3 ms·

I was mostly with you until the part about the 'best [iPad] possible'. Making every part in a device like the iPad replaceable would not make a very nice produc

I was mostly with you until the part about the 'best [iPad] possible'. Making every part in a device like the iPad replaceable would not make a very nice product at all. Ever used an off-the-shelf Dell? You can upgrade it forever, but it's rickety junk. Besides, even if they do purposefully hold off on stuff that would make it better only to manipulate us and profit (which I doubt[a]), it still doesn't make your first-gen iPad useless. It works great still! [a]: To take the example of the camera, they probably weren't able to make it a good experience. The software was still buggy, or they were waiting for more readily available parts (supply chain is a big deal!), etc. In short, they aren't bricking original iPad's, so there's no reason to get upset about a new one. You can simply hold onto yours. If you can't because of peer-pressure or you require the newest status symbol, that's not Apple's problem -- Indeed they would be stupid not to capitalize on that.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
> Making every part in a device like the iPad replaceable would not make a very nice product at all. Why not? What is wrong with sockets? Or plugs? Or screws? How would they make the IPad significantly thicker, heavier, more fragile, less powerful, or clunkier? It would at worst make it 10% more expensive. But that would waste so much less resources when it's time to upgrade, or when one piece is broken. Oh wait, it wouldn't be as profitable, so let's pretend it just sucks and forget about it. [a]: Good example, actually. They could either have put the camera anyway, knowing the software could be patched later, or just wait until it's ready, or make it possible to add the camera later (maybe requiring an approved specialist to solder it on). They just preferred the more lucrative path. Like nearly everyone else in this planet. I can hardly blame them personally for that, because: > Indeed they would be stupid not to capitalize on that. From a selfish point of view, I agree: companies would be silly not to do everything in their power to maximize profit. Even taking advantage of human weaknesses, or waste resources, or dumping trash in the wild, or <insert lots of horrible things here>. I just say that something is wrong with such a system.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

> Making every part in a device like the iPad replaceable would not make a very nice product at all. Why not? What is wrong with sockets? Or plugs? Or screws? How would they make the IPad significantly thicker, heavier, more fragile, less powerful, or clunkier? It would at worst make it 10% more expensive. But that would waste so much less resources when it's time to upgrade, or when one piece is broken. Oh wait, it wouldn't be as profitable, so let's pretend it just sucks and forget about it. [a]: Good example, actually. They could either have put the camera anyway, knowing the software could be patched later, or just wait until it's ready, or make it possible to add the camera later (maybe requiring an approved specialist to solder it on). They just preferred the more lucrative path. Like nearly everyone else in this planet. I can hardly blame them personally for that, because: > Indeed they would be stupid not to capitalize on that. From a selfish point of view, I agree: companies would be silly not to do everything in their power to maximize profit. Even taking advantage of human weaknesses, or waste resources, or dumping trash in the wild, or <insert lots of horrible things here>. I just say that something is wrong with such a system.