the stage for the rest of their expectations. We also know that in most cases (of course not every case) first impressions are a much bigger influence on the final decision to purchase than later analysis and consideration, regardless of what people think about their own decision making process. Pretty much every company that has ever sold anything cares about this stuff, and many of them have plenty of resources, so this has been studies to death for decades. A lot of super smart people have spent a huge amount of time devising very clever ways to test this stuff.
      - xg15 8y ago
        > We also know that [...] first impressions are a much bigger influence on the final decision to purchase than later analysis and consideration But this is the whole point of the GP's criticism: The whole design of the device is driven by optimizing purchase, not actually by making it usable, useful or durable.
furyg3 8y ago
Especially in cases when it doesn't need to be thinner. I just tried out a Apple Magic Keyboard, which is a razor blade for some reason, and had wrist pain within a few hours of using it. Everybody's different, but this keyboard is trash. It is designed solely to look pretty in marketing photos. I'm not a keyboard snob. I don't need Cherry MX Blue's to be happy. I thought the Apple Wireless Keyboard (with the AA batteries) was probably a step in the wrong direction, but still fine to type on. But this is quite literally painfully bad. And there was no reason for it, it's not a portable product, it doesn't have heat sinks, screens, fast processors, etc. It's just a keyboard, it would be fine if it's 2mm thicker. Actually it would be better. It's a keyboard. It's for typing. Come on.
- paulriddle 8y ago
  I am currently using this horrible keyboard. Hate this thing. Before I've been using a mechanical keyboard, but coworkers complained that it was too loud. I like loud keybords. The sound is so pleasant and satisfying I want it to be even more intense. I want to feel vibration every time I hit the key. And when I hit enter I want there to be a minor earthquake. This apple trash keyboard doesn't have Shift+Insert. The alt is next to ctrl and it's place is taken by cmd. I had to change my bindings for i3. Caps lock isn't solid and instead of caps + f, I oftentimes type simply f, because caps is released too soon. (caps is rebinded to ctrl and caps + f means select suggested autocompletion). Enter is small. Actually, I will apply for new keyboard this very day, right now. It will be regular mashed potatoes keyboard, but it's still going to be better than this.
  - danieldk 8y ago
    The Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic Keyboard does not have loud switches, but feels much better than the Magic Keyboard. Only the function keys are not great.
    - lathiat 8y ago
      +1 for the sculpt ergonomic, the older black version (with external numpad) and newer surface version are both great. The newer surface version is mostly better because it has an Fn key instead of a physical switch to go between media keys and F1, F2, etc.. plus real home/insert/end/arrow keys. I do wish they left the numberpad separate though, as it increase the distance to my mouse/trackpad and I preferred to just get rid of it, as personally I never use it. But many people also like to have it... Newer version is also bluetooth which is great on mac, but less great on windows/linux as you don't get bootloader support.
paulriddle 8y ago
Women will buy thinner phones. Fat phone makes you look fat. A delicate slim phone feels better! (kind of joking, but who knows) Some people, not just women, might think that thinner means more advanced. After all, it's always been somewhat the case in general - remember the old 5kg monitors? Now you have flat LCDs. I, however, am uncomfortable with thin laptop. I don't feel it's safe to put it in the backpack with other things. After all, what if I have to run? Will it endure the jolting? What if somebody bumps into me from behind in a crowded place? Probably it will be fine, but it is still somewhat unnerving. But manufacturers want to make stuff that breaks. If it doesn't the you sell little. It can't be really bad, because then you'll get bad reputation, but if it's too good then you'll be outcompeted. I think it's possible to make a laptop that most likely will never break and will remain upgradeable for the next 50 years. But it would require cooperation from many hardware manufacturers because every part would have to be made with quality in mind, instead of profit and scalability. We will not cooperate because we don't really need high quality laptops. What we have is good enough. Gimmicks are easy to add. Some of the most annoying are touchscreens. Why on earth would you need a touchscreen on a laptop? Touching screens makes you look like an idiot. Remember those silly stock images of high tech where people touch holograms? I never liked them. It's like trying to sell electronics to apes. You don't explain, you show with gestures how you can interact with this thingy. Actually annoying is not the right word. They make me feel uncomfortably superior. I don't know why.
JamesMcMinn 8y ago
Samsung's Galaxy S range of phones have been getting slightly thicker every generation since the S6. The S6 was 6.8mm thick, the S9 is 8.5mm, with small but progressive increases along the way. The S9 still feels like it could break easy due to the all glass finish, but I think that has much more to do with avoiding plastic whilst still enabling wireless charging.
Already__Taken 8y ago
> Everyone keeps making these bacteria and finger print magnets thinner I fear it might be worse than that; I have a Moto C, which is nice enough as a cheap phone. But they've made the case out of the slipperiest finish I could imagine, I have a silicone case just to trust I can hold it. Now, if that's the cheapest finish they could make to get the price bracket they want, fine. But I can't shake the feeling that some designer chose that finish to make it _feel_ thinner. Just like a rough heavy weight paper makes something _feel_ valuable.
seanwilson 8y ago
