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

Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

ifixit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#51

Post by maxerickson »

colinramsay wrote: post #15
[deleted] wrote: post #12

[deleted]

"Repairability" really means two things: 1) You can fiddle with the insides 2) You can fix it when it goes wrong Despite what you may read on places like HN and Reddit, no-one in the real world gives two hoots about #1, and if you make a product that has good reliability then #2 becomes moot.

It's clear enough that users do not place a high priority on serviceability.

It's harder to draw conclusions about how much absolute value is placed on it when it barely exists in a product category.

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#52

Post by s_kilk »

hollerith wrote: post #40

>Apple has opted to transition from using a row of LEDs with a light guide panel, to installing individual LEDs beneath each key. That's progress. Now, Apple, please replace each LED with an infra-red or a visible-light sensor, so that someone can write software to put a representation of the keyboard onto the screen that shows which keys have a finger hovering over them, so that the user never has to look at the key…

> so that the user never has to look at the keyboard except when the keyboard needs cleaning.

The user should learn to touch-type.

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#53

Post by Kliment »

ksec wrote: post #10
doe88 wrote: post #5

Seems that the major unknown is about the SSD controller [1] to know if it uses a custom controller or not. [1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/9173/more-pictures-of-2015-mac...

Look at the size of it compared to the Intel CPU. That thing is huge. What are the usual node size SSD controller manufactured in? 28/40nm

It's huge not because it needs to be but because it needs to fit the PoP bottom package to match the flash chip on top. The flash chip actually needs to be that size, so there you go.

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#54

Post by revelation »

ghshephard wrote: post #27
a_bonobo wrote: post #13

Worth noting that this device, typical for Apple, gets the worst "repairability" score: >The MacBook 2015 Repairability Score: 1 out of 10 (10 is easiest to repair) There are several reasons why this happens; the optimist says that to save space Apple had to glue and solder so much, the pessimist says it's so that Apple can charge more for repairs/replacements. But I think both can agree that this generates more e-wa…

My understanding is that Apple is one of the leading companies when it comes to eWaste. Also, this is the one of the rare Apple product that that only has industry standard ports/power chargers on it. You can't critique them on building a product that is hard to repair (and wow, this one looks next to impossible for your average non-technician) - but the ewaste/standard charger concerns don't appear to be valid.

Only if your understanding of "leading companies in ewaste" is that their products tick a bunch of boxes for materials used to be easily recyclable.

But that is not the essence of the term. To avoid ewaste, you should avoid creating any in the first place. Creating products that will be useful for 10+ years instead of until the next model cycle.

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#55

Post by martinp »

colinramsay wrote: post #15
[deleted] wrote: post #12

[deleted]

"Repairability" really means two things: 1) You can fiddle with the insides 2) You can fix it when it goes wrong Despite what you may read on places like HN and Reddit, no-one in the real world gives two hoots about #1, and if you make a product that has good reliability then #2 becomes moot.

Even if Apple uses high quality components that fail less frequently, it's still computer hardware at the end of the day. Hardware fails, no matter how much QA you do, so #2 is never moot.

Experienced bad memory on a MBP Retina (late 2013) recently, it was purchased in December 2013. You can't swap out the memory because it's soldered to the motherboard, so the entire motherboard has to be ordered from Apple and replaced.

This wouldn't be so bad if you could easily move the SSD to a new Mac, but that's not an option either.

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#56

Post by 54mf »

keeran wrote: post #38

I'm not sure why this is an issue any more. It was a nice ideal when laptops were just PCs put into smaller boxes, but as manufacturers put the effort and investment into satisfying our demands for smaller, faster, lighter, I don't think the expectation of poking around inside them is reasonable. We don't see people complaining about the repairability of their R-Pis, Chromecasts, SoC systems etc. That's the way hardw…

A laptop is meant to be portable, with a significant number of moving parts (keys, hinges, trackpad [until recently],) and ports that see frequent insertions/removals. These factors result in a device that can break down in many, many ways. If one tiny failure results in the entire device being unusable (or requiring replacement of many [working] parts at significant cost,) well, you're going to get complaints. :)

