3 ms·

> Planned obsolescence: Apple laptops retain their resale value for a very long time. Planned obsolescence here means limiting upgrades and repairs, and making

> Planned obsolescence: Apple laptops retain their resale value for a very long time. Planned obsolescence here means limiting upgrades and repairs, and making repairs or replacement so costly that you prefer to buy a new device if the current model develops performance issues or has hardware failures. With the M1 this is even worse now as you can't even run other base OSes on it reliably, thus making its users susceptible to systemic obsolescence (not including hardware or software compatibility when the OS is upgraded). It has nothing to do with the resale value of a product. (It is a humbug argument as nobody can predict what the value of your device will be tomorrow if some newer technology comes along. Moreover, soldered parts and non-user-replaceable battery actually make such laptops even less desirable in the seconds market because they cannot be upgraded, unlike the older Apple laptops). > Almost everyone buys the base configuration, and almost no-one upgraded RAM or HD I'd really like to know your source for this. > What you're paying for isn't the cost of the RAM/storage itself, but the money necessary to make it worth the bother of making additional models which almost no-one buys. Again, share your source for this really ridiculous argument - they wouldn't need to bother with all this if they didn't solder the parts in the first place.

foldr 6y ago
Planned obsolesce does have a bit to do with resale value, as it determines how much it costs to sell your existing device and replace it. This in turn has implications for whether upgrades are worth the money. Few upgrade ever for any reason; even fewer upgrade if it's economically feasible to sell your old model and buy a newer one. Apple doesn't need to do anything nefarious to stop people upgrading their MacBooks. In looking at repairs you have to factor in reliability as well as replaceability. We're seeing a trend towards laptops becoming harder to repair but also intrinsically more reliable. No-one complains that laptop CPUs can't be replaced, for example, because CPUs are reliable enough that it's not an issue. We're well on the way to the same being true of internal flash storage. On top of that, Apple is reaping significant benefits in energy efficiency, reliability and performance from closely integrating components. That is something that benefits everyone who buys a MacBook. Hardly anyone benefits from removable RAM or SSDs. I think some people mistakenly think that Apple could just stop 'soldering down' the RAM and SSD, but they must not realize how closely integrated everything is in the M1 MacBooks. The idea that Apple did all of this extraordinarily expensive R&D just so that they could sell a few more RAM or SSD upgrades is bordering on a conspiracy theory. As I said, there is so little demand for 16GB MacBook models that Apple doesn't even stock them in stores. Overall, I just don't see any evidence that Apple has bad motivations here. It seems to me that you are just speculating uncharitably.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  > We're seeing a trend towards laptops becoming harder to repair but also intrinsically more reliable. The trends are separate and not related. I have a 10+ year old laptop with replaceable parts and it still runs great without any issues. With the European Union introducing the Right to Repair bill, I expect to see a reverse of this trend soon, and more repairable electronics in the future. If Apple and the others stop their selfish and unethical lobbying against the Right to Repair movement in the US, then the American consumers will also enjoy the same benefits and not be taken for a ride. > The idea that Apple did all of this extraordinarily expensive R&D just so that they could sell a few more RAM or SSD upgrades is bordering on a conspiracy theory. Perhaps it does for the ignorant. But it is already recognized that firms like Apple that indulge in this already know that the profit from such unrepairable devices offset the additional expense on the R&D required to create it. Even the wikipedia page on planned obsolescence specifically points this out: Producers that pursue this strategy believe that the additional sales revenue it creates more than offsets the additional costs of research and development, and offsets the opportunity costs of repurposing an existing product line. And, as mentioned already, everyone already knows how Apple is actively lobbying in the US against the Right to Repair bill thus clearly proving that what you call a "conspiracy theory" is indeed a deliberate and entrenched business practice in Apple.
  - foldr 6y ago
    >The trends are separate and not related. Sure, but as failure of any given component becomes less likely, the advantages of making it replaceable cease to outweigh the disadvantages. An M1 MacBook Air with replaceable RAM and SSD would not have the same performance, battery life or form factor. 99% of Apple's customers care way more about those things than they care about upgradeability. >But it is already recognized that firms like Apple that indulge in this already know that the profit from such unrepairable devices offset the additional expense on the R&D required to create it. I'm baffled by this claim. If all Apple wanted was to make their laptops unupgradeable then they could just solder on generic CPU, RAM and SSD components – no R&D needed. I try not to use the term 'conspiracy theory' lightly, but the claim that Apple's transition to the M1 architecture is motivated primarily by 'planned obsolescence' really is a conspiracy theory.

