PC obsolescence is obsolete • Hacker News Board

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#101

Post by mikeash » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 9:32 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #100

bronson wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A direct quote from iFixit: http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-Retina-Display-Te... "Apple did not design and build a 1.5 mm thin LCD panel. They did, however, do something exceptional with the design of this display: rather than sandwich an LCD panel between a back case and a front glass, they used the aluminum case itself as the frame for the LCD panel and used the LCD as the front glass." Remember your who…

Would it be too obvious to point out that what you quoted doesn't even mention anything about weight? Also, here's another direct quote for you: "Incorporating a removable LCD into the MacBook Pro with Retina display would increase the thickness by less than a millimeter, while still preserving the awesome Retina resolution." Source: http://ifixit.org/2787/mid-2012-macbook-pro-teardown/ Unless you're going to argue t…

There are a thousand ways to improve a MacBook Pro (or any other computer) that would increase the thickness by only a millimeter. Any individual one would be of essentially no consequence, but if you did them all, you'd end up with a machine a meter thick.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#102

Post by Silhouette » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 9:37 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #96

Silhouette wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of Apple's non-modular systems you mention are artificial. Nonsense. Go look at the iFixit write-ups of taking apart recent Apple devices, which helpfully show exactly how similar/different the variations are in many respects, highlight all kinds of proprietary components literally down to the level of unusual screws that have no apparent benefit whatsoever over using a standard/compatible component, and inci…

The pentalobe screws are stupid, and I'll be the first in line to call Apple a bunch of jerks for it. However, they're unrelated to using non-modularity as a weapon against customers. The screws certainly qualify as such a weapon, but they're unrelated to component modularity. As for the rest, can you give me a specific example of a non-modular system that Apple has made that didn't result in savings in cost, space,…

I suspect we would disagree on whether any savings are substantial, and as such whether they could justify the obvious and severe reduction in ability to upgrade or repair these devices.

Personally, I don't buy the idea that a customer goes into a store and measures whether an iPad or a Galaxy Tab is a few tenths of a millimetre thicker before making their purchasing decision. On the other hand, I do buy the idea that a lot of people are shocked and then angry after their Apple gear gets damaged and they learn how much it's going to cost to repair and how long it's going to take, not least because I personally know several people who have been stung in that way. Of course, by the time they discovered that downside to the all-in-one designs, Apple already had their money.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#103

Post by Silhouette » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 9:48 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #101

Silhouette wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be too obvious to point out that what you quoted doesn't even mention anything about weight? Also, here's another direct quote for you: "Incorporating a removable LCD into the MacBook Pro with Retina display would increase the thickness by less than a millimeter, while still preserving the awesome Retina resolution." Source: http://ifixit.org/2787/mid-2012-macbook-pro-teardown/ Unless you're going to argue t…

There are a thousand ways to improve a MacBook Pro (or any other computer) that would increase the thickness by only a millimeter. Any individual one would be of essentially no consequence, but if you did them all, you'd end up with a machine a meter thick.

Any individual one would be of essentially no consequence, but if you did them all, you'd end up with a machine a meter thick.

No, you wouldn't.

But even leaving aside the obvious hyperbole of your comment, we're drifting away from the topic at hand. My argument is simply that proprietary-everything, all-in-one designs are a significant loss for the consumer and a huge win for the manufacturer, because they very effectively kill both the upgrade and repair industries, making the default response to buy more new equipment instead.

Given the disproportionately high rate of damage to mobile devices, and the relatively low starting specs, and the fact that most laptops (including Apple ones) have not had such severely restricted maintainability until very recently, this all seems like a huge step in the wrong direction, from the customer's point of view.

If it were only the screen on the Retina MBP, I could just about believe the theory that it was done to keep the size down, but it's obviously not only that screen. If you look at the direction of basically all Apple equipment in recent years, not just phones or even laptops, everything has been moving towards using unusual/proprietary connections and fixed-at-birth specifications for a while, and there are far too many cases where there was no apparent benefit of any kind for me to accept that it's all being done because it's what the customer wants. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me dozens of times over a period of years, find me a good shrink.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#104

Post by mikeash » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 9:50 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #102

mikeash wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pentalobe screws are stupid, and I'll be the first in line to call Apple a bunch of jerks for it. However, they're unrelated to using non-modularity as a weapon against customers. The screws certainly qualify as such a weapon, but they're unrelated to component modularity. As for the rest, can you give me a specific example of a non-modular system that Apple has made that didn't result in savings in cost, space,…

I suspect we would disagree on whether any savings are substantial, and as such whether they could justify the obvious and severe reduction in ability to upgrade or repair these devices. Personally, I don't buy the idea that a customer goes into a store and measures whether an iPad or a Galaxy Tab is a few tenths of a millimetre thicker before making their purchasing decision. On the other hand, I do buy the idea tha…

The idea that it can only make a difference if people measure it is absurd. People buy Apple products because they look nice and work well. Shaving space and weight is part of their design. I know people buy iPads instead of Galaxy Tabs because of the industrial design. I seriously do not believe that the iPad could have such a nice design if it was fully modular. I'm sure you can come up with a bunch of individual components to modularize without substantially impacting the design, but that doesn't do us any good. Unless I misunderstand your complaint, they'd have to modularize many components, and that will definitely impact the design.

In my experience, people are mostly surprised as Apple's good service when they need a repair. It's not like other manufacturers provide cheap repairs, either.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#105

Post by mikeash » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 9:51 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #103

mikeash wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a thousand ways to improve a MacBook Pro (or any other computer) that would increase the thickness by only a millimeter. Any individual one would be of essentially no consequence, but if you did them all, you'd end up with a machine a meter thick.

