7 ms·

> No, this is a bad solution. You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% fr

> No, this is a bad solution. You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit. > One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair.

internet2000 6mo ago
> It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair. It's slightly worse, slightly more flex, thicker and heavier vs an Air in spite of having a smaller battery and more empty space. It's all trade offs. If you want repairable, please buy a Framework or Lenovo. Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.
- wvenable 6mo ago
  > Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer. Again, why not? It's not mandating design, just minimal standards for repairability that should be obvious. If Framework and Lenovo can do it and Apple can do it on a $600 laptop, why can't everyone do it?
  - leetbulb 6mo ago
    Agreed. > why can't everyone do it What everyone is missing: Because other manufactures do not have to; the profit margins are too good to give a shit, and they allow some pretty fierce competition within the target demographic: <soapbox> Sadly, the general public still just wants the cheapest option to consume their bullshit content, even if it needs to be replaced a year from now after their cat walks on it and causes critical damage. The MacBook Neo is brilliant in that Apple takes a share of this market with a premium and affordable product that is basically just their previous generation phone, with the expensive bits likely sourced from their exchange program or surplus supply. Products that at some point the same people would've loved to have, but couldn't afford. Now repurposed with a larger screen, sporting the envied Apple logo, at an affordable price, and targeting that same demographic as the hot new thing, just one generation later. I have a feeling we'll see this pattern continue, and it's genius. Minimizing waste, maximizing profits, and giving the consumers what they want, while maintaining a gap between low-end and high-end -- people that spend $$$$ still want to feel special, of course. Don't get me wrong, the Neo is great, especially for us hackers, but it is absolutely not meant for us in any way. What is in our favor: it does, at the very least, raise the bar for these other manufactures that product absolute garbage. </soapbox> Someone needs to be a reference as to what is feasible in order for a standard to be established. Apple, Framework, and I guess Lenovo are the ones doing this these days. RIP the others.
- free_bip 6mo ago
  Oh no, my laptop is 2mm thicker than a different laptop. Won't someone think of the 2mm?
  - VogonPoetry 6mo ago
    That 2mm uses at least (2*335 + 2*235) * 2mm * 1mm = 2,280 mm^3 more material for the case. (a wall thickness of 1mm)
    - stavros 6mo ago
      I don't understand your math. The 1mm (the wall) was there already, so why is it being counted here? Plus, multiplying by 1 doesn't do anything? Also, the 2mm extra won't be solid plastic (they'll be solid air, since that's why we're adding the extra thickness, for the room. If anything, the extra material for the case would be the perimeter length times the perimeter wall width times the height.
      - Arcuru 6mo ago
        > If anything, the extra material for the case would be the perimeter length times the perimeter wall width times the height That's what they did? Perimeter length = 2*335mm + 2*235mm Wall height diff = 2mm Wall width = 1mm (2*335 + 2*235) * 2mm * 1mm = 2,280 mm^3
        stavros 6mo ago
        Ah, thanks, I think what happened was that the asterisks were turned into italics and confused me. I think the message was edited to clarify.
        VogonPoetry 6mo ago
        The post was fixed about 30 seconds after making it - due to the *s being interpreted as italics. It is a shame there isn't a preview button when composing posts.
- lelanthran 6mo ago
  > Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer. ??? What makes this "backseat"? When it comes to consumer products, legislation is often the only answer in most cases. What makes this case different? Why should there be an exception carved out for laptops?
- cpt_sobel 6mo ago
  > Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer. But it _could_ save us from Lenovo or Dell or any other company copying Apple's design practices (and the latter largely already has), while, as another poster mentioned, not mandating design per se, but rather just setting minimum standards.
- PunchyHamster 6mo ago
  > Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer. You can still legislate parts availability and availability of docs. You can legislate parts pairing or outright ban it There is plenty that can be done, just need competent lawmakers
bloppe 6mo ago
Car safety is a bad counterexample because the risk is otherwise often externalized i.e. your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. And as GP stated, regulating this sort of thing would definitely force a particular trade-off on everyone. A lot of people would be pissed to have MacBooks with worse "build quality" even if they were more reparable. Having a choice is better.
- gambiting 6mo ago
  >> your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. You know that safety for pedestrians is also a very tightly regulated car safety category, right? Obviously, there's not much that can be done if you get hit by a car going 70mph, but the fact that most people should survive a 30mph impact with a modern car is mostly thanks to regulations requiring crumple zones specifically designed to protect pedestrians in a collision. And yeah, there are huge trade offs - I imagine people would generally prefer a car that doesn't need incredibly expensive repairs after a minor collision because everything at the front just crumpled, but then they would be guaranteed to cut off legs of any person hit - it's a trade off.
