Hacker News Reader

Comment by nottaylorswift | Hacker News Reader

People supporting this are missing the point. When you look at the demographic responsible for purchasing the majority of these types of product, they have enough expendable income to buy a replacement every 5 years at least. The minority intent on making their product last forever through disassembly and endless repair, don't have enough purchasing leverage to change policy. Further after 5 years most people prefer to upgrade and those who don't simply need a new battery in >80% of the cases. I can see demand for the return of a replaceable battery in phones and laptops, but the rest is futile resistance against a natural progression. Repair simply isn't worth it.

View on HN

According to this logic the entire desktop computing segment shouldn't exist, yet it is a thriving ecosystem made up of thousands of vendors, millions of buyers and components at every possible price point. Meanwhile no one is buying a Mac Pro tower. Turns out people like choice and customizability. If I have the disposable income I'd rather replace my CPU/GPU every year and RAM every other year rather than the entire laptop every 5 years.

Desktop PC sales are in freefall and were stagnant years before that.

Laptops nowadays are about ~2 years behind mainstream desktop platforms and are now capable of serving the needs of most gamers, video editors, and programmers. Consumers, prosumers, and businesses are increasingly are asking themselves why they should give up the flexibility of a laptop and dedicate valuable space to a traditional desktop setup. From the business perspective, laptops are also logistically easier to deploy.

The biggest ways I've seen upgradability used is to deal with HDD failures, which are several times less likely than they were ten years prior. To deal with running oom, which is far less of an issue because swapping to SSD isn't as profound of a performance hit. To deal with running out of disk, which you can compensate for with cloud storage. To deal with running out of compute, which can be dealt with using cloud compute. It should also be said that an alternative to upgrading a component is to just sell the entire machine and get a new one, even if this might be less efficient, it's still an option.

One might say "but aha - doesn't an upgradable laptop give you the best of both worlds?" but being honest a framework is not a better value or better performer for most users than a 8gb MBA even if you can slap in 32gb of memory and a 1tb drive into a framework for cheap. The integration of the MBA offers unique benefits when it comes to battery life and performance, and just the fact that TSMC n5 is only available on an integrated laptop is really a huge if artificial competitive edge for integrated laptops.

I don't really see repairability coming back if I'm going to be honest, I see the laptop of the future being harder to repair not easier.

I disagree that the only two buckets of consumers are people who can afford a new laptop anyway and those who want their laptops to live forever. There's a broad spectrum of people who simply want options. IMHO they want the option to repair, replace, upgrade or some combination of the three and they want it on their terms, not the manufacturers'.

Warranties and extended purchase plans are profit centers. So as one example you can either pay $199+ on a warranty, gambling that the issuer agrees to honor it in case of failure, or instead pocket the money and use it on a repair or upgrade when the laptop fails. I know which I prefer and it's not tacking on $200 to the cost of a laptop for a Microcenter warranty or Applecare.

Most electronics fail from manufacturing defects within 6 months of use. After that, it will probably last as long as you want to use it, or until you pour coffee on it. Excluding the battery. Just because something might fail doesn't mean it's going to. Much of the equipment you use will function longer than you will.

And there's another side to this right to repair movement. There's now less incentive to make the individual components reliable. Since the penalty is no longer a full logic board replacement, the components can have a lower MTBF - that lowers cost and promotes the product at the same time by convincing the customer of the need for repairability.

Many of the customers are really just laymen hobbyists looking for a project that seems technical. Kind of like the gamers who wire up a series of unnecessary fans and RGB LEDs and pretend they invented the microprocessor. They have no buying leverage.

I know you're not Taylor Swift, but are you Tim Cook? My goodness, I've never seen a regular person so against allowing people to repair/upgrade stuff they own.

If I gave the impression I'm against it, I'm not. It's nice to have repairability, a bonus feature, but not a competitive or innovative incentive to purchase over the, and at this point everyone has to admit, very well designed Apple line of product. I do believe we are well into the era of disposable electronics, and both assembly, disassembly, recycling and repair will be fully automated in the near future. Because, in order to make products more compact and continuing the SoC trend moving components to silicon, there's no longer a place for the human technician.

Well I suppose that depends on what you consider well designed. Designed to maximize Apple's profit and prevent consumer choice or upgrades? Undeniably true. Woe to the buyer who decides a year later he needs double the RAM or storage. At the very least he or she must resell their device and buy new again. So to that buyer I dare say frame.work is both competitive, innovative and a better choice than a glued shut hunk of electronics with everything soldered on. System on a chip is not relevant here as both storage and memory are outboard, as is a GPU once one needs better graphics performance than an integrated GPU/CPU can provide.