> I honestly don't understand all these quality sacrifices just to make things thinner. It makes the product actually feel somewhat cheap and brittle. I never understood this. I read often in reviews about how the weight of something makes it feel more expensive and "premium". For something you're carrying around all the time, you want it to be light and manufacturing something light is usually going to be more expensive.
- bitofhope 8y ago
  Do I want it to be light? Sure, I wouldn't want to carry a brick of tungsten with me, but something the weight of two or three iPhones isn't much of an encumbrance even to people much physically weaker than me.
hrktb 8y ago
> The same thing confuses me with smartphones. I like how John Siracusa explains the concept of "naked robotic core" To paraphrase, the phone is the computing unit, and the user customizes it to fit it's usage. People that never dropped a phone in their life can use it as is. People who work in construction can put hardcore shells that survive multiple floor drops. Those who like furry cases can go wild and those who want to build accessories around the phone have a smaller target to do so. Seeing it this way, having the phone thin enough than you can put the case you want without the whole package being bulky is a feature. To touch on the laptops, a few grams shoved off won't matter and don't justify a huge sacrifice. But the size and weight drop we had from the 15" Lombard laptops to today's 15" don't all happen in dramatically, and keeping a goal of having the next machine thinner than the previous one can help achieve huge progress in the long term. I am not a fan of the current keyboards, but I can't throw them the stone for trying to make things thinner and lighter. I was super happy to see the lighter 2013~2015 models, and I don't want them to just settle and say "we're good enough for the next 20 years, we don't care anymore".
- exergy 8y ago
  First of all, I disagree that people _want_ to put furry cases on their phones. Too many people have walked around for too long with giant cracks on their screens that they've realised it's better to slap on a case, even with the ugliness that goes with it. Having some minion drawing on the back of the case is just a minor positive. More importantly though, I cannot stand how glib Apple is with their devices. Surely the engineers and managers in charge _must_ realise the responsibility on their shoulders. Are they OK with many more people contracting carpal tunnel or RSI because of the choices they made? What about the environmental costs of needing to replace perfectly functioning components like speakers just to replace a keyboard? Just for the sake of A E S T H E T I C S?
  - vosper 8y ago
    People - lots of people - absolutely want to put furry cases on their phones. Don’t underestimate the desire to accessorize.
  - 8y ago
amelius 8y ago
> the minute you drop it, it's shattered or unuseable For Apple, that might be a feature ...
ankurdhama 8y ago
They (and all other companies) have one goal - successful sustainable business. The keyword here is sustainable.
fouc 8y ago
Brittle is kind of an ironic thing to say when the majority of pc laptops have long been brittle.
nothis 8y ago
They should have kept the "Pro" line as the sturdier, thicker model for people who do not want compromises. It's a real design failure.
ksec 8y ago
The problem is actually in one of the subtitle >No Margin for Error I don't mind the whole case of notebook being unserviceable for a iFixit prospective. I don't think anyone does. But it must be done to perfection that it doesn't ever need repairing. That means assuming no water spillage, under normal conditions, less then 0.1% of repair are needed in a 4 years timeframe. That is what I think is good enough for a thinner, integrated trade off. But that is an ideal they never achieved, and they have been let loose for years. USB-C Over Power, Logic Board burnt out, Keyboard failure, Power Supply not working, SSD Failure, Memory Failure, GPU failure, Display Panel problems. The amount of crap we have been putting up with considering they are some of the most expensive laptop in the market, and we are paying the premium really for using macOS.
kalleboo 8y ago
If they're making the phone thicker solely to make it not shatter, what you're doing is just building in a factory phone case, which you then can't easily remove or replace. So why not just let people buy their own cases that suit their needs?
coldtea 8y ago
>I honestly don't understand all these quality sacrifices just to make things thinner. It makes the product actually feel somewhat cheap and brittle. It's easy: every time people had the chance to buy thinner or thicker products, they flocked to the thinner ones. The complaints are random outliers around the internet, but the actual Apple's sales numbers (record years after record years and reduced sales for thicker older designs) speak for themselves. Not just some "vacuous" "non-technie" users either (as the stereotype says). Can you guess who said the following words about his MacBook Air for example? Quote: "I’m have to admit being a bit baffled by how nobody else seems to have done what Apple did with the Macbook Air – even several years after the first release, the other notebook vendors continue to push those ugly and clunky things. Yes, there are vendors that have tried to emulate it, but usually pretty badly. I don’t think I’m unusual in preferring my laptop to be thin and light. Btw, even when it comes to Apple, it’s really just the Air that I think is special. The other apple laptops may be good-looking, but they are still the same old clunky hardware, just in a pretty dress. I’m personally just hoping that I’m ahead of the curve in my strict requirement for “small and silent”. It’s not just laptops, btw – Intel sometimes gives me pre-release hardware, and the people inside Intel I work with have learnt that being whisper-quiet is one of my primary requirements for desktops too. I am sometimes surprised at what leaf-blowers some people seem to put up with under their desks. I want my office to be quiet. The loudest thing in the room – by far – should be the occasional purring of the cat. And when I travel, I want to travel light. A notebook that weighs more than a kilo is simply not a good thing (yeah, I’m using the smaller 11″ macbook air, and I think weight could still be improved on, but at least it’s very close to the magical 1kg limit)."""
