The Unibody and Engineered Disposability, Irresponsibility, and Obsolescence?

[Godlikes]

I see a lot of threads like this where the OP seems to just post the OP and run.

Hardly surprising when you see all the rude responses.

My Macbook Pro 2011 battery is failing. I can buy a new one and fit it. With the new rMBP, the battery is glued in and removal is not only very difficult but you risk damaging the Touchpad cable.

This is simply Apple's way of making computers useless sooner. Now with LCDs that degrade faster over time I wonder how the PCI SSD will hold up. Somehow, I highly suspect that it will fall a long way in terms of reliability vs. standard HDD. We've already seen dGPUs burning out too indicative of poor cooling designs to facilitate LONGEVITY of components.

I fully understand the OP and share the concerns.

 

[tillsbury]

Agreed that there are often rude responses, but in this particular trolling example it's not surprising. How can you blame Apple for a computer not being spill-proof, when it's perfectly possible to go out and buy a waterproof computer. It'll just cost you a lot more. Not Apple's fault if you choose their cheaper but non-waterproof one. What a twit.

And to imagine that the computer industry would supply a 15-year warranty is similarly nonsense. Car manufacturers don't do that, and they supply much more expensive devices, that have been maturing over 100 years, in which the rate of progress is very much slower.

15 years ago we were running Pentium IIs, thought that 2Gb hard drives were enormous, and had only just moved on from 56k dial-up. 15 years before that there were only a few companies building "IBM compatibles", most of which weren't. Apple had only just introduced the Apple IIe.

Get a grip.

 

[zipa]

Do you know a single mainstream phone that can resist dropping into water?

Yes.

I don't see Samsung advertising that you can drop your phone in the tub then saying it's so much better than Apple.

I guess you haven't seen ads for, say, the Galaxy S4 Active, then?

 

[s2mikey]

OP's "logic" has been mostly picked apart already, but I would like to add for the "upgradability" crowd:

MacBooks are becoming "disposable" because those factors (glue, everything pre-soldered to motherboard, etc) are the some of the key ways to engineer MacBooks thinner and thinner, lighter and lighter, while faster and faster, cooler and cooler, with longer and longer battery. Worthy tradeoff??? OF COURSE.

If you DON'T think its a worthy trade-off, go buy yourself a big old upgradable clunker with 3 hours of battery life...

Ehhh, that's not really it. They could use a few screws or whatever to hold in RAM, batteries, etc and not have the weight increased or whatever you are saying. That's not even close. And, newer rMBPs are not running cool at all as evident by the large number of people experiencing hot running systems.

Apple isn't stupid and they have mastered profit maximization. It is what it is. They know darned well that user repairable or upgradeable systems will hurt their bottom line. Let's not pretend it's some brilliant design decision. C'mon.

 

[priitv8]

With the new rMBP, the battery is glued in and removal is not only very difficult but you risk damaging the Touchpad cable.

You can have the rMBP battery replaced as well. And if the price quoted in this forum - $200 - holds true, then it's not that unreasonable, for getting an almost refurbished machine. Especially if the claimed battery life (5 yrs) holds true.

 

[leman]

My Macbook Pro 2011 battery is failing. I can buy a new one and fit it. With the new rMBP, the battery is glued in and removal is not only very difficult but you risk damaging the Touchpad cable.

This is simply Apple's way of making computers useless sooner.

This is nonsense. Not only does the new rMBP battery has longer lifespan, but you can also have it replaced at any apple service center for a very reasonable fee. Actually, I am quite sure that the old batteries were more profitable to apple. The 'glued' battery is certainly more user-friendly: longer lifetime, bigger charge, less weight and smaller footprint.

 

[Mackan]

In general I agree with the OP. There's a large chunk of planned obsolescence involved in today's computers and devices we buy. To make people buy new and upgrade, as often as possible, is the key mantra for a company like Apple. And they have certainly mastered this process, hiding it well beneath their design decisions and product differentiations. Even worse, showing that this works, "inspires" other companies to follow.

Unfortunately, Apple now has so much money they don't know what to do with it other than wasting it away as dividends. While they will continue to produce stunning designs and simplicity in everything they pursue, I don't see any attractive end goal for the company. It seems to be all about the shareholders, in the end. And we all know what a shareholder cares about...

 

[TheEnthusiast]

This is nonsense. Not only does the new rMBP battery has longer lifespan, but you can also have it replaced at any apple service center for a very reasonable fee. Actually, I am quite sure that the old batteries were more profitable to apple. The 'glued' battery is certainly more user-friendly: longer lifetime, bigger charge, less weight and smaller footprint.

You wouldn't happen to have a source for the bit that the new rMBPs' batteries have longer lifespans, would you? As I recall, Apple guarantees 80% of original capacity after 1000 cycles for most, if not all, recent laptops, the cMBP included. Plus, I'm not sure how much Apple charges to replace the glued-in battery, but if it were user-serviceable, then it would be cheaper than Apple's quote. Same reason why, in past years, people always recommended buying after market products rather than Apple-distrubuted products, if possible.

And quite seriously: how is this even supposed to be criticism towards Apple? Almost every complain raised by OP applies to the same degree to any computer manufacturer. Again, OP's issue is not with Apple but with the computers themselves.

Re-read OP's post and see how many times he assigns responsibility or blame to Apple. Sure, these same claims can be applied to other manufacturers, but the trend seems to be that Apple does something successful and others follow. I mean, unless you have poor reading comprehension, there is no other explanation as to why you'd say that OP's issue is not with Apple. Again, you can make the same arguments about other companies, but OP is blaming Apple; The amount of times Apple is mentioned is astounding...

