>Here’s hoping governments regulate laptop manufacturers to actually make repairable machines in the future.
No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one. They exist. Others have already mentioned Framework, but there are other options that aren't that far down the spectrum either.
One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair. Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.
I say this as a framework owner who would never buy something as irreparable as a macbook. Regulation is not the answer here.
Decades of HN users finger wagging and suggesting FOSS hardware has progressed society nowhere. 12 months from EU mandatory replaceable batteries and products across the industry are being redesigned with repairability, usb-c, and user friendly designs.
It’s time to accept regulation actually does work when you have a competent government.
Indeed, government regulation is decried mostly because of all the cases where it got polluted by special interests, instead of following the interests of general consumers.
This is how you end up turning a chunk of your food supply into fuel to subsidize crops which aren't all that good at being distilled into fuel in the first place...
I would actually suggest this is symptomatic of the real problem: money in politics.
Elected officials (and some appointed, like SCOTUS) keep changing laws and precedents to allow more and more money in politics. They can't quit all that dark money - without a lot of funding, you don't get elected. Usually the best funded candidate wins.
There was an anonymous oped from a congressman some years back which bemoaned the reality - that 60% of their time was dedicated to meeting with donors for reelection campaigns instead of working on real problems.
Part of the reason money has such a big influence on elections is that first-past-the-post election system you have over there in the US. When voters have to make a binary choice between two participants, low-information campaigns like hit-pieces are able to make a big difference and are cheap to communicate en-masse. When voters have a actual choice between four parties on the left and four parties on the right, hit-pieces will only make a voter switch from, say, one left-wing party to another. So since the return-on-investment on political advertising is much lower, much less money will be spent on it and there will be less of it. And what will be there will be of higher quality.
If any of what you just said was true in practice, Australia would be a gleaming example of how democracies with strong civil society organisations can be run.
Instead, Australia is best described as pigs at the slops trough.
A nation that seems to only want to vote for leaders who have a public humiliation kink.
When one party will violate every norm and law to the greatest extent that they can get away with it, it's pretty much impossible to compete with them. I want good things for people. I can't compete with fascists because they will cheat and lie and employ violence. My positive intent is almost impossible to out thwart their dirty deeds if they are willing to break laws / change laws and I won't.
Well we can’t recall the voters, so there is no point in addressing them. They are a problem because in the US there used to be an FCC rule that said “if you call yourself a news program, you must tell the truth,” and that was overridden by the Supreme Court during Reagan’s term.
No there was never a rule about “telling the truth” the rule was “equal time”. So if one party said “vaccines keep people from dying” and the other party said “vaccines would cause you to grow extra limbs” you had to allow them both on.
Second, it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The theory was that the airwaves belong to the public and the FCC has jurisdiction. It never applied to cable channels like FoxNews
Third, the current FCC is going after broadcast networks for not being fair under the rule
It does already. Section 230 in the US isn't an unlimited get out of jail free card. Other countries have varying amount of policing, with differing levels of success and corruption. Spain, the UK, and China all come to mind here.
That's the problem. People don't want to blame the voters because there's no solution. We are grasping for something that is possible to fix that isn't just "Somehow americans are especially bad at doing very basic things for no reason"
Well, I personally am making the “Ben Kenobi” choice. I’m hoping to leave the US and retire and die and make it the next generation’s problem.
I’ve done my part, I have voted for “progressive”/safety net policies and the US has gone in the opposite direction. This isn’t some shrill unthought out plan.
I’m actually in the country now I plan to retire to for six weeks and I’m coming back for a month in the summer, part of the ex-pat community and meeting people, my wife and I have been learning Spanish and I speak it okay and I know the processes for establishing residency here
I’m over dealing with the American people. As a minority, I find the entire attitude outside of the US refreshing even as the only Black couple in our expat group. For reference, my still living parents grew up in the segregated South.
The large citizenries that later (19th century) forced administrations into constitutions and participation in policy started out with state mandated education and a class consciousness that is based on being knowledged and sophisticated. You need to make the next generation as smart as possible as you can, optimally also on topics concerning the society and economics.
The late 19th century was also when “Separate but Equal” was enshrined as the law of the land by the Supreme Court and a few decades later there were Japanese internment camps…
That's just an unreal characterization that plays into the hands of the "red" team. One side has put up presidents and congressional leadership that worked (mostly, I'm not saying they're perfect) within the traditional framework of the system. The other has put up a president who literally does not understand the meaning of the word "no," expects that everyone will let him do pretty much anything he wants, and a congress that agrees with him. Notably, that side was different in 2000, 1988, 1980, etc. -- not perfect by any stretch, but not this.
Do you want another authoritarian, corrupt, cult of personality leader like Trump? Proclaiming "both sides" and ignoring nuance like you're doing is how no one gets held accountable for the real harms that are taking place. Please stop holding water for the MAGAs/GOP.
America has had even more corrupt/authoritarian/cult of personality leaders than Trump. They were younger and their brains still worked so they did way more damage than trump too. Most Americans just don't learn much history so can't compare.
Assuming you're from the USA, your two main parties are exactly like that. The appearances have changed, but Obama drone-assassinating random children on the other side of the world was not much better than what Trump is doing.
Not defending Trump, to be clear, just saying US imperialism and fascism has much deeper roots and that removing Trump is not going to fix any issues the rest of the world has with the USA.
USA government is corrupt, true. Current admin is balls-out corrupt in ways that have a French legislator calling out that impeachment would have happened there. It's shockingly out in the open corrupt, and that's saying a lot because most of the people ripping us off want to be somewhat quiet about it and not draw attention.
I didn't hear about this french legislator, but that's funny given the level of rampant corruption in french government. Nothing new (see also Pasqua, Foccart, etc), but in the past decades the information was not widely available so it was at least possible to pretend not to know.
Much of the government including Macron himself are involved in corruption scandals. Others are involved in rape scandals. Others in fiscal fraud. But you're correct they're not as open about it as Trump is.
Unfortunately, i don't know of a complete reference resource. I'd be interested if you found one. A quick research later i found this CFR resource [1] which probably underestimates the number of civilians killed.
I remember reports at the time on the Intercept and other media about the entire kill chain. If i remember correctly, the policy was to count anyone who was not proved to be a civilian as an active enemy in the body count. There was this DOD/CIA press conference announcing they made a targeted killing and that their target assessment was mostly based on the individual's height.
Then there's of course Obama famously and publicly joking about his children's lovers suggesting they should behave or would get killed by « predator drones ». [2] Let me know if you dig interesting links on the topic!
> famously and publicly joking
...at the white house correspondents dinner. I think that context matters.
I also think drone strikes exacerbate public outrage much the way mass shootings do: if we want to decrease gun deaths, limiting AR-15s isn't the way to do it because the vast majority of gun deaths are handguns. But mass shootings upset people, so we outlaw the guns that upset them. Similarly with drones, people don't get as upset about tens of thousands killed in a broader war, they're put off by the smaller number of casualties caused by drones.
You would think that if the policy was as flawed as you describe it would be easier to find evidence of it now?
It was not better, it was less. US imperialism has deep roots, yes, but a large chunk of the world who would tolerate a moderate level of it, don't tolerate this level.
I hear rumblings about foreign companies disconnecting from American services and products. You don't turn large ships on a dime, but they are turning.
I don't think it was less, though only future historians will come up with actual numbers. It was less public, though.
Most of the world never tolerated it. Even when western governments tolerated it, the population did not; see also the huge worldwide demonstrations against the Iraq war.
I think the difference in perception is because the european oligarchy is now being effectively treated as was previously the rest of the world, so they're now taking a stance because they feel threatened, whereas they previously saw themselves as aligned with the US government no matter what.
Yes yes yes. Dark money. Nepotism. Corrupt courts. Gerrymandering .... anything to deflect from the fact that so many voters still put thier mark beside the biggest idiot. And i mean that literally. American voters like tall people.
They're all problems and they all contribute to the reality of our government being unable to actually do anything beyond tax cuts.
* People elect morons because we have been slowly destroying our education system since the 50's and we can barely turn out anyone who can think worth a shit. That's by design, as local elections overwhelmingly swing Republican, and Republicans on balance gain from an ignorant electorate.
* Additionally, we are now bombarded with "information" from wake to sleep every single day, and beyond the actual problems which are already stressful enough, we also have a whole bunch of made up culture war nonsense that mainstream and alternative media loves to discuss, both to fill airtime and because researching and covering nonsense is far less work, less legally actionable, and garners more attention overall. Information overload affects people too and makes them more likely to choose easy/quick things.
* Dark money is also a HUGE issue because it permits capital to influence elections like never before. It's no coincidence all of this shit got turbocharged after Citizens United.
* Gerrymandering is also a huge, huge issue wherein Democrat votes are simply disregarded or packed into single districts, which helps local elections shift further right constantly.
* The courts are also hideously corrupt. The Supreme Court is utterly failing to reign in the Trump administration on everything short of wiping their asses with the constitution, and that's not shocking considering how many of them were appointed by Trump and confirmed by the inept Congress.
And then any time Democrats do manage to acquire something resembling power, they have so many fires to put out that they can barely get us back to an even keel before another "outsider" dumbass comes in and starts screwing it up again.
American government was actually perfectly able to "Do things" right up until 2008. Republicans and Democrats quite literally worked together in Congress in broad cliques that normally crossed party boundaries, and did this all the time. When Clinton's admin was trying to save money on the budget, the fights in Congress frequently crossed party lines and were outright bipartisan, about actual merits (claimed or real) of the programs they were cutting or vouching for. You had Republicans rightly blasting certain Democrats for saying stupid things about the SSC shoulder to shoulder with other democrats.
Then in 2008 Mitch McConnel said, literally to reporters, "I will make Obama a one term president" and declared their job was to not let the government do anything.
And just like that, it became Republican Party Doctrine that you do not cross the party line or else you get fired. This was absolutely supported and highly praised by their constituents! As Democrat politicians continued to work their assess off crossing the aisle, finding any way to keep the country functioning as half of the government declared strike (the irony).
But for some reason we aren't allowed to say this. Republicans directly say their plan and strategy and malice to the camera and we get punished for showing their voters exactly what they vote for.
Democrats are still trying to make deals, because half of them are literally just republicans with a (D), but if you ever ever ever ever cross the aisle as a Republican, even to fix a problem your base has spent decades screaming about, you get primaried.
Republican voters have done this. The republican party has chosen to do this. They own this.
People aren’t electing “morons” out of ignorance. They are electing people that hate the same people they hate. You are blaming ignorance where it is active malice.
Again you call it ignorance instead of malevolence.
How is electing Trump any different than George Wallace having a slogan of “Segregation Now! Segregation Tomorrow! Segregation Forever!”?
There was no ignorance. Everyone knows that the government has a “monopoly on [legalized] violence”. If they can elect people who will turn that violence against people they don’t like, they are doing it with full knowledge.
Ignorance is a type of action, malevolence is a motivation. You can be ignorant out of malevolence and your ignorance can result in your actions being malicious.
Voting based on who the (to be) elected hate instead of on actual policy is ignorant towards the serious matter of the art of leading a state (politics). Being malevolent regarding politics would be to sabotage elections or trying to dissolve state organs.
Politics is an arm's race. This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but Democrats do all the same things Republicans do. Arguably they differ in how they do it, and how much. Democrats gerrymander, and as well traffic in conspiracy theories for example (the latter they do less than Republicans, but they still do it).
It is also because corruption is called lobbying in America. Corporate lobbying should be illegal and punished severely (including capital punishment for directors and confiscation of the corporation).
This. Came here to say this. People completely forget about this supposed nuance when comparing US and Europe, but this is exactly what leads to fundamentally different outcomes in legislation and, by extension, people's expectations of their governments. That frog is long-time cooked.
As an ex-expat to US, I never could stop smh over how Americans are not making it a number 1 issue for themselves. Private prison, private healthcare, gun industry, all types of small industries keep US government in their pockets and the society, as a whole, in a complete gridlock, unable to meet its actual expectations.
People believe whatever they want to be true. If people were just slaves to authority the US would have far fewer covid deaths. Some people really are bootlickers, but even then they tend to choose whose boots they bend over for. It's rarely blind obedience to authority itself.
And only 40% of people still support Trump. But the analogy is the same.
If you have 10 friends and ask them where they want to eat for dinner and six say let’s go to an Italian restaurant and 4 say “let’s kill Bob and eat him”, you still have a shitty group of friends.
It only takes one controversy to tip the scales. All governments have a propensity to want more power.
> All governments have a propensity to want more power.
Some governments have more effective checks-and-balances than others. The EU is a much looser confederation than the US, with significantly more power still invested in the member states (many of whom themselves are also loose confederations of semi-autonomous provinces...)
The EU is no stranger to terrorism? The troubles in Ireland, ETA in Spain, Al Qzaeda and ISIL in France/Spain/Germany, domestic terrorism in Norway/Germany/Denmark - all in the last 35 years.
If you want a government of saints, you will be sorely disappointed. The four people who want to kill Bob and eat him for dinner will always exist, and the important part is to not let them actually decide on the dinner plan instead of just throwing your hand up in the air and giving up on planning dinners because some people are loonies and should not be given power.
Yeah, just like with Chat Control and such, it takes vigilance and informing people around you in order to deny these sorts of things from happening, but we can take some respite in it not happening. The USB-C regulation changed things for the better by forcing the most obstinate member of the mobile phone ecosystem to adopt the connector. The replaceable battery regulation will force manufacturers to make their devices more repairable, and that is a good thing.
Discounting that because of political mistakes that were only narrowly avoided seems frankly myopic. You can't just argue against all the good things the EU has done with "whatabout Chat Control"
> It’s time to accept regulation actually does work when you have a competent government.
Given that it's the EU making those regulations, it looks like the government only has to be semi-competent. Maybe the only requirement is that they're not totally in bed with the big corps making money.
I wonder to what extent in this instance it is driven by the EU regulating (mostly) foreign companies rather than (mostly) domestic ones.
Said differently, it is much easier for the EU to be impartial and competent when regulating Apple or Samsung than when regulating Volkswagen or Stellantis...
Well if you have seen how EU regulates domestic companies you would not wonder about that. There is no mercy.
US companies just hit that barrier more often historically because they got used to "lobby it and it goes away" attitude to law, and when it doesn't work we have harpy screeeching about EU using laws to tax US companies that do not want to abide to law in place where they are doing business
> it is much easier for the EU to be impartial and competent when regulating Apple or Samsung than when regulating Volkswagen or Stellantis
They are still regulating the auto manufacturers pretty harshly, and without any particular favouritism, even though that is letting foreign players like BYD eat the lunch of the domestic manufacturers (who mostly seem to have bet the farm on a US-led return to fossil fuel dominance)
> Given that it's the EU making those regulations, it looks like the government only has to be semi-competent
Context: I'm not a EU-native, I've migrated to here.
It disturbs me a lot when people keep repeating the "incompetent government" narrative when it comes to the EU, but when you compare it to the dictatorship that I escaped from, they still seem way more competent, surprising when the big advantage of a dictatorship is supposed to be increased efficiency while reducing personal rights.
Personally I cannot name a better government (or governing body, given that we are talking about the whole EU) anywhere else on this planet.
I feel I'm incredibly lucky to live here even when the economy is getting tougher. The only thing that worries me and makes me consider leaving is the right-extremes, which to this day, thankfully had limited influence.
Sorry for the digression, but I just wanted to address this repeating pattern. It's possible that you have very valid reasons to call them semi-competent and that I'm overreacting.
It's a bit of hit and miss, really. Like every big organisation, it's not a single, coherent entity, but has branches and departments filled by real, flawed people, so in practice it depends on which industry your're in. For example, digital policy bureaucrats are usually extremely competent, like, they do know how the stuff discussed here on HN works. (That they often have differen expectations from what people here want is orthogonal). Automotive industry is on the other hand squarely in bed with manufacturers (cars, but also accessories like child safety chairs). The average is suprisingly good, esp. in comparison with national bureaucracies.
Even here in Europe, most of Southern Europe was a bunch of Dictatorships up into the late 70s! Spain, Portugal, Greece...
Not to mention Eastern Europe until the wall fell. All dictatorships in different forms. So yeah we've had our share as well.
The problem with the EU is that it seems to be becoming more susceptible to industry lobbying. As of late they are reducing environmental laws (the banning of ICE cars), weakening GDPR and DMA/DSA etc. Not very happy with that. Ursula herself was all about her 'green deal' during her first administration and now she's breaking it all down.
>As of late they are reducing environmental laws (the banning of ICE cars)
I think that particular one is because they realized their timeline is impossible to hit without utterly crippling EU
> weakening GDPR and DMA/DSA
There was always a lot of push for that, it is very much "yes/try later" on those legislations, we got the biggest traitor of the freedom out (UK) but there are still countries either interested, or incompetent enough to think the pushed ideas are a good thing
When it has been the Left that has largely governed Europe for the previous few decades to bring it to the point where it is now where the economics and defence capabilities of nations that once ruled the world are now laughing stock on the global stage.
> nations that once ruled the world are now laughing stock on the global stage
...and yet it gets repeated!
I'm not worried about the right ideology. Last time I took a political test, it told me I'm slightly right-leaning, but that changes every time I take such tests :)
I said that I'm disturbed by the extremists who plan to take away my legally earned rights.
European countries have rules and requirements like most other countries. I looked at their criteria, it sounded fair, took the deal and now I'm here. I pay my taxes, obey the rules, even applied for citizenship (takes ages), and I expect my rights to be protected as well, as long as keep my end of the deal. Those people threaten that golden rule.
Some seem to be obsessed about ruling and military power, and from the outside, they seem to believe that you only are allowed to move in this world if you kill/defeat the previous residents.
Also, they're ignoring the true cost of unrepairable hardware which is e-waste. Perhaps if they're looking for a lighter hand, they'd suggest that less repairable hardware has to have a tax that pays for its PROPER recycling.
> regulation actually does work when you have a competent government
This is the free market. Free as in, regulated to allow and encourage market entry and competition (as with replacement keyboards), not free as in unregulated. When you look back at when 'free market' was first strongly mentioned as a term, this is what it meant.
Have you heard the good news about regulatory capture?
Probably not if you're one of the public.
Imagine how the world would look if the EU mandated rs-232c ports on all devices. Or 3.5" headphone jacks. Or the use of D batteries for all electronics. How about ms-dos compatibility?
We've also seen this within the US - California generally makes the first move and then companies just follow that law because they know others might change and it's easier than doing it by state. One relatively small law can have a big impact, we also follow GDPR in the US because a lot of companies operate in europe too
I guess I'm happy being dumb if it means I deserve a laptop with a battery that lasts all day, a trackpad that doesn't feel like it's covered in dry syrup, a case that doesn't make noises when I pick it up, and a processor that feels like alien tech.
I haven't used a laptop in the last decade that wouldn't last a whole day on battery, or would hold any of those qualifiers for that matter, from Apple or other manufacturers. Not that Apple are bad devices, but they are flawed like the rest of them (often less, and sometimes more in areas that may matter less to you, the software being a major and increasingly one to me).
Also good to remember that Apple is a company of good devices and tremendous marketing, not a company of tremendous devices per se. That entails a lot of subjectivity and awkward tribalism.
Any mid- to high-end pro-line laptop from the usual manufacturers (dell latitude series, lenovo T series, hp pro/elitebook series) gives you that, really (rigidly built body using magnesium/aluminum alloys, good input devices and IO, high-end config, …) and some practical perks (hot swappable batteries, repairable/expandable, on-site warranty, …)
What $900 laptop with a similar form factor and build quality to a Macbook Air am I supposed to buy instead? I did quite a bit of research on this a couple of months ago, with a strong preference for a Linux compatible device (I've never been a MacOS user, and I'm done with Windows after 10 dies all the way). After weeks of research, I came to the conclusion that my best bet was to buy a Macbook Air and hope that Asahi support for M4 chips comes sooner rather than later.
Nope. What the real effect has been is a waste of billions of billions that have gone into changing stuff that never needed changing. Future development has now been slowed down as well in the EU.
All it takes to see that government regulation never works, is to look at how far behind the EU is in terms of GDP growth compared with the US and China who both have a significantly lighter touch when it comes to regulation.
The EU is f*cked, and will become a little socialist region, with manual and tourist industry jobs, where rich people from the rest of the world go for a few weeks of vacation.
I left the EU a long time ago, and I've earned so much money after leaving the socialist madness, that I recommend all young people I meet to do the same.
It's not self evident this is caused by regulation.
And regulation generally certainly works when it come to regulating and splitting up monopolies and oligopolies, workers right and etc. (US has plenty of both even if its occasionally idiosyncratic)
”Rrgulation never works”, is a very shallow take. It could mean anything. China is an autocratic system. Is that working? The US is going in that direction.
On top of that, Europe isn’t a country. To have less regulation, you need more of it. Unifying regulations, or else you have dozens of completely different jurisdictions. To a large extent, you still do, even with the EU. You can’t sell to the general public in English. There are so many more things holding Europe back than ”need deregulation”.
That government has a limited jurisdiction over the offenders. They were still effective to the point, that there was only a single company not having microUSB. Granted that wasn't a small part of the market, but also not the largest.
Having the government regulate the free market is an issue of physical force and should always be discussed as such. Are you willing to deal with men by force beyond retaliation? This issue is moral, not practical.
Besides, it’s easy to sell one’s freedom to a competent government, but it’s insanely hard to get it back when it rots. This has been the case of many welfare states. “Let’s force them to do the damn thing” is the very root of all social conflicts, not a magical solution. Being able to withstand it is a commendable exception, not rule.
Look, there is certainly a good argument to be made that regulation of this sort isn't the best way to achieve the goal.
However, trying to use an argument that this is 'an issue of physical force' is a ridiculous way to make an argument for that perspective. All laws eventually come down to that, so it is pointless to debate that for every discussion on what the law should be.
Laws protect everyone’s rights, both consumers and producers. When they are targeted to favor a specific collective, it’s fair to bring up the issue of physical force. The 20th century is repleted with examples of one social group fighting the other by seeking special privileges and favors.
So I don’t think it’s ridiculous, I think it’s efficient.
The perfect example of cognitive dissonance! The government, which mandates that the can of tomato soup I buy must not contain any glass shards, is immediately equated with physical violence. Although the shopkeeper who requires me to pay for the can before I take it out of the store is far more likely to get in my face if I don’t follow their rules. I don’t understand this worldview. You’re selling your freedom to big corporations. Your life expectancy is declining. Your food is of poor quality. Your cities are full of homeless people. But then again, I am an unfree European blinded by communism.
If I buy a can of soup and find glass in it, I have a valid claim against the manufacturer. It's a matter of holding someone accountable for fraud or negligence, not a matter of regulation. The proper route is a court, not a bureaucratic agency that preemptively dictates production methods on the assumption that every manufacturer is a potential prisoner.
> get in my face if I don’t follow their rules
If a shopkeeper asks me to leave because I refuse to follow his rules, he's exercising his right to control his own property, he's not initiating force.
> You’re selling your freedom to big corporations.
I'm not selling my freedom to corporations, they can't throw me in jail, or take my property by edict. The government, by contrast, holds a legal monopoly on force.
I am not an American, so I cannot diagnose declining life expectancy, homelessness, poor food, and other problems from afar. But I do know this: personal problems don't give one a moral claim on other people's labor. Need does not justify compulsion, and citizens are not sacrificial animals.
> I am an unfree European blinded by communism.
You hinted that Europe's communist past was somehow not a cautionary tale.
> The perfect example of cognitive dissonance!
Dressed-up ad hominem. You have no idea what I do or don't hold in my mind.
> If I buy a can of soup and find glass in it, I have a valid claim against the manufacturer.
Only because there is a court system provided by the state and because there is regulation that says that soup doesn't contain glass. Otherwise the manufacturer can just say "You didn't want glass in your soup, sucks, but for us glass in soup is part of the accepted distribution. Be happy that you got additional glass for free." .
> not a bureaucratic agency that preemptively dictates production methods on the assumption that every manufacturer is a potential prisoner.
I see it exactly the other way around. I want this to be clarified upfront, not after I’ve already cut my tongue. What I don’t understand is why market participants are being given special treatment here. There are laws, and they must be followed. That applies just as much in other areas.
> personal problems don't give one a moral claim on other people's labor
Which problem is personal and which isn't? You seem to be twisting this to suit your questionable argument.
> You have no idea what I do or don't hold in my mind
But I read what you write and interpret it. Just as you read what I write and interpret it. Here’s another ad hominem for you: in your worldview, there is no morality at all. At least, none that is consistent. People like you behave toward the state like moody teenagers toward their parents. You don’t want to be told what to do, but you wouldn’t survive a single month without the institution you so despise.
> why market participants are being given special treatment here. There are laws, and they must be followed.
Laws are contextual, they depend on more fundamental principles. A regulation that says "you must use this specific screw size" isn't a law in the same sense as "you shall not murder." When a "law" violates the principle of non-initiation of force, when it tells a manufacturer how to exercise his property rights under threat of imprisonment, it's not really a law but edict.
The issue is who decides and when. A court decides after harm occurs, based on evidence of actual negligence or fraud. A regulatory agency decides before anyone does anything, based on hypothetical risks, and compels compliance under threat of force.
> Which problem is personal and which isn't?
A personal problem is one that doesn't involve the infringement of rights against another person. Most problems are personal. One's homelessness doesn't give one a right to another's property. The moment you say "your need obligates me," you've crossed the line into compulsion.
> in your worldview, there is no morality at all. . . . People like you behave toward the state like moody teenagers toward their parents.
That tells me enough about the depth of your study on this subject. Morality is a science of identifying the principles by which a rational being sustains his life. You're not discussing that science, you're reaching for a metaphor.
> But I read what you write and interpret it.
"Cognitive dissonance" is an accusation about the state of my mind, not an interpretation. You don't get to call me internally contradictory and then say "I'm just interpreting."
Yeah, that guy got unnecessarily personal. Let me try.
You're right that civil judgements (and, though you haven't mentioned it yet, reputational brand damage through public exposure) are important checks on harm, but they break down in particular circumstances. In the first place, they're not a fair fight: corporations are able to limit, or even prevent, access to the court system by forced arbitration, jurisdiction changes, or intentionally running up attorney fees beyond what any plaintiffs can afford to risk. They also have ($£€¥, again) larger megaphones than any individual can reliably command.
The toy example of glass in a soup can makes for a perfect case, but civil suits are impossible to pursue where harms are long-term, diffuse, cumulative, or simply too difficult for a jury of lay-people to understand. For instance, we all know that lead is harmful, but when multiple sources of lead exist it's impossible to prove (to the standard correctly required by the courts) that this company's lead caused your particular illness. It's similarly impossible to prove that any particular cancer-causing agent caused any particular cancer, even when we know statistically that it has raised the cancer risk profile of millions of people, and therefore been a causative factor in many deaths.
If we insist that the only mechanism for redress be individual companies held to account in individual cases, we either give up on the idea that corporate behavior can be aligned with the public interest, or (worse?) we make sure that politically-disfavored companies will be scapegoated by the media or the courts, while better-connected players get away with anything at all.