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  you are confusing coincidence with causation, there is no evidence that apples record sales numbers (which seem to be at an end anyhow) have much to do with making things thinner to the point of fragility.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    It doesn't have to "do with it". It's enough that "it" didn't cause any backslash, and instead we've seen ever raised sales volumes...
Donzo 8y ago
I sure miss the headphone jack...
bsvalley 8y ago
This is what you see from a consumer perspective. But from a company perspective, going thinner as way more benefits. Apple invested a lot in R&D to make things thinner, but when it comes to manufacturing products in mass, Apple is actually making more and more money year after year by building a thinner version of a model. They’re saving money (cost of materials) while increasing or maintenaing their selling price. It’s a win for them.
icantdrive55 8y ago
For years I thought the same thing. I didn't say much because I got tired of being called a Luddite, have eyes roll, or being told, "the last thing a consumer cares about is ease of repairability." Then again I see people in Apple stores buying products like sheep. I'm looking for a new car for a family member. I went to mechanics school--for a year, so I'm the one who gets stuck with vechicle stuff. I really don't like the vechicles I'm looking at. I'm looking at vechicles with just so many sensors, and three propiatiary computers. Salesman, "The technology on this vechicle amazing." A few months ago, I didn't think it was a strange question to ask a salesman the price if the Factory Service Manual, or the availability of renting/buying a scan tool for the vechicle. They all say the same thing, "Oh--no one works on their autos anymore?" I like modern technology. I don't like stuff that gimmicky, or is not repairable.
joncrane 8y ago
It might be a racket, like the software/hardware market. Intel and OS/Software manufacturers are in cahoots to constantly design apps that require beefier hardware so that people have to constantly upgrade. The same might go for cell phone manufacturers. They intentionally leave a market for accessories so that their partners can make more money and to ensure support/staying quiet.
- terlisimo 8y ago
  I don't really believe that software developers intentionally write bloated code. It's just that most dev shops only fix performance issues when they become apparent on current-gen hardware. As hardware gets better and better, the bar for "ok, this is too slow, let's go back to the drawing board optimize it" gets higher and higher. Skype on my 4-year old phone is laughably slow, but I bet it'd be a lot faster if the devs did not have the latest and greatest in hardware.
jrs95 8y ago
Up until the 2016 MacBook Pro they managed this trade off well. But this wasn’t a product that was ready IMO, and it wasn’t just the keyboard. The hardware isn’t there yet to support a pro machine this thin. The battery life is worse than in 2015, the CPU performance has serious issues due to thermal constraints, and 32GB of RAM that a huge number of pros want can’t be done because what wiggle room they had for battery life they wasted on frivolous bullshit. I’m hopeful that they get this turned around soon, but aside from the keyboard they basically just have to wait for Intel to fix their problems for them.
globuous 8y ago
I really like this quote from the article: "This is design anorexia: making a product slimmer and slimmer at the cost of usefulness, functionality, serviceability, and the environment." (emph. mine) Spot on. My sister's best friend is currently hospitalized for anorexia so this resonates particularly well with me. Luckily for my friend, she seems to be doing much better from what I've heard. I hope I can same the thing about Apple soon.
garyrob 8y ago
"I honestly don't understand all these quality sacrifices just to make things thinner. It makes the product actually feel somewhat cheap and brittle." Here's a hypothesis: For many years, before the iPhone, Apple's computer business was built around keeping its loyal customer base happy. That base would buy new Macs by default, but would stop doing so if the long-term experience of using them went down too far. So Apple focused on long-term quality. Now, their computer business is built around seducing iPhone users, most of whom who are now using Windows computers, into moving to the Mac world. The vast majority of such users base their decisions on little more than what looks best in the showroom. For that showroom seduction to occur, Macs are better off being the hottest looking computers there. Whether or not their keyboards work for much more than two weeks after purchase is far less important. (14 days being the period of the Apple return policy.) Another factor: there is little reason for annual or bi-annual replacement of fully functioning computers any more. I'm still happy with my mid-2012 MBP. In the old days, Intel chips got faster according to Moore's law, and new software took advantage of that speed, so you really had to replace hardware at a fairly rapid pace to not experience everything getting slower and slower year-by-year. But the speed of my 2012 MPB is just fine. The situation is night-and-day different than it used to be. So, once Apple achieves that initial showroom seduction, even if the user doesn't end up being particularly happy with their machine, they probably aren't going to buy another one for 5 or so years anyway. So customer dissatisfaction isn't going to be felt for that much time. Moreover, from what I'm seeing, customer experience in the Windows world isn't consistently better, so word-of-mouth isn't particularly likely to pull the average user away from the Apple ecosystem and the way everything works together, and years of their emails and documents being stored in the Apple cloud which they'd lose access to, or go which they'd have to through the pain of moving elsewhere. Overall, if making ever-more money is Apple's only real goal, focusing on thinness over all else is arguably a rational choice, as long as thinness makes Macs look sexier in the showroom.

