Apple Products and Planned Obsolescence
reddit.com
reddit.com
Sorry, that's not what planned obsolescence means.
The machine wasn't made to be less capable over time for what it was originally sold for. Features (software or hardware) weren't decided to suddenly break.
It would just not get some new features in future OS even if it could (which is debatable). It might could (according to the dev) but give a subpar experience, or eat into the battery, etc. One can say "that should be for the user to decide" but that's not how Apple works, nor has ever been part of their value proposition. Their value proposition is "we think of most of those things for you". In the end, even if the older machines could support the feature just fine, not releasing it for them is standard practice to entice people to a new model, and has nothing to do with "planned obsolescence".
If anything Apple has a great track record on both:
1) Getting new iOS releases to older machines. Most Android vendors were horrible at that, abandoning machines even at the first release after being sold.
2) Having machines (including iPhones) keep their resale value high. That's the opposite of planned obsolescence.
> not releasing it for them is standard practice to entice people to a new model, and has nothing to do with "planned obsolescence".
That's literally exactly what it is.
"You could have that, but because we've thought it better for you that you don't have it, but if you get newer hardware you could have it". It's obsolete, because it's artificially not compatible with current feature sets.
Not really. Not getting new features doesn't make an existing product worse.
Beside that, using your definition of "products getting worse" would make the whole concept of planned obsolesce almost a minuscule sliver of any issue with any product.
Who promised "interoperability with current products" in new features?
>Beside that, using your definition of "products getting worse" would make the whole concept of planned obsolesce almost a minuscule sliver of any issue with any product.
Actually it's a huge domain just at that, and that was the original understading of the concept: "in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so that it becomes obsolete (i.e., unfashionable, or no longer functional) after a certain period of time."
Notice "industrial design" -- which was what the term was coined for.
It wasn't about a Generation N device not getting Generation + 1 device features (which at the time, for mechanical devices, it couldn't).
It was things like promoting plastic throw-away razors (as opposed to multi-use ones), device parts that last N years where they could easily last xN, and so on...
If we're talking Apple, glueing things to the motherboard and not letting access to upgrade parts is the real planned obsolescence by the canonical understanding.
"Systemic obsolescence" seems to fit, if you consider the ecosystem as the system.
But there's no real sense in quibbling over the precise definition. What would you term the arbitrary and capricious decision to not support a new feature on a perfectly capable platform?
What if I were releasing a succession of new laptops, and I said to my employees, "As we release new software that runs on these laptops, we'll actively, needlessly disable new software features on laptop models over 5 years old"? Since technology and software moves on, it seems to me like that's planning which makes a product obsolete.
Basic product differentiation, for one.
And of course, if Apple DOES release a feature for an older machine for which it's borderline performant, it gets accused of… planned obsolescence.
Can't win with some people.
A better argument for planned obsolescence might be that Apple discontinued this modular design in the current MacBooks and integrated the wireless chipset onto the main logic board, making such an upgrade impossible in future if a new feature has a dependency on more recent wireless hardware.
Luckily i found http://dev.zeppel.eu/luca/SidecarCorePatch which patches the SidecarCore framework and now it runs just fine.
[1]: http://dev.zeppel.eu/luca/SidecarCorePatch/issues/29#issueco...
Happy to be corrected on this, by the way.
Only the 2016+ generation of Macs support hardware accelerated HEVC encoding/decoding.
My guess is that OP's computer would struggle to use Sidecar with an app like Photoshop (a primary use case for this feature).
Playing a 1920x1080 video (6000 Kbps) works just fine, super smooth and no cpu spikes or whatever. However i just noticed when using the default Catalina wallpaper on the Desktop the iPad screen starts flickering. Weird.
My guess is that iPads only have the hardware decoders for format X so that’s what you have to produce, then if the host machine lacks hardware encoders you break the “second monitor” feature - eg bad performance: lagging/dropped frames would break video, etc
Yes it's not as pretty and takes some getting used to. But there was no tangible benefit to paying extra to be in the Apple ecosystem. I can code just the same as before. Perhaps what I miss a little is the trackpad. Those are nice.
The trackpad yes, but considering modern MacBook keyboards, I think I'm better off with the XPS.
When I'm on my work MacBook I completely ignore the Touchbar as much as I can. It looks cool, but functionally it's just a gimmick. I want to keep my eyes on the screen as I'm typing, not the keyboard.
"The rumor, and I mean rumor, was that there may have been 2008 Mac Pro's sold with a different Airport card than most had"
Which if true meant that Apple could have been subject to class action if they stated that the feature was available for 2008 models.
> _But I never seen it_, and there's no reason why OS X couldn't just say upgrade the airport card. So instead they blocked the entire line rather than this supposed older Airport card _that none of us were even familiar with_.
i.e. I believe he was basically implying that it was a bullshit reason that would pass plausible deniability tests.