Please allow me to forestall one possible counter-argument: if you, as my Libertarian-ish relatives do, reject outright the idea of "public interest", then we won't have much to say to each other: our world-views are simply too different. Otherwise, I'm interested in what you have to say.
I don't know the precise legal mechanisms for handling diffuse harms like the ones you describe. Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law. My task here is only to establish the nature of the principle and to show that it is practicable.
That said, here is my principle: at any time, the government is orders of magnitude more powerful than any corporation. I think it is proper, in some cases, for the government itself to act as a plaintiff, to aggregate evidence, bring suit, and prove causation statistically. I can't delimit that role precisely, but I side with you that in some cases only the government has access to all necessary evidence.
And no, I don't agree with the idea of "public interest." Any claim that "the public interest" supersedes private rights means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests of others.
> the government is orders of magnitude more powerful than any corporation.
As a practical matter, that's untrue in many, many places around the world, and there are no reasons why it couldn't become true in the USA, or any other advanced democracy. Even if you don't think that is yet the case where you live, can you at least agree with me that many leaders of / investors in large corporations want it to be, and are working towards that end?
I think your position in your second paragraph is at odds with your position in the third.
I do agree. In many places, governments are weak, captured, or
corrupt. But those are mixed economies, in which state and corporate
power fuse into one corrupt swamp: corporations lobby for regulations
to crush rivals, officials sell favors. That's not evidence that
economic power equals political power, it's evidence that abandoning
the principle of a government limited to retaliatory force produces a
cold civil war of pressure groups. The solution isn't more regulation,
it's total separation of state and economics.
> your second paragraph is at odds with your third
No. The government acting as plaintiff is still retaliatory force:
harm occurred, the state helps identify the perpetrator. That's not
"public interest" overriding private rights, it's the government
protecting individual rights by standing in for many individuals who
share a common injury.
And yes, corporate leaders want political power. That's cronyism. They
want to use force because they can't win in a free market. It's a road
to dictatorship, but the road is laid by the principle of "public
interest," not unlimited profit motives.
There's no such thing as "the public," only individuals. When one
treats "the public" as a blank check to override private rights, one
is really saying: some people get sacrificed to others. The taxi
industry lobbying to ban Uber isn't about safety or competition.
"Affordable housing" mandates that force landlords to subsidize
strangers aren't compassion. This institutionalized cold civil war
won't end until the state stops pickign winners.
> standing in for many individuals who share a common injury.
Sounds like a synonym for "public interest" to me! Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?
I'd like to know how you'd handle the case of a new industrial plant (let's even say it's a brand new technology) that will exhaust lead into the atmosphere. Does the government have to wait until there's demonstrable harm, and then lodge a suit in court? Isn't it... cleaner (for want of a better word, and no pun intended) to have a law in place that says "No Lead-spewing (as defined by [reasonable technical standard]) Allowed", and prevent it being built altogether? From another angle, under which paradigm would hypothetical investors prefer to operate?
In fact, and this is true, industry often requests regulations be put in place, because they'd like to be certain that their investments won't be subjected to the uncertainty of (private or public) litigation. Yes, this can be malign (in the cases of corruption, or regulatory capture, or incumbents freezing out smaller competitors), but at its most basic the request can be seen as benign: "we'd like to comply with community standards; please write down what they are, and we'll follow them" - no violence required or implied. It's also, and to my way of thinking more importantly, a way to break out of prisoner's dilemma equilibria, where all players can agree the sector as a whole will be better off without defectors, but appeal to an outside, neutral party to keep themselves honest.
I'm also curious about what seems to be your premise that The Courts are separate from The State. That's not how I think of them at all! I mean, aren't they, kind of by definition? After all, if one ignores a judgement - even civil - isn't the ruling ultimately enforced by, well, Force?
> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there’s something substantive to it?
"Public interest" today implies a conflict with private interests: a new sports arena, "affordable" housing, protecting domestic jobs. So no, government-as-plaintiff doesn't count.
Personally, I'd define the public interest as interests common to all men: freedom, not sacrifices of some to others. But that's not the modern meaning of it.
> Does the government have to wait until there’s demonstrable harm
Anticipating harm is proper when the decision is irreversible. Example: nobody has a right to physically block a public entrance. That's a right violation you can prohibit in advance. Same with pollution: objective laws ("you may not emit substance X beyond concentration Y") set a clear boundary without dictatign production methods.
But there's no harm to anticipate in, say, Lightning vs. USB-C.
> your premise that The Courts are separate from The State
If you got it from the way I contrasted courts with regulatory agencies, I actually contrasted the way the state can wield force: retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper). Other than that, the courts and state aren't separated.
Yeah, I think our difference on "public interest" is semantic. I wouldn't even quibble with your "interests common to all" definition, so the next step would be to draw lines about what, in practice, that means. Frankly, I think we'd agree about a lot of it: sports arenas and (at least in the abstract) "protecting jobs" don't count for me, either!
You are correct about where I (over) interpreted your view of the court system. Apologies for that, and thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't think I understand the distinction you draw between "retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper)". Would you then say that there shouldn't be a permitting / approval system (because that's anticipatory), so enforcement should be limited to taking pollution readings and acting (in retaliation, natch) after a facility is built? Even if you can sustain that position in principle, I think it would be impractical, across a number of dimensions, in reality. But, it's possible that I misunderstood that point, so please explain further.
I also note a segment from one of your earlier comments, where you advocated for "total separation of state and economics". In my view this is utterly impossible. Regulating pollutants is an intervention that (properly, we agree!) works to the economic disadvantage of pollutors. Even more fundamentally, a (functional, large scale) market economy depends entirely on the state's ability to adjudicate and enforce (at least) contractual terms. I don't think your view can be sustained.
Here is “that guy.” You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. Freedom and independence from the state are more important to these people than a few people suffering from lead poisoning. From their perspective, living a free life and then dying of lead poisoning is still better than being subjugated by the Leviathan.
> your second paragraph is at odds with your third
Well, well. That didn’t take long.
The teenager was a carefully chosen comparison. The state’s authority over the citizen is similar to a parent’s authority over their child. This is quite humiliating and emasculating. And I agree with libertarians on one point: if the state is against you, you don’t stand a chance. A healthy approach to this has two components. (1) You make sure that the authority is benevolent or at least allows enough leeway for a good life. (2) You create enclaves of freedom. The teenager hides his weed and smokes it secretly, or smokes his cigarettes on the way to school. The citizen leaves some income untaxed and runs a red light now and then. What does the teenager who categorically rejects parental authority do? Run away and become homeless? The difference between them and an adult is that the latter should have enough sense to realize that the romantic notion of a life free from the burden of authority ultimately leads to sadness, coldness, loneliness, and misery—or, if it succeeds at all, merely re-establishes structures in which forms of authority are entrenched. Libertarians feel most oppressed by the state every time they have to wait at a red light or obey a speed limit. They fail to see that, in doing so, they are submitting to a principle of order that is necessary for road traffic to function at all.
> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?
That is a very important point! Philosophers distinguish between the particular and the universal. Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. For them, a group is always just an accumulation of individuals. A genuine community—which consists precisely in the participating individuals restricting themselves to some extent for the sake of the community—is inconceivable to them as something positive. Hence the infamous Thatcher quote: “... and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families ...” That is an ideological divide that cannot be bridged through discussion. I’ve gone over this enough times already.
I've argued (mostly offline, for my sins) with far more libertarian-ish people than I care to have, and I think piekvorst has a) been a more congenial conversational partner than you gave him credit, and b) approached the subject from a slightly different angle than I'd expected, so I'm still enjoying the interchange. In particular (read our latest replies to each other, if you care), he's in favor of regulating lead pollution, so he's miles ahead of certain of my relatives in both principles and practicalities!
But... Yeah. I'm in much more agreement with your point of view, and he's still Wrong On The Internet, so here we are. :-)
> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities.
You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?
Where do I claim that libertarians are pragmatists? They do have principles—just the wrong ones. Incidentally, I don’t think they’re really concerned with freedom, at least not in the Kantian sense.
I don’t think that either libertarians or Kant are genuinely concerned with freedom. My position is closest to classical liberalism, with different philosophical foundations.
>>> If I buy a can of soup and find glass in it, I have a valid claim against the manufacturer. It's a matter of holding someone accountable for fraud or negligence, not a matter of regulation. The proper route is a court, not a bureaucratic agency that preemptively dictates production methods on the assumption that every manufacturer is a potential prisoner.
This is a common conservative trope. We don't need regulation because customers can always sue. (Famous interview with Milton Friedman.) Good luck finding a lawyer who will sue because of some glass in your soup can, or, for more serious cases, who can out last (or match the spending of) a billion dollar corporation. Yes, sometimes the underdog wins. Rich people can sue, and may not need the governments regulatory help. For most people, there is absolutely no recourse, particular for technically complex things, like prescription drugs.
The idea that the legal system can consistently make better informed technical decisions than government scientists is not well supported by the evidence.
It means you can sue for product liability under common law. Negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability, depending on jurisdiction. Court decides after harm.
And pray tell, who comes up with common law? And who enforces the judgment of the court? And what gives the court the authority to judge on the matter of glass shards in your tomato paste?
Fun fact about the common law in fact is that it came into existence because the English government after the Norman conquest needed a unified theory of law for the king's courts that was distinct from manorial and canon laws. 1154 Henry 2 the Plantagenet ascended the throne and wanted a code of law that would apply everywhere in the realm as opposed to local laws, the aforementioned manorial laws, as well as being secular, unlike canon law.
So without the government, you wouldn't have this common law your legal theory relies on.
Right, this typically works very well after you spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars getting all the stuff to court in the first place to have a trial drag on for years in discovery all the while the hospital is sending out debt collectors.
Oh, that's if it wasn't actually a shell company in the first place that has no assets.
A good portion of the things you mention existed before we had food regulations, you could sue the business if you had issues with them. The problem is the vast portion of the population is far too poor to do that. Regulations stop the harm before it happens.
My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable. That is, a society can function using only courts, class actions, and government-as-plaintiff, without preemptive editcs on screw sizes or battery compartments.
As I said earlier in this thread:
> Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law.
You’re assuming that without preemptive permits, nothing stops a company from spewing uranium. But liability, if properly enforced, is a powerful deterrent. The threat of paying full cleanup costs, compensating victims, and facing criminal charges for negligence doesn’t require an official to approve one’s pipe size in advance.
Further, the principle doesn’t deny retaliating in advance when violence can be objectively anticipated.
This does not and cannot exist when the corporate veil exists. Make a corporate shell and throw it away like a used condom.
Add to that a company can cause a trillion dollars of damage while having only a billion dollars on hand. Criminal charges don't fix things, if they did there wouldn't be murderers in jail.
Courts, police, and the army are proper. That's government. The difference is what kind of government. A proper government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force, it acts after someone initiates force or fraud. It doesn't dictate your screw size, battery compartment, or production method before you've harmed anyone.
Yes, to settle disputes. The purpose of these laws is the protection of individual rights, not consumer “rights” or any other special “rights” that belong exclusively to one group or race and no other.
It's not arbitrary. It's called the distinction between retaliatory and preemptive force. Retaliatory force requires a victim and evidence of causation. Preemptive force has no objective anchor, hence arbitrary by definition. You can't jail a man for a crime he might commit tomorrow.
What im saying is that this distinction is arbitrary. Running a society isn't all about punishing crimes. That's just one minor aspect of a states responsibilities. Standardization is another, arguably more important one.
It's far from minor. To ban physical force from social relationships,
people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their
rights. People's rights can only be violated by physical force. To
prevent this, the government's only solution is to hold a legal
monopoly on the use of physical force.
If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government
will violate the rights of its own citizens. That's why we should
limit its power to retaliatory use.
Standardization is a very valuable asset, I don't deny that. But:
1. Standardization is not limited to forced standardization;
2. It's better to live in a world not fully standardized than to
accept the premise that it's right to violate rights for a good cause.
The "good cause" shifts the question from "should rights be violated?"
to "what kind of violation do you want?" Once we accept that, we lose
to totalitarianism. A man who says "let's violate a tiny fraction of
rights" would lose to a man who declares "let's violate rights of
thousands."
If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another.
Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.
The people withholding the water in this scenario are the ones victimizing the ones without. That's where the state monopoly on violence has to come in as a corrective mechanism.
If "withholding" means actively blocking someone from acessing water they already have a right to, you'd be correct. But that's not what's in your link. Passive possession, "I have water, I'm not giving it to you," is not initiation of force. It's simply not being someone else's servant.
And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to.
By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice.
What exactly do you mean by "economic violence"? If you mean fraud or theft, we already agree those are crimes. If you mean something else, I'd like to know what.
That's a great example of their point, all I got was a mechanically inferior connector (putting the most important piece of the female connector on a floating sliver of plastic was a choice) and the cable hell attached to USB C.
If USB C had been so important to me I wouldn't have bought iPhones all those years.
You also got a connector that supports much more than USB 2.0 speeds. It also supports high power charging, video, thunderbolt, etc.
Lightning was a dead-end connector that was only kept around to keep the Made-for-iPhone moat drawbridge up.
USB-C makes the right design choice in putting the springs in the cable. Those wear out over time. I've never seen the male part of the female USB-C break, but I'm sure it's possible. But reversing this would require that the springs on the USB-C cable are on the outside, and those are quite fragile, so that sounds like a worse idea.
> I've never seen the male part of the female USB-C break, but I'm sure it's possible
I know anecdotes don't mean anything, but I have. Every USB-C phone I've ever had, apart from my iPhone that I currently use, ended up with having completely worn out connectors after two-three years of use. They stop holding cables in firm enough and start only making the connection when holding the cable at an angle.
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but have you considered that you might need to improve your putting/unplugging habits? I used to have connectors and cords break after around that much time. Around 2018 or so I bought a new set of chargers and decent quality cloth sheathed cables. Because all my cords were new, I was much more diligent about carefully plugging and unplugging (no mashing the port, no flexing across the short axis, no yanking by the cord) and eventually a habit formed. Not a single one of those cords, nor any of the ports on my phones, have broken since then. Even the daily use ones next to my bed!
I treat my phones carefully, I've literally never cracked a screen on any of them, the same goes for handling the charging cable and port. I'm always quite gentle with it, never leaving it propped up by the cable or at a weird angle, and the cables I used were the original ones that came with my devices. Mainly because my phones spend a lot of time plugged in acting as a hotspot for half a week, so I try to minimize the harm I cause by the extra (un)plug events.
The Lightning port iPhone that I used for 3 years however handled my usage just fine (just tried it now and it feels just like it did new), and the USB-C one I've had for half a year seems to be holding up fine as well. These I used with a mix of cheap Aliexpress cables and the genuine Apple ones.
I don't understand this logic. If lightning connector had less issues than USB-C how could it the users fault for not being careful. This exactly how engineers/developers answer to problems they cause with bad engineering/design choices. Anyone that gives feedback is blamed. It leads to terrible engineering decisions like the USB standard, which frankly has always been bloated and terrible because of its design by committee. As much I would love a standard connection port for all my phones I won't accept substandard engineering. That's why I am still holding onto my lighting connector devices even though on principle I disagree with using them.
Who gets to decide that I have to treat my devices that I pay for like fragile glass vases.
I do both QA and Development and pretty competent at both. I almost never make broken things or poorly thought out because I know this negative feedback loop will continually make the situation worse. Lack of empathy for people that use products just leads to issues like Windows taskbar not even being able to search for applications. Its all the same thought process that leads to the result.
Probably a lot of lint in there! My 4 year old phone gets that way until I clean it out with a plastic pick (very vigorously at that) and it's like new again.
They were an LG Nexus 5X, a OnePlus 3T and a Xiaomi Mi 8. The ports became loose on all of them over time, especially on the OnePlus where the cable would just fall out if you held the device upright, and in its final days the Xiaomi would need the cable pushed at an angle to make a connection.
You don't want that. I was organizing my cables and noticed how much thicker the USB3 cables are than USB2. USB2 cables are cheaper than USB3 cables, the latter have gotten cheaper but still buy two USB2 for some USB3. USB3 cables are also shorter cause harder to transmit signal, this has also gotten better.
The flaw is that USB-IF didn't require marking faster cables. Putting a blue ring, stripe, or dot would have solved the problem.
USB-C is decent for data transfer. It's pretty poor for power delivery: the pins are too close, so it's not rated for use in bathrooms or kitchens, and there are many more of them than needed for power delivery, making it relatively expensive to use in things like children's toys.
It was a mistake to conflate flexible power delivery and data transfer, you rarely need both at the same time. It's possible to design a better and cheaper 3 or 4 pin power delivery standard that can use higher power. But the law now says USB-C and good luck ever changing that.
1. The law doesn't mandate USB-C in particular, the port can change without the law changing
2. Nobody was going to add a second port for charging when USB can handle fast charging already. And if you need to charge in a damp environment then use wireless.
3. I'm pretty sure you can add a second port and the EU law doesn't mind at all
And assuming USB 2.0, how much cheaper do you expect a simpler port to be?
Apple was on the design committee for USB-C, they also failed to make lightning an industry standard after 10+ years. The EU didn't design the connector, they just required the industry pick a design, and USB-C is what Apple and the rest designed.
I have tried to explain this so many times to people. You could just scrape out the lint from the lighting port with a tooth pick. The fragile part was the easily replaceable cable. Now the fragile part is in the iPhone itself.
Lightning had the contact springs in the phone, USB-C has the contact springs on the cable. This is the part that wears out, and USB-C moving to the cable is an improvement.
Throughout its life, Lightning suffered from "black pin plague" where when springs in the port wore out, the power pin would start arcing. Now you have a cable with poor connectivity on the power pin, and you use this cable in another Apple device and it starts arcing on that device as well, causing that device to start transmitting this disease. It was a terrible design and USB-C does not have it.
I’m surprised to hear that it was such a common failure. I used plenty of lighting devices back in their hay day and plenty of USBC devices since they became common. I don’t tend to treat those devices gingerly and have far more issues with USBC than I ever did with Lightning, even accounting for the fact that lots of devices have USBC but only phones and mp3 players had lightning.
If Lightning is so important to you then you can still use Lightning-based iPhones. Nobody took away the hardware they sold you, they just mandated that the new ones adopt a common standard.
If lightning was vastly superior, they could still have a lightning port in addition to the usb, or make a different version with their propietary port for the rest of the world. But it wasn't superior.
I understand the added difficulty of making a version with a different port. Again, if it was Uber superior, it would have made for very good advertisemebt for apple.
Apple can't even make their strain relief on their cables work properly due to "being ugly" so preferring them to USBC is just another case of Apple-juice-kool-aid
You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.
> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc.
It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair.
Car safety is a bad counterexample because the risk is otherwise often externalized i.e. your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. And as GP stated, regulating this sort of thing would definitely force a particular trade-off on everyone. A lot of people would be pissed to have MacBooks with worse "build quality" even if they were more reparable. Having a choice is better.
I disagree. The lack of repairability has external costs not born by the purchaser or the manufacturer -- more toxic trash unnecessarily added to the environment.
Forcing a particular trade-off on everyone is entirely the point. It's the point of car safety, it's also the point of minimum warranties, electrical emission regulations, safety standards, etc.
Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped?
That "what if" cost is going to be built into the cost of the laptop. Repairability doesn't always keep the cost low. The purchaser will definitely have to foot the cost otherwise it isn't sustainable.
> Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped?
None of that is relevant in this context: The parts are available, but the laptop is designed and built such that the alone keyboard cannot be replaced.[1]
[1] Not sure if this is possible on that specific laptop, but with a steady hand, a tiny drill, maybe a magnifiying glass too, you can maybe drill out the rivets, then replace the keyboard, then either re-rivet it back again or tap very tiny thread into the laptop and use screws.
The laptop is deffinitely designed in a way that the keyboard is extremely hard to replace. Took me like 5 hours across 2 days. Rivets are not even the worst part, I used tiny drill and carefully glued in the replacement keyboard using phone screen glue (B7000) between the keys. (glue needs to go both on the frame and on the keyboard as there is a gap that needs to be bridged) Since there are screws along 3 of its edges, I deemed it good enough. drilling and tapping or riveting would have been extra painful.
What makes the repair more complicated is that
1) you need to take out basically everything to get to the keyboard. There are many different screws, luckily ifixit has a disassembly guides with their sizes. Still it was a bit painful to reassemble.
2) One of the things you need to take out or at least lift is the glued in battery - this took a lot of careful prying with thin plastic sheet and dousing it in ipa.
3) backlight is glued on to the case in an extremely fragile way, so it needs to be replaced with the keyboard or will probably look uneven after repair. (i reused the old one as I don't mind it but still, it could just have been glued to the keyboard itself and it would be easier to repair.
Repairability definitely doesn't keep the costs low. If it was cheaper and easier, it wouldn't have to be regulated. As for supply chain management, companies that get that equation correct are going to benefit. Which is exactly how it should be.
We define the rules of the game and companies that can best implement those rules will succeed. That is capitalism.
It won’t self resolve because consumers don’t fully factor in every detail while buying, and they often don’t get such granular choice anyway.
It’s easier and more profitable for companies to make a product that catastrophically fails around about when the new model is out. So that’s what they do. Until just now when the EU is reeling them back in line.
> Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years
Why not? I don't understand how it's legal for manufacturers to produce absolute trash that can't be replaced and will just end up in a landfill. I think 7 years is far from enough, but because computers evolve quickly maybe 15 years is ok. For the rest of electro-mechanical goods, 50 years should be the baseline.
If a car or fridge from 50 years ago is still working with proper maintenance, that should be the minimum to be expected from products released today.
It's much more effective and economically efficient to deal with externalized pollution costs with deposits to incentivize proper disposal.
A ton of normal users will simply never bother to repair their own laptops no matter how easy it is, but you don't even have to recycle your own bottles and cans to see the effectiveness of bottle deposits work. Someone will usually come and recycle them for you in any big city.
> It's much more effective and economically efficient to deal with externalized pollution costs with deposits to incentivize proper disposal.
Or to just mandate devices that doesn't need to be dispose so often.
> A ton of normal users will simply never bother to repair their own laptops no matter how easy it is
Doesn't matter, because simplicity contributes directly to prize and when you can get your existing device fixed for cheaper than getting a new one, you likely will do it.
I already pay a deposit and "recycle" all my electronics. And some recycled electronics are already repaired and repurposed. If that was easier, more electronics would get a second chance at life.
Right now if you have two broken MacBook Neos, one with a broken motherboard and the other with a broken screen, you can make one working MacBook Neo without even needing to solder anything in just the time to takes disassemble both and reassemble one (which has been demonstrated in minutes).
It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have.
> It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have.
Most of the PC competitors of the last 15 years have struggled to even come close to achieving similar build quality.
I'm not sure who this mythical competitor could be, who is supposed to not only match unibody aluminium MacBook build quality, but also solve repairability, and come in with a final product that is cheaper?
No, it is certainly possible to come up with an innovation that allows progress.
But the tone I get from discussions about repairability and performance is that it would be trivial to make the device, if only businesses wanted to.
However, given the fact that it hasn’t happened yet from a variety of alternative manufacturers, the probability seems very low that the ideal device is possible with current technology at a price that is viable.
Basically, it is a competitive market (or was), and what won out was what was possible. Barring some leap in technology, it is unrealistic to assume we can do better without suffering tradeoffs.
A lot of the recent car safety features are cameras and ADAS which make it safer for pedestrians. The problem is it makes the car so expensive no one can afford to buy it or to repair it. There needs to be some standards to drive down the cost.
Do you have a source for the cameras and ADAS driving up the cost of the cars dramatically?
The €14k Dacia Sandero ships with camera-assisted emergency braking and lane assist. By the time you get up to a €24k MG 4, you get full level 2 driving. These don't seem like very high price thresholds
Cars have much longer lifecycles that the repurposed consumer technology in the ADAS. A camera module is cheap, but a camera model for this particular make/model/year is outrageously expensive if not unobtanium 10 years later. Theres the famous f150 story where the tail light housing with blind spot monitoring cost $5k.
>> your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal.
You know that safety for pedestrians is also a very tightly regulated car safety category, right? Obviously, there's not much that can be done if you get hit by a car going 70mph, but the fact that most people should survive a 30mph impact with a modern car is mostly thanks to regulations requiring crumple zones specifically designed to protect pedestrians in a collision. And yeah, there are huge trade offs - I imagine people would generally prefer a car that doesn't need incredibly expensive repairs after a minor collision because everything at the front just crumpled, but then they would be guaranteed to cut off legs of any person hit - it's a trade off.
Not in the US. Specific pedestrian safety features are not included in cars sold there due to lack of regulation.
FMVSS was planning a regulation modelled after ECE R127, then the administration changed and no progress since...
It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars.
Or mandate in car cameras that record the driver to a blackbox to determine if the driver’s negligence caused others to be damaged. Also a cheap implementation that would immediately make drivers be more attentive.
>>It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars.
Only partialy agree. As in - yes I agree in principle, but I don't agree it would be trivial.
My sister had insurance with a black box policy, where everything she did in the car was recorded. And on her drive to work, she would always get a threatening email saying "we've recorded you going 70mph in a 20mph zone, if this continues we will cancel your policy". We had to ring them up and demand the GPS trace, and guess what - at one point she was going on the motorway above a 20mph road, but the system probably just did "what is the speed limit at X/Y coordinates" and was getting 20mph for the nearest road. We've had to do this several times when she had the policy.
My own Volvo XC60 frequently tells me I'm going over the speed limit as it thinks the road I'm on has a 50mph limit when in fact it's 70, and in another place it thinks it's 30 when in fact it's also 70.
Not to mention that the speeds entered on Google Maps are often just wrong and take forever to update. And it's funny when people like Harry Metcalf say that every new car he tests insists that his own private drive has a 20mph limit when obviously there is none. Imagine if you couldn't turn that off!
So yeah, very easy to implement(and it's a great idea!) but in practice it's one of these "looks easy on paper, but in reality it's super hard to do reliably".
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.
Again, why not? It's not mandating design, just minimal standards for repairability that should be obvious. If Framework and Lenovo can do it and Apple can do it on a $600 laptop, why can't everyone do it?
What everyone is missing: Because other manufactures do not have to; the profit margins are too good to give a shit, and they allow some pretty fierce competition within the target demographic:
<soapbox>
Sadly, the general public still just wants the cheapest option to consume their bullshit content, even if it needs to be replaced a year from now after their cat walks on it and causes critical damage.
The MacBook Neo is brilliant in that Apple takes a share of this market with a premium and affordable product that is basically just their previous generation phone, with the expensive bits likely sourced from their exchange program or surplus supply. Products that at some point the same people would've loved to have, but couldn't afford. Now repurposed with a larger screen, sporting the envied Apple logo, at an affordable price, and targeting that same demographic as the hot new thing, just one generation later.
I have a feeling we'll see this pattern continue, and it's genius. Minimizing waste, maximizing profits, and giving the consumers what they want, while maintaining a gap between low-end and high-end -- people that spend $$$$ still want to feel special, of course.
Don't get me wrong, the Neo is great, especially for us hackers, but it is absolutely not meant for us in any way. What is in our favor: it does, at the very least, raise the bar for these other manufactures that product absolute garbage.