blauditore 8y ago

> and so then you're buying a case to protect it from scratches and shatter... so what's the point of making it thinner in the first place? I agree, also in terms of material. I'd love to buy a plastic phone with some bezel that doesn't shatter easily. The Nokia Lumias a couple years back (e.g. the Lumia 800[0]) were good-looking and super robust. But manufacturers obviously don't have much incentive to make hardware more durable, unless customers explicitly look out for that. And currently, many people tend to buy (high-end) phones rather for prestige reasons than actual usefulness. [0]: http://phonesdata.com/files/models/Nokia-Lumia-800-307.jpg http://phonesdata.com/files/models/Nokia-Lumia-800-307.jpg

Lukas_Skywalker 8y ago
I (still) own a Lumia 830 from back then. It's incredible what my phone endured (drops from a car roof, down a few stairs, even a short dive in a kitchen sink), and I don't really know why the thing is so sturdy since it truly looks good. I recently bought a spare display for about 40$ and a battery for 20$, just so I can replace them if anything should happen in the future.
- blauditore 8y ago
  > and I don't really know why the thing is so sturdy since it truly looks good. One factor is that the cover glass doesn't go all the way out to edges and corners. This leaves some "crumble zone", as phones by the laws of probability most often land on edges. What do the corners of your phone look like? I bet they're dented, at least that used to be the case for me.
seszett 8y ago
> The Nokia Lumias a couple years back (e.g. the Lumia 800[0]) were good-looking and super robust. Yes, I have a Lumia 640 here and I really like it from a hardware point of view. It's a shame that it only runs Windows Mobile, I wish so much that I was able to just install Android on it.

