5 ms·

To be fair, if a company wants to produce something that only works on one set of hardware, that should be fine. We simple choose not to use it, right? And many

by imdsm 5y ago

To be fair, if a company wants to produce something that only works on one set of hardware, that should be fine. We simple choose not to use it, right? And many of us /do/ choose to use it? But why do we choose to? Because we find that we're too busy to maintain a Linux-based workstation. While there are questionable practices by Apple and many other machine producers, what you can't argue against is that in limiting the hardware that MacOS has to work with, they're able to deliver a level of stability and user experience that you don't get with Linux. Sure, it would be great if we could replace the batteries, if we could upgrade the memory, and easily fix broken parts, but that isn't the company's ethos. The company produces devices that are plug and play, high grade consumer electronics. Nobody forces us to buy these products. Anyway, that being said, the framework machines look super interesting and if they were UK available, I'd probably get one for a non-critical Linux-based workstation.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> We simple choose not to use it, right? As if choosing a $1k+ computer to use for years was equivalent to choosing the flavor of ice cream scoops. The "voting with your wallet" argument doesn't work when there's several variables in play, and the optimal configurations don't exist on the market. Like e.g. I'd like to buy a computer that's just like Macbook, except with repairable/swappable/upgradeable components. Or a phone that's just like iPhone, except with replaceable battery, a headphone jack, and repairable home button. But I can't have them - even if I'm ready to pay a bit extra, and if I'd welcome a thicker device. These options literally don't exist. Nothing similar to them exists. Particularly on the repairability front, every vendor is choosing to just not offer it.
- WhisperingShiba 5y ago
  You say all this, but you would agree; We really can't be telling private companies or individuals what to and what not to do with their technologies, right? 1) How do we enforce that at smaller scales? 2) How would we prevent our regulation from squashing innovative solutions to problems, or enhancing safety in critical applications?
- javierbyte 5y ago
  > I'd like to buy a computer that's just like Macbook, except with repairable/swappable/upgradeable components That's the thing, making something plug and play and mostly "driver-free" would be very hard to almost impossible. Framework laptops look amazing but they will require at least a bit more maintenance and knowledge, and that is fine too.
- roughly 5y ago
  > The "voting with your wallet" argument doesn't work when there's several variables in play, and the optimal configurations don't exist on the market I am against billboards in space but I would make an exception for this quote.
vladvasiliu 5y ago
I agree with your larger point, regarding limited hardware support, etc. I agree that Apple shouldn't have to support random mods / hardware components / etc and that their selling point is "it just works". But then again, they don't have to be dicks about it. If they're able to detect that the hardware has somehow been modified, maybe just show some message along the lines of "you've modified the hardware, we're not supporting this anymore, you're on your own" instead of bricking it.

by imdsm 5y ago

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> We simple choose not to use it, right? As if choosing a $1k+ computer to use for years was equivalent to choosing the flavor of ice cream scoops. The "voting with your wallet" argument doesn't work when there's several variables in play, and the optimal configurations don't exist on the market. Like e.g. I'd like to buy a computer that's just like Macbook, except with repairable/swappable/upgradeable components. Or a phone that's just like iPhone, except with replaceable battery, a headphone jack, and repairable home button. But I can't have them - even if I'm ready to pay a bit extra, and if I'd welcome a thicker device. These options literally don't exist. Nothing similar to them exists. Particularly on the repairability front, every vendor is choosing to just not offer it.

WhisperingShiba 5y ago
You say all this, but you would agree; We really can't be telling private companies or individuals what to and what not to do with their technologies, right? 1) How do we enforce that at smaller scales? 2) How would we prevent our regulation from squashing innovative solutions to problems, or enhancing safety in critical applications?
javierbyte 5y ago
> I'd like to buy a computer that's just like Macbook, except with repairable/swappable/upgradeable components That's the thing, making something plug and play and mostly "driver-free" would be very hard to almost impossible. Framework laptops look amazing but they will require at least a bit more maintenance and knowledge, and that is fine too.
roughly 5y ago
> The "voting with your wallet" argument doesn't work when there's several variables in play, and the optimal configurations don't exist on the market I am against billboards in space but I would make an exception for this quote.

vladvasiliu 5y ago

I agree with your larger point, regarding limited hardware support, etc. I agree that Apple shouldn't have to support random mods / hardware components / etc and that their selling point is "it just works". But then again, they don't have to be dicks about it. If they're able to detect that the hardware has somehow been modified, maybe just show some message along the lines of "you've modified the hardware, we're not supporting this anymore, you're on your own" instead of bricking it.