</soapbox>
Someone needs to be a reference as to what is feasible in order for a standard to be established. Apple, Framework, and I guess Lenovo are the ones doing this these days. RIP the others.
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.
But it _could_ save us from Lenovo or Dell or any other company copying Apple's design practices (and the latter largely already has), while, as another poster mentioned, not mandating design per se, but rather just setting minimum standards.
I don't understand your math. The 1mm (the wall) was there already, so why is it being counted here? Plus, multiplying by 1 doesn't do anything? Also, the 2mm extra won't be solid plastic (they'll be solid air, since that's why we're adding the extra thickness, for the room.
If anything, the extra material for the case would be the perimeter length times the perimeter wall width times the height.
The post was fixed about 30 seconds after making it - due to the *s being interpreted as italics. It is a shame there isn't a preview button when composing posts.
There's a new field in your profile called delay. It's the time delay in minutes between when you create a comment and when it becomes visible to other people. I added this so that when there are rss feeds for comments, users can, if they want, have some time to edit them before they go out in the feed. Many users edit comments after posting them, so it would be bad if the first draft always got shipped.
Delay is initially 0. The maximum effective value is 10. It only applies to comments.
That may not even be where the devices are most toxic to the environment :\
How about all the energy waste for manufacture of what are "engineered" as effectively disposable components & assemblies in numerous facilities?
Also scattered local emissions, not only at the factories and delivery ships & trucks, but consumers kick up all kinds of exhaust and waste just earning the money to participate in such a scheme. And way more so for short-lived products that are the least bit overpriced compared to how they could be from the same factory.
> You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.
That's widely incorrect. EU mandates some active systems (TC, ABS) and some basic level of physical protection, but majority of gains there have been driven by manufacturers trying to ace eachother in EuroNCAP rating
EU makes sure woefully unsafe car can't be sold, sure, but most of the progress here has been manufacturers, and non-car-related road safety improvements.
The innovations that mattered were seat belts and airbags. After that you have to correct for all the electronic gadgets that also actively distract or make drivers over-confident. Real numbers are not available, but governments keep mandating all kinds of questionable safety features that increase the price of vehicles (and insurance) and reduces competition in the market.
I'll grant you some of the more recent driver-attention monitoring features, but you'd be hard put to make the case that the blind-spot warning during lane changes, the cross-traffic warning when reversing out of a parking space, and the emergency brake when the car in front of you brakes hard, don't all save lives (and, perhaps more relevantly to the industrial players, collision insurance claims)
Those things could save some lives of course, but it's a small drop. And then there's the issue of people trusting on those safety systems and driving more reckless than before.
It also helps not to live in a country where everyone is driving trucks ;)
> The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.
On some metrics. On affordability, new cars are considerably more expensive. Whether that's a worthwhile tradeoff is beside the point. The GP's point is that there's no free lunch, and your example doesn't address that.
No, they are more nutritious just like that bland protein-shake is. All those cool hot-rods from the 70s will crush you to death easily while wasting more gas to do it.
The fear is that regulations ossify industries and that's why heavily regulated industries like healthcare, education, and transportation have seen basically no innovation in 50 years. If you mandate that all electronic devices must have USB-C cables, how can anyone invent something better than a USB-C cable? And for what, so people don't have to have multiple cables? That's not even in the top 100 problems that a government body as large as the EU should be concerned about.
> Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.
Healthcare, education, transportation, and housing would all be counterexamples depending on how you want to frame "benefit."
> It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair.
This is counter to your point, no one regulated that Apple make the MacBook Neo easy to repair. Apple is incentivized to follow the market.
> If you mandate that all electronic devices must have USB-C cables, how can anyone invent something better than a USB-C cable?
That already happened with Micro USB. The EU initially mandated that manufacturers agree on a standard socket, because the absolute zoo of charging ports back then was counter-productive and only generated e-waste. Ultimately they agreed to use Micro USB, but obviously that's not what's used today.
These regulations are not just dumped on the manufacturers - there's a period of consultation and a grace period to implement them. If something actually better came up, you'd eventually see it mandated.
> If something actually better came up, you'd eventually see it mandated.
While I generally am quite content with that particular mandate and it does more good than bad, I would have to disagree on this. Something better doesn't come from nowhere - hell, USB itself has gone through a long and arduous path until it came to the (messy) standard it is today. This is essentially banning any other standard to grow and be improved upon with feedback and iteration.
I don't believe other paths would yield better results.
It took Apple a looong time to adapt USB-C, which was already running circles around Lightning five years after the introduction of the latter. Ironically Apple participated in the development of the standard. They just couldn't be arsed to implement it.
Multinationals don't do anything unless they absolutely have to. Apple notably all but threatened to move out of the EU due to USB-C regulations. They were actively preventing their users from having a better standard because it hurt their bottom line in the field of accessories.
The argument about ossified connectors is obviously made in bad faith, since it obviously didn’t happen. USB-C isn’t the first mandated connector, that was micro-usb. And when the time came to upgrade, the mandate was changed. None of that imagined ossification happened back then, and it won’t happen when we go from USB-C to USB-D or whatever.
> and that's why heavily regulated industries like healthcare, education, and transportation have seen basically no innovation in 50 years.
Not to get distracted, but aren't these three all incredible examples of innovation over time? Healthcare alone is significantly better than it was 50 years ago and it's not really close. 50 years ago, this hip new treatment called electroshock therapy was being used to "treat" being gay. It was also within touching distance of getting a lobotomy for depression or anything else your husband thought was a problem.
The rates of depression in the US are at an all time high [1]. The primary theory behind the cause of depression and mechanism of most antidepressants has been abandoned [2]. Not treating homosexuality as a disease isn't an innovation, it's a cultural change.
You could maybe argue mRNA vaccines or semaglutides are big innovations, I think we've made a ton of progress against HIV, and it seems like we've made progress against cancer, but when you factor in how much government money goes into this research and compare it against the advancements we've seen in computational technology it's a lot less impressive. You could buy a raspberry pi for like $50 today that outperforms every computer made 50 years ago, whereas the cost of most medical imaging has actually increased [3]. Likewise the inflation adjusted cost of college degrees and building new rail lines or really any infrastructure has increased precipitously since 1970.
"No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one."
Fair to push back ... but your assertion implies one of the greater fallacies of free markets.
Free markets don't magically work like that.
When there are only a handful of participants in any given market, they don't provide all the options as we would like.
It's 100% true that Apple makes some 'good tradeoffs' for build quality - but it's also 100% true that they make tradeoffs for vendor lockin.
Lightning connectors are great examples of that.
The answer may be regulation. It depends, and it has to be careful.
While it's a very 'iffy' situation with respect to keyboards, if we move the conversation to 'batteries' you can see how we might want regs that enable some way for consumers to mechanically replace batteries - and definitely 3rd party repair - and plausibly enable standard 3rd party batteries.
These companies have incredibly monopoly and monopoly power, they reason their margins are so high is partly because of demand, but also because of 'market power' which can significantly distort innovation (think apps on iPhone, totally captured market etc).
Unfortunately it's never so easy as 'always regulate or always not'.
> No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one.
It's a good solution. Even if you don't want to repair your meachine, it would be worth more on the second-hand market meaning less ewaste for society in general.
> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair. Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.
The neo gets pretty glossy build quality reviews and is one of the most repairable macs in decades.
Before Apple ever came along, failure to engineer in all kinds of extreme repairability was a recognized hallmark of unsuitability for mission-critical applications. Widely distributed repair manuals were of course table-stakes too.
Woz was well-aware of this from HP's legendary performance at the time.
It's just not easy to stay on the most correct path when there are so many shiny distractions.
Now the Neo sounds like a step in the right direction.
>one of the most repairable macs in decades.
With the Neo they could be jumping right back on the right path from a distance. Which is an improvement but it does also show they could have been doing it the entire time if they had the serious commitment to mission-critical users.
The only real way for it to be a game-changer is if they actually change their game :)
They will change their game in some ways, or they'll have to stop selling in the EU. I'm sure the Neo was engineered for this. Apple really hate re-engineering mac cases. Even the plastic macbook that had a huge design flaw (the cracking topcase because of the screen bezel spacers crushing it), had this flaw for 4 years until they finally fixed it, and that was not really to fix the problem but because they wanted to do a glossy new design. For some reason they preferred fixing the topicase over and over for free instead of just fixing the problem. And it wouldn't have needed much. All that would have been needed was to modify the screen bezel: Make the plastic spacers either a lot wider (to spread out the pressure) or of a softer material. It's pretty insane they didn't even bother to redesign such a simple plastic part.
I had mine replaced 3 times over the 6 years I used it. Sometimes with some complaints as I had replaced the LCD with a matte panel (the plastic macbook used an atrocious quality ultra-reflecting TN screen with shit viewing angles). But they always did it for free after some pressure.
So I can imagine they wanted to be ahead of the game this time because the EU will set a deadline and they hate doing redesigns. I can't fathom why they hate doing that so much though. I worked in manufacturing too and we did small tweaks periodically, every 2-3 months or so there'd be a minor hardware revision to take comments from QA into account or to optimize for pricing & availability of components. Usually not the kind of redesign an untrained eye actually would notice. But Apple somehow just hates it.
Interestingly, Apple's newest and cheapest laptop (the Neo) is super repairable. And even the keyboard is finally replaceable without having to replace the entire top case. Hopefully the trend is continued in the next redesigns of the Air and Pro which are due soon.
Next year all consumer devices are required to have user replaceable batteries in the EU. Apple has noticeably been making massive design changes on many products to get closer in line with these laws.
I assume you consider this a bad solution because the free market would always converge on the right solution(s), including reparable machines.
However, if all participants (in this case manufacturers) in a market conclude that:
(1) product B has a lower profit margin than product A, and
(2) product B is superior enough to eventually become the dominant variant and
(3) the market size is fairly static and
(4) the first mover on product B is unlikely to maintain a lead for very long,
then all participants would choose to suppess product B, even without having to resort to collusion.
Not only that, if the manufacturers consider regulation to be a market in its own right, i.e. it is available for purchase (which it de facto is in countries where lobbying is legal), then market forces will also drive regulation away from product B.
To me, this explains why some products peak in build quality sometime after innovation plateaus, and the continue to diminish over time (usually measured in decades). Some household appliances have already reached this stage. For Apple products, this phenomenon may still be in the future.
Here is the thing, replacing something may be hard or easy. But getting the parts (which are already produced and available for the manufacturers for their "added value" repairs) should be as easy as how they are getting them too.
Not to mention manuals/instructions. Regulation discussed here is about these too.
Also as consumer, I would argue the marketing done by apple is just scammy. They keep praising how much carbon saved or sustainable new machines are. But in fact, a minor issue becomes a massive electronic dump.
I also like Macs, I own several of them. Repaired a few. Mostly replacing batteries and keyboards. For example 2014 Macbook Air had a normal battery, no sticky business. Meanwhile 2020-2025 MacBook Air has sticky stuff, making repairs harder.
The best part is, 2014 macbook air has 54 Watt/hr battery, 2020-2025 models are 53 watts/hour. The lasting battery gains are coming from Apple silicon efficiency as well as modern BMS.
Simply put, regulation is the answer. Apple makes it difficult because they can, and also because it creates revenue. Of repairability was the source of income, you would see 10/10 repairable macbooks with no (significant) tradeoffs. (ie. it could be a few grams heavier for added screws)
> If you want a repairable machine, buy one. They exist. Others have already mentioned Framework
But that means Windows or Linux, not macOS. There's serious trade-offs that you're dismissing because you personally don't need macOS, but that's not the case for everyone.
I run into bugs every day. It wakes, and has a black screen not wallpaper. Change spaces and the focus is wrong for half a second. Login screen is a pain because it collapses all users together. Notifications don’t scroll if they stop scrolling when the cursor is over a gap between them. Something on the system constantly eats disk space, and I think it’s the system updates. If I dock two apps in one space, sometimes one is black. If I zoom out to the Spaces overview it shows fine in the preview though. In the Terminal if I close a tab it can focus an entirely different window.
I could go on for hours. It’s a buggy mess these days and I miss Lion and Snow Leopard desperately.
Yes, these got a lot worse after Tahoe. The past few versions have all had issues on multiple machines.
None of this sounds like a hardware error. Something like notification scrolling is simple bad programming and bad QA. You scroll the list of them, but when the mouse cursor ends up on a gap between them, the new scroll event doesn't apply. They're all individual even though shown together.
Or a black screen on wake - that has the mouse cursor and login prompt, it just sometimes doesn't load the wallpaper or does it slowly. Not hardware - just something buggy. It's unbelievable when I compare to Leopard or whichever version it was introduced the rotating 'cube' of login screens, which always had wallpaper and loaded fast. Here we are fifteen years later with incredibly better hardware and the thing lags.
Nothing mentioned in the previous comment is indicative of a hardware problem. If you think I'm wrong, please describe a plausible mechanism to cause any of the problems described above. They all are plausibly software bugs. I mean, Apple hardware is not really any better than any other piece of fallible hardware, and their OS has been a buggy mess since Apple DOS. Most pieces of software as large as an OS are buggy in many ways, and Apple has not been proven to be the exception.
Oh, I completely agree. But they can get away with it because we depend on the platform more than the individual apps.
And yes, Tahoe is shiny hot garbage piled on top of so much broken software, just to push an effect trick. I'm not sure how I feel developing with SwiftUI when Apple clearly can't make it work for their own apps.
That only reinforces Apple being assholes. They are perfectly capable of delivering security updates to ios 18, they just choose to not do that for phones that can run 26.
By the way does that mean you can root a phone that's on iOS 18.6? :)
> The problem that fucks us over is that Mac OS only has to be better than the competition.
I'm with you here, but I'm having a _much_ better time on my Linux machines (KDE and Cinnamon Mint) than on my (unbelievably-powerful-but-for-what) M4 Max MBP. It's so much cleaner, even without having upgraded to Tahoe, and imagine that I don't even like tinkering that much, it just works.
Well, Cinammon is the windows manager for Mint, it's the barebones experience that's the closest to Windows (?) style, it's mostly what you see is what you get, but still very customizable.
KDE used to be extremely buggy 5-6 years ago and since testing it on my Steam Deck, from my experience, this is no longer the case. It's a bit more feature-rich and flashier than Cinnamon.
> Can I run KDE on a box that idles at 10 W and never turns the fan audibly on?
No laptop I'm aware of will do this, no idea about ARM adoption.
Personally I'm glad to have a windows manager that doesn't force dumb decisions down my throat. On MacOS I have to wait for half a second for the focus to land on the next window when I switch desktops, the only workaround exists as a minor feature recently introduced to BetterSwitchTool called instant desktop switching or something. And it's to be mentioned ofcourse that for all similar fixes you _must_ give full screen recording and accessibility permissions to 3rd party software. And don't get me started on the stupid windows management (maximize != full-screen, minimized windows not recoverable with keyboard only etc)
The "just buy another one" argument only works if the alternatives are even comparable. For a lot of people, macOS is a hard requirement and not a preference, so telling them just to buy a framework that runs Linux ignores that entirely. Right to repair regulation doesn't force Apple to make a worse product it just requires that the parts and repair information are available.
> If you want a repairable machine, buy one.... Framework
Sure, but Framework doesn't run the OS I want, doesn't run the chip I want, doesn't quite meet the form factor I want. It's not an effective market because I can't pick and choose.
The problem here is vertical integration. If you want anything from Apple you have to buy everything from Apple.
Being an effective market doesn’t mean you get everything you want.
You’re actually saying: “I want Apple’s software, and I want certain chips, and I want a certain form factor. And if Apple won’t build what I want, I will pass a law to make them build it for me!”
Come on man. You will make tradeoffs either way. The answer isn’t: force a company to build what I want them to build.
Well another version of it is: I want to be able to talk to my family, but I don't want to buy an iPhone. The EU rightly regulated that any chat network big enough must open their doors to different platforms. Or I don't want to buy Microsoft Office for my employees but I want to be able to do business with those who do, and thankfully we have relatively open document formats now.
The chips argument is contrived, the OS argument less so, but it's all just network effects at some level, and it's important for competition and effective markets that we prevent the largest networks from locking people in and forcing them to make a lot of other unrelated decisions.
iMessage being a closed ecosystem. Apple finally added RCS support, but only after regulatory pressure.
To not recognise this as a limitation is to be wilfully blind to network effects. The "green bubbles" issue was a huge issue in the US. Similarly, WhatsApp not being open is a huge problem in forcing people onto Meta's platforms.
This is a great solution. See: EU and normalization on USB-C for power delivery and wider market effect. Yes, market was heading in this direction, but EU legislation brought it over the line.
The Macbook Neo is just as high-quality as any other Apple product. Apple has some of the most brilliant engineers in the industry, they can absolutely design a repairable device to their own standards.
>Apple has some of the most brilliant engineers in the industry,
Did they fire the guy who designed the magic mouse? What about the one who designed the iPhone 4 antenna? Are they still working there? The butterfly keyboard? The class action Apple lost over the Macbook 2011 design flaws? Should I go on?
iPhone 4 was a tempest in a teapot. But yeah, the circular mouse and the butterfly keyboard...
Having said that, it seems obvious that there is a tradeoff between repairability, price, and compactness. And Apple offers devices on different points on that triangle.
No. This is a bad solution. You can't blame consumers for not making the right choice when there's a sea of irreparable junk and a few niche repairable options on the market. Reparability should be the default expectation.
this is such a classic american reply. "vote with your wallet" and "the market decides". thing is most people don't care, don't complain or are not in a situation where they can "vote with their wallet". truth is, some regulation must exist to nudge companies is the right direction. a good example of this is e.g disposable vapes, people love them for some reason, but they are extremely wasteful.
Trouble is that regulation isn't imposed by an omnipotent deity in the sky. In a democracy, regulation must come from the very same people who you say don't care, don't complain, and aren't willing to change their habits. Given that you say the people don't care, aren't willing to change, and perhaps even prefer the status quo, regulation isn't going to magically appear.
The people that complain about the number of screws are very counter productive. The important thing is that repair is possible at all without permanent damage. Framework and some of the 'repair optimized' designs seem to assume that the device is going to be repaired daily and that it needs to be as easy as possible.
The bar should be higher than "Better than glue". While repair is possible, the number of screws with many different screw types still make it needlessly time consuming / expensive.
Yes and given that keyboard replacement is really common repair (probably most common repair on butterfly models but still quite common now), the ease of repair is extremely disproportional. In case of OP's Macbook Pro: the rivets, the number of screws, the need to disassemble everything, even having to lift the glued in battery - all just to get to the keyboard.
I agree that the rivets and glued in battery is an issue that ideally would be dealt with by legislation. Some disassembly is always going to be required and I don't see that as a negative. I see a keyboard replacement as an, on average, once in a device lifespan event.
I would think there is a middle ground between a toolless design and 40+ screws. When I saw the IFixIt review of the Neo, it seemed like an excessive number of screws. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the design meetings that led to all those screws.
While a single device for a single user will not need daily repairs, when you think about these devices being deployed in a school system, there very well could be a steady supply of repairs to perform. Streamlining that process does matter.
It's almost like Apple was trying to comply with new EU laws while still making the repair seem a little intimidating, to push users toward professionals.
15 years ago Apple was making unibody laptops with great build quality, and changing out the battery, hard drive, and RAM was trivial[0]. The argument that they made for removing replaceable batteries and making things less reparable overall, was always space constraints. Mounting brackets take up space they didn't have. I don't think that argument holds up. Since 2010 the large optical drive is gone, SSDs are now much smaller, and RAM is integrated and also smaller. They should have plenty of room to work with to bring back reparability, for the few things that can still be meaningfully serviced.
More screws means more chassis stiffness. A desireable feature.
If I was streamlining the process I'd use an electric screwdriver and a 3d printed screw holder.
You dont need a 'professional' repairman to screw things in. Most people aren't intimidated by screws, that's silly.
SOCAMM2 is a great form factor for user upgradeable DRAM. The fragile pins are all on the relatively cheap interposer. Id like to see an equivalent standard for NAND. M.2 uses more z height than necessary. Especially for 2 sided support.
Unibody Macbooks had excellent build quality (except for their vulnerability to spilled drinks), but were very repairable. I don't see how build quality and repairability have to be opposites.
> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair. Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.
You're making an oversimplification. You could make a heavier, thicker device with those same qualities that was repairable.
> Not everything you personally dislike needs to be illegal.
I'm having a hard time seeing why making stuff more difficult to repair just so that people are incentivized to throw it away and buy a new one, should not be illegal. If not for the anti-customer attitude, at least for the amount of waste and environmental destruction it results in.
Well yeah, you can probably fix it for pretty cheap if you've just got some know-how. But why do Apple need to make it more difficult to fix for no reason? Riveting the keyboard to the frame doesn't make the device "thinner", and as proved by people being able to fix it without rivets, doesn't even really serve a purpose. Your last sentence is a total non-sequitur; as far as I can tell it does not relate to anything I've said.
Why are you so adamant about protecting your "right" to buy a worse product?
I don’t understand this authoritarian need to ban everything you don’t like.
Should the government have a reparability board ? Who gets to be on it ?
If it pleases the King , may I buy a laptop while traveling and bring it home.
An argument could be made for a refundable recycling fee. Say 5% that gets returned when you take the device to a recycling center after your done with it
I mean, do you also consider it "authoritarian" to have e.g. regulations on vehicle exhaust? Should the government have an environmental protection agency? Who gets to be on it? What about my right to insulate my house with asbestos and paint it with lead?
And who's talking about banning private import of laptops? You do know that you can regulate national sales without controlling absolutely everything right? Whoever bothers to travel to a different country just to buy a worse laptop should be allowed to do so, it's whatever.
Regarding "recycling", that's all a show in order to seem more environmentally friendly with very little actual impact. You can look up how electronics "recycling" usually works in practice, which normally entails sending the waste to third world countries to have some precious metals extracted using dangerous and not exactly environmentally friendly processes.
One country did a bad job with regulations, therefore regulation as a whole is useless? Anyway, the question was if you consider it authoritarian, not whether the particular legislation in your particular country was successful.
Should the government force Apple to sell laptops with replaceable SSDs? Perhaps. What's the upside of having to desolder it when it goes bad? What's the upside of riveting the keyboard to the frame?
You're also dodging the question of my right to buy vegetables with high levels of PFAS and drink water with high levels of lead.
> Back to the original point, the laptop isn’t even hard to fix. OP just didn’t do [their] research.
The original point was never whether some guy did a good job fixing his laptop or not, but rather whether there's any point to riveting the keyboard, and more generally, whether it's worth defending companies' "rights" to sell intentionally crippled products and pollute the environment.
You might be interested in the vast world of public policy.
There's more to the world than banned / not banned.
In this instance, people might want a sensible pragmatic government to levy against companies that have high numbers of items ending up in eWaste processing (or discarded in fly tipping) and offer reductions to companies that invest in eWaste processing and collection.
There are also legitimate total lifetime cost of item models that suggest clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct might actually be "cheaper" in time, resources, and energy across a large consumer population than a functionally equivalent item designed to be "unbuilt" and rebuilt (ie repaired).
> clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct
This seems like a total fantasy. Do you actually have any examples of non-repairability making the process cheaper?
Sure there are lots of economical incentives to making stuff that you use until it breaks and then throw away, but that's just because the cost of e.g. mining metals or taking care of e-waste are externalized, due to using unethical labor in third world countries. If the "large consumer population" of the west actually had to bear the real cost of the electronics they produce, things would be vastly different.
Another point regarding your last paragraph, there are actually tons of examples of Apple (and others) making a more complicated (and thus expensive) design sorely to prevent independent repair shops from providing cheap repairs, thus "encouraging" customers to buy a replacement, or use Apple's own "repair", which just replaces entire parts instead of repairing them, and bills enough for Apple's liking.
I guess you can make the argument that legislating repairability will raise the price floor for devices because it increases the cost to the manufacturer. This isn't a problem for most of us in tech, but affordability can be an issue for many.
Making devices un-fixable often costs more than just building them in the most straightforward way. In either case, I don't think a few dollars more or less in manufacturing costs will impact the consumer prices in any way. Let's not pretend that Apple (or other computer / phone companies) has thin margins.
Regulation is the only reasonable answer to this sort of problem. The specific suggestion may not be the best possible regulation, but we have several hundred years of proof that individual market-based action cannot solve what is basically an insurance problem.
Goverment regulates everything including cow farts!
Apple can keep their unrepairable macbook. Butc should not be marketed as "green product". It should pay extra as ICE cars, be excluded from educational markets, public institutions etc...
Consumer choice only works when there's a free market. Computer systems are encumbered by copyright and patent monopolies, so there's no free market. I can't buy a third-party Macbook. Because these monopolies are granted by the state it's reasonable for the state to correct any market failures they cause with regulation.
+1 here... Lenovo business laptops have a history of being particularly good at being user repairable.
I'm probably going to go with Framework myself whenever I do upgrade. Still using an M1 air, which suites my day to day needs, I don't develop on it, as I can remote to my desktop from anywhere.
What if the repairable ones crunch the numbers and find out that Apple got the right idea from business standpoint and the only reason they can't do the same is that their laptops or their brand is not as good? It will mean that if they actually end up making a product that people want that product will not be easy to repair as well.
100% agree. If you don’t like that Apple products are expensive to repair, don’t buy them or suck it up
I came to terms with it, mostly. I buy AppleCare. I’ve had my screen on my M1 Mac replaced twice.
I agree with the sentiment tho. I had the rubber foot come off the bottom of a MacBook Pro, Apple wanted $350 to replace that $1 part. I found other solutions
I believe in this case regulation would work just fine. My old Macbook Pro from 2012 was just as solid and high quality as the newest models, but much more repairable. It's possible to create repairable devices without compromising much in other areas.
>One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair.
Lol what.
Nothing about apple design is a sacrifice to repairability. The only reason they make it hard to repair is because when your Mac breaks, you go buy another one. Can't afford it? Then you are not "classy" enough to own a Mac.
I swear, there must be some epidemic where Mac fans are losing their marbles even more so today.
also, let's not conflate easy to repair with cheap to repair.
The macbook is quite easy to repair, it's just insanely expensive because they made the choice that, for user experience, they attach the keyboard to the machines body.
You can have ease of repair and build quality, but then you give up portability I guess (bulky and heavy). And also cost goes up
I was hoping with the new Replaceable Battery Law from the EU entering this summer, all (i)Phones and tablets were to become easily repairable / battery swap-able. I was super disappointed learning recently, when considering why the new iPads weren't build to be easily open-able like the new Macbook Neo, that there's a pretty big loophole the lobby got in: if you can proof your battery lasts for 1000 cycles with 80% capacity remaining, you can exempt yourself and still seal the device in a user not-openable fashion.
(btw: people claiming that it has to be this way because of "waterproof": just no. Devices have existed before the whole glue sealing non-sense Apple introduced and exist now that are equally waterproof without glueing it all together to keep user's from the hardware. And even if you think it is that, it still wouldn't make sense to glue laptops and desktop pcs together who don't even claim to be waterproof)
At least there is a bright side: The EU Repairability Law is still pushing companies to make their devices more repairable - by demanding that professional repair must be possible from independent professionals and tech manufacturers must also provide repair parts for x years.