foldr 6y ago

Planned obsolesce does have a bit to do with resale value, as it determines how much it costs to sell your existing device and replace it. This in turn has implications for whether upgrades are worth the money. Few upgrade ever for any reason; even fewer upgrade if it's economically feasible to sell your old model and buy a newer one. Apple doesn't need to do anything nefarious to stop people upgrading their MacBooks. In looking at repairs you have to factor in reliability as well as replaceability. We're seeing a trend towards laptops becoming harder to repair but also intrinsically more reliable. No-one complains that laptop CPUs can't be replaced, for example, because CPUs are reliable enough that it's not an issue. We're well on the way to the same being true of internal flash storage. On top of that, Apple is reaping significant benefits in energy efficiency, reliability and performance from closely integrating components. That is something that benefits everyone who buys a MacBook. Hardly anyone benefits from removable RAM or SSDs. I think some people mistakenly think that Apple could just stop 'soldering down' the RAM and SSD, but they must not realize how closely integrated everything is in the M1 MacBooks. The idea that Apple did all of this extraordinarily expensive R&D just so that they could sell a few more RAM or SSD upgrades is bordering on a conspiracy theory. As I said, there is so little demand for 16GB MacBook models that Apple doesn't even stock them in stores. Overall, I just don't see any evidence that Apple has bad motivations here. It seems to me that you are just speculating uncharitably.

webmobdev 6y ago
> We're seeing a trend towards laptops becoming harder to repair but also intrinsically more reliable. The trends are separate and not related. I have a 10+ year old laptop with replaceable parts and it still runs great without any issues. With the European Union introducing the Right to Repair bill, I expect to see a reverse of this trend soon, and more repairable electronics in the future. If Apple and the others stop their selfish and unethical lobbying against the Right to Repair movement in the US, then the American consumers will also enjoy the same benefits and not be taken for a ride. > The idea that Apple did all of this extraordinarily expensive R&D just so that they could sell a few more RAM or SSD upgrades is bordering on a conspiracy theory. Perhaps it does for the ignorant. But it is already recognized that firms like Apple that indulge in this already know that the profit from such unrepairable devices offset the additional expense on the R&D required to create it. Even the wikipedia page on planned obsolescence specifically points this out: Producers that pursue this strategy believe that the additional sales revenue it creates more than offsets the additional costs of research and development, and offsets the opportunity costs of repurposing an existing product line. And, as mentioned already, everyone already knows how Apple is actively lobbying in the US against the Right to Repair bill thus clearly proving that what you call a "conspiracy theory" is indeed a deliberate and entrenched business practice in Apple.
- foldr 6y ago
  >The trends are separate and not related. Sure, but as failure of any given component becomes less likely, the advantages of making it replaceable cease to outweigh the disadvantages. An M1 MacBook Air with replaceable RAM and SSD would not have the same performance, battery life or form factor. 99% of Apple's customers care way more about those things than they care about upgradeability. >But it is already recognized that firms like Apple that indulge in this already know that the profit from such unrepairable devices offset the additional expense on the R&D required to create it. I'm baffled by this claim. If all Apple wanted was to make their laptops unupgradeable then they could just solder on generic CPU, RAM and SSD components – no R&D needed. I try not to use the term 'conspiracy theory' lightly, but the claim that Apple's transition to the M1 architecture is motivated primarily by 'planned obsolescence' really is a conspiracy theory.