Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's Blue Ocean

hypercritical.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 262 posts

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#61

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

EPWN3D wrote: post #33
threeseed wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple makes an original, user-hostile decision You make it sound like the decision comes with no benefits. All of the hardware to support removable battery means less space for the battery. And especially in the early days the iPhone was struggling to reach a normal working day.

R2R enthusiasts are incapable of seeing any decision from a perspective that isn't their own personal fetish for tinkering. So any and all advantages of sealing the battery into the chassis are just waved away and not acknowledged at all. Lighter devices? That's irrelevant, no one cares about device weight. Cheaper to manufacture? That's just a ploy to gasp make more money! How dare they?! Waterproofing? Well I don't…

On the contrary, I find in amazing to see the lengths that Apple apologists will go to point out these spurious reasons why Apple included non-removable batteries.

The only point that you really list that is defensible is waterproofing. Lighter devices? Cheaper to manufacture? The idea that making a removable battery would make a phone noticeably heavier or impact the cost more than a cent or two is laughable.

Even with the waterproofing, I'm dumbfounded on how one hand people can laud Apple for their truly amazing engineering capabilities (I may question its utility but the Vision Pro is really an incredible piece of engineering), yet somehow a waterproof removable battery (which some other phones have) is beyond their grasp.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#62

Post by FractalParadigm »

buildbot wrote: post #54
ChuckMcM wrote: post #24

The short version is: "Wouldn't it be disruptive if Apple went back to replaceable batteries?" but the author stopped short of where that leads. One of the things that doable "now" that wasn't doable "then" is wireless charging. I love that I can put my phone on a pad next to the bed at night and it charges, pick it up and there is no trailing wire to unplug, put it down and there is no wire to find and plug in. This…

> One of the things that doable "now" that wasn't doable "then" is wireless charging. I love that I can put my phone on a pad next to the bed at night and it charges, pick it up and there is no trailing wire to unplug, put it down and there is no wire to find and plug in. This is a big improvement in my user experience. The palm pre and several early android phones had both removable batteries and wireless charging.…

In many cases the coils were integrated into the casing of the battery, and the back panel of the phone was thin enough to transfer sufficient power through.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#63

Post by SoftTalker »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #57
KennyBlanken wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lithium ion batteries that can handle a thousand to several thousand charge cycles and only see 80% reduction in capacity have been available for ten years. My 2013 Macbook Pro has just such a battery, rated for 80% capacity after 1000 cycles, and it lasted over 6 years before the battery's internal resistance rose enough that heavy load would cause a brownout and the machine to force sleep. Yet they are not in wides…

Its a bit of a myth for ever lasting bulbs, its more complicated than that. The life time was a trade off of colour and brightness. If you made them very red shifted and quite dim then there are bulbs that are very old still around, but they don't produce much light and never did. The harder you drive the filament the better the light properties but the quicker it died. The industry choose a point for trade offs as a…

I'd be happy with an LED bulb that lasted a year. I haven't yet found one that can do that reliably.

Remember that 60W incandescent bulbs costing $0.25 used to be available that met that goal. We've taken huge steps backwards on interior household lighting.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#64

Post by acdha »

The second part seemed pretty weak to me, too, but I think there's a potentially bigger shift which could be steel-manned out of the battery idea. e-waste is getting a lot of attention, as are right to repair laws, and general realization that we can't keep generating waste on a 20th century scale.

Apple might have an interesting angle for embracing that because unlike their competitors they profit from the whole stack, have a robust service portfolio, and retail presence near a large portion of their customers. Turning device longevity into a competitive point really puts pressure on anyone who can't easily switch from Qualcomm's blink-and-you-miss-it support period or negotiate some kind of revenue sharing agreement between themselves, Microsoft/Google, and services like Spotify or Netflix, and unlike most other attempts to make it harder to compete with them this would actually be seen as a general good by almost everyone other than their direct competitors.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#65

Post by Reason077 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #24

The short version is: "Wouldn't it be disruptive if Apple went back to replaceable batteries?" but the author stopped short of where that leads. One of the things that doable "now" that wasn't doable "then" is wireless charging. I love that I can put my phone on a pad next to the bed at night and it charges, pick it up and there is no trailing wire to unplug, put it down and there is no wire to find and plug in. This…

> "Why not no battery in the device?"

