But it's riveted to the chassis - you cannot replace the keyboard still.
"Never" is a bold word, and it's worth highlighting things like a hard-to-replace/repair keyboard to keep on that tiny bit of pressure to change (how often have you been in a meeting where "customers aren't asking for this" came up as a justification to not make a change?).
Also, just to let people KNOW - when buying a laptop you may not be considering if the keyboard is easy to service. Plenty of developers on any given day are making their first foray into these sorts of decisions, and there's nothing wrong with pointing out that which is obvious if you've been following for a decade but not if you're new to it.
Which carries with it a significant piece of information: Someone saying this is claiming that there is some structural or cultural obstacle, and that the company would have to change its nature in order to effect the requried change.
That was the case with Microsoft and Linux as well.
The new one looks nice too, though it seems significantly overpriced.
There seems to have been a large cultural shift at Apple toward extreme form-over-function around the time of the intel transition. I still have to deal with Macs because my wife uses them, and they've only been getting worse. Personally, I've been on PCs running Linux for several years now.
Presumably Apple is working harder on fixing all of those things than Microsoft, but maybe issues like that are why we still haven't seen an ARM MacBook yet.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/5/20948092/microsoft-surfac...
Apple killing off 32-bit app support (and Carbon, QuickTime API, etc) is probably them preparing for an ARM transition. Any app that managed to make that transition is well-prepared for a pretty trivial "just change the compile target and press the button" ARM port.
Apple would be betting on Mac app devs quickly getting ARM ports of their apps out there. In the Microsoft ecosystem there's zero chance of that happening, so they have to rely much more heavily on emulation.
There's also a chance Apple could do some kind of bitcode magic[0], but they don't enable bitcode on the Mac App Store yet, so that is probably not in the cards [0] https://www.highcaffeinecontent.com/blog/20190518-Translatin...
As long as the products are not repairable, we should call Apple out for not being as environment friendly, as they try to present themselves.
If you throw away a machine, that for any other brand could have been quickly repaired because it is totalled, this is not environmental friendly, even if Apple recycles the aluminum afterwards.
Most people don't care one way or the other as long as they end up with a functioning machine. They don't care about how the wheels end up getting turned as long as they get turned. If anything, replacing a larger component rather than diagnosing and fixing individual components should be faster. If someone has to solder or work on transistors, your repair could definitely take weeks and that time only goes up with the number of repairs necessary for all customers.
>If you throw away a machine
If you throw away a machine, that's on you. Apple, and most other PC manufacturers, offer some kind of machine recycling. That process includes recycling the raw materials and disassembling and reusing components. Unless we're talking about machines that are 7+ years, those components can still be used for warranty repairs and other assemblies. It's exactly why Apple stops servicing devices that are that old and instead only offers recycling for them. When the warranty claims go down, the parts needed go down.
And if people don't care about the time, they do care about the cost. It makes a difference whether a broken keyboard costs $100 or $600 to repair. In the latter case, the machine often is totalled. And then it doesn't matter how nicely you recycle the aluminium, the machine could have been used for many more years, if it could have been repaired.
Or asked the other way around: if Apple can so nicely reuse the parts, why do they charge more than the cost for the broken part? If they would replace broken keyboards for $100, few would ask, how they do it. Why don't they fix a broken SSD for $200?
None of those things are as simple as you're making them out to be in the form/spec of the Macbook.
>And if people don't care about the time, they do care about the cost.
Apparently not as Apple has the highest customer service scores in the entire computing industry by a large margin. People care about having working computers and, by and large, people who buy Apple computers buy them knowing that out of warranty repairs may be expensive.
>why do they charge more than the cost for the broken part?
Because it's costly to recycle those parts. You can be cheap or you can be sustainable. Right now, you can't really be both.
None of those things are as simple as you're making them out to be in the form/spec of the Macbook.
The things aren't as difficult as you make them. There are plenty of devices which have reasonable repairablity without being larger than the MacBook.
>And if people don't care about the time, they do care about the cost.
Apparently not as Apple has the highest customer service scores in the entire computing industry by a large margin. People care about having working computers and, by and large, people who buy Apple computers buy them knowing that out of warranty repairs may be expensive.
Most people who buy Apple computers don't know about the costs of out-of-warranty repairs. It will be interesting to see how big the shitstorm will be once people have to throw away their butterfly-keyboard machines becaus thy can't typ th lttr "E".
>why do they charge more than the cost for the broken part?
Because it's costly to recycle those parts. You can be cheap or you can be sustainable. Right now, you can't really be both.
Yeah, as if it would cost $500 to recyle a pound of aluminium. They do it because they have to machine a new part and want to push the money on the customer. But with a proper design, you wouldn't have to throw away large parts of your laptop for minor repairs.
Name one. You've made a lot of empty claims in your posts without backing up a single one. I don't even know why I'm responding to you anymore, you clearly have an axe to grind since you're responding to almost every person that disagrees with you.
By the way, this laptop scores 9 out of 10 on ifixit: https://de.ifixit.com/Anleitung/EliteBook+1050+Repairability...
Another 9: https://de.ifixit.com/Anleitung/Samsung+Series+9+15-Inch+Rep...
The MB Pro used to score a 7 (https://de.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+15-Inch+Unibody+M...). It would still house a 2.5" HD and a DVD drive, so it could be a lot smaller with a SSD.
Apple will have two options then: drop out of the EU market (which they won't do, 500M consumers waiting to be fleeced) or follow the law.
Assuming given the extra decade, Apple's keys are hopefully more durable, but it's still no pain free job either.
The only cases where I have personally seen that a whole keyboard replacement was needed were those caused by a liquid spill, but Apple is never going to cover those since they could easily damage the logic board and you wouldn't be "safe" even after months.
But yes, at the end of the day using screws instead of rivets would be better for everyone
I consider the statements of Apple about the environment friendlyness of their devices phony, as long as a keyboard defect can total the device or at least mean, that large parts of the device have to be changed, which aren't defective.
Let's hope that the new keyboard is robust enough to make it a non-issue. But if Apple is committed to their design and think it is unlikely to ever break, why doesn't Apple price a keyboard replacement at the same price like other laptops?
It's a tough question to definitively answer. Are there greater environmental costs to producing and using screws rather than rivets? If so, how does that balance against the environmental costs of replacing failed computers?
It's possible that a fixed keyboard could be the correct choice if their new keyboard fails in low enough numbers.
And in any case, even if it were a theoretical environmental gain - should the burdon for that lie on the consumer, who randomly looses her or his device, just so that every laptop is a tiny bit more efficient (and the effect would be really tiny)? Shouldn't in this case Apple carry the additional cost for repairs?