Yeah we can keep saying that, but thanks to the EU we have everybody with shared chargers. Thanks to the EU, the nintendo switch has a replaceable battery. Thanks to the EU, we have USB-C on iPhone.
I'm sorry but your argument conflicts with reality at this point: regulation works better for expectations on hardware.
I'd like to know what planet you live on where a single time over the last 50 years a company has done one solitary thing that was good for the consumer without having the gun of regulation against their head.
By extension, are you also an antitrust enforcement denier?
Also by extension, do you understand the term late-stage capitalism?
Because if you truly believe that regulation isn't necessary, then you are either ok with, or unaware that, unregulated capitalism ends in monopoly (or duopoly to keep up appearances). A free market only has a chance of existing under regulation, otherwise it's immediately gamed to maximize profit, which leads to runaway wealth inequality (the antithesis of a free market).
In other words, a €730 ($835) top case replacement is only allowed to exist because your worship of deregulation prevents the very competition that you yearn for.
I don't normally word my comments this strongly, but we seem to have lost our BS detectors since yours is the top comment.
Remember that it's ok to change your mind. So I'm not criticizing you, but the mindset that's allowing fundamental mistakes to not only go unchallenged, but be celebrated.
Lol I think watching the entirety of the EU run on shitty plastic laptops that are government approved would really top the British fight against heatwaves by smearing yoghurt on their windows.
I think I’d really enjoy this. Yes, please do this.
What a wildly incorrect comment. You realize its perfectly feasible and fully within apple engineers powers to design trivially repairable notebook (or any other device) while not losing any of those qualities you mention (which are easy to find in expensive competition too)? Don't make those extremely well paid engineers incompetent just because it suits your argument.
But vendor lockin mandated by management is way more powerful than powers of engineers, apple ain't immune to this since its accountants and lawyers running the company.
I'll give it a benefit of a doubt and won't claim its a PR comment and just a uncritical fanboy one, but its pretty close.
I replaced the keyboard MacBook Air M1 keyboard with a $20 model from Amazon and it's been going strong for a full year. I had spilled ginger ale on the original.
The board is riveted in, but there are enough screws to hold the replacement in place. Removing the board is a shockingly violent process, but it worked for me.
I use them when working with sheet metal. They are high-dexterity. Thin and flexible. Steel threads are woven into the fabric. McMaster has a variety of high dexterity gloves - fingerless, insulating, cut-resistant.
I wonder if anyone has hacked it (in the "Hacker News" sense of hack) so that the above keyboard can be used in an external casing, without inserting it into the Macbook body. I'd pay a lot of money for that. The Magic Keyboard is different.
i mean it's pretty nice for a laptop keyboard, but i've never thought of it as good enough to use externally tbh
or do you mean integrating it into a different laptop a la framework? that could be cool, but would also have to think how much the chassey stiffness/specific construction contributes to the feel
p.s. has anybody here tried (the external) magic trackpad? the macbook trackpad is infuriatingly good
I have the external Magic Trackpad. It is wonderful. I use it with my split Moonlander keyboard, and keep it in the middle. I honestly can't use a normal keyboard now, MacBook Pro included.
I have a magic keyboard for my studio, bloody expensive, but I just love the ergonomics and feel compared to my two TKL (really nice) mechanical keyboards.
You can use tiny drill to drill off the rivets - much less violent. I covered everything in paper / masking tape to be able to vacuum off the metal shavings and used small dremmel like electric drill with chinese used re-sharpened pcb drillbit.
Well done! This is the sort of "old HN" spirit that I love. Though if I ever need to do this myself I think I would try using a tiny "crowbar" to break each rivet individually, just to spare myself from cutting my hand.
My MacBook Pro M1 keyboard broke too and Apple wanted $900 to replace it. I bought a $30 replacement on Amazon and started replacing it myself. Unfortunately the repair was a bit too complicated for me, but luckily one of my co-workers had more patience and replaced it for some beer.
Thankfully the m1 was the last of the evil design era for Macs. Modern ones are significantly better. The neo being the best, able to be fully disassembled with a screw driver in a few minutes
I don't even understand the functional purpose of the rivets if the keyboard is already held in place with a million screws and the key slots cut into the aluminum frame. It makes no sense, seems like a waste.
Oh definitely, I'm no stranger to Apple's antics... but usually they're pretty particular about hardware decisions serving a functional purpose, and not just a way to protect their bottom line. They aren't exactly struggling to sell their stuff.
While i think the usecase of a Macbook and a Framework are really different i will always be thankfull to framework for how easy they make it.
Broke my keyboard, a few days later i had a new one that didnt even take a minute to swap. Wanted to upgrade my GPU twice, didnt even take 10 minutes.
Biggest difficulty was swapping the motherboard, but even that was easy.
The ports i need change all the time, and i can just swap them all the time :D
While a framework might be a bit expensive, overpriced even, i think the repairability and upgradeability is worth it for me
I'd be curious to see hardware failure rates of Framework vs MacBooks.
Sure you can replace the keyboard on a Framework fairly easily but I'd bet MacBook users run into the need for it less (comparing modern models; we all know the butterfly keyboard era was a dark age for MacBooks)
This really sums up the reason I stuck with MacBook hardware even during the dark days of the end of the Intel era: I can have a new MacBook in basically any moderately developed city in the world inside an hour, and in fact did so twice when something catastrophic happened on work trips. Waiting a few days to fix something or get some custom-order-only laptop would not have been an option.
Well even if my Framework would explode it wouldnt be THAT big of a deal to me, i would just move over to my ps5 or steamdeck for the time and since i dont really go outside i would have to wait for the shipment anyway.
Only scenario where it would be troubling is if it happened during the rare weeks where i am not home due to being a bit away in school but even then i dont think i would just buy an entirely new laptop and instead just write on paper for the 3-4 remaining days.
So for me fixing a keyboard i spilled cola on fast, cheap and without sending the device away is far far far more important than replacing an entire laptop when it disintegrates into dust.
This indicates effectively trivial use instead of seeing a laptop as a business tool.
"Write on paper" when you're on a consulting site for a client is not an option - much less when you bill by the hour.
I've actually had the situation where someone spilled a drink in my Mac and I was due to give a conference talk three hours later - that was actually recoverable because I could buy a new laptop with approximately the same configuration immediately, and didn't ruin the week.
That level of service is far from universal - Apple don't do onsite repairs at all in the UK, let alone inside 1 hour. It's all random third parties with crappy return-it-to-the-shop as a fallback.
I'm not even talking about onsite repairs, just about getting a new laptop to use.
I have indeed had my laptop repaired very quickly in the UK though (I still order them with British keyboards as 30 years of muscle memory does not go away). The Apple Store in Bath just took care of it.
A Framework running a sane version of macOS would be peak computing for me.
Not that repairability isn’t great, but in 16 years of Apple devices my only needed repair was their atrocious butterfly-style keyboard, and Apple footed the bill thanks to the Class Action Lawsuit.
We merely have to wait on Apple to continue debasing its OS, and then many other options will look preferable. Or perhaps Linux on Apple Silicon will eventually become stable.
Linux on Apple Silicon is already stable and nice if you accept a few downsides: only M1 & M2 so far, max 8h on battery ('office usage'), max 30h with closed lid ('sleep'), external display via hdmi and no touch ID.
It’s _really_ not just a few downsides, although they’re catching up quickly. My Air would get USB-C video out soon, it seems. But I don’t think Asahi should be anyone’s main driver yet. (That reminds me that it’s time to donate again.)
That is sort of what we got when people were making Hackintoshes out of Thinkpads a few years ago. Great keyboards, great repairablity and upgradeability, etc.
I'm sure this is failure by design. A lot of customers will think "Hey well, this one's got a few years on it, good reason to upgrade"
It's worth mentioning that the Neo finally does away with the pairing of topcase and keyboard that has been present ever since the launch of the plastic and unibody macbooks! Probably to comply with upcoming EU regulations.
The planned obsolescence conspiracy theories about the company whose products famously last longer and hold more value than their competitors ring a little hollow.
I've never seen any evidence that either of those are true.
However, it's not planned obsolescence either. It's just math. Building things to be repairable costs more money and time. There is very little incentive to do so, because most customers simply do not care. Thus, Apple does not bother. Nothing conspiratorial about it.
Most people do care even though they won't do any repairs themselves. This very article explains how it makes a few broken keys a 700$ repair. Customers do care about that.
Yes but they will still remember 'damn they wanted 700 bucks because I broke 2 keys??" And think twice before buying the next one. Or just keep it broken.
Also, this might be the case in rich places like silicon valley or the US in general. But most of my friends would come to either me or the less official repair shops when Apple gives them such an outrageous quote. Because most of my friends don't just have $700 for an unexpected incident just lying around. That's a lot of money.
I agree most people don't care about self repair but the majority would care about cost of repair, and the ability to go to unofficial places for cheaper options.
I mean I still get friends coming to me with early 2010s hardware and asking if I can speed it up. Sometimes I install some old memory I had lying around or an old SSD to replace its spinning drive. These things help a lot.
They do this by riveting the entire keyboard assembly to the top case. Meaning you can’t just replace the keyboard, you have to replace the entire top case.
As others have already alluded to, drills and self-tapping screws exist, as do replacement keyboards without the top case.
In many other machines, it is common for the factory to use rivets on initial assembly, but to service you drill them out and replace with bolts or screws. This is the expected procedure and even described in the service manual. I actually did this a few weeks ago for an old fan.
I'm advocating for right to repair as anyone else, and not fond of Apple's decisions in general, but this seems like a tempest in a teapot.
> In many other machines, it is common for the factory to use rivets on initial assembly, but to service you drill them out and replace with bolts or screws
That's surprising. I haven't had many brands of laptops, but I haven't seen rivets where screws should be. Not talking about Macs here.
FYI, for those who are consider Framework, you are usually getting a laptop that is 2x as expensive as a Macbook but slower, with a worse screen, far worse performance and battery life, and likely not as reliable as a Mac long term.
You can basically buy 2 Macbook Airs for the same price as Framework 13 and keep one in the draw if you are ever scared that one breaks. That's how bad of a deal Framework is or how much of a value Macbooks are.
Try configuring a Framework yourself and you'll quickly find that even the basic configuration goes over $1400. Any upgrade on the CPU and you're already at $1770.[0]
You can usually get an M4 Macbook Air 16GB for $750 - $800 on sale. So you can get 2 of them for the same price as one Framework 13 and still significantly outperform it.
Framework is an idealogical buy. It just isn't worth it otherwise.
The recent base Framework 13 would cost you $1,170, Ryzen AI 5 340, with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 4 full featured (USB4) USB-C ports. Note: You can buy the RAM and SSD separately, Framework even links PCPartsPicker (no price for 2x8GB RAM, so price is for single 16GB). How much storage space does your last gen M4 Macbook Air come with? 256GB would be irrelevant for most anyone, as you cannot upgrade... unlike with a Framework, where you can upgrade everything.
You are comparing dissimilar things, anyway. On a recent Macbook, you are hard stuck with MacOS. If you don't want MacOS (or ARM for that matter), Macbooks could be free and it's still the worse deal. Macbooks are subsidized by pushing you into the increasingly locked-down software/hardware ecosystem, where Apple is rent seeking. Paying for a firewall, or virtualization environment is mostly unheard of in the Linux world. It's like a cheap printer, where the real cost is DRM protected ink.
On a Framework you have excellent support for both Windows and Linux. You are free to do whatever you want.
The recent base Framework 13 would cost you $1,170, Ryzen AI 5 340, with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 4 full featured (USB4) USB-C ports.
$1,170 for a laptop that uses one of AMD's lowest end laptop chip. The M4 Macbook Air can be had for $750 often. It's superior in every single way as a laptop including vastly superior performance, battery life, screen, touch pad, build quality, portability.
You can buy RAM and SSD for many other much cheaper Windows laptops too. I don't see why anyone should buy significantly overpriced Framework laptops.
You are comparing dissimilar things, anyway. On a recent Macbook, you are hard stuck with MacOS.
macOS is excellent, much better than Windows nowadays. If you're a dev, macOS is also generally superior to Linux since dev tools often come out on macOS before Linux. macOS is also generally a much better machine when you're not doing dev work.
You can argue about how Framework is better here and there but in reality, Framework only makes sense for 0.001% of laptop buyers, maybe less.
If you're price conscious, buy the self-assembled framework kit. It's fun and takes half an hour to assemble.
I got a framework 16 with a handful of upgrades for $1400. I added 96GB of RAM purchased separately for $300 (before the shortage). I also got a 4TB NVMe for $300. What do those upgrades cost cost in a macbook?
I think most people care more about their OS than their hardware specs, so they defend their purchase like it's part of their identity and it's hard to have a rational discussion.
Edit: If you're talking about the Intel model, I agree with you. The Ryzens are fantastic.
I've personally found the repairability to be worth the price for me. I got the baseline $999 back when it launched & have done stupid things like spilling a whole gallon of milk on it. Had to take it apart & clean as well as replace the keyboard but now it's still chugging along.
Used to own a MacBook & the keyboard started dying after a year with a failed A key. Very expensive to replace so I just remapped caps lock to A. Then the screen started getting weird color issues and dead pixels.
A MacBook Neo does look attractive though. Probably better performance.
They were solid before the butterfly design too. It was just Apple's inability to admit the new design was shit and their hubris that they'd engineer their way to a solution for so long that the whole world became aware of the issue when mainstream journalists started writing about it in major publications. The Wall Street Journal article with no letter 'e's was brilliant.
Framework Laptop is more expensive than a Macbook Air with all around worse hardware.
For a framework 13 I'd have to pay 1900€ with a 16GB setup. For 1450 I get a MBA with 24GB ram. Similar with a dell or lenovo who get smoked in performance comparisons.
It might still be worth it for those who hugely value open source and repairability but as for value I think its save to say that Apple is currently in a league of their own. Even if the altest os update is a flop.
Also, the Macbook has improved repairability. While its still not great its better than a few years ago.
> Framework Laptop is more expensive than a Macbook Air with all around worse hardware.
Is it though? I'd agree the hardware is less capable but if your Macbook anything is really just one 'top case' repair away from being more expensive. RAM failure is 'motherboard replace', the display? it is similarly expensive to replace.
So I would agree that it is more expensive to purchase a Framework laptop than a Macbook laptop, but also feel it is more expensive to own a Macbook laptop than a Framework laptop. Also I just replaced the screen on my FW13 not because it was broken but because they have one with 4x the pixels on it now. That's not something I could have done with the Macbook.
What is the probability of those things failing during the time you have the MacBook? I've had Apple portables since they were called PowerBooks and the only problem I've had that wasn't caused by violence was a battery swelling, and that cost me something like $120 to replace, not a big deal. If you add 5% to the price, that's probably about your expected cost for repairs or premature replacements if you don't have a habit of damaging your equipment.
If'd rather not take a low risk of a big repair/replacement bill and you don't mind helping Big Fruit make a bit more of a profit, you can pay them $50-150/year (depending on model) to take that risk. Multiply that by the number of years you expect to own the device to come up with a "real" cost including repairs/replacements.
My Framework 13 is a bit long in the tooth. I can pay 529 EUR to get a new mainboard and keep the same case/battery/speakers/camera/keyboard/mouse/screen/etc. Or, I can replace the keyboard for 32 EUR.
It's not just repairs, to upgrade a Mac you have to throw away all that perfectly working hardware just to get a new mainboard.
> I can pay 529 EUR to get a new mainboard and keep the same case/battery/speakers/camera/keyboard/mouse/screen/etc.
Or you can spend 50 euros more and get an entire new laptop that is not only much more powerful than your old framework but is almost as repairable: the neo.
At some point your argument begins to work against you, you should just have talked about the keyword repair being cheap. Not how you can get a new motherboard for "only" 530 euros.
> Or you can spend 50 euros more and get an entire new laptop that is not only much more powerful than your old framework but is almost as repairable: the neo.
You forget to mention - less powerful than his old FW 13 with new mainboard/CPU.
I assume he's referring to the AMD AI 340 for 530 euros.[0]
Macbook Neo 31% faster ST speed and a bit slower on the MT.[1]
I wouldn't call the Neo less powerful than his 530 euros upgrade. In fact, I'd much rather have the faster ST speed in this kind of laptop. Most of the apps you're running with this class of laptops will be ST bound anyway.
You can literally get a brand new Macbook Neo using Apple EDU pricing for the price of a slower AMD motherboard upgrade. This is why Framework is an absolutely terrible deal overall. I'm not even convinced that Framework is better for the environment since Apple laptops last extremely long and will very often have second and third hand buyers.
> What is the probability of those things failing during the time you have the MacBook?
and
> ... you can pay them $50-150/year (depending on model) to take that risk.
These things are related, Apple knows what the failure rate in the field for their hardware is, and they "price in" that failure rate into their AppleCare costs. On my iPad pro, that's $90/year.
That said, it is entirely a 'bet' on your part as to whether or not you're in a position to cover costs of repair/replacement in the event of damage. That depends on a lots of factors and includes how much you can tolerate not having the equipment for a while, Etc.
Sure, a poweruser can bring their own ram/ssd. But again they pay almost as much and have a worse system performance wise.
Normal users don't profit from anything you listed. They do have to buy a notebook with all components, and thus currently have to pay more for linux/windows hardware compared to Apple.
Also, RAM isn't backwards compatiple. Literally had this problem with my old ddr4 not fitting in the newer ddr5 slots when my ddr5 acted up.
It's not just Tahoe; macOS is simply insufferable for many users. You can pitch Apple Silicon to gamers, warship captains or datacenter users, but they won't care when the dust settles. It's a device for people that want a Mac, and if you want a PC, server or homelab then you gotta get different hardware. It's entirely a software limitation, imposed by Apple.
I don't value open source or repairability that much. I just want to develop server software, and on macOS I always end up with the same janky VM-based workflow I suffer through on Windows. On the desktop I have no reason to waste my time with macOS, and I don't use a laptop often enough to justify reincorporating macOS into my life.
> I say “stopped working”, but technically it works too well now, it is being pressed constantly, which makes the laptop pretty unusable.
I had this problem in my Framework. I fixed it by... holding the laptop upside down and mashing the offending key for several minutes. Didn't work immediately, but now you wouldn't tell that it was ever broken. I've managed to panic-order (~€80) another keyboard though, so now I have a spare.
This problem is caused by the layers sticking together. In the case of the Framework 16 the "d" key sits on top of a foam pad which in turn is placed on top of a heat pipe, so this area gets particularly hot under load. The layers are often made from PET, which starts softening anywhere in the range of 65-87C - so easily within range of a laptop heat pipe.
By mashing the key I was hoping to detach the layers and apparently it worked.
That being said for gaming I use an external keyboard now, because the one built-in is made by an external supplier and I don't think they'll start using a more heat-resistant material anytime soon.
AppleCare is honestly a great deal, especially for laptops. M1 Macbook Pros from 2020 are humming along just fine for regular people who see no reason to upgrade.
I just looked up Apple Care. Costs $449 AUD (~$300 USD) for 3 years of coverage on a MacBook Pro.
A quick search shows that it's ~$500-$600 to fix the screen if it does break; I didn't bother looking up the keyboard but I'd assume it's much, much less.
So basically, on the off chance that your MacBook does shit the bed in the most expensive way, you save ~$150 or so? But in the almost-certain case that your Macbook is fine, you're down $450?
>A quick search shows that it's ~$500-$600 to fix the screen if it does break; I didn't bother looking up the keyboard but I'd assume it's much, much less.
_The_ point of that the article you're commenting on, is that a keyboard replacement on a MacBook is very expensive. Why would you make that assumption?
The "most expensive way" to shit the bed is also not the peripherals of the computer dying, it's the logic board giving up the ghost.
I'm a repair tech - hence made some assumptions that the author did not make.
Have done riveted keyboards on non-Mac machines before and would be surprised if an independent shop charged more than about $150 USD for it. It's not that hard to do.
You're right about the logic board being an extremely expensive fix, but it's also significantly less common than something like a keyboard, USB port, speaker or screen.
This is also something extremely Australian-specific, but consumer guarantees would probably cover any logic board damage within the first 1-3 years anyway, regardless of AppleCare warranty.
What if your screen breaks or logic board? Top of the line MacBooks cost ~4-5k. I recently had to service a battery and they replaced a top case and a keyboard free of charge. I will continue paying for AppleCare as long as they will allow me
AppleCare is leaps and bounds better than any other insurance you can buy for mobile or laptops.
For accessories I don’t see the point, those are effectively disposable wear items.
Ironically a large part of deciding to migrate to an iPhone from android was final frustrations with even Google purchased devices under warranty coupled with hardware quality requiring repairs. My wife’s experience with AppleCare won me over.
If nothing else it’s first party insurance. I will never purchase device insurance offered via a third party ever again. Either its first party so I’m dealing with the place I bought it or nothing at all.
Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
Unless for some reason you know you will be breaking your device much more than the average person.
Insurance is for things that are unlikely to ever happen but would financially ruin you if they did.
Definitely agreed, to a point. Phones I used to break so often it seemed worth it, although a lot seemingly had to do with device quality vs. me being especially clumsy. My iPhone has been dropped, dunked in the bath, etc. just as much as my past Pixels but is going on 3 years now. I never made it a year previously.
My laptop I'm on the fence about. It's a $3,000 machine that isn't especially robust if dropped, but I haven't broken one in a decade or two. Probably won't pick it up on the next one I buy. The unrepairability of modern Macbooks is what got me to buy it in the first place though. An old Thinkpad I could self-insure for quite cheap because I had the ability to replace any component failure myself. Not so true on the Macbook. I also see it as travel insurance - I can walk into any Apple store in a major city and in theory get a replacement device on the spot. Of course that theory has yet to be strongly tested.
As a longtime iPad Pro (large) user that always gets the AppleCare, I have walked out of the store with a brand new device a half-dozen times with only a few questions asked.
>Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
Not sure about Applecare but Lenovo has support packages where if your thinkpad breaks they'll send a technician over to your place to fix it within 24 hours. That's definitely worth it for a work device IMO.
I bought this kind of insurance for my PhD (Dell laptop, same 24 hours technician on site guarantee). Although quite expensive, I don't regret it: my screen and motherboard got replaced about two years in.
>Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
"Peace of mind" is not free.
Paying ~ten bucks a month to insure my phone and not have to worry about it getting damaged is worth it to me, even if I could afford to replace it if I broke it; because now I just _don't worry about it_.
Why would you worry about it if you can afford to replace it?
If you say you worry about the cost, shouldn't you worry even more about the higher cost of the insurance? Sure, for one item the variance is higher if you are uninsured, but if you have several such items, variance goes down, and you are saving all the more money.
Because even though I can afford to buy/repair a new phone if I break mine; it still _feels_ terrible to have to spend 500+ bucks because I was a dumbass.
I literally toss my phone to my couch or my bed from across the room dozens of times a week without worrying about misjudging the throw (which happens more than I’d like to admit), toss is on the ground at the gym, have no problems taking long baths with it, washing it under the sink if it gets dirty, and do dozens of things I would not do if I had to pay a full price if I ended up actually breaking it.
Having AC+, lets me treat the device with the level of carelessness that is worth the price to me.
Math-wise with how durable recent flagship devices are, you are probably correct that I’d be better off financially to just accept that I will break a phone every couple of years and just eat the cost.
But psychologically, I’m happier paying ~120bucks a year, than $500 in repair fees once in a while.
Yes, the argument is that the entity providing the insurance is surely earning more income that they are paying out since in addition to payouts, they also have overhead costs and must be profitable. Said another way, their customers are paying more than they receive, on average. That's a mathematical and economical certainty.
You are right that it might still feel better to you to pay regularly instead. That's subjective.
Knowing that you will likely end up paying less in the long term if you don't pay the insurance might help getting over that feeling, but that's a personal choice in the end.
It's bordering on insurance fraud and I usually trade-in my devices back to Apple so I don't bother with it; but there's probably at least one case where both you and Apple come out ahead financially.
AC+ includes what they call "Express Replacement Service", where you will send you an entirely new device as part of your claim, and they'll reuse your old one for parts.
If you _just happen_ to accidentally fall with your phone in hand right after the new ones come out, the delta in price between "a scuffed up, used 1-year old phone" and "brand new refurbished device from Apple" is higher than the price of the insurance and incidental damage fees.
The peace of mind I have is that the $1000 for a new phone is sitting in my bank account. If I break my phone, I can get it replaced, and if I don't, I get to keep the money. While buying Apple care is ensuring you lose since you pay for a new phone whether you break it or not.
AppleCare is only worth it for expensive things with big repair costs; the "repair fee" for AirPods is such a high percentage of the replacement price that it just is not worth it.
I've never worried about AppleCare for my Apple products, until this year when I signed up for AppleCare One. I bought a few new devices, including the Studio Monitor XDR. For the XDR alone it's worth it, since replacing the screen is a multi-$1k repair.
Cautiously optimistic, given the repairability of the MacBook Neo keyboard, that this design will make it to the rest of their laptops when the refreshed designs are released (next year?).
Finally got my $45 payout from the last class action suit against Apple for the butterfly keyboard fiasco. Seems like Apple didn’t learn the overarching lesson here: keyboards have to be robust and replaceable because they frequently need replacement.
Does anyone know if this is covered under the Apple Care plans? My 16" M1 MBP keyboard has been no problem, I'm just curious. Not saying that negates the issue.
Unfortunately, AFAICT, these repairability issues are largely due to the move to thinner and lighter laptops. Replacing my MILs Microsoft Surface tablet was a pain in the butt. Had to cut the case open and tape it back together. But that thing was insanely small and light. My MIL liked it because she has a lot of trouble carrying anything very heavy.
Yes it is, I had my M! Max keyboard replaced as repairing the individual keycaps didn't work, and then they replaced the entire logic board while they were testing due to finding an error. Total cost was around €1400, to me €0. New bottom case, new battery, new logic board.
Keyboards on MacBook Pros have been riveted since at least 2014. That doesn’t necessarily disprove your argument, but it does move the “thin and light” bar farther back than one would expect from the phrasing.
The new MacBook Neo's keyboard is not riveted and instead held with screws. As far as I could tell it is still just as thin and light as other MacBooks.
> I’ll remember this experience and choose to buy a more repairable laptop like a ThinkPad or a Framework laptop.
> Here’s hoping governments regulate laptop manufacturers to actually make repairable machines in the future.
So there is already a solution on the market but for some reason the immediate desire is for the government to get involved and start regulating laptop keyboards?
That's why I only buy Thinkpads from the business/professional lines... Replaced the keyboard om my t480 for $24, and replacing it myself was a 2 minute job (2 screws, pop 2 connectors, replace, and put back together).
At least some Thinkpads also have an actual drain: if you spill a not-especially-corrosive liquid on it, you should be okay — the liquid will drain through a channel and out a drain hole on the bottom of the laptop.
> After thinking about it for a bit I decided to remap all the arrow keys using Karabiner Elements . I disabled the right arrow key and mapped capslock + J K L I. And donated $10 to the project. A small price to pay to postpone a very expensive repair bill.