  - bucephalos 6mo ago
    Not in the US. Specific pedestrian safety features are not included in cars sold there due to lack of regulation. FMVSS was planning a regulation modelled after ECE R127, then the administration changed and no progress since...
    - gambiting 6mo ago
      Well yes, which is why most American cars are not approved for sale over here.
    - 1718627440 6mo ago
      Lack of regulation resulting in worse outcomes is also a data point for regulation being able to solve problems.
jdpedrie 6mo ago
> The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit. On some metrics. On affordability, new cars are considerably more expensive. Whether that's a worthwhile tradeoff is beside the point. The GP's point is that there's no free lunch, and your example doesn't address that.
- wvenable 6mo ago
  I never said the lunch was free only that it should be nutritious.
  - dingaling 6mo ago
    Amd for the diner, new cars are much less nutritious due to the regulation. They're like some sort of bland protein-shake lunch.
    - catlikesshrimp 6mo ago
      My father thinks all cars look the same now. Do you mean that? For my part, cars are more comfortable (bar all controls in a touch panel and ever more propietary software) and fuel efficient
    - wvenable 6mo ago
      No, they are more nutritious just like that bland protein-shake is. All those cool hot-rods from the 70s will crush you to death easily while wasting more gas to do it.
an0malous 6mo ago
> You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The fear is that regulations ossify industries and that's why heavily regulated industries like healthcare, education, and transportation have seen basically no innovation in 50 years. If you mandate that all electronic devices must have USB-C cables, how can anyone invent something better than a USB-C cable? And for what, so people don't have to have multiple cables? That's not even in the top 100 problems that a government body as large as the EU should be concerned about. > Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit. Healthcare, education, transportation, and housing would all be counterexamples depending on how you want to frame "benefit." > It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair. This is counter to your point, no one regulated that Apple make the MacBook Neo easy to repair. Apple is incentivized to follow the market.
- Tade0 6mo ago
  > If you mandate that all electronic devices must have USB-C cables, how can anyone invent something better than a USB-C cable? That already happened with Micro USB. The EU initially mandated that manufacturers agree on a standard socket, because the absolute zoo of charging ports back then was counter-productive and only generated e-waste. Ultimately they agreed to use Micro USB, but obviously that's not what's used today. These regulations are not just dumped on the manufacturers - there's a period of consultation and a grace period to implement them. If something actually better came up, you'd eventually see it mandated.
  - spaqin 6mo ago
    > If something actually better came up, you'd eventually see it mandated. While I generally am quite content with that particular mandate and it does more good than bad, I would have to disagree on this. Something better doesn't come from nowhere - hell, USB itself has gone through a long and arduous path until it came to the (messy) standard it is today. This is essentially banning any other standard to grow and be improved upon with feedback and iteration.
    - 6mo ago
matt-attack 6mo ago
Do you have a reference for the neo being easy to repair? Is this regarding the keyboard? Or the whole thing?
- huxley 6mo ago
  The keyboard is probably the hardest bit but even then it’s more just some tedium rather than difficulty. https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-repairable-macbook-in-14-years https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r...
bzzzt 6mo ago
The innovations that mattered were seat belts and airbags. After that you have to correct for all the electronic gadgets that also actively distract or make drivers over-confident. Real numbers are not available, but governments keep mandating all kinds of questionable safety features that increase the price of vehicles (and insurance) and reduces competition in the market.
- swiftcoder 6mo ago
  I'll grant you some of the more recent driver-attention monitoring features, but you'd be hard put to make the case that the blind-spot warning during lane changes, the cross-traffic warning when reversing out of a parking space, and the emergency brake when the car in front of you brakes hard, don't all save lives (and, perhaps more relevantly to the industrial players, collision insurance claims)
  - bzzzt 6mo ago
    Those things could save some lives of course, but it's a small drop. And then there's the issue of people trusting on those safety systems and driving more reckless than before. It also helps not to live in a country where everyone is driving trucks ;)
PunchyHamster 6mo ago
> You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit. That's widely incorrect. EU mandates some active systems (TC, ABS) and some basic level of physical protection, but majority of gains there have been driven by manufacturers trying to ace eachother in EuroNCAP rating EU makes sure woefully unsafe car can't be sold, sure, but most of the progress here has been manufacturers, and non-car-related road safety improvements.

