That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people • Hacker News Board

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#391

Post by chetanahuja » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

It's funny because I'm still using a giant MacPro from 2008 (yes... the tower) as a home machine. It's crammed full of high density storage and I've added aftermarket RAM to the box to max out the slots. It's the last mac model that allows you to upgrade easily.

I think they continued to sell it until 2012 or so but then fixed the "oversight" with an art deco piece of a "desktop" computer with no room for upgrades. I still buy Apple laptops because work involves dealing with Xcode and iOS stuff but for any personal use, no more Apple hardware for me.

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#392

Post by drakenot » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

taneq wrote: post #346

drakenot wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also bought the iPad 1 and was similarly burned. The iPad 2 however has had tremendous longevity. I think the iPad 1 came out just one generation too early.

Define "longevity"? I'm typing this on an iPad 3 running iOS 9 and it's definitely showing its age. The hardware is in perfect condition but it struggles to render many web pages and the wifi (although better than on iOS 6-8) is hideously slow compared to my midrange Android phone.

The iPad 2 was sold side-by-side the iPad 3, 4 and iPad Air in Apple's stores. The iPad Mini also is essentially an iPad 2 in a smaller form factor as well.

So if you had gotten an iPad 2 on day 1, I feel like you would have had a reasonably long life on the device.

Your case with the iPad 3 is a little unique. It was the first device with a retina screen and was arguably underpowered for that task. This is why apple replaced the iPad 3 with the iPad 4 just 6 months later in the same year.

The iPad 1 and the iPad 3 are both underpowered for their typical workloads. The other iPads however have stood the test of time fairly well. My iPad Mini 1 (which is essentially an iPad 2) is a little slow, but serviceable and my wife's iPad 4 still works great.

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#393

Post by mobiuscog » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

The only hardware in my house that needs to be replaced (which includes both PCs and Macs) of that age is...

... my original iPad. Because Apple left it to die - even the last update means it can't run Apple's own store or browser without crashing and I can't get versions of software that previously worked because they're not supported or offered any more as Apple forced developers to move up to all of the new API's.

Yes - I can see exactly why I should spend yet more money on something that will intentionally become obselescent in the future.

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#394

Post by mirimir » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

> There are really only two reasons why people might have a computer that’s more than five years old: 1) They can’t afford an upgrade. 2) They don’t need an upgrade.

There's a third: they wouldn't trust an upgrade :) Just where to draw the line isn't obvious. But it's probably closer to 10 years old than five.

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#395

Post by chetanahuja » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

rileymat2 wrote: post #60

waspleg wrote: post #41

I completely agree with the author of the article. Apple is the real-world incarnation of the economic premise of Huxley's "A Brave New World". This was just the mask dropping for a second to pander to the faithful. I'd like to add, as someone who works at K12 public high school, that I've seen the reality of the article played out. My building is 100% free lunch, most are extremely poor, and yet there is a sizable n…

I am not sure if I was suddenly without money, the iPhone would be what I would want to give up. The utility of the device is incredible: Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography. If anything we should work to get smart phones in the hands of the poor. It would be a great way to improve their lives for a somewhat modest cost. I am not sure it is all for looks. Maybe we could quibble abou…

"Mapping. Phone. Internet. Email. Alarm Clock. Calendaring. Photography."

You realize those features are not unique to iPhone... right?

"Maybe we could quibble about whether they should have an iPhone or some cheaper smartphone. I am just saying, it could be more for utility than image."

The whole point is that buying an iPhone as opposed to an equally capable cheaper smartphone is done for branding and image.

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#396

Post by robmcm » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #322

widdershins wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can see, Apple 'get' the different use cases better than some others in the industry. That's why they've been reluctant to add touch screen to their laptops as Microsoft have done, because they don't see it being useful. I think this was just an ill-judged offhand comment. P.S. I'm typing this on an 2010 MBP which, with an SSD upgrade, still works beautifully.

Or maybe they haven't added touch screen to the laptops because then some fraction of owners might not feel the need to buy an iPad?

Maybe they haven't added music playback to the iPhone because then some fraction of owners might not feel the need to buy an iPod?