Great idea! Though I'd suggest to use RightCmd instead of Capslock, it's more ergonomic - you use your right hand just like before.
(and yes, it's both insane that the hardware is not repairable and that the OS software sucks so you have to use some other apps)
Suggest https://rossmanngroup.com/ unless you know how to do the repair yourself. A trustworthy not-apple-certified shop can do a repair cheaper by replacing fewer parts. Rossman doesn’t charge unless they’re able to fix the device - even if it takes them some time to look at it.
My camera started malfunctioning lately (because tropicalized doesn't mean you can use it in tropical weather). It worked, but when I switched batteries I had to wait a minute for whatever capacitor was blown to discharge before it would boot again.
I sent it back for repair to the manufacturer, they gave me an "estimate" that it wouldn't be repairable, and generously offered a replacement with a refurbished one, at $10 off the price of new (plus shipping, of course). I declined the "repair" and asked for the camera back.
When it arrived, the stickers I had put around made it clear it hadn't even been open. Having seen enough Louis Rossmann, I brought it to a camera shop around which is doing microsoldering. They replaced a single capacitor (after making me sign papers that it would probably never work again, and charging me quite a bit - still better than wasting an otherwise perfectly functional camera). The unrepairable camera was repaired.
It is so disappointing and unsurprising that a manufacturer wouldn't put even remotely any effort into actual repairs, that a street shop with actual expertise will happily do. I've come to expect no expertise from any service department I communicate with. Sending something for repair is almost a sure way that it will be broken even further. When even replacing the top case in the example of that mac seems overkill, when they could probably replace the faulty key with skill and will.
I guess that's a matter of incentives, given that in mass market, repairability is not something people look into when shopping.
I had the opposite happen to me. I made the same assumption when my GPU broke (it was 2-3 months old). I thought I'll save time and spend some more money to have it repaired in a local shop instead of sending it back to the manufacturer.
Turns out it was a fatal irreparable failure. A capacitor overheated and left a small crater on the surface. Because I took it to the shop, the warranty sticker was void. Had to buy a whole new GPU :(
I strongly recommend not buying a Macbook and instead hacking a mini: https://github.com/vk2diy/hackbook-m4-mini ... cheaper and restores control of peripheral selection and replacement. That is to say "such a system will last ~forever instead of ~3 years [when the first major component dies and replacement costs ~70% of a new Apple product]". Particularly with Asahi Linux progressing so quickly. https://asahilinux.org/ Without Asahi Linux I would not buy a Mac in 2026.
I too looked at Framework and like the idea, unfortunately in my case the supply chain was too slow to be tolerable, before even considering the price-performance ratio.
I strongly support the idea that the EU should force vendors to make consumer device repairs cost-effective and available or open source and expose their component interfaces in exchange for the right to sell in Europe. After all, the EU brought us USB-C, so we know regulatory pressure works. Thanks, EU!
FWIW the Macbook Air is slightly more repairable and modern ones are decent enough to do work on without the display limitations of prior non-pro apple silicon. As a travel machine, I shy away from the Pro because of how poor it is to repair.
Unfortunately a Macbook is a hard requirement for travel simply because of battery life, at my desk I use my Windows gaming rig for work.
I'm glad to hear you are able to fix it with software for now. So many people can't just do that though and it is ridiculously expensive to have it repaired.
Any purchase is a gamble, macs are one of those gambles that seems more risky with its difficulty to repair, however I guess the expectation is that it's less likely to need it.
> order a replacement keyboard, take the laptop apart, replace the keyboard and good to go
That’s all it took with my Framework laptop, and I’m very grateful for it. I was in a good place financially when I got it, but now I’m not. I feel a strong sense of relief that if an accident occurs and I need a repair, it won’t set me back too much.
Over a decade ago, my father would fix washing machine controllers, replacing mechanical timers, buttons, panels, or other parts;
Now, for the same problem, we just need to replace a control circuit board; the circuit board itself is sealed with adhesive for waterproofing, which also means the circuit board is not repairable.
Maintainability is actually not a mandatory standard, but a design trade-off; the biggest problem with the MacBook is not this, but rather that Apple does not allow other means of repairing the MacBook, such as various certification chips, etc.;
I'm reminded of my surprise when my Mac's 'super' (their name) floppy drive quit working because the CPU fan was pulling air through it all day. Post 90-day warranty, the replacement cost at the time was 1/5 of what the machine cost.
IMO, Apple hardware was never the company's strong point. And they refused to supply individual replacement parts.
What exactly broke? I had this problem recently and thought the keyboard was done for, but turns out you can also replace the switches (not keycaps) and that solved the issue in my case. You have to be very careful though since it is very easy to break the switch or key cap if you remove it incorrectly (this happened to me while I was trying to clean the keyboard)
I have an ASUS Zephyrus G15 (2021), GA503QM. I’ve been using it extremely heavily for five years. After about three years the left arrow key gradually stopped working. I adapted. Some keys have become a little less reliable, too, most notably E, and it’s nowhere near as crisp as it was when new. But it’s still a decent keyboard, which definitely wasn’t the case for two of my three previous laptops after even three years.
Anyway, a couple of weeks ago I tried getting a replacement keyboard on Amazon, not clearly identified as inauthentic (looks identical to the original; perhaps you should guess it, as a brand name is attached, WeFly in this case; but I know some of these things do claim to be genuine parts despite that). Worst new keyboard I have ever even heard of, barring those dumb roll-up keyboards. F2 a little sticky, have to press it straight. F and J requiring firm pressing to activate. Space not activating at the ends. And maybe worst of all, 2KRO (the original is NKRO!), with horrific ghosting. When you touch-type, you frequently have three keys active at once. Typing “you” would get a bonus F11 activation around half the time. “he ” a bonus N activation. Mashing the keyboard put the laptop to sleep, which doesn’t even make sense, and badly messed up key pressed state (though that’s possibly a software problem). Some combinations activated keys which don’t even exist, like Numpad 0.
With difficulty I was able to return it and get my money back. (I also got a refund on a counterfeit battery purchased at the same time—branded Wistar but unquestionably labelled as a genuine ASUS part, it was labelled in depth as 90Wh, but reported a design capacity of 74Wh and behaved so. Not sure if you can even find that information under Windows—maybe in Device Manager? So alas, for now I’m back on my original battery which is down to 51Wh capacity.) I wrote detailed one- and two-star reviews on Amazon, which were approved, and then deleted (one same day, one after a few days) for no apparent reason.
I’m trying to talk to ASUS to see if I can get a first-party replacement, but they don’t sell them independently at least, and can’t tell me a price, so I have to try talking to the local service centre. Hopefully it’ll be possible and not too expensive. Definitely not going to try third-party again for the keyboard, though maybe for the battery I’ll try one clearly marked as third-party.
Since reinstalling the original keyboard last week, a few days ago both Control keys stopped working, and the right tweeter (which gradually died a year or two ago) has started producing white noise when powered up. I should try reseating cables and such. It’s definitely fairly invasive surgery to replace the keyboard. The keyboard, incidentally, is fastened to the case by about 70 tiny screws (mine had 71 holes but only 69 screws). For now, I mapped Right Shift to Right Control, and have since been discovering that I used Right Shift more often than I realised!
I was planning on building a PC toward the end of last year, but several life things and the need for an inverter (I live in India now, and power is regularly off for hours) complicated and delayed it, and when I came back to it in December, RAM had got super expensive, and I just couldn’t justify the 50% increase in total price. Now if this laptop stopped working more…
If you can afford it, a small or medium ecoflow battery and one or two 200W solar panels with solve a ton of your issues in India, if nobody steals it. I'm in Africa and have frequent load shedding too, and I've replaced so many devices in my home with rechargeable/outdoor variants that can be recharged/powered by solar if needed.
Also, don't buy asus again. If you are looking for repairable laptops, dell, hp and lenovo are the only decent brands when it comes to repairs & parts (make sure the not to buy the cheapest consumer models).
If you want a fixed installation, EcoFlow products seem rather expensive. You look to pay a huge premium for the portability, which is actually less convenient than the traditional inverter design if you don’t need it. Simplifying things to a single number for their cheapest vaguely-comparable products, 1 kWh, LiFePO₄, solar-capable: EcoFlow Delta 3 1000 Air is ₹60,000, Livsol L-iON1500 is ₹27,500.
The only reason why I mentioned the brand, is because most of their battery systems have the yellow solar port - so you can plug solar directly into the system, some have two ports. They also have built-in inverters, so you can plug the laptop directly into that. There are probably other brands that offer a similar setup.
If your laptop can be powered by USB-C, even better. If the battery system doesn't have usb-c output, buy a GaN charger (mine is a 140W GaN charger and its amazing). They are super efficient and don't generate much heat.
Fixed-installs (or grid tie-in) requires electricians and sometimes rewiring some parts of your home's circuitry. Huge operation if done right but generally not needed if you only have one or two panels and a portable battery system.
There are very good benchmarks on youtube with the portable solar + battery setups.
Why would someone down vote this comment? Its perfectly reasonable to reuse old hardware with broken components (screens, keyboards) into server/passive devices that sits in the corner and still being useful, instead of going to the trash. Removing old battery is good advice as they are a fire hazard if you keep them plugged in and they are degraded - best to remove it completely and run the laptop off main power and/or add an external UPS if you can afford it.
Please let me know why this specific comment was down voted.
I had the same issue with a different key on 2 separate macs. A 1 and a 2 year old MacBook pro. 95% of the time I'm WFH using magic external keyboard, which also has the same problem so I bought a new one. Keyboards are a massive problem at apple.
For me, for day-to-day usage, I sit at a desk and use an external keyboard. The ergonomics of working directly on a laptop aren't very good for extended periods of time.
Case in point: I don't put a lot of stress on my laptop keyboards.
Had a similar experience with the XPS series. Was able to find a keyboard. When taken apart, realized they had used plastic bits, tape, and other things to connect the keyboard to the top lid. Seems they expected one to either be handy with epoxy or buy the combo.
This is what you get when you purchase Apple products. Nothing new here, I had to deal with this back in the G3/G4 days when the laptops were so stupidly-locked you couldn't even apply security updates.
Had an issue with a broken keycap hinge a couple of years ago. Went to local Apple store and they also told me it's a whole motherboard replacement. Got the keycap + hinge from Aliexpress for $2. :/
Sure it's a giant PITA, but it's not expensive to repair if you do the labor yourself. Parts for macbook are easy to comeby since Apple decentralizes repairs so heavily.
so this happened to me some years ago. visited a local shop and they wanted to change the whole board. went to Los Angeles, visited an apple store, got an appointment. went back again to the appointment brought the MacBook, they said the same.
went to ebay bought the key, replaced it with tweezers after removing it from above without disabling the keyboard (I know, a little brutish) and it worked again for years.
The trackpad on my 2.5 year old Macbook Air stopped working. Apple wanted over £400 to fix it. Thankfully I found a local guy who did it for a fraction of that. Screw Apple.
No this isn't even like that. Frameworks are 2x the price of a Macbook without the performance, battery life, build quality, screen quality, touch pad, speakers, etc.
If Apple is the BMW here, what is Framework? It's definitely not a Toyota.
I use right command + HJKL with karabiner and use it way too much, typing on someone else’s keyboard really throws me off but it’s great for my daily usage
I just had the most horrendous Apple repair experience. In standard warranty with Apple care. Would NOT authorize a mail in repair. Would only authorize walk in to my local shitty Apple authorized third party repair center who were unable / unwilling to reproduce.
Fought with them for weeks. Escalated. They lied and said they were doing a no cost replacement. Had to fight the charge. Then they lost my return.
So much so that I’ve started switching to Linux and de-googled phone. (Switching off of iPhone just to go to google seems like the greater of evils)
The non Apple ecosystem is much more mature than last I checked but still irritating. De googling was my biggest challenge. Getting a viable replacement for Mac OS was the easy part.
What was the problem? If the local repair center couldn't reproduce it, what was going on?
And what do you mean they lost your return? Like it got delivered and then it was lost? Surely they gave you a working unit at that point?
I've had a bunch of experiences with Apple repair and always always been fast and great. I mean, they're definitely the best service of literally any corporation I've dealt with, by far. Sometimes you get unlucky I guess with a particular rep or something hard to reproduce, but it sounds like you got extremely unlucky? It definitely isn't representative in my experience, not even close.
My MacBook Pro M1 keyboard repair costed >700€, this is not a butterfly keyboard. So also new models have an expensive keyboard replacement.
My previous MacBook Pro keyboard was a butterfly keyboard and also broke, but got replaced for free. I don’t feel I am a heavy user as the MacBook Pro is mostly connected to an external keyboard and am pretty annoyed by apples keyboard quality (based on my sample size of 2).
Apple is disgusting from that standpoint. I have my MacBook Air M1's screen break overnight (the "bendgate"), without any reason, after 13 months. I didn't buy the extended two years warranty. I was one-month off warranty. On a MacBook Air M1 I paid something like 1000 EUR VAT included (don't remember the exact price but in that ballpark), they were asking 700 EUR to fix the screen.
I still just ordered a MacMini M4 (I know the M5 is coming but we've got something like 20 computers at home, including servers, NUCs, laptops, desktop, etc. so I may not mind buying a M5).
Still... Apple, from the bottom of my heart: FUCK YOU.
unfortunately, the karabiner workaround will work for a little while, but the rest of the keys will start failing until it's impossible to remap the keys :/
I have a broken left key and went with karabiner too. I still plan to take the laptop to assistance at some point and try to get it a deep clean up and maybe that will help.
Otherwise fuck apple I'm not paying 700+ to fix a key.
I remember being so disappointed with Apple back when I had a Macbook and the Apple store people were like "nah, if you spilled stuff on it you just buy a new macbook"
Normally I'd agree purity tests are largely counterproductive. But large tech companies are major players and deserve extraordinary scrutiny for their actions.
Anyway, simply noting the impacts of their decisions doesn't seem deserving of an "ism"—surely there should be a normative component to make this a proper ideology—I haven't told you what to do.
This is a great answer. I lost the bet. I suspect even this falls apart if you consider the bill of materials, though.
Look my point is that commodity fetishization is real, it protects our entire economy, and once you look deeper/underneath the hood/covers, many reasonable prices become violations of our personal values. With such insanely complex and largely offshore supply chains, laptops and phones (and servers etc) become very problematic devices that we nonetheless rely on.
I think you might be right. According to Ebay, a complete OEM backlit keyboard + trackpoint costs $24.99 for my laptop. The iFixit is rated "easy" and supposedly takes 15 minutes.
Go figure. MacBook Neo Is the Most Repairable MacBook in 14 Years [0]
Much as a laptop would suit me, I opted for a mini and a large display.
Come keyboard time, I was ready to spend $$$$$ for an Apple keyboard, but the only backlit ones come on laptops. I'm using a Logitech now, with the option of charging it all the time, else the lights dim themselves to conserve battery.
Yes, I was 19 once. And three times after that. But there we go again, stuff designed for 19 year-olds.
Yes, my bad. I totally agree with that it does indeed suck. I've had to replace the C cover of my laptop before for reasons not related to the keyboard (a screw post broke because Dell had the bright of idea of attaching a metal screw post to the body with plastic). I ended up fixing that issue, but the keyboard that was installed in the C cover was noticeably shittier than my old one.
I'm now on a Framework 13, and it's been pretty fun so far.
Swedes many times have a defeatist attitude towards companies and authorities, and expect that they will never get any help unless they have a right to it (from warranties or such).
The author doesn't mention ever contacting Apple to get his keyboard fixed. Maybe he could have gotten pleasantly surprised?
"Here’s hoping governments regulate laptop manufacturers to actually make repairable machines in the future."
However, this quote is not a surprise at all, and goes perfectly in line with Swedish philosophy. And the philosophy of this message board as well.
Anyway, did he contact Apple to see if they could help him out? Because sometimes Apple fixes these things for free.
I've had very good and very bad experiences with Apple support for hardware failures. It's worth trying to contact them, instead of calling for more government regulation.
He went through the Apple Icon -> "About This Mac" -> "More Info" -> Coverage Expired Details Button -> Clicked the Get Support button and ended up in an infinite loop of questions on the Apple website if I recall correctly.
That's not the point where you give up. That's the point where you call or e-mail the company to talk to a human.
Hence my comment about defeatism. Sometimes you have to push a little bit before giving up and crying for the government to come help you. Big companies aren't unbending stone statues.
>Here’s hoping governments regulate laptop manufacturers to actually make repairable machines in the future.
No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one. They exist. Others have already mentioned Framework, but there are other options that aren't that far down the spectrum either.
One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair. Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.
I say this as a framework owner who would never buy something as irreparable as a macbook. Regulation is not the answer here.
Decades of HN users finger wagging and suggesting FOSS hardware has progressed society nowhere. 12 months from EU mandatory replaceable batteries and products across the industry are being redesigned with repairability, usb-c, and user friendly designs.
It’s time to accept regulation actually does work when you have a competent government.
Indeed, government regulation is decried mostly because of all the cases where it got polluted by special interests, instead of following the interests of general consumers.
This is how you end up turning a chunk of your food supply into fuel to subsidize crops which aren't all that good at being distilled into fuel in the first place...
This is mostly because Americans keep electing total morons.
I would actually suggest this is symptomatic of the real problem: money in politics.
Elected officials (and some appointed, like SCOTUS) keep changing laws and precedents to allow more and more money in politics. They can't quit all that dark money - without a lot of funding, you don't get elected. Usually the best funded candidate wins.
There was an anonymous oped from a congressman some years back which bemoaned the reality - that 60% of their time was dedicated to meeting with donors for reelection campaigns instead of working on real problems.
> that 60% of their time was dedicated to meeting with donors for reelection campaigns instead of working on real problems.
This is the same story told by Tom Morello, guitarist of Rage Against the Machine (at the end of the early life section): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Morello#Early_life
Key line: "He had to compromise his entire being every day."
Part of the reason money has such a big influence on elections is that first-past-the-post election system you have over there in the US. When voters have to make a binary choice between two participants, low-information campaigns like hit-pieces are able to make a big difference and are cheap to communicate en-masse. When voters have a actual choice between four parties on the left and four parties on the right, hit-pieces will only make a voter switch from, say, one left-wing party to another. So since the return-on-investment on political advertising is much lower, much less money will be spent on it and there will be less of it. And what will be there will be of higher quality.
If any of what you just said was true in practice, Australia would be a gleaming example of how democracies with strong civil society organisations can be run.
Instead, Australia is best described as pigs at the slops trough.
A nation that seems to only want to vote for leaders who have a public humiliation kink.
When one party will violate every norm and law to the greatest extent that they can get away with it, it's pretty much impossible to compete with them. I want good things for people. I can't compete with fascists because they will cheat and lie and employ violence. My positive intent is almost impossible to out thwart their dirty deeds if they are willing to break laws / change laws and I won't.
It amazes me that so many people blame the politicians and not the people who elected them.
Well we can’t recall the voters, so there is no point in addressing them. They are a problem because in the US there used to be an FCC rule that said “if you call yourself a news program, you must tell the truth,” and that was overridden by the Supreme Court during Reagan’s term.
No there was never a rule about “telling the truth” the rule was “equal time”. So if one party said “vaccines keep people from dying” and the other party said “vaccines would cause you to grow extra limbs” you had to allow them both on.
Second, it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The theory was that the airwaves belong to the public and the FCC has jurisdiction. It never applied to cable channels like FoxNews
Third, the current FCC is going after broadcast networks for not being fair under the rule
> The theory was that the airwaves belong to the public and the FCC has jurisdiction.
Now most things go over the shared network (InterNet) so that problem should have fixed it self, no?
Airwaves are limited resource - especially spectrum suitable for broadcast. Two companies can’t share the same broadcast spectrum.
The Internet is not a limited resource and not owned by the public and licensed to broadcasters. More than one company can lay cable.
Do you really want the government policing what can be said on the internet?
It does already. Section 230 in the US isn't an unlimited get out of jail free card. Other countries have varying amount of policing, with differing levels of success and corruption. Spain, the UK, and China all come to mind here.
Section 230 only has to do with defamation in this context not “misinformation”.
Blaming voters for being stupid is not widely accepted yet.
The voters aren’t stupid. They are actively malignant and cheer what the administration is doing.
Okay but what solution lies down that road?
That's the problem. People don't want to blame the voters because there's no solution. We are grasping for something that is possible to fix that isn't just "Somehow americans are especially bad at doing very basic things for no reason"
Well, I personally am making the “Ben Kenobi” choice. I’m hoping to leave the US and retire and die and make it the next generation’s problem.
I’ve done my part, I have voted for “progressive”/safety net policies and the US has gone in the opposite direction. This isn’t some shrill unthought out plan.
I’m actually in the country now I plan to retire to for six weeks and I’m coming back for a month in the summer, part of the ex-pat community and meeting people, my wife and I have been learning Spanish and I speak it okay and I know the processes for establishing residency here
I’m over dealing with the American people. As a minority, I find the entire attitude outside of the US refreshing even as the only Black couple in our expat group. For reference, my still living parents grew up in the segregated South.
The large citizenries that later (19th century) forced administrations into constitutions and participation in policy started out with state mandated education and a class consciousness that is based on being knowledged and sophisticated. You need to make the next generation as smart as possible as you can, optimally also on topics concerning the society and economics.
The late 19th century was also when “Separate but Equal” was enshrined as the law of the land by the Supreme Court and a few decades later there were Japanese internment camps…
There's only one party and it's color is green. Donors know red or blue doesn't matter, so they give to both.
That's just an unreal characterization that plays into the hands of the "red" team. One side has put up presidents and congressional leadership that worked (mostly, I'm not saying they're perfect) within the traditional framework of the system. The other has put up a president who literally does not understand the meaning of the word "no," expects that everyone will let him do pretty much anything he wants, and a congress that agrees with him. Notably, that side was different in 2000, 1988, 1980, etc. -- not perfect by any stretch, but not this.
The difference matters.
Do you want another authoritarian, corrupt, cult of personality leader like Trump? Proclaiming "both sides" and ignoring nuance like you're doing is how no one gets held accountable for the real harms that are taking place. Please stop holding water for the MAGAs/GOP.
America has had even more corrupt/authoritarian/cult of personality leaders than Trump. They were younger and their brains still worked so they did way more damage than trump too. Most Americans just don't learn much history so can't compare.
> America has had even more corrupt/authoritarian/cult of personality leaders than Trump.
Like who?
Andrew Jackson to this day is a darling among conservatives in America.
Assuming you're from the USA, your two main parties are exactly like that. The appearances have changed, but Obama drone-assassinating random children on the other side of the world was not much better than what Trump is doing.
Not defending Trump, to be clear, just saying US imperialism and fascism has much deeper roots and that removing Trump is not going to fix any issues the rest of the world has with the USA.
USA government is corrupt, true. Current admin is balls-out corrupt in ways that have a French legislator calling out that impeachment would have happened there. It's shockingly out in the open corrupt, and that's saying a lot because most of the people ripping us off want to be somewhat quiet about it and not draw attention.
I didn't hear about this french legislator, but that's funny given the level of rampant corruption in french government. Nothing new (see also Pasqua, Foccart, etc), but in the past decades the information was not widely available so it was at least possible to pretend not to know.
Much of the government including Macron himself are involved in corruption scandals. Others are involved in rape scandals. Others in fiscal fraud. But you're correct they're not as open about it as Trump is.
Can you point to an objective assessment of Obama's drone policy?
Unfortunately, i don't know of a complete reference resource. I'd be interested if you found one. A quick research later i found this CFR resource [1] which probably underestimates the number of civilians killed.
I remember reports at the time on the Intercept and other media about the entire kill chain. If i remember correctly, the policy was to count anyone who was not proved to be a civilian as an active enemy in the body count. There was this DOD/CIA press conference announcing they made a targeted killing and that their target assessment was mostly based on the individual's height.
Then there's of course Obama famously and publicly joking about his children's lovers suggesting they should behave or would get killed by « predator drones ». [2] Let me know if you dig interesting links on the topic!
[1] https://www.cfr.org/articles/obamas-final-drone-strike-data
[2] https://abcnews.com/WN/president-obama-tells-joke-jonas-brot...
> famously and publicly joking ...at the white house correspondents dinner. I think that context matters.
I also think drone strikes exacerbate public outrage much the way mass shootings do: if we want to decrease gun deaths, limiting AR-15s isn't the way to do it because the vast majority of gun deaths are handguns. But mass shootings upset people, so we outlaw the guns that upset them. Similarly with drones, people don't get as upset about tens of thousands killed in a broader war, they're put off by the smaller number of casualties caused by drones.
You would think that if the policy was as flawed as you describe it would be easier to find evidence of it now?
It was not better, it was less. US imperialism has deep roots, yes, but a large chunk of the world who would tolerate a moderate level of it, don't tolerate this level.
I don’t see any not tolerating it in practice.
A lot of invective, but nothing in practice that really indicates not tolerating.
I hear rumblings about foreign companies disconnecting from American services and products. You don't turn large ships on a dime, but they are turning.
I don't think it was less, though only future historians will come up with actual numbers. It was less public, though.
Most of the world never tolerated it. Even when western governments tolerated it, the population did not; see also the huge worldwide demonstrations against the Iraq war.
I think the difference in perception is because the european oligarchy is now being effectively treated as was previously the rest of the world, so they're now taking a stance because they feel threatened, whereas they previously saw themselves as aligned with the US government no matter what.
Yes yes yes. Dark money. Nepotism. Corrupt courts. Gerrymandering .... anything to deflect from the fact that so many voters still put thier mark beside the biggest idiot. And i mean that literally. American voters like tall people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_pres...
They're all problems and they all contribute to the reality of our government being unable to actually do anything beyond tax cuts.
* People elect morons because we have been slowly destroying our education system since the 50's and we can barely turn out anyone who can think worth a shit. That's by design, as local elections overwhelmingly swing Republican, and Republicans on balance gain from an ignorant electorate.
* Additionally, we are now bombarded with "information" from wake to sleep every single day, and beyond the actual problems which are already stressful enough, we also have a whole bunch of made up culture war nonsense that mainstream and alternative media loves to discuss, both to fill airtime and because researching and covering nonsense is far less work, less legally actionable, and garners more attention overall. Information overload affects people too and makes them more likely to choose easy/quick things.
* Dark money is also a HUGE issue because it permits capital to influence elections like never before. It's no coincidence all of this shit got turbocharged after Citizens United.
* Gerrymandering is also a huge, huge issue wherein Democrat votes are simply disregarded or packed into single districts, which helps local elections shift further right constantly.
* The courts are also hideously corrupt. The Supreme Court is utterly failing to reign in the Trump administration on everything short of wiping their asses with the constitution, and that's not shocking considering how many of them were appointed by Trump and confirmed by the inept Congress.
And then any time Democrats do manage to acquire something resembling power, they have so many fires to put out that they can barely get us back to an even keel before another "outsider" dumbass comes in and starts screwing it up again.
