On the other hand, this could have serious implications on the iOS security model for example.
And I'm pretty sure someone is gonna run Doom on the touchbar in some months.
It's not scalable, but works pretty good when a group of friends purchases them.
Cost of MBP in the US: $2,799 (€2,390)
Cost of MBP in NL: €3,199 ($3,746)
Cost of plane ticket from NL to US: (pre-covid) ~€600
Good thing Apple laptops don't come with manuals. There isn't much much more than a couple stickers and a microfiber cloth in the box.
And are there any first-world countries (except maybe the US^^) where a 13" Macbook is several times the average net monthly income? In Germany, for instance, the monthly average net wage (MANW) is €2500, while the price of a 13" Macbook starts at €1300. Italy: MANW is €1700, Spain: €1800, France: €2400, UK: €2200. Go to the Nordic countries, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria etc. and we're talking MANW of €3000+. Canada has MANW of around US$3400.
^^ If the US is the only first-world country matching your statement, one could argue this is further evidence that the US is no longer a first-world country.
Thinkpads on the other hand are like Toyota's
I don't mind though; I'm actually happy when it happens because I get a new battery and top case for free.
https://hackaday.com/2018/03/12/new-guts-make-old-thinkpads-...
I have 10 and 15 year old iBooks and MacBooks and MacBook Pros with intact keyboards...
You mixed the issue with the butterfly BS keyboards in the past 2-3 years with the old Apple keyboards (which didn't just "break down"). The resale value of old Mac laptops I think speaks for itself related to that.
That said, Thinkpads are indeed built like Toyotas and have easy replacements.
Sadly 4 years now, they started in 2016. It's the main issue blocking me from buying another MBP - this keyboard broke when it was already out of warranty, I really don't want to risk it again.
Does not happen with proper keyboards. Esp. thinkpads.
Why Apple had to mess with that perfect formula, I will never understand. I blame Ive.
Since you could have derived this data from the same source as all the other numbers in your post, I'm not sure what the point of your little dig was.
Maybe in Switzerland , but in Austria the MANW is definitely not 3000+ Euros a month. As a developer I don't earn nowhere near close that NET every month and salaries here are lower overall than in Germany.
3k/month NET here means almost 70K/year pre-tax for a single person with no children.
Or everyone else makes 3000+ and I'm underpaid, who knows. :D Sucks that people in this country don't usually discuss salaries because reasons.
nobody discussed salaries in germany/UK either though. wasn't just a problem in vienna for me ;)
how are the salaries in vienna these days for software devs?
Whether the overall salary/CoL ratio is a better deal for you here than in the other hubs really depends on how good your salary is and how much you'll spend.
That would be a fair excuse if the mechanism was under the control of the machine's rightful owner.
But they can’t.
Because it’s not about giving you control, but about controlling you.
I'll be interested in trusted hardware when I see an implementation that actually puts the device owner into the privileged position, rather than reserving it for the device manufacturer.
Subverting these mechanisms provides a way to prevent the system from making this assertion.
Likewise, the alleged "anti-repair" mechanism for TouchID sensors and TouchBar relate directly to protecting the system's ability to distinguish between the "rightful owner" and a thief.
"Do what I want with the machine I own" is functionally indistinguishable from "increase the resale value of the machine I stole".
I don't mind getting a new MacBook, but I do mind if it gets compromised. This way I know it would be a screen replacement at best.
And I am perfectly happy to assert this as a political preference, and vote in office people that vow to protect consumers from this kind of racketeering. I understand this might not be your cup of tea, and that some people prefer unfettered capitalism, its your political right. However I fell that allowing this in our society limits my freedom and choices, because the things you buy affect me too.
This pretty much kills the whole "intended" security line, the intent is user control.
But on the surface it does seem like that could work.
Only if the "20 character secret code" had the same security characteristics, which it doesn't.
The "none of the users want it" is circular reasoning. If unlock was possible on a mass scale, developers would build for the unfettered iDevices and a market would emerge separate from the one Apple controls. Then users would want it, since it provides value for them - cheaper apps, legal apps that are banned in the Store etc. Of course Apple will fight to the death to prevent such a thing.
There is less money overall put into these products, and correspondingly less software, but that’s not because of anti-competitive practices. It’s because the reality is less people care about this stuff. I don’t think “people are obligated to put effort into the products I want” is a particularly noble political position, since you seem to be insistent on framing it that way. The position you’re talking about in the carrier case is different, it’s “people are obligated not to conspire together to do things that none of their users want and give them no options to vote with their feet”.
The truth is that there is a threshold, a level of user complaints that turns a legitimate practice into an anti-competitive one. People disagree on where this threshold lies - is it at 0, is it at 1000, is it at millions? Until recently, most of Apple's shenanigans have kept the complaints under thresholds small enough to be socially acceptable, that's all. If more people complain, that threshold could be reached.
