The concept of an upgradable device is, however, great. Just not in the manufacturer's interest. Apple lose out if they offer a storage upgrade. Motorola don't sell another phone if they make the screen swappable to the next technology.
The concept of an upgradable device is, however, great. Just not in the manufacturer's interest. Apple lose out if they offer a storage upgrade. Motorola don't sell another phone if they make the screen swappable to the next technology.
My current laptop is a 15" retina MacBook Pro. It isn't upgradable in any real sense of the word.
My previous laptop was a 15" MacBook Pro. I could upgrade the RAM and HDD, and with little difficulty replace the battery.
The upgradable one is 5mm-ish thicker and about 400 grams heavier.
Not a true apples-to-apples comparison, but it does show the bulk added by having end user interchangeable connections on the hardware.
HA
My Treo 700p was >3x the thickness of an iPhone 5S, roughly the same width, 7mm taller (not counting the antenna, which was, by far, the most annoying physical part of the phone), and weighed an extra 68 grams. My manager around the same time used an HTC Windows Phone of not-dissimilar size and weight.
Phones are smaller because they can be, not because they have to be.
This is not a scheme to take your money, BTW. Most of the consumers wont upgrade any part of the PC during their lifetime, so you are being held back in design and build quality by a feature only a fraction os the population demands. By held back I don't just mean design wise, although is one of the main advantages. You have to support legacy ports, slower buses, etc...
By going to non-modular designs, you can make better use of the space. The tradeoffs are big, especially on laptops (increased battery life), and more so in mobile.