American government was actually perfectly able to "Do things" right up until 2008. Republicans and Democrats quite literally worked together in Congress in broad cliques that normally crossed party boundaries, and did this all the time. When Clinton's admin was trying to save money on the budget, the fights in Congress frequently crossed party lines and were outright bipartisan, about actual merits (claimed or real) of the programs they were cutting or vouching for. You had Republicans rightly blasting certain Democrats for saying stupid things about the SSC shoulder to shoulder with other democrats.
Then in 2008 Mitch McConnel said, literally to reporters, "I will make Obama a one term president" and declared their job was to not let the government do anything.
And just like that, it became Republican Party Doctrine that you do not cross the party line or else you get fired. This was absolutely supported and highly praised by their constituents! As Democrat politicians continued to work their assess off crossing the aisle, finding any way to keep the country functioning as half of the government declared strike (the irony).
But for some reason we aren't allowed to say this. Republicans directly say their plan and strategy and malice to the camera and we get punished for showing their voters exactly what they vote for.
Democrats are still trying to make deals, because half of them are literally just republicans with a (D), but if you ever ever ever ever cross the aisle as a Republican, even to fix a problem your base has spent decades screaming about, you get primaried.
Republican voters have done this. The republican party has chosen to do this. They own this.
People aren’t electing “morons” out of ignorance. They are electing people that hate the same people they hate. You are blaming ignorance where it is active malice.
Electing people for the things they hate is ignorance for politics as a serious field.
Again you call it ignorance instead of malevolence.
How is electing Trump any different than George Wallace having a slogan of “Segregation Now! Segregation Tomorrow! Segregation Forever!”?
There was no ignorance. Everyone knows that the government has a “monopoly on [legalized] violence”. If they can elect people who will turn that violence against people they don’t like, they are doing it with full knowledge.
Ignorance is a type of action, malevolence is a motivation. You can be ignorant out of malevolence and your ignorance can result in your actions being malicious.
Voting based on who the (to be) elected hate instead of on actual policy is ignorant towards the serious matter of the art of leading a state (politics). Being malevolent regarding politics would be to sabotage elections or trying to dissolve state organs.
You mean when thousands of yokels broke into the Capital to try to overturn an election in January of 2020?
I thought we are still talking about "electing".
They were explicitly trying to “sabotage an election”
Politics is an arm's race. This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but Democrats do all the same things Republicans do. Arguably they differ in how they do it, and how much. Democrats gerrymander, and as well traffic in conspiracy theories for example (the latter they do less than Republicans, but they still do it).
They aren’t even remotely close to being the same at this point.
They aren't the same. Democrats don't traffic in fascism.
It is also because corruption is called lobbying in America. Corporate lobbying should be illegal and punished severely (including capital punishment for directors and confiscation of the corporation).
This. Came here to say this. People completely forget about this supposed nuance when comparing US and Europe, but this is exactly what leads to fundamentally different outcomes in legislation and, by extension, people's expectations of their governments. That frog is long-time cooked.
As an ex-expat to US, I never could stop smh over how Americans are not making it a number 1 issue for themselves. Private prison, private healthcare, gun industry, all types of small industries keep US government in their pockets and the society, as a whole, in a complete gridlock, unable to meet its actual expectations.
… and legalized bribes as lobbying.
People believe whatever authority tells them. It's one of those bug/feature things.
People believe whatever they want to be true. If people were just slaves to authority the US would have far fewer covid deaths. Some people really are bootlickers, but even then they tend to choose whose boots they bend over for. It's rarely blind obedience to authority itself.
Not that most other nations do dramatically better, alas.
There's actually few that are this bad. Generally we refer to them as developing countries or war torn.
It’s not like “privacy first EU” didn’t just try to pass Chat Control
The EU did not pass Chat Control is the key message here. Your framing is strange.
And only 40% of people still support Trump. But the analogy is the same.
If you have 10 friends and ask them where they want to eat for dinner and six say let’s go to an Italian restaurant and 4 say “let’s kill Bob and eat him”, you still have a shitty group of friends.
It only takes one controversy to tip the scales. All governments have a propensity to want more power.
> All governments have a propensity to want more power.
Some governments have more effective checks-and-balances than others. The EU is a much looser confederation than the US, with significantly more power still invested in the member states (many of whom themselves are also loose confederations of semi-autonomous provinces...)
And let terrorism happen to any number of the member states. They would demand Chat Control being passed
The EU is no stranger to terrorism? The troubles in Ireland, ETA in Spain, Al Qzaeda and ISIL in France/Spain/Germany, domestic terrorism in Norway/Germany/Denmark - all in the last 35 years.
If you want a government of saints, you will be sorely disappointed. The four people who want to kill Bob and eat him for dinner will always exist, and the important part is to not let them actually decide on the dinner plan instead of just throwing your hand up in the air and giving up on planning dinners because some people are loonies and should not be given power.
Yeah, just like with Chat Control and such, it takes vigilance and informing people around you in order to deny these sorts of things from happening, but we can take some respite in it not happening. The USB-C regulation changed things for the better by forcing the most obstinate member of the mobile phone ecosystem to adopt the connector. The replaceable battery regulation will force manufacturers to make their devices more repairable, and that is a good thing.
Discounting that because of political mistakes that were only narrowly avoided seems frankly myopic. You can't just argue against all the good things the EU has done with "whatabout Chat Control"
The analogy is not the same. Trump was elected. Chat Control failed its vote.
> It’s time to accept regulation actually does work when you have a competent government.
Given that it's the EU making those regulations, it looks like the government only has to be semi-competent. Maybe the only requirement is that they're not totally in bed with the big corps making money.
I wonder to what extent in this instance it is driven by the EU regulating (mostly) foreign companies rather than (mostly) domestic ones.
Said differently, it is much easier for the EU to be impartial and competent when regulating Apple or Samsung than when regulating Volkswagen or Stellantis...
Well if you have seen how EU regulates domestic companies you would not wonder about that. There is no mercy.
US companies just hit that barrier more often historically because they got used to "lobby it and it goes away" attitude to law, and when it doesn't work we have harpy screeeching about EU using laws to tax US companies that do not want to abide to law in place where they are doing business
> it is much easier for the EU to be impartial and competent when regulating Apple or Samsung than when regulating Volkswagen or Stellantis
They are still regulating the auto manufacturers pretty harshly, and without any particular favouritism, even though that is letting foreign players like BYD eat the lunch of the domestic manufacturers (who mostly seem to have bet the farm on a US-led return to fossil fuel dominance)
> Given that it's the EU making those regulations, it looks like the government only has to be semi-competent
Context: I'm not a EU-native, I've migrated to here.
It disturbs me a lot when people keep repeating the "incompetent government" narrative when it comes to the EU, but when you compare it to the dictatorship that I escaped from, they still seem way more competent, surprising when the big advantage of a dictatorship is supposed to be increased efficiency while reducing personal rights.
Personally I cannot name a better government (or governing body, given that we are talking about the whole EU) anywhere else on this planet.
I feel I'm incredibly lucky to live here even when the economy is getting tougher. The only thing that worries me and makes me consider leaving is the right-extremes, which to this day, thankfully had limited influence.
Sorry for the digression, but I just wanted to address this repeating pattern. It's possible that you have very valid reasons to call them semi-competent and that I'm overreacting.
Nah it was kinda a tongue in cheek snipe at the EU which may or may not be justified. Appreciate the counter-point.
Oh, okay. Sorry for the wall of text against the small snipe :) It's just that these things stick.
No, thank you for posting it. Things like this need to be said.
It's a bit of hit and miss, really. Like every big organisation, it's not a single, coherent entity, but has branches and departments filled by real, flawed people, so in practice it depends on which industry your're in. For example, digital policy bureaucrats are usually extremely competent, like, they do know how the stuff discussed here on HN works. (That they often have differen expectations from what people here want is orthogonal). Automotive industry is on the other hand squarely in bed with manufacturers (cars, but also accessories like child safety chairs). The average is suprisingly good, esp. in comparison with national bureaucracies.
Even here in Europe, most of Southern Europe was a bunch of Dictatorships up into the late 70s! Spain, Portugal, Greece...
Not to mention Eastern Europe until the wall fell. All dictatorships in different forms. So yeah we've had our share as well.
The problem with the EU is that it seems to be becoming more susceptible to industry lobbying. As of late they are reducing environmental laws (the banning of ICE cars), weakening GDPR and DMA/DSA etc. Not very happy with that. Ursula herself was all about her 'green deal' during her first administration and now she's breaking it all down.
>As of late they are reducing environmental laws (the banning of ICE cars)
I think that particular one is because they realized their timeline is impossible to hit without utterly crippling EU
> weakening GDPR and DMA/DSA
There was always a lot of push for that, it is very much "yes/try later" on those legislations, we got the biggest traitor of the freedom out (UK) but there are still countries either interested, or incompetent enough to think the pushed ideas are a good thing
I hope you don't live to see the return of dictatorships in Europe. And I don't mean Hungary.
https://jacobin.com/2025/05/ve-day-wwii-fascism-liberalism
There's a storm coming.
I know :'(
In my origin country too unfortunately. But not where I live.
[dead]
You’re worried about the Right-ists.
When it has been the Left that has largely governed Europe for the previous few decades to bring it to the point where it is now where the economics and defence capabilities of nations that once ruled the world are now laughing stock on the global stage.
Way back in the times of sailing ships with cannons?
Absolutely Europe ruled the world economically and militarily.
> nations that once ruled the world are now laughing stock on the global stage
...and yet it gets repeated!
I'm not worried about the right ideology. Last time I took a political test, it told me I'm slightly right-leaning, but that changes every time I take such tests :)
I said that I'm disturbed by the extremists who plan to take away my legally earned rights.
European countries have rules and requirements like most other countries. I looked at their criteria, it sounded fair, took the deal and now I'm here. I pay my taxes, obey the rules, even applied for citizenship (takes ages), and I expect my rights to be protected as well, as long as keep my end of the deal. Those people threaten that golden rule.
Some seem to be obsessed about ruling and military power, and from the outside, they seem to believe that you only are allowed to move in this world if you kill/defeat the previous residents.
Those are the people I'm scared of.
Also, they're ignoring the true cost of unrepairable hardware which is e-waste. Perhaps if they're looking for a lighter hand, they'd suggest that less repairable hardware has to have a tax that pays for its PROPER recycling.
Yes! We tried leaving tech unregulated and it did not work. We got huge monopolies screwing consumers at every turn. Time to try something new.
And making them more repairable as someone else said has tradeoffs. It’s not like Apple is the low cost leader. Choose another vendor
Engineering failures relating to repairability defects are some of the most annoying.
OTOH they can be a major pillar in a well-orchestrated anti-reuse, anti-recycling, anti-environmental money machine for some manufacturers.
>Choose another vendor
Good advice, I already did once Woz left ;)
Or just pay $70 a year for Apple Care like I did for my M2 MacBook Air and not worry about it…
> regulation actually does work when you have a competent government
This is the free market. Free as in, regulated to allow and encourage market entry and competition (as with replacement keyboards), not free as in unregulated. When you look back at when 'free market' was first strongly mentioned as a term, this is what it meant.
Have you heard the good news about regulatory capture?
Probably not if you're one of the public.
Imagine how the world would look if the EU mandated rs-232c ports on all devices. Or 3.5" headphone jacks. Or the use of D batteries for all electronics. How about ms-dos compatibility?
Are these examples supposed to be bad? I think the world would be in a better place.
We can't rely on the government to step on any time consumers are getting abused. We need to teach consumers to do better.
Both you and GP are correct!
We've also seen this within the US - California generally makes the first move and then companies just follow that law because they know others might change and it's easier than doing it by state. One relatively small law can have a big impact, we also follow GDPR in the US because a lot of companies operate in europe too
People need to stop buying apple products. Anyone dumb enough to have already done so deserves what they get.
I guess I'm happy being dumb if it means I deserve a laptop with a battery that lasts all day, a trackpad that doesn't feel like it's covered in dry syrup, a case that doesn't make noises when I pick it up, and a processor that feels like alien tech.
I haven't used a laptop in the last decade that wouldn't last a whole day on battery, or would hold any of those qualifiers for that matter, from Apple or other manufacturers. Not that Apple are bad devices, but they are flawed like the rest of them (often less, and sometimes more in areas that may matter less to you, the software being a major and increasingly one to me).
Also good to remember that Apple is a company of good devices and tremendous marketing, not a company of tremendous devices per se. That entails a lot of subjectivity and awkward tribalism.
OK, so what have you used? Makes, models and years would be ideal.
Any mid- to high-end pro-line laptop from the usual manufacturers (dell latitude series, lenovo T series, hp pro/elitebook series) gives you that, really (rigidly built body using magnesium/aluminum alloys, good input devices and IO, high-end config, …) and some practical perks (hot swappable batteries, repairable/expandable, on-site warranty, …)
What $900 laptop with a similar form factor and build quality to a Macbook Air am I supposed to buy instead? I did quite a bit of research on this a couple of months ago, with a strong preference for a Linux compatible device (I've never been a MacOS user, and I'm done with Windows after 10 dies all the way). After weeks of research, I came to the conclusion that my best bet was to buy a Macbook Air and hope that Asahi support for M4 chips comes sooner rather than later.
Nope. What the real effect has been is a waste of billions of billions that have gone into changing stuff that never needed changing. Future development has now been slowed down as well in the EU.
All it takes to see that government regulation never works, is to look at how far behind the EU is in terms of GDP growth compared with the US and China who both have a significantly lighter touch when it comes to regulation.
The EU is f*cked, and will become a little socialist region, with manual and tourist industry jobs, where rich people from the rest of the world go for a few weeks of vacation.
I left the EU a long time ago, and I've earned so much money after leaving the socialist madness, that I recommend all young people I meet to do the same.
It's not self evident this is caused by regulation.
And regulation generally certainly works when it come to regulating and splitting up monopolies and oligopolies, workers right and etc. (US has plenty of both even if its occasionally idiosyncratic)
”Rrgulation never works”, is a very shallow take. It could mean anything. China is an autocratic system. Is that working? The US is going in that direction.
On top of that, Europe isn’t a country. To have less regulation, you need more of it. Unifying regulations, or else you have dozens of completely different jurisdictions. To a large extent, you still do, even with the EU. You can’t sell to the general public in English. There are so many more things holding Europe back than ”need deregulation”.
"To have less regulation, you need more of it."
Can you actually see the words you are typing? War is peace?
Sometimes you in fact need yet another standard to obsolete the previous 27 ones, yes. xkcd://927 notwithstanding.
The EU is literally run by conservatives. Where are the scary socialists hiding?
Check average tax level in EU, compare with channel island and marvel. Please wake up, or the world will go to hell even faster.
Socialism has nothing to do with taxes, but with ownership of the means of production.
As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been socialized in the EU.
Gigachad writing there <3
Their point is almost the exact opposite to the one a 'gigachad' would make.
And yet their name concludes otherwise.
Fair point! I didn't even notice their username, in case that weren't very obvious.
> usb-c
Don't forget about the time micro-USB has mandated. Was that "competent government"?
That government has a limited jurisdiction over the offenders. They were still effective to the point, that there was only a single company not having microUSB. Granted that wasn't a small part of the market, but also not the largest.
Chat control is not something that indicates competence. They're throwing darts and sometimes hit the board.
Having the government regulate the free market is an issue of physical force and should always be discussed as such. Are you willing to deal with men by force beyond retaliation? This issue is moral, not practical.
Besides, it’s easy to sell one’s freedom to a competent government, but it’s insanely hard to get it back when it rots. This has been the case of many welfare states. “Let’s force them to do the damn thing” is the very root of all social conflicts, not a magical solution. Being able to withstand it is a commendable exception, not rule.
Look, there is certainly a good argument to be made that regulation of this sort isn't the best way to achieve the goal.
However, trying to use an argument that this is 'an issue of physical force' is a ridiculous way to make an argument for that perspective. All laws eventually come down to that, so it is pointless to debate that for every discussion on what the law should be.
Laws protect everyone’s rights, both consumers and producers. When they are targeted to favor a specific collective, it’s fair to bring up the issue of physical force. The 20th century is repleted with examples of one social group fighting the other by seeking special privileges and favors.
So I don’t think it’s ridiculous, I think it’s efficient.
The perfect example of cognitive dissonance! The government, which mandates that the can of tomato soup I buy must not contain any glass shards, is immediately equated with physical violence. Although the shopkeeper who requires me to pay for the can before I take it out of the store is far more likely to get in my face if I don’t follow their rules. I don’t understand this worldview. You’re selling your freedom to big corporations. Your life expectancy is declining. Your food is of poor quality. Your cities are full of homeless people. But then again, I am an unfree European blinded by communism.
If I buy a can of soup and find glass in it, I have a valid claim against the manufacturer. It's a matter of holding someone accountable for fraud or negligence, not a matter of regulation. The proper route is a court, not a bureaucratic agency that preemptively dictates production methods on the assumption that every manufacturer is a potential prisoner.
> get in my face if I don’t follow their rules
If a shopkeeper asks me to leave because I refuse to follow his rules, he's exercising his right to control his own property, he's not initiating force.
> You’re selling your freedom to big corporations.
I'm not selling my freedom to corporations, they can't throw me in jail, or take my property by edict. The government, by contrast, holds a legal monopoly on force.
I am not an American, so I cannot diagnose declining life expectancy, homelessness, poor food, and other problems from afar. But I do know this: personal problems don't give one a moral claim on other people's labor. Need does not justify compulsion, and citizens are not sacrificial animals.
> I am an unfree European blinded by communism.
You hinted that Europe's communist past was somehow not a cautionary tale.
> The perfect example of cognitive dissonance!
Dressed-up ad hominem. You have no idea what I do or don't hold in my mind.
> If I buy a can of soup and find glass in it, I have a valid claim against the manufacturer.
Only because there is a court system provided by the state and because there is regulation that says that soup doesn't contain glass. Otherwise the manufacturer can just say "You didn't want glass in your soup, sucks, but for us glass in soup is part of the accepted distribution. Be happy that you got additional glass for free." .
> not a bureaucratic agency that preemptively dictates production methods on the assumption that every manufacturer is a potential prisoner.
I see it exactly the other way around. I want this to be clarified upfront, not after I’ve already cut my tongue. What I don’t understand is why market participants are being given special treatment here. There are laws, and they must be followed. That applies just as much in other areas.
> personal problems don't give one a moral claim on other people's labor
Which problem is personal and which isn't? You seem to be twisting this to suit your questionable argument.
> You have no idea what I do or don't hold in my mind
But I read what you write and interpret it. Just as you read what I write and interpret it. Here’s another ad hominem for you: in your worldview, there is no morality at all. At least, none that is consistent. People like you behave toward the state like moody teenagers toward their parents. You don’t want to be told what to do, but you wouldn’t survive a single month without the institution you so despise.
> why market participants are being given special treatment here. There are laws, and they must be followed.
Laws are contextual, they depend on more fundamental principles. A regulation that says "you must use this specific screw size" isn't a law in the same sense as "you shall not murder." When a "law" violates the principle of non-initiation of force, when it tells a manufacturer how to exercise his property rights under threat of imprisonment, it's not really a law but edict.
The issue is who decides and when. A court decides after harm occurs, based on evidence of actual negligence or fraud. A regulatory agency decides before anyone does anything, based on hypothetical risks, and compels compliance under threat of force.
> Which problem is personal and which isn't?
A personal problem is one that doesn't involve the infringement of rights against another person. Most problems are personal. One's homelessness doesn't give one a right to another's property. The moment you say "your need obligates me," you've crossed the line into compulsion.
> in your worldview, there is no morality at all. . . . People like you behave toward the state like moody teenagers toward their parents.
That tells me enough about the depth of your study on this subject. Morality is a science of identifying the principles by which a rational being sustains his life. You're not discussing that science, you're reaching for a metaphor.
> But I read what you write and interpret it.
"Cognitive dissonance" is an accusation about the state of my mind, not an interpretation. You don't get to call me internally contradictory and then say "I'm just interpreting."
Yeah, that guy got unnecessarily personal. Let me try.
You're right that civil judgements (and, though you haven't mentioned it yet, reputational brand damage through public exposure) are important checks on harm, but they break down in particular circumstances. In the first place, they're not a fair fight: corporations are able to limit, or even prevent, access to the court system by forced arbitration, jurisdiction changes, or intentionally running up attorney fees beyond what any plaintiffs can afford to risk. They also have ($£€¥, again) larger megaphones than any individual can reliably command.
The toy example of glass in a soup can makes for a perfect case, but civil suits are impossible to pursue where harms are long-term, diffuse, cumulative, or simply too difficult for a jury of lay-people to understand. For instance, we all know that lead is harmful, but when multiple sources of lead exist it's impossible to prove (to the standard correctly required by the courts) that this company's lead caused your particular illness. It's similarly impossible to prove that any particular cancer-causing agent caused any particular cancer, even when we know statistically that it has raised the cancer risk profile of millions of people, and therefore been a causative factor in many deaths.
If we insist that the only mechanism for redress be individual companies held to account in individual cases, we either give up on the idea that corporate behavior can be aligned with the public interest, or (worse?) we make sure that politically-disfavored companies will be scapegoated by the media or the courts, while better-connected players get away with anything at all.
Please allow me to forestall one possible counter-argument: if you, as my Libertarian-ish relatives do, reject outright the idea of "public interest", then we won't have much to say to each other: our world-views are simply too different. Otherwise, I'm interested in what you have to say.
I don't know the precise legal mechanisms for handling diffuse harms like the ones you describe. Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law. My task here is only to establish the nature of the principle and to show that it is practicable.
That said, here is my principle: at any time, the government is orders of magnitude more powerful than any corporation. I think it is proper, in some cases, for the government itself to act as a plaintiff, to aggregate evidence, bring suit, and prove causation statistically. I can't delimit that role precisely, but I side with you that in some cases only the government has access to all necessary evidence.
And no, I don't agree with the idea of "public interest." Any claim that "the public interest" supersedes private rights means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests of others.
> the government is orders of magnitude more powerful than any corporation.
As a practical matter, that's untrue in many, many places around the world, and there are no reasons why it couldn't become true in the USA, or any other advanced democracy. Even if you don't think that is yet the case where you live, can you at least agree with me that many leaders of / investors in large corporations want it to be, and are working towards that end?
I think your position in your second paragraph is at odds with your position in the third.
I do agree. In many places, governments are weak, captured, or corrupt. But those are mixed economies, in which state and corporate power fuse into one corrupt swamp: corporations lobby for regulations to crush rivals, officials sell favors. That's not evidence that economic power equals political power, it's evidence that abandoning the principle of a government limited to retaliatory force produces a cold civil war of pressure groups. The solution isn't more regulation, it's total separation of state and economics.
> your second paragraph is at odds with your third
No. The government acting as plaintiff is still retaliatory force: harm occurred, the state helps identify the perpetrator. That's not "public interest" overriding private rights, it's the government protecting individual rights by standing in for many individuals who share a common injury.
And yes, corporate leaders want political power. That's cronyism. They want to use force because they can't win in a free market. It's a road to dictatorship, but the road is laid by the principle of "public interest," not unlimited profit motives.
There's no such thing as "the public," only individuals. When one treats "the public" as a blank check to override private rights, one is really saying: some people get sacrificed to others. The taxi industry lobbying to ban Uber isn't about safety or competition. "Affordable housing" mandates that force landlords to subsidize strangers aren't compassion. This institutionalized cold civil war won't end until the state stops pickign winners.
A government
> standing in for many individuals who share a common injury.
Sounds like a synonym for "public interest" to me! Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?
I'd like to know how you'd handle the case of a new industrial plant (let's even say it's a brand new technology) that will exhaust lead into the atmosphere. Does the government have to wait until there's demonstrable harm, and then lodge a suit in court? Isn't it... cleaner (for want of a better word, and no pun intended) to have a law in place that says "No Lead-spewing (as defined by [reasonable technical standard]) Allowed", and prevent it being built altogether? From another angle, under which paradigm would hypothetical investors prefer to operate?
In fact, and this is true, industry often requests regulations be put in place, because they'd like to be certain that their investments won't be subjected to the uncertainty of (private or public) litigation. Yes, this can be malign (in the cases of corruption, or regulatory capture, or incumbents freezing out smaller competitors), but at its most basic the request can be seen as benign: "we'd like to comply with community standards; please write down what they are, and we'll follow them" - no violence required or implied. It's also, and to my way of thinking more importantly, a way to break out of prisoner's dilemma equilibria, where all players can agree the sector as a whole will be better off without defectors, but appeal to an outside, neutral party to keep themselves honest.
I'm also curious about what seems to be your premise that The Courts are separate from The State. That's not how I think of them at all! I mean, aren't they, kind of by definition? After all, if one ignores a judgement - even civil - isn't the ruling ultimately enforced by, well, Force?
> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there’s something substantive to it?
"Public interest" today implies a conflict with private interests: a new sports arena, "affordable" housing, protecting domestic jobs. So no, government-as-plaintiff doesn't count.
Personally, I'd define the public interest as interests common to all men: freedom, not sacrifices of some to others. But that's not the modern meaning of it.
> Does the government have to wait until there’s demonstrable harm
Anticipating harm is proper when the decision is irreversible. Example: nobody has a right to physically block a public entrance. That's a right violation you can prohibit in advance. Same with pollution: objective laws ("you may not emit substance X beyond concentration Y") set a clear boundary without dictatign production methods.
But there's no harm to anticipate in, say, Lightning vs. USB-C.
> your premise that The Courts are separate from The State
If you got it from the way I contrasted courts with regulatory agencies, I actually contrasted the way the state can wield force: retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper). Other than that, the courts and state aren't separated.
Yeah, I think our difference on "public interest" is semantic. I wouldn't even quibble with your "interests common to all" definition, so the next step would be to draw lines about what, in practice, that means. Frankly, I think we'd agree about a lot of it: sports arenas and (at least in the abstract) "protecting jobs" don't count for me, either!
You are correct about where I (over) interpreted your view of the court system. Apologies for that, and thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't think I understand the distinction you draw between "retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper)". Would you then say that there shouldn't be a permitting / approval system (because that's anticipatory), so enforcement should be limited to taking pollution readings and acting (in retaliation, natch) after a facility is built? Even if you can sustain that position in principle, I think it would be impractical, across a number of dimensions, in reality. But, it's possible that I misunderstood that point, so please explain further.
I also note a segment from one of your earlier comments, where you advocated for "total separation of state and economics". In my view this is utterly impossible. Regulating pollutants is an intervention that (properly, we agree!) works to the economic disadvantage of pollutors. Even more fundamentally, a (functional, large scale) market economy depends entirely on the state's ability to adjudicate and enforce (at least) contractual terms. I don't think your view can be sustained.
Here is “that guy.” You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. Freedom and independence from the state are more important to these people than a few people suffering from lead poisoning. From their perspective, living a free life and then dying of lead poisoning is still better than being subjugated by the Leviathan.
> your second paragraph is at odds with your third
Well, well. That didn’t take long.