internet2000 6mo ago

> It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair. It's slightly worse, slightly more flex, thicker and heavier vs an Air in spite of having a smaller battery and more empty space. It's all trade offs. If you want repairable, please buy a Framework or Lenovo. Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.

wvenable 6mo ago
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer. Again, why not? It's not mandating design, just minimal standards for repairability that should be obvious. If Framework and Lenovo can do it and Apple can do it on a $600 laptop, why can't everyone do it?
- leetbulb 6mo ago
  Agreed. > why can't everyone do it What everyone is missing: Because other manufactures do not have to; the profit margins are too good to give a shit, and they allow some pretty fierce competition within the target demographic: <soapbox> Sadly, the general public still just wants the cheapest option to consume their bullshit content, even if it needs to be replaced a year from now after their cat walks on it and causes critical damage. The MacBook Neo is brilliant in that Apple takes a share of this market with a premium and affordable product that is basically just their previous generation phone, with the expensive bits likely sourced from their exchange program or surplus supply. Products that at some point the same people would've loved to have, but couldn't afford. Now repurposed with a larger screen, sporting the envied Apple logo, at an affordable price, and targeting that same demographic as the hot new thing, just one generation later. I have a feeling we'll see this pattern continue, and it's genius. Minimizing waste, maximizing profits, and giving the consumers what they want, while maintaining a gap between low-end and high-end -- people that spend $$$$ still want to feel special, of course. Don't get me wrong, the Neo is great, especially for us hackers, but it is absolutely not meant for us in any way. What is in our favor: it does, at the very least, raise the bar for these other manufactures that product absolute garbage. </soapbox> Someone needs to be a reference as to what is feasible in order for a standard to be established. Apple, Framework, and I guess Lenovo are the ones doing this these days. RIP the others.
free_bip 6mo ago
Oh no, my laptop is 2mm thicker than a different laptop. Won't someone think of the 2mm?
- VogonPoetry 6mo ago
  That 2mm uses at least (2*335 + 2*235) * 2mm * 1mm = 2,280 mm^3 more material for the case. (a wall thickness of 1mm)
  - stavros 6mo ago
    I don't understand your math. The 1mm (the wall) was there already, so why is it being counted here? Plus, multiplying by 1 doesn't do anything? Also, the 2mm extra won't be solid plastic (they'll be solid air, since that's why we're adding the extra thickness, for the room. If anything, the extra material for the case would be the perimeter length times the perimeter wall width times the height.
    - Arcuru 6mo ago
      > If anything, the extra material for the case would be the perimeter length times the perimeter wall width times the height That's what they did? Perimeter length = 2*335mm + 2*235mm Wall height diff = 2mm Wall width = 1mm (2*335 + 2*235) * 2mm * 1mm = 2,280 mm^3
      - stavros 6mo ago
        Ah, thanks, I think what happened was that the asterisks were turned into italics and confused me. I think the message was edited to clarify.
        VogonPoetry 6mo ago
        The post was fixed about 30 seconds after making it - due to the *s being interpreted as italics. It is a shame there isn't a preview button when composing posts.
lelanthran 6mo ago
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer. ??? What makes this "backseat"? When it comes to consumer products, legislation is often the only answer in most cases. What makes this case different? Why should there be an exception carved out for laptops?
cpt_sobel 6mo ago
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer. But it _could_ save us from Lenovo or Dell or any other company copying Apple's design practices (and the latter largely already has), while, as another poster mentioned, not mandating design per se, but rather just setting minimum standards.
PunchyHamster 6mo ago
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer. You can still legislate parts availability and availability of docs. You can legislate parts pairing or outright ban it There is plenty that can be done, just need competent lawmakers

bloppe 6mo ago

Car safety is a bad counterexample because the risk is otherwise often externalized i.e. your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. And as GP stated, regulating this sort of thing would definitely force a particular trade-off on everyone. A lot of people would be pissed to have MacBooks with worse "build quality" even if they were more reparable. Having a choice is better.

