4 ms·

Reminds me of the difference between the Apple II and the very Jobs-ian Macintosh. One you could get into and upgrade without even a screwdriver. The other took

• organsnyder 7y ago
  Some of that had to be unavoidable due to the integrated display, though. CRTs inherently deal with dangerous voltages. I don't think of Jobs as having been against repairability directly; rather, his singular pursuit of elegant designs resulted in a lot of other desirable features—repairability being a big one—getting steamrolled.
  • jacobush 7y ago
    It was not unheard of for CRTs to have an internal metal shield of some sort.
  • everyone 7y ago
    Ignoring many of the more pragmatic requirements of a design in favour of superficial aesthetics is not elegance. Elegant design is solving as many requirements as possible with as few elements as possible. A claw hammer is elegant, macs are not.
    • tomjakubowski 7y ago
      Weight + slimness (the primary drivers of unrepairable Mac designs) yield pragmatic benefits in laptops and especially in phones. There are superficial aesthetic qualities to slimness also, to be sure, but you cannot just brush away the benefits in ease of use and portability.
      • everyone 7y ago
        Well the parent comment was referring to the apple macintosh, which is what I was also referring to. Though that does seem to be Apples general design policy 'make it look nice' to the exclusion of all else. Hey it sells though! I've literally seen a regular non technical person, when asked what kind of computer they want to buy, answer "I want a red one!"