The teenager was a carefully chosen comparison. The state’s authority over the citizen is similar to a parent’s authority over their child. This is quite humiliating and emasculating. And I agree with libertarians on one point: if the state is against you, you don’t stand a chance. A healthy approach to this has two components. (1) You make sure that the authority is benevolent or at least allows enough leeway for a good life. (2) You create enclaves of freedom. The teenager hides his weed and smokes it secretly, or smokes his cigarettes on the way to school. The citizen leaves some income untaxed and runs a red light now and then. What does the teenager who categorically rejects parental authority do? Run away and become homeless? The difference between them and an adult is that the latter should have enough sense to realize that the romantic notion of a life free from the burden of authority ultimately leads to sadness, coldness, loneliness, and misery—or, if it succeeds at all, merely re-establishes structures in which forms of authority are entrenched. Libertarians feel most oppressed by the state every time they have to wait at a red light or obey a speed limit. They fail to see that, in doing so, they are submitting to a principle of order that is necessary for road traffic to function at all.
> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?
That is a very important point! Philosophers distinguish between the particular and the universal. Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. For them, a group is always just an accumulation of individuals. A genuine community—which consists precisely in the participating individuals restricting themselves to some extent for the sake of the community—is inconceivable to them as something positive. Hence the infamous Thatcher quote: “... and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families ...” That is an ideological divide that cannot be bridged through discussion. I’ve gone over this enough times already.
I've argued (mostly offline, for my sins) with far more libertarian-ish people than I care to have, and I think piekvorst has a) been a more congenial conversational partner than you gave him credit, and b) approached the subject from a slightly different angle than I'd expected, so I'm still enjoying the interchange. In particular (read our latest replies to each other, if you care), he's in favor of regulating lead pollution, so he's miles ahead of certain of my relatives in both principles and practicalities!
But... Yeah. I'm in much more agreement with your point of view, and he's still Wrong On The Internet, so here we are. :-)
> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities.
You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?
Where do I claim that libertarians are pragmatists? They do have principles—just the wrong ones. Incidentally, I don’t think they’re really concerned with freedom, at least not in the Kantian sense.
I don’t think that either libertarians or Kant are genuinely concerned with freedom. My position is closest to classical liberalism, with different philosophical foundations.
>>> If I buy a can of soup and find glass in it, I have a valid claim against the manufacturer. It's a matter of holding someone accountable for fraud or negligence, not a matter of regulation. The proper route is a court, not a bureaucratic agency that preemptively dictates production methods on the assumption that every manufacturer is a potential prisoner.
This is a common conservative trope. We don't need regulation because customers can always sue. (Famous interview with Milton Friedman.) Good luck finding a lawyer who will sue because of some glass in your soup can, or, for more serious cases, who can out last (or match the spending of) a billion dollar corporation. Yes, sometimes the underdog wins. Rich people can sue, and may not need the governments regulatory help. For most people, there is absolutely no recourse, particular for technically complex things, like prescription drugs.
The idea that the legal system can consistently make better informed technical decisions than government scientists is not well supported by the evidence.
> If I buy a can of soup and find glass in it, I have a valid claim against the manufacturer.
What does that mean?
It means you can sue for product liability under common law. Negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability, depending on jurisdiction. Court decides after harm.
And pray tell, who comes up with common law? And who enforces the judgment of the court? And what gives the court the authority to judge on the matter of glass shards in your tomato paste?
Fun fact about the common law in fact is that it came into existence because the English government after the Norman conquest needed a unified theory of law for the king's courts that was distinct from manorial and canon laws. 1154 Henry 2 the Plantagenet ascended the throne and wanted a code of law that would apply everywhere in the realm as opposed to local laws, the aforementioned manorial laws, as well as being secular, unlike canon law.
So without the government, you wouldn't have this common law your legal theory relies on.
Right, this typically works very well after you spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars getting all the stuff to court in the first place to have a trial drag on for years in discovery all the while the hospital is sending out debt collectors.
Oh, that's if it wasn't actually a shell company in the first place that has no assets.
A good portion of the things you mention existed before we had food regulations, you could sue the business if you had issues with them. The problem is the vast portion of the population is far too poor to do that. Regulations stop the harm before it happens.
My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable. That is, a society can function using only courts, class actions, and government-as-plaintiff, without preemptive editcs on screw sizes or battery compartments.
As I said earlier in this thread:
> Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law.
>My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable
Ah yes, the school of theory that says it's better to clean up the spilled milk after its been contaminated with uranium waste.
You’re assuming that without preemptive permits, nothing stops a company from spewing uranium. But liability, if properly enforced, is a powerful deterrent. The threat of paying full cleanup costs, compensating victims, and facing criminal charges for negligence doesn’t require an official to approve one’s pipe size in advance.
Further, the principle doesn’t deny retaliating in advance when violence can be objectively anticipated.
This does not and cannot exist when the corporate veil exists. Make a corporate shell and throw it away like a used condom.
Add to that a company can cause a trillion dollars of damage while having only a billion dollars on hand. Criminal charges don't fix things, if they did there wouldn't be murderers in jail.
Sue them in who's court? With who to enforce the ruling?
The... government?
Courts, police, and the army are proper. That's government. The difference is what kind of government. A proper government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force, it acts after someone initiates force or fraud. It doesn't dictate your screw size, battery compartment, or production method before you've harmed anyone.
Are there laws and lawmakers in this scenario?
Yes, to settle disputes. The purpose of these laws is the protection of individual rights, not consumer “rights” or any other special “rights” that belong exclusively to one group or race and no other.
...why? This sounds incredibly arbitrary.
It's not arbitrary. It's called the distinction between retaliatory and preemptive force. Retaliatory force requires a victim and evidence of causation. Preemptive force has no objective anchor, hence arbitrary by definition. You can't jail a man for a crime he might commit tomorrow.
What im saying is that this distinction is arbitrary. Running a society isn't all about punishing crimes. That's just one minor aspect of a states responsibilities. Standardization is another, arguably more important one.
It's far from minor. To ban physical force from social relationships, people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights. People's rights can only be violated by physical force. To prevent this, the government's only solution is to hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.
If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government will violate the rights of its own citizens. That's why we should limit its power to retaliatory use.
Standardization is a very valuable asset, I don't deny that. But:
1. Standardization is not limited to forced standardization;
2. It's better to live in a world not fully standardized than to accept the premise that it's right to violate rights for a good cause. The "good cause" shifts the question from "should rights be violated?" to "what kind of violation do you want?" Once we accept that, we lose to totalitarianism. A man who says "let's violate a tiny fraction of rights" would lose to a man who declares "let's violate rights of thousands."
There's more to rights than just physical force.
How do you account for the right to clean water and sanitation [0] without state infrastructure, just as an example?
It feels like you care a lot about violence and force, at the expense of (imo) more important issues societies face.
[0] https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights-water-and-s...
If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another.
Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.
The people withholding the water in this scenario are the ones victimizing the ones without. That's where the state monopoly on violence has to come in as a corrective mechanism.
If "withholding" means actively blocking someone from acessing water they already have a right to, you'd be correct. But that's not what's in your link. Passive possession, "I have water, I'm not giving it to you," is not initiation of force. It's simply not being someone else's servant.
And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to.
By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice.
You're completely discounting the most perfidious type of violence: economic violence.
Punishing and preventing it is the core purpose of the state.
What exactly do you mean by "economic violence"? If you mean fraud or theft, we already agree those are crimes. If you mean something else, I'd like to know what.
[dead]
That's a great example of their point, all I got was a mechanically inferior connector (putting the most important piece of the female connector on a floating sliver of plastic was a choice) and the cable hell attached to USB C.
If USB C had been so important to me I wouldn't have bought iPhones all those years.
You also got a connector that supports much more than USB 2.0 speeds. It also supports high power charging, video, thunderbolt, etc.
Lightning was a dead-end connector that was only kept around to keep the Made-for-iPhone moat drawbridge up.
USB-C makes the right design choice in putting the springs in the cable. Those wear out over time. I've never seen the male part of the female USB-C break, but I'm sure it's possible. But reversing this would require that the springs on the USB-C cable are on the outside, and those are quite fragile, so that sounds like a worse idea.
USB-C is mostly a good design.
> I've never seen the male part of the female USB-C break, but I'm sure it's possible
I know anecdotes don't mean anything, but I have. Every USB-C phone I've ever had, apart from my iPhone that I currently use, ended up with having completely worn out connectors after two-three years of use. They stop holding cables in firm enough and start only making the connection when holding the cable at an angle.
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but have you considered that you might need to improve your putting/unplugging habits? I used to have connectors and cords break after around that much time. Around 2018 or so I bought a new set of chargers and decent quality cloth sheathed cables. Because all my cords were new, I was much more diligent about carefully plugging and unplugging (no mashing the port, no flexing across the short axis, no yanking by the cord) and eventually a habit formed. Not a single one of those cords, nor any of the ports on my phones, have broken since then. Even the daily use ones next to my bed!
I treat my phones carefully, I've literally never cracked a screen on any of them, the same goes for handling the charging cable and port. I'm always quite gentle with it, never leaving it propped up by the cable or at a weird angle, and the cables I used were the original ones that came with my devices. Mainly because my phones spend a lot of time plugged in acting as a hotspot for half a week, so I try to minimize the harm I cause by the extra (un)plug events.
The Lightning port iPhone that I used for 3 years however handled my usage just fine (just tried it now and it feels just like it did new), and the USB-C one I've had for half a year seems to be holding up fine as well. These I used with a mix of cheap Aliexpress cables and the genuine Apple ones.
I don't understand this logic. If lightning connector had less issues than USB-C how could it the users fault for not being careful. This exactly how engineers/developers answer to problems they cause with bad engineering/design choices. Anyone that gives feedback is blamed. It leads to terrible engineering decisions like the USB standard, which frankly has always been bloated and terrible because of its design by committee. As much I would love a standard connection port for all my phones I won't accept substandard engineering. That's why I am still holding onto my lighting connector devices even though on principle I disagree with using them.
Who gets to decide that I have to treat my devices that I pay for like fragile glass vases.
I do both QA and Development and pretty competent at both. I almost never make broken things or poorly thought out because I know this negative feedback loop will continually make the situation worse. Lack of empathy for people that use products just leads to issues like Windows taskbar not even being able to search for applications. Its all the same thought process that leads to the result.
A good option here is to use MagSafe for charging. I don't think I've ever plugged anything into the USB-C port on my iPhone.
Probably a lot of lint in there! My 4 year old phone gets that way until I clean it out with a plastic pick (very vigorously at that) and it's like new again.
Lint was only ever an issue with my Lightning connector iPhone. Unfortunately it wasn't the issue with the USB-C phones, the ports were just worn out.
Could you mention what phone models were those. I haven't seen one port go bad.
They were an LG Nexus 5X, a OnePlus 3T and a Xiaomi Mi 8. The ports became loose on all of them over time, especially on the OnePlus where the cable would just fall out if you held the device upright, and in its final days the Xiaomi would need the cable pushed at an angle to make a connection.
Would that USB 2.0 Type-C were somehow outlawed, or even better that every device that used Type-C supported everything it can do.
You don't want that. I was organizing my cables and noticed how much thicker the USB3 cables are than USB2. USB2 cables are cheaper than USB3 cables, the latter have gotten cheaper but still buy two USB2 for some USB3. USB3 cables are also shorter cause harder to transmit signal, this has also gotten better.
The flaw is that USB-IF didn't require marking faster cables. Putting a blue ring, stripe, or dot would have solved the problem.
USB-C is decent for data transfer. It's pretty poor for power delivery: the pins are too close, so it's not rated for use in bathrooms or kitchens, and there are many more of them than needed for power delivery, making it relatively expensive to use in things like children's toys.
It was a mistake to conflate flexible power delivery and data transfer, you rarely need both at the same time. It's possible to design a better and cheaper 3 or 4 pin power delivery standard that can use higher power. But the law now says USB-C and good luck ever changing that.
1. The law doesn't mandate USB-C in particular, the port can change without the law changing
2. Nobody was going to add a second port for charging when USB can handle fast charging already. And if you need to charge in a damp environment then use wireless.
3. I'm pretty sure you can add a second port and the EU law doesn't mind at all
And assuming USB 2.0, how much cheaper do you expect a simpler port to be?
USB is a bus that is intended to be universal for serial *data*, that is what it is designed for.
Apple was on the design committee for USB-C, they also failed to make lightning an industry standard after 10+ years. The EU didn't design the connector, they just required the industry pick a design, and USB-C is what Apple and the rest designed.
I have tried to explain this so many times to people. You could just scrape out the lint from the lighting port with a tooth pick. The fragile part was the easily replaceable cable. Now the fragile part is in the iPhone itself.
Lightning had the contact springs in the phone, USB-C has the contact springs on the cable. This is the part that wears out, and USB-C moving to the cable is an improvement.
Throughout its life, Lightning suffered from "black pin plague" where when springs in the port wore out, the power pin would start arcing. Now you have a cable with poor connectivity on the power pin, and you use this cable in another Apple device and it starts arcing on that device as well, causing that device to start transmitting this disease. It was a terrible design and USB-C does not have it.
https://ioshacker.com/iphone/why-the-fourth-pin-on-your-ligh...
Putting spring on the connector part rather than socket part means the easily replaceable part has wear item. Lighting is designed wrong here.
And our helpdesk had more broken lightning connectors than anything else in shop that's ~ 50/50 PC/Mac
I’m surprised to hear that it was such a common failure. I used plenty of lighting devices back in their hay day and plenty of USBC devices since they became common. I don’t tend to treat those devices gingerly and have far more issues with USBC than I ever did with Lightning, even accounting for the fact that lots of devices have USBC but only phones and mp3 players had lightning.
If Lightning is so important to you then you can still use Lightning-based iPhones. Nobody took away the hardware they sold you, they just mandated that the new ones adopt a common standard.
If lightning was vastly superior, they could still have a lightning port in addition to the usb, or make a different version with their propietary port for the rest of the world. But it wasn't superior.
I understand the added difficulty of making a version with a different port. Again, if it was Uber superior, it would have made for very good advertisemebt for apple.
Apple can't even make their strain relief on their cables work properly due to "being ugly" so preferring them to USBC is just another case of Apple-juice-kool-aid
it's ridiculus that this is still the problem ,that's no 1 cause for dead cables for our helpdesk
> No, this is a bad solution.
You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.
> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc.
It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair.
Car safety is a bad counterexample because the risk is otherwise often externalized i.e. your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal. And as GP stated, regulating this sort of thing would definitely force a particular trade-off on everyone. A lot of people would be pissed to have MacBooks with worse "build quality" even if they were more reparable. Having a choice is better.
I disagree. The lack of repairability has external costs not born by the purchaser or the manufacturer -- more toxic trash unnecessarily added to the environment.
Forcing a particular trade-off on everyone is entirely the point. It's the point of car safety, it's also the point of minimum warranties, electrical emission regulations, safety standards, etc.
Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped?
That "what if" cost is going to be built into the cost of the laptop. Repairability doesn't always keep the cost low. The purchaser will definitely have to foot the cost otherwise it isn't sustainable.
> Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years, and then warehouse and ship those parts, probably multiple times. Or keep a low rate production line running for 7 years? What happens to the parts that don't get used? Are they scrapped?
None of that is relevant in this context: The parts are available, but the laptop is designed and built such that the alone keyboard cannot be replaced.[1]
[1] Not sure if this is possible on that specific laptop, but with a steady hand, a tiny drill, maybe a magnifiying glass too, you can maybe drill out the rivets, then replace the keyboard, then either re-rivet it back again or tap very tiny thread into the laptop and use screws.
The laptop is deffinitely designed in a way that the keyboard is extremely hard to replace. Took me like 5 hours across 2 days. Rivets are not even the worst part, I used tiny drill and carefully glued in the replacement keyboard using phone screen glue (B7000) between the keys. (glue needs to go both on the frame and on the keyboard as there is a gap that needs to be bridged) Since there are screws along 3 of its edges, I deemed it good enough. drilling and tapping or riveting would have been extra painful.
What makes the repair more complicated is that 1) you need to take out basically everything to get to the keyboard. There are many different screws, luckily ifixit has a disassembly guides with their sizes. Still it was a bit painful to reassemble. 2) One of the things you need to take out or at least lift is the glued in battery - this took a lot of careful prying with thin plastic sheet and dousing it in ipa. 3) backlight is glued on to the case in an extremely fragile way, so it needs to be replaced with the keyboard or will probably look uneven after repair. (i reused the old one as I don't mind it but still, it could just have been glued to the keyboard itself and it would be easier to repair.
Repairability definitely doesn't keep the costs low. If it was cheaper and easier, it wouldn't have to be regulated. As for supply chain management, companies that get that equation correct are going to benefit. Which is exactly how it should be.
We define the rules of the game and companies that can best implement those rules will succeed. That is capitalism.
It won’t self resolve because consumers don’t fully factor in every detail while buying, and they often don’t get such granular choice anyway.
It’s easier and more profitable for companies to make a product that catastrophically fails around about when the new model is out. So that’s what they do. Until just now when the EU is reeling them back in line.
> Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years
Why not? I don't understand how it's legal for manufacturers to produce absolute trash that can't be replaced and will just end up in a landfill. I think 7 years is far from enough, but because computers evolve quickly maybe 15 years is ok. For the rest of electro-mechanical goods, 50 years should be the baseline.
If a car or fridge from 50 years ago is still working with proper maintenance, that should be the minimum to be expected from products released today.
It's much more effective and economically efficient to deal with externalized pollution costs with deposits to incentivize proper disposal.
A ton of normal users will simply never bother to repair their own laptops no matter how easy it is, but you don't even have to recycle your own bottles and cans to see the effectiveness of bottle deposits work. Someone will usually come and recycle them for you in any big city.
> It's much more effective and economically efficient to deal with externalized pollution costs with deposits to incentivize proper disposal.
Or to just mandate devices that doesn't need to be dispose so often.
> A ton of normal users will simply never bother to repair their own laptops no matter how easy it is
Doesn't matter, because simplicity contributes directly to prize and when you can get your existing device fixed for cheaper than getting a new one, you likely will do it.
I already pay a deposit and "recycle" all my electronics. And some recycled electronics are already repaired and repurposed. If that was easier, more electronics would get a second chance at life.
Right now if you have two broken MacBook Neos, one with a broken motherboard and the other with a broken screen, you can make one working MacBook Neo without even needing to solder anything in just the time to takes disassemble both and reassemble one (which has been demonstrated in minutes).
> A lot of people would be pissed to have MacBooks with worse "build quality" even if they were more reparable.
It is not a given that being repairable results in worse build quality.
It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have.
> It is a given if someone could have made a superior product in the last 15 years, i.e. more repairable laptop with higher build quality, they would have.
Most of the PC competitors of the last 15 years have struggled to even come close to achieving similar build quality.
I'm not sure who this mythical competitor could be, who is supposed to not only match unibody aluminium MacBook build quality, but also solve repairability, and come in with a final product that is cheaper?
It kind of sounds like you are saying it is impossible to improve on the current state of the world.
That if it was possible to improve things, someone would have already done it. And they haven’t, so it must not be possible.
That feels a bit extreme… Maybe I’m misunderstanding?
No, it is certainly possible to come up with an innovation that allows progress.
But the tone I get from discussions about repairability and performance is that it would be trivial to make the device, if only businesses wanted to.
However, given the fact that it hasn’t happened yet from a variety of alternative manufacturers, the probability seems very low that the ideal device is possible with current technology at a price that is viable.
Basically, it is a competitive market (or was), and what won out was what was possible. Barring some leap in technology, it is unrealistic to assume we can do better without suffering tradeoffs.
A lot of the recent car safety features are cameras and ADAS which make it safer for pedestrians. The problem is it makes the car so expensive no one can afford to buy it or to repair it. There needs to be some standards to drive down the cost.
Do you have a source for the cameras and ADAS driving up the cost of the cars dramatically?
The €14k Dacia Sandero ships with camera-assisted emergency braking and lane assist. By the time you get up to a €24k MG 4, you get full level 2 driving. These don't seem like very high price thresholds
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/whats-making-car-repair-so-expe...
Cars have much longer lifecycles that the repurposed consumer technology in the ADAS. A camera module is cheap, but a camera model for this particular make/model/year is outrageously expensive if not unobtanium 10 years later. Theres the famous f150 story where the tail light housing with blind spot monitoring cost $5k.
>> your car can easily hurt a total stranger whereas the consequences of your choice in laptop are strictly personal.
You know that safety for pedestrians is also a very tightly regulated car safety category, right? Obviously, there's not much that can be done if you get hit by a car going 70mph, but the fact that most people should survive a 30mph impact with a modern car is mostly thanks to regulations requiring crumple zones specifically designed to protect pedestrians in a collision. And yeah, there are huge trade offs - I imagine people would generally prefer a car that doesn't need incredibly expensive repairs after a minor collision because everything at the front just crumpled, but then they would be guaranteed to cut off legs of any person hit - it's a trade off.
Not in the US. Specific pedestrian safety features are not included in cars sold there due to lack of regulation. FMVSS was planning a regulation modelled after ECE R127, then the administration changed and no progress since...
Lack of regulation resulting in worse outcomes is also a data point for regulation being able to solve problems.
Well yes, which is why most American cars are not approved for sale over here.
It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars.
Or mandate in car cameras that record the driver to a blackbox to determine if the driver’s negligence caused others to be damaged. Also a cheap implementation that would immediately make drivers be more attentive.
>>It would be trivial to limit a car’s speeds in residential and urban areas based on GPS, and that would dramatically decrease risk to people outside of cars.
Only partialy agree. As in - yes I agree in principle, but I don't agree it would be trivial.
My sister had insurance with a black box policy, where everything she did in the car was recorded. And on her drive to work, she would always get a threatening email saying "we've recorded you going 70mph in a 20mph zone, if this continues we will cancel your policy". We had to ring them up and demand the GPS trace, and guess what - at one point she was going on the motorway above a 20mph road, but the system probably just did "what is the speed limit at X/Y coordinates" and was getting 20mph for the nearest road. We've had to do this several times when she had the policy.
My own Volvo XC60 frequently tells me I'm going over the speed limit as it thinks the road I'm on has a 50mph limit when in fact it's 70, and in another place it thinks it's 30 when in fact it's also 70.
Not to mention that the speeds entered on Google Maps are often just wrong and take forever to update. And it's funny when people like Harry Metcalf say that every new car he tests insists that his own private drive has a 20mph limit when obviously there is none. Imagine if you couldn't turn that off!
So yeah, very easy to implement(and it's a great idea!) but in practice it's one of these "looks easy on paper, but in reality it's super hard to do reliably".
> It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair.
It's slightly worse, slightly more flex, thicker and heavier vs an Air in spite of having a smaller battery and more empty space. It's all trade offs.
If you want repairable, please buy a Framework or Lenovo. Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.
Again, why not? It's not mandating design, just minimal standards for repairability that should be obvious. If Framework and Lenovo can do it and Apple can do it on a $600 laptop, why can't everyone do it?
Agreed.
> why can't everyone do it
What everyone is missing: Because other manufactures do not have to; the profit margins are too good to give a shit, and they allow some pretty fierce competition within the target demographic:
<soapbox>
Sadly, the general public still just wants the cheapest option to consume their bullshit content, even if it needs to be replaced a year from now after their cat walks on it and causes critical damage.
The MacBook Neo is brilliant in that Apple takes a share of this market with a premium and affordable product that is basically just their previous generation phone, with the expensive bits likely sourced from their exchange program or surplus supply. Products that at some point the same people would've loved to have, but couldn't afford. Now repurposed with a larger screen, sporting the envied Apple logo, at an affordable price, and targeting that same demographic as the hot new thing, just one generation later.
I have a feeling we'll see this pattern continue, and it's genius. Minimizing waste, maximizing profits, and giving the consumers what they want, while maintaining a gap between low-end and high-end -- people that spend $$$$ still want to feel special, of course.
Don't get me wrong, the Neo is great, especially for us hackers, but it is absolutely not meant for us in any way. What is in our favor: it does, at the very least, raise the bar for these other manufactures that product absolute garbage.
</soapbox>
Someone needs to be a reference as to what is feasible in order for a standard to be established. Apple, Framework, and I guess Lenovo are the ones doing this these days. RIP the others.
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.
???
What makes this "backseat"? When it comes to consumer products, legislation is often the only answer in most cases.
What makes this case different? Why should there be an exception carved out for laptops?
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.
But it _could_ save us from Lenovo or Dell or any other company copying Apple's design practices (and the latter largely already has), while, as another poster mentioned, not mandating design per se, but rather just setting minimum standards.
> Backseat industrial designing through legislation is not the answer.
You can still legislate parts availability and availability of docs.
You can legislate parts pairing or outright ban it
There is plenty that can be done, just need competent lawmakers
Oh no, my laptop is 2mm thicker than a different laptop. Won't someone think of the 2mm?
That 2mm uses at least (2*335 + 2*235) * 2mm * 1mm = 2,280 mm^3 more material for the case. (a wall thickness of 1mm)
I don't understand your math. The 1mm (the wall) was there already, so why is it being counted here? Plus, multiplying by 1 doesn't do anything? Also, the 2mm extra won't be solid plastic (they'll be solid air, since that's why we're adding the extra thickness, for the room.
If anything, the extra material for the case would be the perimeter length times the perimeter wall width times the height.
> If anything, the extra material for the case would be the perimeter length times the perimeter wall width times the height
That's what they did?
Perimeter length = 2*335mm + 2*235mm
Wall height diff = 2mm
Wall width = 1mm
(2*335 + 2*235) * 2mm * 1mm = 2,280 mm^3
Ah, thanks, I think what happened was that the asterisks were turned into italics and confused me. I think the message was edited to clarify.
The post was fixed about 30 seconds after making it - due to the *s being interpreted as italics. It is a shame there isn't a preview button when composing posts.
> It is a shame there isn't a preview button when composing posts.
The delay setting in your profile (mine is set to 2).
New Feature: Delay - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=231024
This is fantastic info, thank you. I've now set mine to 5.
Or just more sane markdown handling :/
I've started multiplying with "x" here... 10 mm x 10 mm = 100 mm^2.
Although there is a "clear" way of representing the functions, I have come to think it might not be as clear to many people.
For instance
(3m+5m)(2m)/(2(2))=5m^3
and less broken devices hitting landfill
That may not even be where the devices are most toxic to the environment :\
How about all the energy waste for manufacture of what are "engineered" as effectively disposable components & assemblies in numerous facilities?
Also scattered local emissions, not only at the factories and delivery ships & trucks, but consumers kick up all kinds of exhaust and waste just earning the money to participate in such a scheme. And way more so for short-lived products that are the least bit overpriced compared to how they could be from the same factory.
> You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.
That's widely incorrect. EU mandates some active systems (TC, ABS) and some basic level of physical protection, but majority of gains there have been driven by manufacturers trying to ace eachother in EuroNCAP rating
EU makes sure woefully unsafe car can't be sold, sure, but most of the progress here has been manufacturers, and non-car-related road safety improvements.
The innovations that mattered were seat belts and airbags. After that you have to correct for all the electronic gadgets that also actively distract or make drivers over-confident. Real numbers are not available, but governments keep mandating all kinds of questionable safety features that increase the price of vehicles (and insurance) and reduces competition in the market.