gambiting 6mo ago
>> your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. You know that safety for pedestrians is also a very tightly regulated car safety category, right? Obviously, there's not much that can be done if you get hit by a car going 70mph, but the fact that most people should survive a 30mph impact with a modern car is mostly thanks to regulations requiring crumple zones specifically designed to protect pedestrians in a collision. And yeah, there are huge trade offs - I imagine people would generally prefer a car that doesn't need incredibly expensive repairs after a minor collision because everything at the front just crumpled, but then they would be guaranteed to cut off legs of any person hit - it's a trade off.
- bucephalos 6mo ago
  Not in the US. Specific pedestrian safety features are not included in cars sold there due to lack of regulation. FMVSS was planning a regulation modelled after ECE R127, then the administration changed and no progress since...
  - gambiting 6mo ago
    Well yes, which is why most American cars are not approved for sale over here.
  - 1718627440 6mo ago
    Lack of regulation resulting in worse outcomes is also a data point for regulation being able to solve problems.

jdpedrie 6mo ago

> The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit. On some metrics. On affordability, new cars are considerably more expensive. Whether that's a worthwhile tradeoff is beside the point. The GP's point is that there's no free lunch, and your example doesn't address that.

wvenable 6mo ago
I never said the lunch was free only that it should be nutritious.
- dingaling 6mo ago
  Amd for the diner, new cars are much less nutritious due to the regulation. They're like some sort of bland protein-shake lunch.
  - catlikesshrimp 6mo ago
    My father thinks all cars look the same now. Do you mean that? For my part, cars are more comfortable (bar all controls in a touch panel and ever more propietary software) and fuel efficient
  - wvenable 6mo ago
    No, they are more nutritious just like that bland protein-shake is. All those cool hot-rods from the 70s will crush you to death easily while wasting more gas to do it.

an0malous 6mo ago

> You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The fear is that regulations ossify industries and that's why heavily regulated industries like healthcare, education, and transportation have seen basically no innovation in 50 years. If you mandate that all electronic devices must have USB-C cables, how can anyone invent something better than a USB-C cable? And for what, so people don't have to have multiple cables? That's not even in the top 100 problems that a government body as large as the EU should be concerned about. > Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit. Healthcare, education, transportation, and housing would all be counterexamples depending on how you want to frame "benefit." > It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair. This is counter to your point, no one regulated that Apple make the MacBook Neo easy to repair. Apple is incentivized to follow the market.

Tade0 6mo ago
> If you mandate that all electronic devices must have USB-C cables, how can anyone invent something better than a USB-C cable? That already happened with Micro USB. The EU initially mandated that manufacturers agree on a standard socket, because the absolute zoo of charging ports back then was counter-productive and only generated e-waste. Ultimately they agreed to use Micro USB, but obviously that's not what's used today. These regulations are not just dumped on the manufacturers - there's a period of consultation and a grace period to implement them. If something actually better came up, you'd eventually see it mandated.
- spaqin 6mo ago
  > If something actually better came up, you'd eventually see it mandated. While I generally am quite content with that particular mandate and it does more good than bad, I would have to disagree on this. Something better doesn't come from nowhere - hell, USB itself has gone through a long and arduous path until it came to the (messy) standard it is today. This is essentially banning any other standard to grow and be improved upon with feedback and iteration.
  - 6mo ago

matt-attack 6mo ago

Do you have a reference for the neo being easy to repair? Is this regarding the keyboard? Or the whole thing?

huxley 6mo ago
The keyboard is probably the hardest bit but even then it’s more just some tedium rather than difficulty. https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-repairable-macbook-in-14-years https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r...

bzzzt 6mo ago

The innovations that mattered were seat belts and airbags. After that you have to correct for all the electronic gadgets that also actively distract or make drivers over-confident. Real numbers are not available, but governments keep mandating all kinds of questionable safety features that increase the price of vehicles (and insurance) and reduces competition in the market.

swiftcoder 6mo ago
I'll grant you some of the more recent driver-attention monitoring features, but you'd be hard put to make the case that the blind-spot warning during lane changes, the cross-traffic warning when reversing out of a parking space, and the emergency brake when the car in front of you brakes hard, don't all save lives (and, perhaps more relevantly to the industrial players, collision insurance claims)
- bzzzt 6mo ago
  Those things could save some lives of course, but it's a small drop. And then there's the issue of people trusting on those safety systems and driving more reckless than before. It also helps not to live in a country where everyone is driving trucks ;)

PunchyHamster 6mo ago

> You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit. That's widely incorrect. EU mandates some active systems (TC, ABS) and some basic level of physical protection, but majority of gains there have been driven by manufacturers trying to ace eachother in EuroNCAP rating EU makes sure woefully unsafe car can't be sold, sure, but most of the progress here has been manufacturers, and non-car-related road safety improvements.