How about a nuclear battery, aka radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG)? This would be sealed in (carefully!) and would last the lifetime of the device, with no need for charging, ever. Would need special steps/handling to ensure safe disposal at end of product life, however.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#66

Post by Reason077 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #37
Animats wrote: post #3

The future is batteries with more charge cycles, not replaceable batteries. The solid state battery people are claiming 10,000 charge/discharge cycles. If they can achieve that, it's 27 years of battery life. The case will wear out first.

Lithium ion batteries that can handle a thousand to several thousand charge cycles and only see 80% reduction in capacity have been available for ten years. My 2013 Macbook Pro has just such a battery, rated for 80% capacity after 1000 cycles, and it lasted over 6 years before the battery's internal resistance rose enough that heavy load would cause a brownout and the machine to force sleep. Yet they are not in wides…

> "Yet they are not in widespread use; most devices have prioritized capacity/weight/size over longevity, Apple included. My current M1 has lost 10% of its capacity after just 120 cycles"

A simple way to significantly extend battery longevity is to limit charge to 80% (only charging to 100% occasionally when you know you might need it, like a long day travelling).

Unfortunately Apple doesn't yet provide this option on most of it's devices, other than the iPhone 15 line. But you can use third-party apps to do it on Macs.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#67

Post by bonestamp2 »

The real Blue Ocean strategy that Apple should apply would be to use AI to help analyze our behaviors and then actually change our behaviors to help us be happier and healthier, not just use it to sell us more stuff (as some competitors are doing).

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#68

Post by Reason077 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #63
PaulKeeble wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a bit of a myth for ever lasting bulbs, its more complicated than that. The life time was a trade off of colour and brightness. If you made them very red shifted and quite dim then there are bulbs that are very old still around, but they don't produce much light and never did. The harder you drive the filament the better the light properties but the quicker it died. The industry choose a point for trade offs as a…

I'd be happy with an LED bulb that lasted a year. I haven't yet found one that can do that reliably. Remember that 60W incandescent bulbs costing $0.25 used to be available that met that goal. We've taken huge steps backwards on interior household lighting.

> "I'd be happy with an LED bulb that lasted a year. I haven't yet found one that can do that reliably."

I do remember in the early days of LED bulbs, many were quite unreliable, especially dimmable ones. It was probably more the electronics in them failing more than the LEDs themselves?

But now days LED bulbs seem much more reliable and I very rarely have to replace them. In fact the only bulbs I can recall replacing in the past 18 months living in my current house were some old CFL bulbs that hadn't actually completely failed, but had gradually become a bit too dim.

Certainly, now days, I need to replace bulbs far, far less often than in the old incandescent days where it was a regular chore in any house.

(Also, now days I avoid using old-style dimmer switches, and even removed some in one house I lived in. Better to get a smart bulb with it's own built-in dimming if you want it.)

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#69

Post by SoftTalker »

Reason077 wrote: post #68
SoftTalker wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy with an LED bulb that lasted a year. I haven't yet found one that can do that reliably. Remember that 60W incandescent bulbs costing $0.25 used to be available that met that goal. We've taken huge steps backwards on interior household lighting.

> "I'd be happy with an LED bulb that lasted a year. I haven't yet found one that can do that reliably." I do remember in the early days of LED bulbs, many were quite unreliable, especially dimmable ones. It was probably more the electronics in them failing more than the LEDs themselves? But now days LED bulbs seem much more reliable and I very rarely have to replace them. In fact the only bulbs I can recall replacin…

What brand of LED bulb do you buy?

I'm consistently replacing one or two bulbs a month around the house. I don't know if it's the electronics or the LEDs; I don't really care either.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#70

Post by huytersd »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #37
Animats wrote: post #3

The future is batteries with more charge cycles, not replaceable batteries. The solid state battery people are claiming 10,000 charge/discharge cycles. If they can achieve that, it's 27 years of battery life. The case will wear out first.

Lithium ion batteries that can handle a thousand to several thousand charge cycles and only see 80% reduction in capacity have been available for ten years. My 2013 Macbook Pro has just such a battery, rated for 80% capacity after 1000 cycles, and it lasted over 6 years before the battery's internal resistance rose enough that heavy load would cause a brownout and the machine to force sleep. Yet they are not in wides…

There is a huge difference between 1000 and 10,000 charge cycles. 30 years is longer than a human generation.
Post reply on HN