neuronic 8y ago

Not sure how this can fly over peoples heads, but the point is marketing. There is virtually zero disadvantage in making the phones 2mm thicker and add to their robustness and battery life this way. Virtually zero... except _marketing_ and hence sales.

sneak 8y ago
If sales increase when it is thinner, it stands to reason that customers want thinner devices. Just because you disagree with them doesn’t mean you’re not wrong for saying there is zero disadvantage. The disadvantage is not giving customers what they want.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  We can’t know that. There would have to be two otherwise identical devices, one thick; more robust; larger battery.
  - simonh 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure marketers and designers really do know that. How light a device feels in the hand is pretty much the very first thing someone notices when picking up a new device, and sets the stage for the rest of their expectations. We also know that in most cases (of course not every case) first impressions are a much bigger influence on the final decision to purchase than later analysis and consideration, regardless of what people think about their own decision making process. Pretty much every company that has ever sold anything cares about this stuff, and many of them have plenty of resources, so this has been studies to death for decades. A lot of super smart people have spent a huge amount of time devising very clever ways to test this stuff.
    - xg15 8y ago
      > We also know that [...] first impressions are a much bigger influence on the final decision to purchase than later analysis and consideration But this is the whole point of the GP's criticism: The whole design of the device is driven by optimizing purchase, not actually by making it usable, useful or durable.

furyg3 8y ago

Especially in cases when it doesn't need to be thinner. I just tried out a Apple Magic Keyboard, which is a razor blade for some reason, and had wrist pain within a few hours of using it. Everybody's different, but this keyboard is trash. It is designed solely to look pretty in marketing photos. I'm not a keyboard snob. I don't need Cherry MX Blue's to be happy. I thought the Apple Wireless Keyboard (with the AA batteries) was probably a step in the wrong direction, but still fine to type on. But this is quite literally painfully bad. And there was no reason for it, it's not a portable product, it doesn't have heat sinks, screens, fast processors, etc. It's just a keyboard, it would be fine if it's 2mm thicker. Actually it would be better. It's a keyboard. It's for typing. Come on.

paulriddle 8y ago
I am currently using this horrible keyboard. Hate this thing. Before I've been using a mechanical keyboard, but coworkers complained that it was too loud. I like loud keybords. The sound is so pleasant and satisfying I want it to be even more intense. I want to feel vibration every time I hit the key. And when I hit enter I want there to be a minor earthquake. This apple trash keyboard doesn't have Shift+Insert. The alt is next to ctrl and it's place is taken by cmd. I had to change my bindings for i3. Caps lock isn't solid and instead of caps + f, I oftentimes type simply f, because caps is released too soon. (caps is rebinded to ctrl and caps + f means select suggested autocompletion). Enter is small. Actually, I will apply for new keyboard this very day, right now. It will be regular mashed potatoes keyboard, but it's still going to be better than this.
- danieldk 8y ago
  The Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic Keyboard does not have loud switches, but feels much better than the Magic Keyboard. Only the function keys are not great.
  - lathiat 8y ago
    +1 for the sculpt ergonomic, the older black version (with external numpad) and newer surface version are both great. The newer surface version is mostly better because it has an Fn key instead of a physical switch to go between media keys and F1, F2, etc.. plus real home/insert/end/arrow keys. I do wish they left the numberpad separate though, as it increase the distance to my mouse/trackpad and I preferred to just get rid of it, as personally I never use it. But many people also like to have it... Newer version is also bluetooth which is great on mac, but less great on windows/linux as you don't get bootloader support.

