Live data from Hacker News

One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

columbianewsservice.com

231–240 of 562 posts

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#231
post #82

Apple's fight against right to repair while pushing materials to the public that state they are trying to reduce their carbon footprint is the absolute peak of hypocrisy. I understand the closed off design of their products is a result of the Steve Jobs era, but why can't the current leadership make a change? Why can't Apple make their products easily repairable while making them aesthetically pleasing? The typical "…

I used to work as a civil service engineer for the Navy in technology development for future weapons. The brass would often complain about how expensive fully-integrated solutions were. We investigated and found that the main cause was vendor lock-in to buy the all up rounds. We couldn’t compete for lowest cost on the power cards, or signal processing cards, rocket motors, etc., because the government didn’t have data rights to the design in order to hold down development costs. (Side note: as a contracting necessity, we’d also put the whole purchase on one huge contract to be managed by the so-called prime contractor and negotiate a profit fee explicitly in the contract itself. The total cost of the prime contract included “pass through” funding for subcontracts that the prime contractor would handle. In some cases the prime would let a subcontract to a vendor who would contract _back_ to a subsidiary of the prime, and we’d pay guaranteed profit margin explicitly on the prime and the subcontract amounts, so we’d pay a profit markup to the prime on the profit they would make from their subsidiary. And folks around here gripe about the 30% app “tax”.)

Anyway, vendor lock-in means we can’t compete subcomponents and our long term maintenance costs are really high because we always have to go back to the vendor for service. (Sounding familiar…?) The brass started dreaming up “modular weapons systems” where we maybe develop things like universal power modules, guidance modules, and other components, then we could compete for low cost production and long-term maintenance and achieve utopia.

I spent quite a while on this, and what we found is that it wouldn’t work (at least not for weapons). Universal components aren’t well-suited to different platforms (3” rocket vs 14” missile, etc.), the modular design adds weight, reduces efficiency for the electronics systems, increases part count to make them all interoperable, and so on. The engineering trades that you have to make for modular designs are incompatible with optimizing performance as measured by the end user. Ironically perhaps, one of the major case studies that helped argue that point was based around Apple products.

Which is perhaps a long way to say that most consumers don’t seem to care about modular computers, and in the worst case many of the changes that modularity would require are counterproductive to the things consumers _do_ seem to care about.

It’s one thing to argue that we should use governmental regulation to push negative externalities back onto firms so that they reconsider the design and engineering constraints they prioritize, but it’s not like firms are being irrational or irresponsible by giving people what they want—some combination of smaller, lighter, faster, longer battery life, and cheaper devices. There would be some negative impact on some (or all) of those characteristics if Apple, Samsung, or anyone else switched to fully modular designs—and I think most consumers would choose the cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter, or longer battery life models than to buy a modular one either on principle or because they expect to repair or upgrade it for significantly longer than they expect to own them today.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#232
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In incognito, I get nothing similar to what I would actually watch. Nothing is even remotely similar. It's scarily different, and none of it interests me.

Watch a single video that's even remotely related to the topics you watched before and your entire suggestion history will be back (even those unrelated to the single video you watched). When they see a new profile they are basically testing the waters. They suspect it's you, but leave the benefit of the doubt in case it's a legitimately new user. But just giving them a few "fuzzy" data points like watching a video o…

This is conspiracy-tier thinking. It's far more likely that once you click one video you like, other videos you like appear because they are topically similar or the target demographics are the same.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Youtube is actually very good at reliably determining it's you who's in that private window Maybe, but it respects the "private" mode far enough to create a separate profile for that. Browsing in private windows is like starting with a fresh account, and over time it'll adapt to the videos there provided you don't switch the device/reinstall the OS etc. (the latter is the reason I know that...I did a lot of distro-…

I'm referring to this when I talk about WebGL fingerprinting: https://jonatron.github.io/webgl-fingerprinting/ Since Youtube fingerprints your device, it builds a shadow profile tied to that device, so that even in incognito/private sessions, you will get recommended videos that you recently watched, despite the anecdotal claims of others that they don't encounter this. The only way to defeat that is to use an entire…

Why do you think this is true?

What would the point of these half-baked personalization instead of regular personalization?

Why would YouTube work so hard to personalize content for people who are explicitly opting out of personalization? Who even benefits?

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch a single video that's even remotely related to the topics you watched before and your entire suggestion history will be back (even those unrelated to the single video you watched). When they see a new profile they are basically testing the waters. They suspect it's you, but leave the benefit of the doubt in case it's a legitimately new user. But just giving them a few "fuzzy" data points like watching a video o…

This is conspiracy-tier thinking. It's far more likely that once you click one video you like, other videos you like appear because they are topically similar or the target demographics are the same.

1) I've noticed this behavior and at the time some of the videos I watched on my main profile had nothing to do with my normal watching patterns (and were completely unrelated topic-wise) and yet after watching a single video fitting my regular patterns on a new profile I ended up getting suggestions for the "outlier" videos despite it being very unlikely that there are enough people out there watching both that and the outlier videos for it to be suggested "organically".

2) This is what I would do if I had no morals, and the people working for Google are smarter and are paid way more money than me, and Google itself has an incentive to stalk people across different sessions, so if I can think of this and implement it then so can they and you'd be foolish to believe they wouldn't do it.

