4 ms·

Integration and miniaturization is a standard evolutionary path for products to take, trying to fight that is pointless. The companies involved have researched

by erkkie 12y ago

Integration and miniaturization is a standard evolutionary path for products to take, trying to fight that is pointless. The companies involved have researched the market and the needs of the market and come out with what we have now, trying to argue the end result is wrong would need data to show otherwise. From an engineering stand point, integrated/monolithic hardware fails less, there's a whole class of failure scenarios removed (ie connectors and interconnects, better sealing, etc). Hardware has reached the point where it's on the same level with every-day things people throw away and buy new versions of without even thinking, like kettles or toasters, it's fine to argue that's wasteful but that doesn't stop most of the world from doing so for practical reasons.

Silhouette 12y ago
The companies involved have researched the market and the needs of the market and come out with what we have now, trying to argue the end result is wrong would need data to show otherwise. No, technology companies are researching how to make more money. That frequently means making changes that are not in consumers' interests, in particular when it comes to either closed ecosystems and lock-in or when it comes to built-in obsolescence. See also: "Smart" TVs, the history of pricing in the printer industry, Anything-as-a-Service, multi-year contracts in the mobile phone industry that obscure the true cost of these devices, DRM, and countless other trends in technology. From an engineering stand point, integrated/monolithic hardware fails less In some cases, yes. But when it does fail, you lose the entire device. It is far from clear that any benefit in reliability is a net win relative to any loss from making all failures catastrophic when they do happen. Hardware has reached the point where it's on the same level with every-day things people throw away and buy new versions of without even thinking, like kettles or toasters Not even close. That's just what people who make a lot of money selling new devices that don't actually offer much benefit over "old" devices want to convince everyone to believe with their marketing. The current wasteful attitude is not sustainable, either economically or environmentally. We've only had this "two years and you throw away your $500 iThing and get a new one" kind of mentality quite recently, and most people have been through these kinds of change no more than once or perhaps twice so far. Just like no-one doing corporate IT assumes you'll throw away a PC every three years any more, the market will learn, and probably very quickly. I already know plenty of people who have had exactly one generation of Apple gear and then become frustrated with the short lifecycle. I know almost no-one going the other way. That's just anecdotal of course, but looking at market share trends and general commentary over time, it looks like the experience and sentiment within my network is not unusual.

by erkkie 12y ago

Silhouette 12y ago

The companies involved have researched the market and the needs of the market and come out with what we have now, trying to argue the end result is wrong would need data to show otherwise. No, technology companies are researching how to make more money. That frequently means making changes that are not in consumers' interests, in particular when it comes to either closed ecosystems and lock-in or when it comes to built-in obsolescence. See also: "Smart" TVs, the history of pricing in the printer industry, Anything-as-a-Service, multi-year contracts in the mobile phone industry that obscure the true cost of these devices, DRM, and countless other trends in technology. From an engineering stand point, integrated/monolithic hardware fails less In some cases, yes. But when it does fail, you lose the entire device. It is far from clear that any benefit in reliability is a net win relative to any loss from making all failures catastrophic when they do happen. Hardware has reached the point where it's on the same level with every-day things people throw away and buy new versions of without even thinking, like kettles or toasters Not even close. That's just what people who make a lot of money selling new devices that don't actually offer much benefit over "old" devices want to convince everyone to believe with their marketing. The current wasteful attitude is not sustainable, either economically or environmentally. We've only had this "two years and you throw away your $500 iThing and get a new one" kind of mentality quite recently, and most people have been through these kinds of change no more than once or perhaps twice so far. Just like no-one doing corporate IT assumes you'll throw away a PC every three years any more, the market will learn, and probably very quickly. I already know plenty of people who have had exactly one generation of Apple gear and then become frustrated with the short lifecycle. I know almost no-one going the other way. That's just anecdotal of course, but looking at market share trends and general commentary over time, it looks like the experience and sentiment within my network is not unusual.