Framework can't compete with the M1 chip unfortunately. I love what Framework is doing though.

Absolutely the M1 and I'm sure M1X / M2 beat everything on the market. The question is whether consumers need the M* chips or if the latest Intel or AMD offerings are good enough given the tradeoffs. I don't have FOMO over most work per watt or suspend features on a laptop.

Funnily enough my ipad pro is great for light development work and remote access to a real workstation when I need it. For me there's no compelling reason to buy a MacBook. And as my pro is past the two year Applecare window I now have to treat it with kid gloves since a dropping it will be a $1,000 mistake. That definitely informs my next purchase which will not be an impossible to repair and expensive to replace disposable-by-design device.

This future of automated repair and recycling that you speak of is not the current reality, and as somebody who works in hardware, I would be very interested in learning more about this emerging technology of automated repair that you speak up. Though I would challenge that claim with this question: if automated repair is in the near future, why does Apple charge on average three times more than what an independent repair shop charges for fixing logic board issues on a Macbook while still not recovering your data?

While I don't disagree with the idea that we're in an era of disposable electronics, that still currently comes at a high monetary cost that a significant portion of the population would prefer to not have to spend. As a result, it creates a strong market demand for human repair technicians. Though I would argue that the market force that's more likely to put human repair technicians out of jobs are products that are easily repairable (like the framework laptop.) Not some automated repair technology that will arrive to the market around the same time as flying cars.

The claim that "if a device is repairable, it will be big and clunky" is simply corporate propaganda. While the Macbook has some great design aspects to it, it's not without it's flaws. The NAND is soldered onto the board, such that if you have an issue with the motherboard (including a broken charge port) you will need to get it replaced by Apple for a hefty sum of money (think $800-$1200, which most people can't afford unexpectedly.) On top of that, you will lose all of your data. Then there's the butterfly keyboards, which were a reliability nightmare for Apple. If the keyboard were modular and replacable it probably wouldn't have erupted into a massive class action lawsuit. In my opinion, the flat top keycaps that were introduced in the 2009 Pros never felt right to me, and the touchbar was more of a party trick than anything.

I am not claiming that the framework laptop is perfect, but it sure is a compelling product on it's own, and for a lot of the same reasons a Macbook Pro is.

Apple's daisy recycling robot is a taste of what's coming. Personally I wouldn't use a product that has been in an independent repair shop, having worked in several as a side gig while I was in college. They hardly ever use ESD precautions, often deceive and overcharge, may steal data, and are rarely qualified or trained, unless iFixit YouTube videos count. This is doubly the case if it's an Apple product. I will simply value my time properly and replace with a new model. I want to be using and not disassembling the product. Even the Apple geniuses aren't qualified IMO. After it leaves Shenzhen, it's a disposable product, as designed.

And so it comes back to money. Now these very advanced tools are primarily used for building wealth. If you're making money, replace out of date equipment as routine as an expense. If you aren't making enough to replace your equipment when necessary, the problem isn't the design of the laptop. It's your failing to earn. That's where the rational and successful will focus. Disassembling your laptop and it's 300 tiny security screws all over your desk on an ESD mat with little magnetic boxes to save $50 is totally insane. It's a waste of your valuable finite time and energy.

I'm familiar with Daisy, however that's for recycling iPhones. Not repairing laptops. It's totally different.

Your claims about independent repair shops may apply to franchises like ubreaxifix, with bottom of the barrel pay to their technicians, but there are also many high quality independent repair shops like iPad Rehab and Rossmann Repair (both who have youtube channels outlining their repairs.) Who are very good at what they do. Also, some of their technicians are readers of HN.

> these very advanced tools are primarily used for building wealth > If you aren't making enough to replace your equipment when necessary, the problem isn't the design of the laptop. It's your failing to earn

By that logic, the target market for Apple laptops are for business use only (Apple's marketing says otherwise.) It's a set of product lines that are marketed towards college students, business elites, and casual users alike. Not all of those groups of people use their laptop for immediate wealth generation, or can afford expensive apple repairs. Which of these demographics do you think is a bigger market? By your logic, Framework has a very compelling product aimed at a large target market.