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#57

Post by maxerickson »

userbinator wrote: post #46
a_bonobo wrote: post #13

Worth noting that this device, typical for Apple, gets the worst "repairability" score: >The MacBook 2015 Repairability Score: 1 out of 10 (10 is easiest to repair) There are several reasons why this happens; the optimist says that to save space Apple had to glue and solder so much, the pessimist says it's so that Apple can charge more for repairs/replacements. But I think both can agree that this generates more e-wa…

the optimist says that to save space Apple had to glue and solder so much, the pessimist says it's so that Apple can charge more for repairs/replacements I think it's a combination of optimising for space and cost - every connector that needs to be aligned and connected, and every screw that needs to be installed, requires time and labour. It's far cheaper and faster to glue and solder everything together. This is kn…

I took a DFM class in school.

I don't think there was a similar class about product life cycle available.

(Which doesn't mean that it will be ignored, but I think we are sort of in a place right now where cost control sees too much emphasis while value is overlooked. And I think there are lots of decisions that could be made to favor value without impacting costs, which would be a good reason to include value maximization in design practice.)

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#58

Post by xienze »

revelation wrote: post #54
ghshephard wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Apple is one of the leading companies when it comes to eWaste. Also, this is the one of the rare Apple product that that only has industry standard ports/power chargers on it. You can't critique them on building a product that is hard to repair (and wow, this one looks next to impossible for your average non-technician) - but the ewaste/standard charger concerns don't appear to be valid.

Only if your understanding of "leading companies in ewaste" is that their products tick a bunch of boxes for materials used to be easily recyclable. But that is not the essence of the term. To avoid ewaste, you should avoid creating any in the first place. Creating products that will be useful for 10+ years instead of until the next model cycle .

> Creating products that will be useful for 10+ years

Well that's just a matter of opinion, isn't it? Nothing's going to stop you from running this laptop 10 years from now just like nothing's going to stop you from running a PC laptop 10 years from now. The question is _are you going to want to_ continue using a 10 year old laptop? That's an eternity in technological terms.

Sure you can upgrade a PC laptop to squeeze a longer life out of it, but there are practical limits to that to (i.e., it's unlikely that a 10 year old chipset is going to support the amount of RAM that we would consider "bare minimum" in 10 years, likewise for the CPU).

I agree with your argument in principle but "10+ years lifetime" is not really a good point to argue.

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#59

Post by jakobegger »

collyw wrote: post #20
chucknelson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this more e-waste than a typical laptop? Aren't Apple laptops known for being highly recyclable and using less harmful materials overall? If you're saying more easily repairable laptops would stick around longer, I'm not sure that's how most consumers treat computers that break on them, especially laptops. Many times it would be "I need a new computer". I would think all of the produced-as-cheaply-as-possible…

Apple were the first mainstream manufacturer to introduce laptops without a replaceable battery as far as I can remember.

I have one of the early Macbooks with a non-user replaceable battery, and I'm using it today, 6 years after I bought it, and the battery is still fine. Sure, the capacity is a bit lower (maybe 50%), or I could get it replaced for around 150€.

Apple introduced non user replaceable batteries because it made sense: capacity and longevity was at a point where the average customer never replaced their battery.

Re: Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown

#60

Post by rndn »

tobylane wrote: post #43
rndn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they are in the leading position, but shouldn't we strive for ever better products? I just upgraded a couple of old MacBooks and iMacs from HHD to SSD and all of a sudden they are usable again - and will probably continue to be so for the coming 2-3 years. That basically extended their lifetimes by perhaps 30-40% and the saved waste is presumably closely proportional to that. So, ideally, I think, all manufac…

User upgrades don't make much difference to the waste. If anything those types of users are likely to have power heavy desktops using up more energy and precious metals. The average user's waste is reduced because the motherboard is much smaller, as well as Apple's general efforts to stop using some chemicals. My first iMac had a warning about mercury in the screen, the second doesn't.

I'm talking about an ideal, not about the advancements they have made. Maybe it's the Dunning-Kruger effect, but it seems that they could have easily soldered on slots for SSD and RAM and added a little access door with Philips screws even with this smaller board. I could also very well imagine that people would buy upgrades if they were cheap, quick to install and if they knew about them in the first place.
Post reply on HN