That’s an interesting metric for anti-competitive practice. Isn’t a large number of user complaints basically the core mechanism that drives market competition? Once you have enough users complaining about an aspect of a product (or otherwise being underserved), why would they not go to a competitor if one is allowed to exist (as they are in this situation)?
Which takes me to the second point: the market alone often does not self-correct. This is why we have antitrust laws and authorities to enforce them. People lack the education to be able to reason about “voting with their wallet” in an effective way; and even when they do, they often don’t have the resources to follow through. This is why contract bundles are so popular, despite the fact that they make handset more expensive overall: people can’t do math, and when they do they still often lack the cash reserves to buy a handset in one go rather than paying small instalments for a long time. If a market fails, it’s legitimate for the law to step in; and one indication of failure is the level of discontent from consumers.
How can this prevent any mentally sane person from trusting Apple made the correct decisions and not root their device?
You call it a prison. I call it a fortress.
"Actively works against you" is your reading. I very much appreciate what the T2 does, and hope the next update will be even more difficult to hack (aside from its other functionality).
I think you’re going to have to try harder to convince anyone that this situation is analogous to second hand smoke. You probably want to come up with better arguments for your “political” movement.
The metric you use of avoiding "restricting freedom" is a strongly ideological stance in itself and is not a natural goal political systems strive for. You might value some flavors of individual autonomy and imply they have an universal vocation by calling them "freedom". I might favor other sets, such as the restriction of corporate power and consumer empowerment, and call those, in turn "freedom", see for example the GPL ethos. Both sets of political views are legitimate and can be pursued in a democracy.
I’m not trying to judge your statements by my goalposts as you seem to be implying, I’m trying to understand the internal logic of what you’ve been saying which AFAICT isn’t lining up.
Right now, as a consumer (which, like you, is my only realistic lever on this situation), I’m pretty happy that I own some Apple devices and some very not-Apple devices. I’d be pretty pissed if I was forced to choose only one of these (in either direction). I think you’d find the same reaction if you became president of the world and threw everyone’s Apple devices in the trash and handed them a Librem 5 or something similar. Do you contest that this would be their reaction? If so, what is your definition of market forces and anti-competitive behavior?
The consumers can buy any system with any chip they want. If it is employed by Apple to enhance security that's great, for example the Mac. If it's used to lockdown the device so that no competing software can be run, a la iPhone, for them to maintain the stranglehold on the app market, then I am against it on political grounds and my position is not falsifiable.
You are inworking an oligopoly situation and accuse me of wanting to turn it into a monopoly, but I want the exact opposite: all existing platforms to still exist, and additionally, all those prevented by anti-competitive behavior, which by my non-falsifiable definition includes any lockdown on the hardware that is sold in the marketplace, that can only be, and is only used to limit the options of the owner.
It is not like Apple devices would cease to be produced or be confiscated if we pass laws mandating software freedom on purchased hardware, from iPhones to tractors.
- on the one hand (I believe) developers would prefer owning more open devices (like Librem/Purism, Pine64 etc.)
- on the other hand they want to develop for the masses, which means they will need access to Apple hardware.
I don’t care that I can’t easily change the SSD. If that were important to me, I would buy a different laptop.
I don’t consider my MacBook Pro to be working against me, at all.
If it works like iOS and just flashes a warning then I don’t see the issue. The self-check thing is invaluable when buying used devices.
> that your data is already gone.
By the way, the parent comment was talking about this
I actually dont mind they block unauthorised repair, at least I believe in the Steve Jobs's Apple era he wanted the best customer experience. And they want the Data of what is failing in their Mac where their Genius Bar gain first hand experience and knowledge which leads to feedback to the Design team. ( They dont publicly announce or admit it, but the database has those problem listed. )
The goal was to aim for perfection, a machine that is so reliable it wouldn't need to repair in the first place. And if and when they fail, Genius Bar is there to help. You used to get some nice gesture from Apple Retail. Now they are simply trying gouge customers into buying a new MacBook, hopefully with AppleCare+, or replacement for the logic board. Every single problem they will just quote you to replace the logic board price. Not only are they expensive, the actual work or replacement isn't even up to Apple's standard.
I will need time to dig up some data. But MacBook Pro 2016+'s resale price has dropped quite significantly compared to MBP 2015 in the same age. And MBP 2015 second hand market is actually going strong.
You will have to excuse me, but that is a load of bullcrap.
Let's take the case that irritates me the most: The SSD.
By definition of the technology that is NAND storage, an SSD will be able to operate "within norm" and without bit errors for so long. Rewrite for long enough and you'll see your data waving you good-bye.
As for your other claims about recording errors and whatnot, you can EASILY achieve those (matter of fact it's already implemented in UEFI by some manufacturers), and NOT disallow people from repairing their computer.
Sure the lifespan of an SSD is ideally 5/7 years. But that is a death sentence, not a search for perfection.