You'd think this is conspiracy-level thinking (and I would've agreed with you 10 years ago), but so far, when it comes to online tracking, everything that's been considered a far-fetched conspiracy in the past ended up being true, so better safe than sorry? Given the money at stake in adtech and lack of morals and respect for the law (Google still ignores the GDPR), if it's technically possible, you should assume someone's doing it.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This tact has been plied by a dozen different replies in a dozen different but similar ways (some talking about prose, while others claim it's incomprehensible). > Groan. defaultname, I'm sorry you took offense. I'll see if I can present it a bit differently. The GP comment reads as if its author added fluff to distract from the true nature of the comment — an entirely unsolicited rant that acts as flamebait on HN.

Every comment on HN is "unsolicited". I certainly didn't ask for your observation on this. Further, "rant"? Give me a break. Humorously the top comment to this submission is that Rossmann is a "national treasure", along with some commentary about some other guy and how they should do a podcast together. Nothing whatsoever to do with the submission. Just slathering praise and adulation. Whatever floats someone's boat…

> Declaring my comment flamebait is telling. It's a completely banal observation about a conflict in someone's position. The many angry personal attacks (such as yours) are not my doing, and reflect on your own rather bizarre motivations.

Hm... I applied the label to the original comment I replied to, not yours.

But defaultname, I do see you're pretty new. Try not to take things personally; even me labeling their comment as flamebait is a description of the comment and style of discourse rather than an assertion about the person.

The goal in the end is to have quality discussion where we can all learn something and grow a bit, and none of that happens if we either attack each other or perceive each others' words as attacks.

For what it's worth, I do apologize if my words rubbed you the wrong way. Certainly wasn't my intent.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#236
post #36
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find Rossman insufferable due to his hyperbolic approach to shaming Apple and having a bone to pick with just about everyone- he's the definition of a narcissist. I agree in principle to "right to repair", but Rossman's motives are purely financial and self promoting. I've watched over 100 hours of his content and realized that his audience is primarily made up of anti-apple PC Master Race fanatics that just want t…

It’s a shame to see this downvoted because even if it’s against what many people believe (we all have “hero’s” and “villains” I suppose, and our hero’s do no wrong) it’s something I also see. I used to watch a lot of Rossman and glossed over his Apple hate because ultimately Apple are putting him and people like him out of a job, so it’s fair to be salty. But a large portion of his content (a few years ago at least)…

[deleted]

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#237
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major problem with Rossmann I have is that he leaned into a strong anti-Apple PCMasterRace crowd. For them, listening to him rant against Apple gives them a fun confirmation bias that they were right to buy PCs. They enjoy listening to that, but his very long rants aren't very interesting to newcomers or for spreading right to repair to new audiences. Does my mom have time for a 45-minute rant full of complex techn…

You do realize that apple products is what he work on/specialize in, right? Or do you rather that Rossmann talk about what he doesn't know?

[deleted]

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#238
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major problem with Rossmann I have is that he leaned into a strong anti-Apple PCMasterRace crowd. For them, listening to him rant against Apple gives them a fun confirmation bias that they were right to buy PCs. They enjoy listening to that, but his very long rants aren't very interesting to newcomers or for spreading right to repair to new audiences. Does my mom have time for a 45-minute rant full of complex techn…

You do realize that apple products is what he work on/specialize in, right? Or do you rather that Rossmann talk about what he doesn't know?

What do you mean by that? Rossmann talks about what he doesn't know all the time. He's not an engineer, yet he thinks he can proclaim that Apple is terrible at engineering and runs with it as a foregone conclusion, without ever having an actual engineer take a look or play Devil's Advocate. This seems irresponsible considering the size of his platform, weakens his argument, and is also odd considering many engineers would happily do a guest appearance.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#239
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. But it was a deliberate design decision to place certain sensors and actuators that may need repair in inaccessible locations. Pumps, spark plugs and chains need to be removable without major disassembly of the engine. Shift solenoids are a nasty problem that I've run into. They don't need to be hidden inside the transmission. And the transmission doesn't require the entire engine to be dropped to remove it.…

I have a car whose spark plugs are a pain in the ass to change. You have to disconnect a number of things^[1], unbolt the engine, and lift it to get to them^[2][3]. The thing is this is a modding friendly car, most everything is easily accessible and user serviceable. So why are the spark plugs so hard to get to? I doubt it had anything to do with hostility towards repairability because this car is easily repairable.…

To echo your point: Going back decades it's been a real PITA to repair dash components on many vehicles, and this is primarily a manufacturing artifact that in the factory the whole assembly of the dash is brought into the car on a specialty arm made for that task.

It's made to go in as a whole component at some point in the assembly and streamline that step for first cost reasons vs for serviceability of sub components after the warranty has expired.

The right to repair complaint would be that if your evaporator core fails you have to replace your car because that sub component wouldn't be allowed to be sold by sake of making the pipe connectors a drm copywriting mess, not that it's a pain to get to it.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#240
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major problem with Rossmann I have is that he leaned into a strong anti-Apple PCMasterRace crowd. For them, listening to him rant against Apple gives them a fun confirmation bias that they were right to buy PCs. They enjoy listening to that, but his very long rants aren't very interesting to newcomers or for spreading right to repair to new audiences. Does my mom have time for a 45-minute rant full of complex techn…

You do realize that apple products is what he work on/specialize in, right? Or do you rather that Rossmann talk about what he doesn't know?

Also, Rossmann clearly views himself as a Right to Repair leader. Fair enough. But if you are going to be a leader of a broad movement, you have to be willing to speak about issues that plague broader computing, not laser-focus on one company when others are doing similar or even worse faux pas.
Post reply on HN