3 ms·

Consider an alternative world: Apple decides to only make highly repairable devices, and a computer like the iPad is never created. Obviously this is not the o

Consider an alternative world: Apple decides to only make highly repairable devices, and a computer like the iPad is never created. Obviously this is not the only alternative world, but I think it is realistic. Say the design initiatives were inverted: Repairability were king and form & function were subservient to it. In such a world, we would still have giant beige boxes on our desks. That's not to say there is not a balance to be struck that could result in a more repairable iPad, but my point is that Apple's design initiatives have resulted in many new, successful computing form factors (touch, tablet, watch, AirPods even). I will hitch my wagon to the horse that continues to plow new ground, even if there is some theoretical ideal that is "better." I personally believe that Apple's resistance to repairability (or, more accurately to repairability outside their dominion) stems from a desire to control a customers experience with their product, not from some business case or greed. This goes all the way back to Steve Jobs and the original Macintosh [0]. I personally can, and have, repaired my Apple devices with 3rd party parts, and the results have been less than sub-optimal. A screen that was deeply blue-shifted (so extreme that even software adjustments didn't help), a home button that became nonfunctional, and a battery that became swollen. I've had some repairs that worked great, but buying quality parts is a bit more expensive, to the point it is worth it (to me) to have Apple repair. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Expansion

blub 7y ago
Your false dichotomy is unconvincing, because Apple were so inept in designing the iPad, they can't even repair it themselves. The non-TouchID button of an iPad broke and my only option would have been to essentially buy a new iPad, because they send the broken one to HQ and give you a refurbished device in exchange. They can't repair a broken button! That is incredibly lame. Furthermore, their devices have become less repairable and more failure-prone for no good reason. For example the MBP screen will die just from opening and closing the lid, because they used too short cables. Major fuck-up, but they will easily fix it by replacing the cable, right? No, they designed it in such a way that the entire screen must be replaced. I'd like to see you try to explain away this idiocy please. Tell us how we couldn't have had MBPs and iPads if Apple would have been able to fix their own devices instead of force-recycling them.
- oflannabhra 7y ago
  Nowhere in my comment did I present a dichotomy. Actually, I went out of my way to avoid a dichotomy. Beyond that, my argument, more simply, is the following: 1. Apple has a set of philosophies and priorities in design. Within these, repairability is a lower priority than Vice and some customers would prefer. 2. From those priorities comes expertise and processes that result in the creation of new products and entirely new product categories. 3. Apple has seen success unlike any other company from those resultant products. Not just successful, but the most successful ever. No other company has replicated some of those products. 4. Given the above, Apple sees no reason to make any changes to their design priorities. Even if those priorities have resulted in missteps, they have been overwhelmingly rewarded by their decisions. Indeed, it is plainly obvious that it would be foolish to change those priorities based on the voices of Vice and Louis Rossman who look at a part of the design but not the whole. This is akin to fans asking LeBron James to take fewer shots because he missed a single game-winner. That is to say, even if the "thin and light" priority has resulted in missteps (I think this is objectively true, re: keyboards, MBP screen cable, etc), Apple would not have been able to create a product like the Apple Watch without the expertise and processes that flow out of those priorities. I think Apple can, and most likely will, make adjustments to the processes that come from those priorities to correct and prevent those missteps, without changing the priorities themselves.

blub 7y ago

Your false dichotomy is unconvincing, because Apple were so inept in designing the iPad, they can't even repair it themselves. The non-TouchID button of an iPad broke and my only option would have been to essentially buy a new iPad, because they send the broken one to HQ and give you a refurbished device in exchange. They can't repair a broken button! That is incredibly lame. Furthermore, their devices have become less repairable and more failure-prone for no good reason. For example the MBP screen will die just from opening and closing the lid, because they used too short cables. Major fuck-up, but they will easily fix it by replacing the cable, right? No, they designed it in such a way that the entire screen must be replaced. I'd like to see you try to explain away this idiocy please. Tell us how we couldn't have had MBPs and iPads if Apple would have been able to fix their own devices instead of force-recycling them.

oflannabhra 7y ago
Nowhere in my comment did I present a dichotomy. Actually, I went out of my way to avoid a dichotomy. Beyond that, my argument, more simply, is the following: 1. Apple has a set of philosophies and priorities in design. Within these, repairability is a lower priority than Vice and some customers would prefer. 2. From those priorities comes expertise and processes that result in the creation of new products and entirely new product categories. 3. Apple has seen success unlike any other company from those resultant products. Not just successful, but the most successful ever. No other company has replicated some of those products. 4. Given the above, Apple sees no reason to make any changes to their design priorities. Even if those priorities have resulted in missteps, they have been overwhelmingly rewarded by their decisions. Indeed, it is plainly obvious that it would be foolish to change those priorities based on the voices of Vice and Louis Rossman who look at a part of the design but not the whole. This is akin to fans asking LeBron James to take fewer shots because he missed a single game-winner. That is to say, even if the "thin and light" priority has resulted in missteps (I think this is objectively true, re: keyboards, MBP screen cable, etc), Apple would not have been able to create a product like the Apple Watch without the expertise and processes that flow out of those priorities. I think Apple can, and most likely will, make adjustments to the processes that come from those priorities to correct and prevent those missteps, without changing the priorities themselves.