> ...to save $50 is totally insane. It's a waste of your valuable finite time and energy

Try adding a zero to the savings. Seriously, Apple repairs are expensive. and even more so if you're purchasing a new laptop like you claim to. Besides, if you actually believe all that you're saying about valuable time and energy, what takes more time and energy? Purchasing a new macbook, restoring your cloud backups, and all your applications, as well as checking that everything was properly restored, or spending a few minutes replacing a defective part in a modular, user serviceable laptop? If your argument is time savings here, its significantly faster to upgrade/replace parts than it is for me to upgrade/replace devices.

I want to be able to have an affordable repair option if I spill coffee on my laptop 6 months in.

This sentiment is pretty universal, you don't hear about it much because consumers don't think they have a choice. If you go into an Apple Store with a Macbook whose keyboard doesn't work because of spilt coffee, Apple can charge you whatever they want, and theres proof that they will frequently (unintentionally or not) misdiagnose a problem and quote you 80% of what you initally paid to replace everything.

What framework is doing is enabling customers to go to any repair store around the corner to get their device fixed for a fraction of the cost.

> Most electronics fail from manufacturing defects within 6 months of use.

Citation needed.

I think you under-estimate how many people want to reduce their contribution to landfill with old products and ecological demolition with new products.

I think you overestimate - wildly - how much people care about the environment. Further the idea that recycling as policy offsets pollution is a delusion. That issue needs to be solved by materials science before even the design phase, not after the fact do good mitigation. It's a type of indoctrination; that's the purpose of recycling laws. If you follow them you're affirming voluntary compliance with government policy and that precedent makes you more agreeable to their continuing agenda. Doesn't make a bit of difference to the environment. It's a mind game. I've seen cargo ships pour metric tons of waste into the ocean as routine waste from industrial zones. The sheer size of the waste is almost unbelievable. Don't worry about the aluminum in your laptop and soda cans.

This isn't about recycling, but REUSE, and extending the life of a computer instead of pulling another one out of the supply chain and all of the consequences which follow.

Sorry to jump in wildly here - but this reminds me of a similar attack on the idea where we shouldn't use "air cleaners" to reduce carbon emission already in our atmosphere.

I get it, it's not a the only solution to a problem, but again - why not use this technology if the job it is designed to do helps, even enough to mitigate some other issues. Just because a solution does not address all 10 parts of a problem, doesn't mean that you can't use that solution for 1/10 of the problem.

Because it's not 1/10th of the problem being addressed, it's more like 1/10,000th. What I'm suggesting needs to be appreciated visually. Only then is the meaning of the scale of the issue apparent. I'm against recycling because it's a form of denial. We need to be searching for new materials and industrial process. Also, we need to switch to next generation nuclear energy at the very first opportunity. IMO

On the other hand, every college student ever needs a computer in order to do their school work. College students and new grads with a ton of student debt are not exactly demographics that can afford to drop several thousands of dollars on new laptops each time they break or become too slow.

I’m using a 7 year old Mac for software development and it’s not ‘too slow’. Cheap computers are readily available on the used market.

Yeah, I daily drive a 6 year old Macbook Pro and it feels just as fast as when I first got it. I'm sure you can pick one up on eBay for a few hundred bucks.

Software development, in general, doesn't require much resources. You're just editing text most of the time. Most of my development is done remotely via a Raspberry Pi.

But that also depends on the development you're doing. There's a night and day difference between compiling Rust projects on my 2015 MBP versus the Ryzen desktop I just built. Same thing goes for development that requires VMs or modern IDEs. Sure, I can run a single VM on an old MBP, but I can't run much else. I can run a modern IDE, but it will be slow and I won't be able to open more than one browser tab at the same time.

Students in certain fields also rely on heavy applications to do CAD, special effects, 3D modeling/rendering, graphic design, video and photo editing, etc. It would be a shame for them to have to buy additional machines because the ones they already own have 4/8GB of soldered memory and they need 2 to 4 times that, or because their processors are too slow or don't have enough cores. The Framework laptop would allow them to upgrade their memory and CPU without having to buy a whole other machine.

Ok so there are a narrow range of students who require a high end machine, and for them a framework laptop might be a good choice, assuming they can’t get a similar benefit by simply selling their existing laptop and buying a new one.

You are missing:

- the customization. I for one would like to be able to change laptop at will. (try out oled, quantum dot, change color, put in weird components when available)

- Other purposes for components - I could take the motherboard+cpu+ram, put it in another enclosure and make a router out of it, or robots or other hobbies. Take one or more displays, put it behind windows and have smart windows, etc...

Only thing for me is size, too small display, but I'll likely compromise and get it for christmas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com