paulriddle 8y ago

Women will buy thinner phones. Fat phone makes you look fat. A delicate slim phone feels better! (kind of joking, but who knows) Some people, not just women, might think that thinner means more advanced. After all, it's always been somewhat the case in general - remember the old 5kg monitors? Now you have flat LCDs. I, however, am uncomfortable with thin laptop. I don't feel it's safe to put it in the backpack with other things. After all, what if I have to run? Will it endure the jolting? What if somebody bumps into me from behind in a crowded place? Probably it will be fine, but it is still somewhat unnerving. But manufacturers want to make stuff that breaks. If it doesn't the you sell little. It can't be really bad, because then you'll get bad reputation, but if it's too good then you'll be outcompeted. I think it's possible to make a laptop that most likely will never break and will remain upgradeable for the next 50 years. But it would require cooperation from many hardware manufacturers because every part would have to be made with quality in mind, instead of profit and scalability. We will not cooperate because we don't really need high quality laptops. What we have is good enough. Gimmicks are easy to add. Some of the most annoying are touchscreens. Why on earth would you need a touchscreen on a laptop? Touching screens makes you look like an idiot. Remember those silly stock images of high tech where people touch holograms? I never liked them. It's like trying to sell electronics to apes. You don't explain, you show with gestures how you can interact with this thingy. Actually annoying is not the right word. They make me feel uncomfortably superior. I don't know why.

JamesMcMinn 8y ago

Samsung's Galaxy S range of phones have been getting slightly thicker every generation since the S6. The S6 was 6.8mm thick, the S9 is 8.5mm, with small but progressive increases along the way. The S9 still feels like it could break easy due to the all glass finish, but I think that has much more to do with avoiding plastic whilst still enabling wireless charging.

Already__Taken 8y ago

> Everyone keeps making these bacteria and finger print magnets thinner I fear it might be worse than that; I have a Moto C, which is nice enough as a cheap phone. But they've made the case out of the slipperiest finish I could imagine, I have a silicone case just to trust I can hold it. Now, if that's the cheapest finish they could make to get the price bracket they want, fine. But I can't shake the feeling that some designer chose that finish to make it _feel_ thinner. Just like a rough heavy weight paper makes something _feel_ valuable.

seanwilson 8y ago

> I honestly don't understand all these quality sacrifices just to make things thinner. It makes the product actually feel somewhat cheap and brittle. I never understood this. I read often in reviews about how the weight of something makes it feel more expensive and "premium". For something you're carrying around all the time, you want it to be light and manufacturing something light is usually going to be more expensive.

bitofhope 8y ago
Do I want it to be light? Sure, I wouldn't want to carry a brick of tungsten with me, but something the weight of two or three iPhones isn't much of an encumbrance even to people much physically weaker than me.

hrktb 8y ago

> The same thing confuses me with smartphones. I like how John Siracusa explains the concept of "naked robotic core" To paraphrase, the phone is the computing unit, and the user customizes it to fit it's usage. People that never dropped a phone in their life can use it as is. People who work in construction can put hardcore shells that survive multiple floor drops. Those who like furry cases can go wild and those who want to build accessories around the phone have a smaller target to do so. Seeing it this way, having the phone thin enough than you can put the case you want without the whole package being bulky is a feature. To touch on the laptops, a few grams shoved off won't matter and don't justify a huge sacrifice. But the size and weight drop we had from the 15" Lombard laptops to today's 15" don't all happen in dramatically, and keeping a goal of having the next machine thinner than the previous one can help achieve huge progress in the long term. I am not a fan of the current keyboards, but I can't throw them the stone for trying to make things thinner and lighter. I was super happy to see the lighter 2013~2015 models, and I don't want them to just settle and say "we're good enough for the next 20 years, we don't care anymore".

exergy 8y ago
First of all, I disagree that people _want_ to put furry cases on their phones. Too many people have walked around for too long with giant cracks on their screens that they've realised it's better to slap on a case, even with the ugliness that goes with it. Having some minion drawing on the back of the case is just a minor positive. More importantly though, I cannot stand how glib Apple is with their devices. Surely the engineers and managers in charge _must_ realise the responsibility on their shoulders. Are they OK with many more people contracting carpal tunnel or RSI because of the choices they made? What about the environmental costs of needing to replace perfectly functioning components like speakers just to replace a keyboard? Just for the sake of A E S T H E T I C S?
- vosper 8y ago
  People - lots of people - absolutely want to put furry cases on their phones. Don’t underestimate the desire to accessorize.
- 8y ago

amelius 8y ago

> the minute you drop it, it's shattered or unuseable For Apple, that might be a feature ...