Apple promote their ability and willingness to cannibalize their own products.

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#397

Post by jkot » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

elipsey wrote: post #362

waspleg wrote: post #41

I completely agree with the author of the article. Apple is the real-world incarnation of the economic premise of Huxley's "A Brave New World". This was just the mask dropping for a second to pander to the faithful. I'd like to add, as someone who works at K12 public high school, that I've seen the reality of the article played out. My building is 100% free lunch, most are extremely poor, and yet there is a sizable n…

If you carefully read the fine article, you will notice that the author states: "There are really only two reasons why people might have a computer that’s more than five years old: 1. They can’t afford an upgrade. 2. They don’t need an upgrade." and then proceeds to examine and _dismiss_ #1 as a plausible motive for these comments. What he is complaining about is disposable hardware. I am also bothered by this trend,…

I also have 6 years old laptop for similar reasons. My primary machine is desktop workstation and older machine allows me to swap hard-drive easily while traveling. I can also take harddrive with me, and leave cheap shell at hotel room. Plus keyboard is unbeatable :-)

But I am upgrading to skylake based laptop. It finally has 16GB RAM in ultraportable with good linux support. Old laoptop will be still usable sometimes.

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#398

Post by JohnBooty » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

chillingeffect wrote: post #374

JohnBooty wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're already poor, then an iPhone (not a smartphone) is definitely a luxury. It's not wrong, nor necessarily economically irresponsible, for "poor" people to have a few nice things. Assuming a lifespan of 3 years, the cost difference between a $600 phone and a $300 phone is barely more than $0.25 per day - and probably even less, considering that iPhones have a higher resale value. Maybe that "poor person" car…

Other responses disagree with you, but I agree with you... and I'm rather anti-consumerist (it's difficult to pull off completely...). In fact, I feel a bit silly having paid "only" $300 for my Samsung phone, having read your economic breakdown. I was imagining myself having an extra $200 for stuff... but I go through a lot of wasted time having "only" 16GB.. continuously moving stuff off of it... missed photos and v…

I really appreciate your reply!

Yeah, sometimes (not always) the more expensive option is actually cheaper in the long run, or is at least a justifiable cost. Looking at the $/day or $/hour cost over the lifespan of a product is one way to get a better understanding of the "real" cost.

The danger is that it can be easy to justify too many of those "well, it's only $0.10 a day!" purchases because they can really add up.

(In fact, car salesmen will often try to sell you upgrades in a similar way. "Well, upgrading to the leather seats will only add $25 to your monthly payments...")

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#399

Post by petra » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #292

kdamken wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financial worth comes from your net worth, yes. But your worth as a human being isn't related to any of that.

I hear this a lot, but the evidence indicates that the majority of humanity judge a person's worth on their assets, money and job title. Sometimes, physical appearance as well.

It wasn't/isn't as extreme as today in some other cultures. In the orthodox jewish culture, you'll get a better bride by being very good at learning the scriptures. There's also a lot of respect for people who do good deeds.

Re: That awkward moment when Apple mocked good hardware and poor people

#400

Post by elipsey » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

ok_craig wrote: post #388

elipsey wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you carefully read the fine article, you will notice that the author states: "There are really only two reasons why people might have a computer that’s more than five years old: 1. They can’t afford an upgrade. 2. They don’t need an upgrade." and then proceeds to examine and _dismiss_ #1 as a plausible motive for these comments. What he is complaining about is disposable hardware. I am also bothered by this trend,…

Not sure we read the same article. The author did not dismiss #1 as a plausible motive. He dismissed it as the likely motive, to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, from fear about what it would mean about them otherwise.

"Door number two. What Schiller probably meant to suggest was that Apple’s targeting old PC users who simply haven’t felt compelled to update yet but could afford to."

He said the second thing is what "What Schiller probably meant". Maybe this shouldn't reasonably be construed as a "dismissal". This interpretation is more generous towards Apple than supposing they mean to overtly mock the poor, and I supposed the author meant that this would be beneath them.

Apparently that's debatable :)