Comments on: Apple’s strategy of built-in obsolescence http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: tiny realms hack http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-56104 Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:14:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-56104 If everything you need is at your own hand, what else will you need. Each additional platform will add additional costs as well as possible long-term maintenance costs. Lose yourself in endless tapping fun which also delivers an adventurous gaming experience.

]]>
By: ScottBeamer http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-42401 Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:25:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-42401 I’ve lusted after Macs for years, but coudn’t justfy the cost. But after reading this, the only way I’ll ever own one is if the price to me is relative chump change (in other words, I’d have to have won at least several million dollars in a lottery).

]]>
By: ScottBeamer http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-42400 Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:25:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-42400 I’ve lusted after Macs for years, but coudn’t justfy the cost. But after reading this, the only way I’ll ever own one is if the price to me is relative chump change (in other words, I’d have to have won at least several million dollars in a lottery).

]]>
By: KenG_CA http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-40273 Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:53:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-40273 Greg, it’s not that soldering improves performance, but the use of a memory socket may dictate that it is placed farther away from the CPU than is desirable for the memory to work at rated speed. In other words, if in order for the memory module to be accessible to the user it has to be placed on the other side of the circuit board, it may not run at full speed. This may not be the reason, I was just saying upgradability can impact performance.

As for the SSD, my guess is they don’t want to mess with the design, and don’t want to support users migrating their OS to a new drive.

]]>
By: TFF http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-40271 Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:18:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-40271 @GregHao, what you say makes sense.

Will note that I don’t bother to update laptops, though. Much trickier than desktop boxes, with less space to maneuver in the case.

]]>
By: GregHao http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-40267 Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:18:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-40267 @Kaleberg – just in this thread we have at least two users who upgrade their machines. And it wouldn’t be an issue that resonates with so many if they didn’t.

@Ken – I don’t dispute that packaging components on the same PCB impacts performance positively. However, in this instance, it’s been proved that the daughter card (which incidentally _isn’t_ soldered on) for the SSD is not faster than third party solutions. I don’t recall anywhere reading specs that the RAM for the system being soldered onto the mainboard improves performance. The CPU itself already has cache (since there’s obviously no shorter path between the CPU and cache than being on the same die). Obviously I don’t work at Apple so I can’t provide proof positive of why they made the decisions that they made but for me, it seems pretty clear that the decision to have everything soldered on and using proprietary designed daughter cards for the SSD is made with design first, closed ecosystem second, and performance third.

]]>
By: KenG_CA http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-40261 Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:06:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-40261 GregHao, the decision to solder components in instead of having sockets is often dependent on packaging considerations, and can absolutely impact performance. Sockets and connectors affect the integrity of the signals, and some devices (especially DRAM running at over 1 GHz) do not like to be placed far from the CPU. If the industrial design of a computer dictates that a memory socket be placed too far away from the CPU to meet the specifications of the memory device, it would have to be run at a lower speed. The industrial design of Apple products, as you may have noticed, is very important to Apple and many of its customers. I just don’t see them sacrificing design or performance for upgradability, especially when such a small percentage of users would actually upgrade the product.

And if a small percentage os users do want to upgrade the product, you would be burdening the majority of customers with the cost of adding that capability (it is absolutely not free).

But my guess is that the upgradability was sacrificed for packaging reasons – it would have impacted how the product looked.

]]>
By: Kaleberg http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-40259 Sun, 17 Jun 2012 03:26:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-40259 Does anyone really update their laptop computer anymore? I did once or twice in the 90s, but it’s been a while. Then again, I’ve never upgraded the engine on my car either or popped a new CRT into my television set. Is this sort of a hobby thing like burning a custom PROM for your car? Anyone following computers would buy what they need and leave some room for expansion.

Since I’m a power user, I buy a new computer every 3 to 5 years, and demote the old one to server or backup status. I then have two choices. Either my machine stays top of the line, or the industry continues to advance, and my machine becomes sorely out of date by the time I replace it. Maybe if I were an IT manager I’d choose the former, but as a tech sort I’ve been enjoying the latter.

P.S. A good way of estimating the useful life of a Mac is by looking at used Mac prices. They tend to be pretty high. I have no idea of who is buying those used machines, but some of the resale sites have been around for ages and always seem to have new stock. I usually find it more economical to buy a new machine.

]]>
By: TFF http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-40245 Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:16:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-40245 @FifthDecade, pot calling kettle black? You’ve been declaring from your own experience that my 80 PCs can’t possibly operate for more than three years without breaking down left and right. I’m telling you that isn’t the case — the hardware is good for a longer period of time.

And I’ve been doing my best to acknowledge YOUR experience. As I brought up (you neglected to mention it, though you do seem to agree), IT time costs more than the hardware for the typical business. Not a question of whether or not the machines can continue to operate, but a question of whether it takes less time to clean the old systems or image 100 new ones. The more different generations of software you operate, the higher your costs.

So IT typically runs on a 3-5 year replacement cycle, discarding perfectly useable machines because they are ready for the next. A very different truth than your initial assertion.

]]>
By: worm600 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/14/apples-strategy-of-built-in-obsolescence/comment-page-1/#comment-40239 Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:30:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=15094#comment-40239 Everyone seems to think this is part of an Apple plan to push for premature product obsolescence. I would suggest that it’s simply a natural extension of the customer strategy that Apple has been developing since the launch of the iPod.

Apple products have moved from niche products targeted at hobbyists, IT professionals, and graphic designers to mass-market devices that need to cater to the lowest common denominator of technical knowledge. The average consumer is attracted to Apple’s design and the fact that it is minimally adjustable is a feature to them, not a bug. To ensure that the devices are “idiot-proof” – or at least that they function as best as possible in as many circumstances as possible – Apple needs to minimize the control that users have over the product itself.

This is as true of hardware customization as much as it is of operating systems or anything else. Apple is just giving the public what it wants.

]]>