ankurdhama 8y ago

They (and all other companies) have one goal - successful sustainable business. The keyword here is sustainable.

fouc 8y ago

Brittle is kind of an ironic thing to say when the majority of pc laptops have long been brittle.

nothis 8y ago

They should have kept the "Pro" line as the sturdier, thicker model for people who do not want compromises. It's a real design failure.

ksec 8y ago

The problem is actually in one of the subtitle >No Margin for Error I don't mind the whole case of notebook being unserviceable for a iFixit prospective. I don't think anyone does. But it must be done to perfection that it doesn't ever need repairing. That means assuming no water spillage, under normal conditions, less then 0.1% of repair are needed in a 4 years timeframe. That is what I think is good enough for a thinner, integrated trade off. But that is an ideal they never achieved, and they have been let loose for years. USB-C Over Power, Logic Board burnt out, Keyboard failure, Power Supply not working, SSD Failure, Memory Failure, GPU failure, Display Panel problems. The amount of crap we have been putting up with considering they are some of the most expensive laptop in the market, and we are paying the premium really for using macOS.

kalleboo 8y ago

If they're making the phone thicker solely to make it not shatter, what you're doing is just building in a factory phone case, which you then can't easily remove or replace. So why not just let people buy their own cases that suit their needs?

coldtea 8y ago

>I honestly don't understand all these quality sacrifices just to make things thinner. It makes the product actually feel somewhat cheap and brittle. It's easy: every time people had the chance to buy thinner or thicker products, they flocked to the thinner ones. The complaints are random outliers around the internet, but the actual Apple's sales numbers (record years after record years and reduced sales for thicker older designs) speak for themselves. Not just some "vacuous" "non-technie" users either (as the stereotype says). Can you guess who said the following words about his MacBook Air for example? Quote: "I’m have to admit being a bit baffled by how nobody else seems to have done what Apple did with the Macbook Air – even several years after the first release, the other notebook vendors continue to push those ugly and clunky things. Yes, there are vendors that have tried to emulate it, but usually pretty badly. I don’t think I’m unusual in preferring my laptop to be thin and light. Btw, even when it comes to Apple, it’s really just the Air that I think is special. The other apple laptops may be good-looking, but they are still the same old clunky hardware, just in a pretty dress. I’m personally just hoping that I’m ahead of the curve in my strict requirement for “small and silent”. It’s not just laptops, btw – Intel sometimes gives me pre-release hardware, and the people inside Intel I work with have learnt that being whisper-quiet is one of my primary requirements for desktops too. I am sometimes surprised at what leaf-blowers some people seem to put up with under their desks. I want my office to be quiet. The loudest thing in the room – by far – should be the occasional purring of the cat. And when I travel, I want to travel light. A notebook that weighs more than a kilo is simply not a good thing (yeah, I’m using the smaller 11″ macbook air, and I think weight could still be improved on, but at least it’s very close to the magical 1kg limit)."""

throwaway2048 8y ago
you are confusing coincidence with causation, there is no evidence that apples record sales numbers (which seem to be at an end anyhow) have much to do with making things thinner to the point of fragility.
- coldtea 8y ago
  It doesn't have to "do with it". It's enough that "it" didn't cause any backslash, and instead we've seen ever raised sales volumes...