"I'm increasingly discontent with where Apple seems.."
"Why can't Apple see as legitimate the idea that water damage is Apples fault..."
"The situation that Apple creates is additionally..."
"Apple MBPs don't even work after 5-7 years. "
"I'm disgusted by the notion of Apple Care and by Apple's..."
"I don't want to give money to Apple anymore for a machine that it engineers to become..."
"Apple seems to have destroyed the old hobbyist way of computing..."
"I don't like the technical, environmental, or even social system that Apple seems..."

 

[leman]

You wouldn't happen to have a source for the bit that the new rMBPs' batteries have longer lifespans, would you? As I recall, Apple guarantees 80% of original capacity after 1000 cycles for most, if not all, recent laptops, the cMBP included. Plus, I'm not sure how much Apple charges to replace the glued-in battery, but if it were user-serviceable, then it would be cheaper than Apple's quote.

The quote is on apples website. Plus, the unibody's battery is not user-replaceable. I can't really see how it can be used as an argument here.

Re-read OP's post and see how many times he assigns responsibility or blame to Apple.

It doesn't matter whom he blames. All the things mentioned have nothing to do with apples design strategy. I have no idea why OP is singling out Apple for criticism which are clearly not Apple specific. And I think I have made that point quite clear in my previous posts. So much for reading comprehension

 

[TheEnthusiast]

The quote is on apples website. Plus, the unibody's battery is not user-replaceable. I can't really see how it can be used as an argument here.


It doesn't matter whom he blames. All the things mentioned have nothing to do with apples design strategy. I have no idea why OP is singling out Apple for criticism which are clearly not Apple specific. And I think I have made that point quite clear in my previous posts. So much for reading comprehension

There are unibody Macbook Pro's that have user-servicable batteries. And on the contrary, designing a locked-down machine does have something to do with design strategy, does it not? The implications of designing a locked-down machine can be argued many ways.

"I have no idea why OP is singling out Apple for criticism which are clearly not Apple specific"

I thought I made it unequivocally clear that OP's criticisms could very well be applied to other manufacturers, but I'm guessing that flew over your head too. Judging by the quote above, it seems you do admit that OP is indeed criticizing only Apple, irrespective of the fact that other companies should be criticized as well. So yes, so much for reading comprehension

Just in case you're still struggling to follow, OP is criticizing Apple. Though you are correct that other companies should be criticized as well, OP's intentions remain unchanged.

 

[leman]

There are unibody Macbook Pro's that have user-servicable batteries.

Yes, but the 'good' ones (the 80% capacity guarantee after 1000 cycles) are only the non user-replaceable batteries. Again, of you are going to criticise Apple for non-replaceable batteries (which costs you what, 100$ more per 5 years and gives you lighter machines with better battery life), look for the alternatives first . You won't find many.

I thought I made it unequivocally clear that OP's criticisms could very well be applied to other manufacturers, but I'm guessing that flew over your head too. Judging by the quote above, it seems you do admit that OP is indeed criticizing only Apple, irrespective of the fact that other companies should be criticized as well. So yes, so much for reading comprehension

Criticized for what? Not designing waterproof computers or not stopping technological progress? You seem to be an intelligent person, so I find it a bit weird that you appear to overlook the glaring logical problems with OPs post.

Again — I would be happy to talk about the repairability, upgradeability and closed design issues — these are very interesting, stimulating and relevant (my opinion on the matter should be quite clear, but I am always open to a good discussion). However, my gripes with the OP is not his/her criticism of those points, but the description of computer industry per se. Already the request to make waterproof computers or comparison of computers to food processors (yes, implicit one, but thats the kind of tools OP clearly has in mind) is an extremely weird thing to do for someone that has spend at least minimal time studying general electronics or computer technology.

 

[TheEnthusiast]

It seems like we've moved beyond the previous point of discussion so very well then. We could discuss batteries all day, but it would be a waste of time, especially since Apple uses long-lasting batteries, user-serviceable or not, and by the time batteries are useless, a user may well consider a new machine anyway. I do agree that OP's criticisms were devoid of both realistic and logical arguments and, in all likelihood, OP made a troll post. Nevertheless, I tried to address some of OP's claims and I too agree that the idea of a waterproof computer is ridiculous, which was made clear in my first post in this thread. Indeed, it would be interesting to discuss this topic.

My stance, as made clear by my first post, is that a lack of repairability, among other things, is just one of the tradeoffs of designing a machine that's sleek and very portable. I also don't think the lack of user-servicable parts affects majority of consumers, which is a key point that most people seem to forget. Most consumers stumble at the thought of having to maintain software, much less the prospect of having to deal with hardware.

 

[IJBrekke]

Let's dismiss the ridiculous here: spills are not Apple's fault and it's silly to even suggest they might be.

But regarding the rest of the post:

1) I see the argument through the eyes of a potential buyer that doesn't see what he/she wants. I think the OP has a vision for what Apple should be making, and I tend to agree that the current machines could be designed almost identically but with more accessible (and replaceable/upgradeable) parts. Apple is clearly using planned obsolescence to a certain degree, especially in their iOS lineup. This had also frustrated me.

2) The population is showing what they want with their wallets. If they prioritized upgradeability they wouldn't buy these new products. The vast majority of users simply don't care.

 

[simonsi]

The vast majority of users simply don't care.

/\/\/\/\/\ This x10

...and if users don't care then that gets delivered in the cheapest way for the manufacturer (of anything).

 

[GoBengals]

Wow. Please don't vote.