Any individual one would be of essentially no consequence, but if you did them all, you'd end up with a machine a meter thick. No, you wouldn't. But even leaving aside the obvious hyperbole of your comment, we're drifting away from the topic at hand. My argument is simply that proprietary-everything, all-in-one designs are a significant loss for the consumer and a huge win for the manufacturer, because they very effe…

If it was really that bad for customers, why do people keep buying the stuff? There's plenty of modular, easily-repaired hardware out there. It doesn't sell nearly as well, though. I think people value the benefits of the non-modular design more than you think.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#106

Post by Silhouette » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 10:14 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #105

Silhouette wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any individual one would be of essentially no consequence, but if you did them all, you'd end up with a machine a meter thick. No, you wouldn't. But even leaving aside the obvious hyperbole of your comment, we're drifting away from the topic at hand. My argument is simply that proprietary-everything, all-in-one designs are a significant loss for the consumer and a huge win for the manufacturer, because they very effe…

If it was really that bad for customers, why do people keep buying the stuff? There's plenty of modular, easily-repaired hardware out there. It doesn't sell nearly as well, though. I think people value the benefits of the non-modular design more than you think.

If it was really that bad for customers, why do people keep buying the stuff?

Who's giving them a choice, other than not buying anything at all?

I think people value the benefits of the non-modular design more than you think.

I think people value other things that may or may not have anything to do with the lack of modularity, and I think they buy devices that have those benefits. Often, they probably don't even realise the lack of modularity or its implications at the time of making a purchasing decision, but even if they did, they might still value the other benefits over any downside due to lack of modularity.

We can't really conclude much from the current trends unless manufacturers also offer devices that have the benefits of modularity as well, potentially at a greater cost literally or in terms of things like bigger size or heavier weight.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#107

Post by michaelt » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 10:31 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #95

MattRogish wrote: post #33

I think this pretty well reflects Microsoft's long-term consumer risk, too. More than half of MSFT's revenue ( http://www.tannerhelland.com/4273/microsoft-money-updated-20... ) comes from Windows and Office (and over half the profit, Windows http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-defer-revenue-windows-upgrad... ). Back in the 90s and early 00s, the rate of change in the PC market was amazing. The hardware you could buy in 1…

produce desirable hardware that people buy for non-technical reasons instead of raw figures Of late I've been contending that specs are excuses admitting inadequacy. Until recently, every new computer (broadly defined) was listed with a proliferation of specifications (_.__MHz CPU _GB RAM ___GB HD ...). Now, in particular with the iPad and trending with other machines, no specifications (beyond what amounts to "small…

I disagree with you here - PC makers list specs because it is technical specs, rather than user experience, that set their product apart from competing PC makers.

I mean, you compare a Dell laptop to an HP laptop, or a $500 Dell laptop to an $800 Dell laptop for that matter, they're all running Windows 7. How would you market one product over another without admitting their differences?

Admittedly, PC makers might be wise to stop fighting one another for market share and instead focus on fighting Apple for market share.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#108

Post by meric » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 10:35 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #78

quaunaut wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can't be emphasized enough- the only reason nothing has moved forward is because gaming hasn't paved the way. Most major hardware advancements on the desktop we've had have been a result of devices added for higher requirements in games. And right now, with the death of the B-tier game studio, there's no one pushing PC-only experiences that really has a reason to ignore the consoles. That's it. Now, whether the…

I have to disagree with the statement no on is pushing PC-only experiences. Epic is pushing UnrealEngine4 as potentially PC-only unless the console makers step up. Then there's Arma 3 just around the corner. From my point of view, as a PC gamer, the reason there's not so much investment in using the PC graphics capability we have cheaply available right now is because of the influence of the console market. Most big…

So what you're saying is, game development is waiting for tools that allow producing high quality graphic games more cheaply.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#109

Post by mikeash » Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 11:43 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #106

mikeash wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was really that bad for customers, why do people keep buying the stuff? There's plenty of modular, easily-repaired hardware out there. It doesn't sell nearly as well, though. I think people value the benefits of the non-modular design more than you think.

If it was really that bad for customers, why do people keep buying the stuff? Who's giving them a choice, other than not buying anything at all? I think people value the benefits of the non-modular design more than you think. I think people value other things that may or may not have anything to do with the lack of modularity, and I think they buy devices that have those benefits. Often, they probably don't even real…

There isn't much of a choice in the tablet or phone markets, but there's a ton of choice when it comes to laptops. If you want a modular laptop you can take your pick among a ton, but people still buy Apple's in large numbers.

Re: PC obsolescence is obsolete

#110

Post by freehunter » Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 1:49 AM UTC

cupwithyourname wrote: post #84

freehunter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is funny that hardware has taken a turn towards slower/lower-end. Appliance computing, I guess. There was a mad dash to make everything as fast as possible, then when it was faster than really required, attention shifted to making computers that are specifically designed for various tasks. Why have one computer that's not really good at anything (but does it fast enough to not care) when you can have a half dozen…

Maybe I live in a different universe, but I feel like computers are so slow these days. How is everyone claiming that are sufficiently fast? Starting up Outlook takes 10 full seconds (just the splash screen consumes half of that time). When I open up a web browser or click a link in an email, it takes about 5 seconds to fully load. Even distilling a file to pdf or loading Facebook takes almost 5 seconds. I don't thin…

There's always going to be slow code. That's a fact of life. That's also part of the "not really good at anything" point I made about general purpose computing. You complain about waiting seconds or minutes like it's outrageous. Instead sit back and think about what that computer is actually doing. I do, and I marvel that it only takes seconds or minutes.