Donzo 8y ago

I sure miss the headphone jack...

bsvalley 8y ago

This is what you see from a consumer perspective. But from a company perspective, going thinner as way more benefits. Apple invested a lot in R&D to make things thinner, but when it comes to manufacturing products in mass, Apple is actually making more and more money year after year by building a thinner version of a model. They’re saving money (cost of materials) while increasing or maintenaing their selling price. It’s a win for them.

icantdrive55 8y ago

For years I thought the same thing. I didn't say much because I got tired of being called a Luddite, have eyes roll, or being told, "the last thing a consumer cares about is ease of repairability." Then again I see people in Apple stores buying products like sheep. I'm looking for a new car for a family member. I went to mechanics school--for a year, so I'm the one who gets stuck with vechicle stuff. I really don't like the vechicles I'm looking at. I'm looking at vechicles with just so many sensors, and three propiatiary computers. Salesman, "The technology on this vechicle amazing." A few months ago, I didn't think it was a strange question to ask a salesman the price if the Factory Service Manual, or the availability of renting/buying a scan tool for the vechicle. They all say the same thing, "Oh--no one works on their autos anymore?" I like modern technology. I don't like stuff that gimmicky, or is not repairable.

joncrane 8y ago

It might be a racket, like the software/hardware market. Intel and OS/Software manufacturers are in cahoots to constantly design apps that require beefier hardware so that people have to constantly upgrade. The same might go for cell phone manufacturers. They intentionally leave a market for accessories so that their partners can make more money and to ensure support/staying quiet.

terlisimo 8y ago
I don't really believe that software developers intentionally write bloated code. It's just that most dev shops only fix performance issues when they become apparent on current-gen hardware. As hardware gets better and better, the bar for "ok, this is too slow, let's go back to the drawing board optimize it" gets higher and higher. Skype on my 4-year old phone is laughably slow, but I bet it'd be a lot faster if the devs did not have the latest and greatest in hardware.

jrs95 8y ago

Up until the 2016 MacBook Pro they managed this trade off well. But this wasn’t a product that was ready IMO, and it wasn’t just the keyboard. The hardware isn’t there yet to support a pro machine this thin. The battery life is worse than in 2015, the CPU performance has serious issues due to thermal constraints, and 32GB of RAM that a huge number of pros want can’t be done because what wiggle room they had for battery life they wasted on frivolous bullshit. I’m hopeful that they get this turned around soon, but aside from the keyboard they basically just have to wait for Intel to fix their problems for them.

globuous 8y ago

I really like this quote from the article: "This is design anorexia: making a product slimmer and slimmer at the cost of usefulness, functionality, serviceability, and the environment." (emph. mine) Spot on. My sister's best friend is currently hospitalized for anorexia so this resonates particularly well with me. Luckily for my friend, she seems to be doing much better from what I've heard. I hope I can same the thing about Apple soon.

garyrob 8y ago

"I honestly don't understand all these quality sacrifices just to make things thinner. It makes the product actually feel somewhat cheap and brittle." Here's a hypothesis: For many years, before the iPhone, Apple's computer business was built around keeping its loyal customer base happy. That base would buy new Macs by default, but would stop doing so if the long-term experience of using them went down too far. So Apple focused on long-term quality. Now, their computer business is built around seducing iPhone users, most of whom who are now using Windows computers, into moving to the Mac world. The vast majority of such users base their decisions on little more than what looks best in the showroom. For that showroom seduction to occur, Macs are better off being the hottest looking computers there. Whether or not their keyboards work for much more than two weeks after purchase is far less important. (14 days being the period of the Apple return policy.) Another factor: there is little reason for annual or bi-annual replacement of fully functioning computers any more. I'm still happy with my mid-2012 MBP. In the old days, Intel chips got faster according to Moore's law, and new software took advantage of that speed, so you really had to replace hardware at a fairly rapid pace to not experience everything getting slower and slower year-by-year. But the speed of my 2012 MPB is just fine. The situation is night-and-day different than it used to be. So, once Apple achieves that initial showroom seduction, even if the user doesn't end up being particularly happy with their machine, they probably aren't going to buy another one for 5 or so years anyway. So customer dissatisfaction isn't going to be felt for that much time. Moreover, from what I'm seeing, customer experience in the Windows world isn't consistently better, so word-of-mouth isn't particularly likely to pull the average user away from the Apple ecosystem and the way everything works together, and years of their emails and documents being stored in the Apple cloud which they'd lose access to, or go which they'd have to through the pain of moving elsewhere. Overall, if making ever-more money is Apple's only real goal, focusing on thinness over all else is arguably a rational choice, as long as thinness makes Macs look sexier in the showroom.