Long Term Support

> Thinkpads used to be designed in a way that would allow upgrading and replacing of common components. Hell, it used to be the case that IBM/Lenovo had a line of thinkpads that were specifically designed for this sort of upgrading. Why aren't they still? There is a market for this

No, there isn't. The ASP of a computer is about $600. The ThinkPad T and X series of old were usually 2-4x that, and were targeted at high end users. It's like the market for used Mercedes-Benz sedans -- it's a niche of a niche.

They compete with Apple because their devices looked like shit compared to Apple, and highend sales tanked. Apple goes for thin and light because it drives sales and margin. Apple makes a 25-30% margin on laptops. Dell makes like 3-5% on most hardware, and government procurement contracts often have them selling devices at negative (up to -4%) margin in exchange for rebates from Intel or AMD or services revenue. At volume, Dell/HP/etc makes more money putting asset stickers on computers than the computer.

It is the old 3 legged triangle in a different context: fast, cheap, right: pick two.

Yeah, I feel like I lucked out. Had a 2010 13” MBP that I finally retired this year when I took on an iOS project and needed Catalina. There’s been a lot of complaining about MBPs over the years since I bought the previous one, but I am super super happy with this new one. (The 2010 did have an SSD and RAM upgrade; still surprisingly usable for the age)

The idea is nice, but basically zero of these laptop ideas have turned into a worthwhile execution.

Intel sockets offer at most one upgrade cycle, and of late require a firmware update for that, so really the upgrade potential is from a low end chip to a high end chip in the same architecture, but the socketed systems often cost a lot more than a soldered system.

The GPU modules are also subject to the continued viability of the form factor. Recent trends for reduced GPU power consumption make this more likely to hold up, but still kind of iffy.

Something with real potential for upgrades would be a standardized motherboard size, including z-height, and cooler positioning; then you could swap in a new board and reuse the chasis/display. Of course, you would need to standardize the type and position of display connections and connectors for keyboard and pointing device and battery and what not. I don't think the manufacturers would gain much though --- if it was useful to them for this to be standard across models and model years, we would see some of them with an internal standard instead of every model being similar but not the same on the inside.

> GPU could be upgraded yearly

That only works if there's no improvements other than pure speed. In reality, the bus and socket improve too.

For example, if your GPU socket is new, and your GPU is an early generation, a die shrink due to transistor shrink might be pin compatible but faster.

Otherwise, the next generation of GPU is probably going to require a different socket and/or bus, ect, ect, that it's uneconomic to support merely exchanging the GPU.

I can't believe you think glib "people prefer" explanations somehow answer or explain away his critique. And "dildo shaped joystick"? Really? "Crossover" is a form factor (smallish SUV), by the way.

While I haven't looked at how well embedded batteries are these days, I doubt most of them are soldered into phones--but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. They're certainly not serviceable or easy to remove, and replacing parts can mean a large amount of disassembly and hoping you don't break something.

Compare this to my Pandigital novel 7, the first Android device I owned: the top half of the back slid up, and you could then unsnap the rest. The battery, internal storage, and other parts were immediately accessible and easy to replace. Admittedly, internal storage was easy because it was just a microsd card, but it made quadrupling the internal storage very easy. I played around with the insides multiple times until I killed it by breaking the socket for a ribbon connector. There was no need to remove glue, and iirc the adhesive was only sticky enough to stop things from sliding.

No.

My iPhone had broken WiFi module. One guy removed it and soldered new. He used microscope and very tiny soldering iron. It looked like very skilled work for me. I was charged $50 for work, WiFi module and new battery (he replaced battery as well). I live in Kazakhstan, btw.

It's interesting how economies change between very different countries. We are paying 20-40% premium for iPhones compared to US prices, but manual labor is very cheap, even skilled one. For American people right to repair sometimes sound like a fun thing to do. For Kazakhstani people right to repair might be a difference between using a phone or not.

Is this a joke re apple?

They make some of the highest value preserving phones out there - period.

Long after your supposed "standouts" in repairability heads to the landfill, apple's phones will be repaired and re-used and passed along to another user. Seriously - look at the prices for used apple products or if you go to sell an old phone - its incredible.

The latest software is available to phones 6 or even 7 years old.

I'm seriously curious - can you list phone from Samsung / HTC or whoever you consider to be a standout in not locking folks out from 7 years ago and the software platform that is available for it? The security updates being produced for it?

I'm seriously very curious - I keep being told apple is terrible but no one will actually NAME a phone that lasts longer (I say this as my parents use their apple products for 5-7 years easily with a battery replacement when I come out to visit) - I could probably switch them to an HTC or other product as long as they could actually get maintained software and repairs for the 5+ years they keep their devices. Apple - they can just walk into to get things fixed.

And here’s the current link on their website (for whatever reason, they moved it from (or renamed the directory from) 'news_md' to 'reform_md'):

https://mntre.com/media/reform_md/2019-05-20-reintroducing-r...

A lot of the bloat is derived from overarching platform features. A 1980's application had to live on its own and communicate mostly in printed English documents. Many of those early microcomputer apps were therefore glorified printer drivers with a bit of disk or tape I/O. Everything ASCII or with a regional code page - very simple. Then we added multitasking, networking, UTF localization, variable and multi-display support, multimedia, accessibility and so on. These features add value but as you say, raise expectations - and so create subtle additional costs. We built frameworks and standard APIs to deal with each thing as it came along. The platforms got bigger, much much bigger. And the hardware profiles have shifted as well. 64-bit support adds a lot of bloat for an application that doesn't need a huge address space.

Games are often immune to these things since the final runtime is mostly "viewing" and not "editing", so their requirements are more focused, but they also get hindered by platform abstractions. Only console games can even consider taking direct control over I/O; everyone else has to go through some kind of API, even if it's the operating system's lowest level API. There's all kinds of buffering and sandboxing in consumer operating systems that is OK for media playback, but not for interactivity. Games historically act as bellwether "killer apps" - soaking up resources to deliver basically the same kinds of experiences at ever-higher fidelity, which justifies purchasing higher end gear. Then the apps follow, making use of the new install base. Things that were products gradually turn into standardized features.

There is some kind of endpoint, or perhaps reset point, to all this - when the experience is already at peak fidelity, other forms of differentiation start to set in. New apps regularly appear as the "small minimalist alternative" to a old long-in-the-tooth standard. The new kid gets bigger to cover more users. Then it becomes the old standard, and the cycle repeats. With some products this is a very long cycle - Word and Photoshop are still viable. Others come and go. But it's basically true outside of software too. Nails and screws used to be extremely valuable and difficult to manufacture, and now they are simple components - their role changed from being the product to being the feature.

> Making both pretty and lean versions of the same app is never an option

To clarify this point, it is entirely an option. Most of the layout done with CSS, etc. these days could absolutely render on older machines if built using different tools. The problem is that a) people want to build it with what they are familiar with, which these days is web tech. That means that those specific abstractions do not exist in that space, and b) very few people these days have the skill, funding, and time to build those abstractions.

Moore's Law is responsible. Computers in the 80s were much more modifiable and long-lasting, but back then 5 years was an absolute eternity for hardware performance. So we learned to buy cheaper computers because we'd have to replace them every 3-5 years anyway.

Industrial users have problems with electronics: the chip from a 60nm process still works fine, but the fab that makes them is closing and so they are forced to spend money on a new chip built on a 12nm process. (or whatever the latest fad is). The consumer mentality of replace with better is too big for the industrial users to count.