Also, what happens if Apple simply refuses to fix your computer, or supply your with parts ! And yes this has happened rather publicly (Linus Sebastian's Mac Pro)
So again, apologies for the language but that is a load of bullcrap
You see, I dont disagree. Apple was striving for an ideal that is not achievable. What they are aiming, trying and actually doing are three different thing.
They are aiming for planned obsolescence. The biggest competitor for new MacBooks are old MacBooks.
Maybe true 5-10 years ago, but not true now.
Hardware: Other vendors have trackpads with multi-touch (which for me was one of the most amazing things about the first Macbook I ever owned), super high-res screens, and other such features these days. The form factors are thin and stylish as well (there are other aluminum unibody laptops these days).
Software: MacOS has gotten worse, Linux distros have continued to catch up, both in the look and behavior of the OS itself but also in terms of the app ecosystem, esp with companies like Valve spending the big bucks to get lots of games running well on Linux. Speaking of games, MacOS continues to suck when it comes to gaming anyway – so for example I do a bit of gaming on my new MBP 16" and the mild chore of dual-booting continues to irk me. I also splashed out for the 8GB GPU upgrade and performance is still not great. Not quite enough for me to make the switch but I'm not a very hardcore gamer. I know people that need a workhorse a bit more than I do (professional video editors and such) who have recently (last 5 years) made the switch from macbooks to things like razers because they want to be able to really push through serious workloads on the go.
That's where they make their money. People that just want good specs at cheap prices are not their target market.
No, by "old Macbooks" I mean "including current and last year models". Not that only past macbooks had large resale value...
>Planned obsolescence is needed to ensure that people upgrade.
In the Apple world, upgrading is part of the idea and appeal -- you're not supposed to be running a 10 year old laptop or 2-3 versions old OS. The OS is not about backwards compatibility, it's about moving forward faster...
That's part of the appeal of the thing, and part of the reason for the extra control.
I don't want legacy 10/20 year old apps and frameworks to be supported, I don't want apps that don't take advantage of the latest frameworks, hardware and OS features, and so on...
If "compatible with 30 year old programs" is a desirable feature, there's always Windows.
doesn't mesh with -
>you're not supposed to be running a 10 year old laptop or 2-3 versions old OS
Planned obsolescence just means artificially shortening the upgrade cycle. That's it. And Apple has been doing this in the Mac world through different methods.
No, it doesn't not. Planned obsolescence, just the like the actual words in the term are defined, means planning for the fact that technology and the components it's made from has a finite lifespan and that, at some point, users of that technology will have to upgrade. You're inferring that companies are intentionally sabotaging their products to compel and force people to upgrade and that might be the stupidest take I've ever heard.
>In economics and industrial design, planned obsolescence (also called built-in obsolescence or premature obsolescence) 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.[1] The rationale behind this strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle").[2] It is the deliberate shortening of a lifespan of a product to force consumers to purchase replacements.[3]
Apple does this with their hardware by limiting the software support period and economical hardware repair. Having something like the T2 ensures that third parties are not able to extend the life of their systems in a reasonable manner.
The T2 is a security chip. It ensures the integrity of the system. If that integrity is compromised, the chip shouldn't allow third parties to replace components unless those components can be replaced and the integrity restored. You're acting like the T2 was added just to make repairs harder instead of to make the device more secure which, by design, makes repairs more difficult.
It's the same reason that car manufacturers don't let repair shops generate new key fobs unless they're registered with the manufacturer.
Sure it's a security chip but why is it they didn't make it so the owner can do a one-way unlock (like Android's bootloader unlock) so people can fix their own Macs?
Because preventing repairs is one of the desirable side effect of this design.
Apple has no need to prevent people from repairing their devices. They lose money on most repairs they do. What they're concerned about is their brand. If someone gets their device repaired at a shitty shop that isn't Apple certified and uses parts that aren't real Apple parts (like every screen repair kiosk in your local mall), people don't see future screen issues as issues with that repair or screen. They see a problem with an iPhone. That's what the desirable side-effect is. Apple doesn't want to prevent repairs, they want to prevent shitty repairs and security breaches.
Evidence doesn't support this at all. When was the last root exploit due to an bootloader unlock?
Towing the Apple line gets you nowhere. There is overwhelming support for companies to allow for a right of repair. Most people don't have any issues with security advances, but they do have a problem with companies using this as an excuse to further lock-in to devices that are fully paid for by consumers.
The guarantee of a popular modern 1Tb NVME SSD is you'll at least be able to write 600Tb. I don't know your usage pattern, but those are a lot of write actions.
Remember every component in any electronic device has a finite age: the fan cooling the cpu, keyboards have max. presses, hinges wear out, sockets have a maximum amount of plug/unplug actions.
There's an advantage to soldering on memory, SSD etc: no chance of a bad connector causing problems. The entire class of problems fixed by 'reseating your DIMMS' is gone.