I'll grant you some of the more recent driver-attention monitoring features, but you'd be hard put to make the case that the blind-spot warning during lane changes, the cross-traffic warning when reversing out of a parking space, and the emergency brake when the car in front of you brakes hard, don't all save lives (and, perhaps more relevantly to the industrial players, collision insurance claims)
Those things could save some lives of course, but it's a small drop. And then there's the issue of people trusting on those safety systems and driving more reckless than before. It also helps not to live in a country where everyone is driving trucks ;)
> The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.
On some metrics. On affordability, new cars are considerably more expensive. Whether that's a worthwhile tradeoff is beside the point. The GP's point is that there's no free lunch, and your example doesn't address that.
I never said the lunch was free only that it should be nutritious.
Amd for the diner, new cars are much less nutritious due to the regulation. They're like some sort of bland protein-shake lunch.
No, they are more nutritious just like that bland protein-shake is. All those cool hot-rods from the 70s will crush you to death easily while wasting more gas to do it.
My father thinks all cars look the same now. Do you mean that?
For my part, cars are more comfortable (bar all controls in a touch panel and ever more propietary software) and fuel efficient
> You didn't say why this is a bad solution.
The fear is that regulations ossify industries and that's why heavily regulated industries like healthcare, education, and transportation have seen basically no innovation in 50 years. If you mandate that all electronic devices must have USB-C cables, how can anyone invent something better than a USB-C cable? And for what, so people don't have to have multiple cables? That's not even in the top 100 problems that a government body as large as the EU should be concerned about.
> Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.
Healthcare, education, transportation, and housing would all be counterexamples depending on how you want to frame "benefit."
> It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair.
This is counter to your point, no one regulated that Apple make the MacBook Neo easy to repair. Apple is incentivized to follow the market.
> If you mandate that all electronic devices must have USB-C cables, how can anyone invent something better than a USB-C cable?
That already happened with Micro USB. The EU initially mandated that manufacturers agree on a standard socket, because the absolute zoo of charging ports back then was counter-productive and only generated e-waste. Ultimately they agreed to use Micro USB, but obviously that's not what's used today.
These regulations are not just dumped on the manufacturers - there's a period of consultation and a grace period to implement them. If something actually better came up, you'd eventually see it mandated.
> If something actually better came up, you'd eventually see it mandated.
While I generally am quite content with that particular mandate and it does more good than bad, I would have to disagree on this. Something better doesn't come from nowhere - hell, USB itself has gone through a long and arduous path until it came to the (messy) standard it is today. This is essentially banning any other standard to grow and be improved upon with feedback and iteration.
I don't believe other paths would yield better results.
It took Apple a looong time to adapt USB-C, which was already running circles around Lightning five years after the introduction of the latter. Ironically Apple participated in the development of the standard. They just couldn't be arsed to implement it.
Multinationals don't do anything unless they absolutely have to. Apple notably all but threatened to move out of the EU due to USB-C regulations. They were actively preventing their users from having a better standard because it hurt their bottom line in the field of accessories.
The argument about ossified connectors is obviously made in bad faith, since it obviously didn’t happen. USB-C isn’t the first mandated connector, that was micro-usb. And when the time came to upgrade, the mandate was changed. None of that imagined ossification happened back then, and it won’t happen when we go from USB-C to USB-D or whatever.
> heavily regulated industries like healthcare, education, and transportation have seen basically no innovation in 50 years
Wut?
> and that's why heavily regulated industries like healthcare, education, and transportation have seen basically no innovation in 50 years.
Not to get distracted, but aren't these three all incredible examples of innovation over time? Healthcare alone is significantly better than it was 50 years ago and it's not really close. 50 years ago, this hip new treatment called electroshock therapy was being used to "treat" being gay. It was also within touching distance of getting a lobotomy for depression or anything else your husband thought was a problem.
The rates of depression in the US are at an all time high [1]. The primary theory behind the cause of depression and mechanism of most antidepressants has been abandoned [2]. Not treating homosexuality as a disease isn't an innovation, it's a cultural change.
You could maybe argue mRNA vaccines or semaglutides are big innovations, I think we've made a ton of progress against HIV, and it seems like we've made progress against cancer, but when you factor in how much government money goes into this research and compare it against the advancements we've seen in computational technology it's a lot less impressive. You could buy a raspberry pi for like $50 today that outperforms every computer made 50 years ago, whereas the cost of most medical imaging has actually increased [3]. Likewise the inflation adjusted cost of college degrees and building new rail lines or really any infrastructure has increased precipitously since 1970.
1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/releases/20250416.html
2. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/no-evidence-depression-c...
3. https://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440%2822%2900710-4/fullt...
Healthcare? Maybe you distinguish that from medicine somehow, but I'd rather have [literally any disease] today than fifty years ago.
Do you have a reference for the neo being easy to repair? Is this regarding the keyboard? Or the whole thing?
The keyboard is probably the hardest bit but even then it’s more just some tedium rather than difficulty. https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r...
"No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one."
Fair to push back ... but your assertion implies one of the greater fallacies of free markets.
Free markets don't magically work like that.
When there are only a handful of participants in any given market, they don't provide all the options as we would like.
It's 100% true that Apple makes some 'good tradeoffs' for build quality - but it's also 100% true that they make tradeoffs for vendor lockin.
Lightning connectors are great examples of that.
The answer may be regulation. It depends, and it has to be careful.
While it's a very 'iffy' situation with respect to keyboards, if we move the conversation to 'batteries' you can see how we might want regs that enable some way for consumers to mechanically replace batteries - and definitely 3rd party repair - and plausibly enable standard 3rd party batteries.
These companies have incredibly monopoly and monopoly power, they reason their margins are so high is partly because of demand, but also because of 'market power' which can significantly distort innovation (think apps on iPhone, totally captured market etc).
Unfortunately it's never so easy as 'always regulate or always not'.
> No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one.
It's a good solution. Even if you don't want to repair your meachine, it would be worth more on the second-hand market meaning less ewaste for society in general.
> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair. Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.
The neo gets pretty glossy build quality reviews and is one of the most repairable macs in decades.
Before Apple ever came along, failure to engineer in all kinds of extreme repairability was a recognized hallmark of unsuitability for mission-critical applications. Widely distributed repair manuals were of course table-stakes too.
Woz was well-aware of this from HP's legendary performance at the time.
It's just not easy to stay on the most correct path when there are so many shiny distractions.
Now the Neo sounds like a step in the right direction.
>one of the most repairable macs in decades.
With the Neo they could be jumping right back on the right path from a distance. Which is an improvement but it does also show they could have been doing it the entire time if they had the serious commitment to mission-critical users.
The only real way for it to be a game-changer is if they actually change their game :)
They will change their game in some ways, or they'll have to stop selling in the EU. I'm sure the Neo was engineered for this. Apple really hate re-engineering mac cases. Even the plastic macbook that had a huge design flaw (the cracking topcase because of the screen bezel spacers crushing it), had this flaw for 4 years until they finally fixed it, and that was not really to fix the problem but because they wanted to do a glossy new design. For some reason they preferred fixing the topicase over and over for free instead of just fixing the problem. And it wouldn't have needed much. All that would have been needed was to modify the screen bezel: Make the plastic spacers either a lot wider (to spread out the pressure) or of a softer material. It's pretty insane they didn't even bother to redesign such a simple plastic part.
I had mine replaced 3 times over the 6 years I used it. Sometimes with some complaints as I had replaced the LCD with a matte panel (the plastic macbook used an atrocious quality ultra-reflecting TN screen with shit viewing angles). But they always did it for free after some pressure.
So I can imagine they wanted to be ahead of the game this time because the EU will set a deadline and they hate doing redesigns. I can't fathom why they hate doing that so much though. I worked in manufacturing too and we did small tweaks periodically, every 2-3 months or so there'd be a minor hardware revision to take comments from QA into account or to optimize for pricing & availability of components. Usually not the kind of redesign an untrained eye actually would notice. But Apple somehow just hates it.
Interestingly, Apple's newest and cheapest laptop (the Neo) is super repairable. And even the keyboard is finally replaceable without having to replace the entire top case. Hopefully the trend is continued in the next redesigns of the Air and Pro which are due soon.
Next year all consumer devices are required to have user replaceable batteries in the EU. Apple has noticeably been making massive design changes on many products to get closer in line with these laws.
I assume you consider this a bad solution because the free market would always converge on the right solution(s), including reparable machines.
However, if all participants (in this case manufacturers) in a market conclude that:
(1) product B has a lower profit margin than product A, and
(2) product B is superior enough to eventually become the dominant variant and
(3) the market size is fairly static and
(4) the first mover on product B is unlikely to maintain a lead for very long,
then all participants would choose to suppess product B, even without having to resort to collusion.
Not only that, if the manufacturers consider regulation to be a market in its own right, i.e. it is available for purchase (which it de facto is in countries where lobbying is legal), then market forces will also drive regulation away from product B.
To me, this explains why some products peak in build quality sometime after innovation plateaus, and the continue to diminish over time (usually measured in decades). Some household appliances have already reached this stage. For Apple products, this phenomenon may still be in the future.
Here is the thing, replacing something may be hard or easy. But getting the parts (which are already produced and available for the manufacturers for their "added value" repairs) should be as easy as how they are getting them too.
Not to mention manuals/instructions. Regulation discussed here is about these too.
Also as consumer, I would argue the marketing done by apple is just scammy. They keep praising how much carbon saved or sustainable new machines are. But in fact, a minor issue becomes a massive electronic dump.
I also like Macs, I own several of them. Repaired a few. Mostly replacing batteries and keyboards. For example 2014 Macbook Air had a normal battery, no sticky business. Meanwhile 2020-2025 MacBook Air has sticky stuff, making repairs harder.
The best part is, 2014 macbook air has 54 Watt/hr battery, 2020-2025 models are 53 watts/hour. The lasting battery gains are coming from Apple silicon efficiency as well as modern BMS.
Simply put, regulation is the answer. Apple makes it difficult because they can, and also because it creates revenue. Of repairability was the source of income, you would see 10/10 repairable macbooks with no (significant) tradeoffs. (ie. it could be a few grams heavier for added screws)
> If you want a repairable machine, buy one. They exist. Others have already mentioned Framework
But that means Windows or Linux, not macOS. There's serious trade-offs that you're dismissing because you personally don't need macOS, but that's not the case for everyone.
#hn-bingo
macOS has slid a long way down the quality ladder over the past ten years.
In what way? Tahoe's UI SNAFU aside, it seems like it's basically just a more polished version of the older macOS versions from a decade ago.
I run into bugs every day. It wakes, and has a black screen not wallpaper. Change spaces and the focus is wrong for half a second. Login screen is a pain because it collapses all users together. Notifications don’t scroll if they stop scrolling when the cursor is over a gap between them. Something on the system constantly eats disk space, and I think it’s the system updates. If I dock two apps in one space, sometimes one is black. If I zoom out to the Spaces overview it shows fine in the preview though. In the Terminal if I close a tab it can focus an entirely different window.
I could go on for hours. It’s a buggy mess these days and I miss Lion and Snow Leopard desperately.
Unless these problems only started after an upgrade to Tahoe, I would strongly suspect defective hardware in your case.
Yes, these got a lot worse after Tahoe. The past few versions have all had issues on multiple machines.
None of this sounds like a hardware error. Something like notification scrolling is simple bad programming and bad QA. You scroll the list of them, but when the mouse cursor ends up on a gap between them, the new scroll event doesn't apply. They're all individual even though shown together.
Or a black screen on wake - that has the mouse cursor and login prompt, it just sometimes doesn't load the wallpaper or does it slowly. Not hardware - just something buggy. It's unbelievable when I compare to Leopard or whichever version it was introduced the rotating 'cube' of login screens, which always had wallpaper and loaded fast. Here we are fifteen years later with incredibly better hardware and the thing lags.
Same for the rest.
Nothing mentioned in the previous comment is indicative of a hardware problem. If you think I'm wrong, please describe a plausible mechanism to cause any of the problems described above. They all are plausibly software bugs. I mean, Apple hardware is not really any better than any other piece of fallible hardware, and their OS has been a buggy mess since Apple DOS. Most pieces of software as large as an OS are buggy in many ways, and Apple has not been proven to be the exception.
For all its faults I do still like modern macOS, but it is a far cry from the beauty that was Mac OS X 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard).
In the java triggers a crash in apples IO library and they wont fix it way.
What's the crash?
Fast user switching turned into excruciatingly slow user switching.
Oh, I completely agree. But they can get away with it because we depend on the platform more than the individual apps.
And yes, Tahoe is shiny hot garbage piled on top of so much broken software, just to push an effect trick. I'm not sure how I feel developing with SwiftUI when Apple clearly can't make it work for their own apps.
> we depend on the platform more than the individual apps
The only way you actually depend on the platform is if you do Mac OS / iOS development.
However, I happen to work on a project that requires both Windows and Linux, so I get reminders every day of why I should stay on Mac OS as desktop.
Caveat 1: no, I'm not upgrading to Tahoe or iOS 26.
Caveat 2: I wouldn't dream of running a server on anything but Linux. Desktops with a GUI though...
The problem that fucks us over is that Mac OS only has to be better than the competition.
With all the valid reasons not to upgrade to iOS 26, here's one strongly suggesting doing so:
https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/dar...
That only reinforces Apple being assholes. They are perfectly capable of delivering security updates to ios 18, they just choose to not do that for phones that can run 26.
By the way does that mean you can root a phone that's on iOS 18.6? :)
> The problem that fucks us over is that Mac OS only has to be better than the competition.
I'm with you here, but I'm having a _much_ better time on my Linux machines (KDE and Cinnamon Mint) than on my (unbelievably-powerful-but-for-what) M4 Max MBP. It's so much cleaner, even without having upgraded to Tahoe, and imagine that I don't even like tinkering that much, it just works.
I was using KDE when I switched to Mac OS from Linux as my main desktop (2013 ish).
Must admit I've only looked at the default desktop in Ubuntu in the past years, and that's ... disappointing.
Maybe I should look at how KDE is these days, but it's a second class citizen in most major distros isn't it? Except in this Mint i've never tried.
I also have this fetish for cool and quiet. Can I run KDE on a box that idles at 10 W and never turns the fan audibly on?
> Except in this Mint i've never tried
Well, Cinammon is the windows manager for Mint, it's the barebones experience that's the closest to Windows (?) style, it's mostly what you see is what you get, but still very customizable.
KDE used to be extremely buggy 5-6 years ago and since testing it on my Steam Deck, from my experience, this is no longer the case. It's a bit more feature-rich and flashier than Cinnamon.
> Can I run KDE on a box that idles at 10 W and never turns the fan audibly on?
No laptop I'm aware of will do this, no idea about ARM adoption.
Personally I'm glad to have a windows manager that doesn't force dumb decisions down my throat. On MacOS I have to wait for half a second for the focus to land on the next window when I switch desktops, the only workaround exists as a minor feature recently introduced to BetterSwitchTool called instant desktop switching or something. And it's to be mentioned ofcourse that for all similar fixes you _must_ give full screen recording and accessibility permissions to 3rd party software. And don't get me started on the stupid windows management (maximize != full-screen, minimized windows not recoverable with keyboard only etc)
> No laptop I'm aware of will do this, no idea about ARM adoption.
Oh the 10 W is my mac mini. The macbook pro idles at 5 W, display included :)
> you _must_ give full screen recording and accessibility permissions to 3rd party software
Well what do you expect? If Linux/KDE had a permissions system you'd have to grant it too.
> maximize != full-screen
Um. Yes. They should be different. They've been different ever since we had windows on screen in any system that I'm aware of.
Not that I'm a major fan of window management on Mac OS, I just got used to it.
Sure, but relative to windows…
The "just buy another one" argument only works if the alternatives are even comparable. For a lot of people, macOS is a hard requirement and not a preference, so telling them just to buy a framework that runs Linux ignores that entirely. Right to repair regulation doesn't force Apple to make a worse product it just requires that the parts and repair information are available.
> If you want a repairable machine, buy one.... Framework
Sure, but Framework doesn't run the OS I want, doesn't run the chip I want, doesn't quite meet the form factor I want. It's not an effective market because I can't pick and choose.
The problem here is vertical integration. If you want anything from Apple you have to buy everything from Apple.
And the answer to that is: regulation.
Being an effective market doesn’t mean you get everything you want.
You’re actually saying: “I want Apple’s software, and I want certain chips, and I want a certain form factor. And if Apple won’t build what I want, I will pass a law to make them build it for me!”
Come on man. You will make tradeoffs either way. The answer isn’t: force a company to build what I want them to build.
Well another version of it is: I want to be able to talk to my family, but I don't want to buy an iPhone. The EU rightly regulated that any chat network big enough must open their doors to different platforms. Or I don't want to buy Microsoft Office for my employees but I want to be able to do business with those who do, and thankfully we have relatively open document formats now.
The chips argument is contrived, the OS argument less so, but it's all just network effects at some level, and it's important for competition and effective markets that we prevent the largest networks from locking people in and forcing them to make a lot of other unrelated decisions.
> I want to be able to talk to my family, but I don't want to buy an iPhone
How were you not able to do this without an iPhone?
iMessage being a closed ecosystem. Apple finally added RCS support, but only after regulatory pressure.
To not recognise this as a limitation is to be wilfully blind to network effects. The "green bubbles" issue was a huge issue in the US. Similarly, WhatsApp not being open is a huge problem in forcing people onto Meta's platforms.
The Macbook Neo is just as high-quality as any other Apple product. Apple has some of the most brilliant engineers in the industry, they can absolutely design a repairable device to their own standards.
>Apple has some of the most brilliant engineers in the industry,
Did they fire the guy who designed the magic mouse? What about the one who designed the iPhone 4 antenna? Are they still working there? The butterfly keyboard? The class action Apple lost over the Macbook 2011 design flaws? Should I go on?
iPhone 4 was a tempest in a teapot. But yeah, the circular mouse and the butterfly keyboard...
Having said that, it seems obvious that there is a tradeoff between repairability, price, and compactness. And Apple offers devices on different points on that triangle.
Yes, they did actually fire the guy who did the iPhone 4 antenna. The butterfly keyboard guy is now working with OpenAI apparently.
No. This is a bad solution. You can't blame consumers for not making the right choice when there's a sea of irreparable junk and a few niche repairable options on the market. Reparability should be the default expectation.
this is such a classic american reply. "vote with your wallet" and "the market decides". thing is most people don't care, don't complain or are not in a situation where they can "vote with their wallet". truth is, some regulation must exist to nudge companies is the right direction. a good example of this is e.g disposable vapes, people love them for some reason, but they are extremely wasteful.
Trouble is that regulation isn't imposed by an omnipotent deity in the sky. In a democracy, regulation must come from the very same people who you say don't care, don't complain, and aren't willing to change their habits. Given that you say the people don't care, aren't willing to change, and perhaps even prefer the status quo, regulation isn't going to magically appear.
The MacBook neo keyboard is replaceable with a sticker and a bunch of screws. This was always possible. Apple just doesnt care.
Bunch of screws : 41.
If you have done some repairs, you would know that is nothing. And you would rather have screws than glue or plastic clips, the more the better.
[dead]
The people that complain about the number of screws are very counter productive. The important thing is that repair is possible at all without permanent damage. Framework and some of the 'repair optimized' designs seem to assume that the device is going to be repaired daily and that it needs to be as easy as possible.
The bar should be higher than "Better than glue". While repair is possible, the number of screws with many different screw types still make it needlessly time consuming / expensive.
The ease of repair only needs to be in proportion to the likelihood of needing repair and frequency of occurrence.
Yes and given that keyboard replacement is really common repair (probably most common repair on butterfly models but still quite common now), the ease of repair is extremely disproportional. In case of OP's Macbook Pro: the rivets, the number of screws, the need to disassemble everything, even having to lift the glued in battery - all just to get to the keyboard.
I agree that the rivets and glued in battery is an issue that ideally would be dealt with by legislation. Some disassembly is always going to be required and I don't see that as a negative. I see a keyboard replacement as an, on average, once in a device lifespan event.
I would think there is a middle ground between a toolless design and 40+ screws. When I saw the IFixIt review of the Neo, it seemed like an excessive number of screws. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the design meetings that led to all those screws.
While a single device for a single user will not need daily repairs, when you think about these devices being deployed in a school system, there very well could be a steady supply of repairs to perform. Streamlining that process does matter.
It's almost like Apple was trying to comply with new EU laws while still making the repair seem a little intimidating, to push users toward professionals.
15 years ago Apple was making unibody laptops with great build quality, and changing out the battery, hard drive, and RAM was trivial[0]. The argument that they made for removing replaceable batteries and making things less reparable overall, was always space constraints. Mounting brackets take up space they didn't have. I don't think that argument holds up. Since 2010 the large optical drive is gone, SSDs are now much smaller, and RAM is integrated and also smaller. They should have plenty of room to work with to bring back reparability, for the few things that can still be meaningfully serviced.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU44Ay7Q0b8
More screws means more chassis stiffness. A desireable feature.
If I was streamlining the process I'd use an electric screwdriver and a 3d printed screw holder.
You dont need a 'professional' repairman to screw things in. Most people aren't intimidated by screws, that's silly.
SOCAMM2 is a great form factor for user upgradeable DRAM. The fragile pins are all on the relatively cheap interposer. Id like to see an equivalent standard for NAND. M.2 uses more z height than necessary. Especially for 2 sided support.
Unibody Macbooks had excellent build quality (except for their vulnerability to spilled drinks), but were very repairable. I don't see how build quality and repairability have to be opposites.
> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair. Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.
You're making an oversimplification. You could make a heavier, thicker device with those same qualities that was repairable.
This was my first thought too.
Not everything you personally dislike needs to be illegal.
MacBooks are great as long as you have the money. OP could keep looking for 3rd party repairs, etc.
> Not everything you personally dislike needs to be illegal.
I'm having a hard time seeing why making stuff more difficult to repair just so that people are incentivized to throw it away and buy a new one, should not be illegal. If not for the anti-customer attitude, at least for the amount of waste and environmental destruction it results in.
Half the responses in this thread are from people who replaced the keyboard for about 50$ or so.
Even then, if I want a new ultra thin device that doesn’t have replaceable storage or user input devices, that’s my right to buy.
Who is going to magically determine what replaceable means ? From the post it looks like OP tried to fix it incorrectly.
Does apple owe op a new laptop even if they damaged it ?
Well yeah, you can probably fix it for pretty cheap if you've just got some know-how. But why do Apple need to make it more difficult to fix for no reason? Riveting the keyboard to the frame doesn't make the device "thinner", and as proved by people being able to fix it without rivets, doesn't even really serve a purpose. Your last sentence is a total non-sequitur; as far as I can tell it does not relate to anything I've said.
Why are you so adamant about protecting your "right" to buy a worse product?
I don’t understand this authoritarian need to ban everything you don’t like.
Should the government have a reparability board ? Who gets to be on it ?
If it pleases the King , may I buy a laptop while traveling and bring it home.
An argument could be made for a refundable recycling fee. Say 5% that gets returned when you take the device to a recycling center after your done with it
I mean, do you also consider it "authoritarian" to have e.g. regulations on vehicle exhaust? Should the government have an environmental protection agency? Who gets to be on it? What about my right to insulate my house with asbestos and paint it with lead?
And who's talking about banning private import of laptops? You do know that you can regulate national sales without controlling absolutely everything right? Whoever bothers to travel to a different country just to buy a worse laptop should be allowed to do so, it's whatever.
Regarding "recycling", that's all a show in order to seem more environmentally friendly with very little actual impact. You can look up how electronics "recycling" usually works in practice, which normally entails sending the waste to third world countries to have some precious metals extracted using dangerous and not exactly environmentally friendly processes.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufLW4xOsS4
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ8BjHOdI8g
> mean, do you also consider it "authoritarian" to have e.g. regulations on vehicle exhaust?
In the US this is why so many wagons have turned into SUVs which have more lax fuel efficiency requirements. They find ways around the regulations.
All Apple laptops have hard soldered SSDs. SSDs have to go bad eventually.
Should the government force apple to only sell laptops with replaceable ssds ?
The most environmentally friendly laptop is a used Thinkpad. But I respect others have a right to buy what they want.
Back to the original point, the laptop isn’t even hard to fix. OP just didn’t do there research.
One country did a bad job with regulations, therefore regulation as a whole is useless? Anyway, the question was if you consider it authoritarian, not whether the particular legislation in your particular country was successful.
Should the government force Apple to sell laptops with replaceable SSDs? Perhaps. What's the upside of having to desolder it when it goes bad? What's the upside of riveting the keyboard to the frame?
You're also dodging the question of my right to buy vegetables with high levels of PFAS and drink water with high levels of lead.
> Back to the original point, the laptop isn’t even hard to fix. OP just didn’t do [their] research.
The original point was never whether some guy did a good job fixing his laptop or not, but rather whether there's any point to riveting the keyboard, and more generally, whether it's worth defending companies' "rights" to sell intentionally crippled products and pollute the environment.
You might be interested in the vast world of public policy.
There's more to the world than banned / not banned.
In this instance, people might want a sensible pragmatic government to levy against companies that have high numbers of items ending up in eWaste processing (or discarded in fly tipping) and offer reductions to companies that invest in eWaste processing and collection.
There are also legitimate total lifetime cost of item models that suggest clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct might actually be "cheaper" in time, resources, and energy across a large consumer population than a functionally equivalent item designed to be "unbuilt" and rebuilt (ie repaired).
> clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct
This seems like a total fantasy. Do you actually have any examples of non-repairability making the process cheaper?
Sure there are lots of economical incentives to making stuff that you use until it breaks and then throw away, but that's just because the cost of e.g. mining metals or taking care of e-waste are externalized, due to using unethical labor in third world countries. If the "large consumer population" of the west actually had to bear the real cost of the electronics they produce, things would be vastly different.
Another point regarding your last paragraph, there are actually tons of examples of Apple (and others) making a more complicated (and thus expensive) design sorely to prevent independent repair shops from providing cheap repairs, thus "encouraging" customers to buy a replacement, or use Apple's own "repair", which just replaces entire parts instead of repairing them, and bills enough for Apple's liking.
I guess you can make the argument that legislating repairability will raise the price floor for devices because it increases the cost to the manufacturer. This isn't a problem for most of us in tech, but affordability can be an issue for many.
Making devices un-fixable often costs more than just building them in the most straightforward way. In either case, I don't think a few dollars more or less in manufacturing costs will impact the consumer prices in any way. Let's not pretend that Apple (or other computer / phone companies) has thin margins.
Regulation is the only reasonable answer to this sort of problem. The specific suggestion may not be the best possible regulation, but we have several hundred years of proof that individual market-based action cannot solve what is basically an insurance problem.
Goverment regulates everything including cow farts!
Apple can keep their unrepairable macbook. Butc should not be marketed as "green product". It should pay extra as ICE cars, be excluded from educational markets, public institutions etc...
Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.
Thinkpads are a counterexample.
Consumer choice only works when there's a free market. Computer systems are encumbered by copyright and patent monopolies, so there's no free market. I can't buy a third-party Macbook. Because these monopolies are granted by the state it's reasonable for the state to correct any market failures they cause with regulation.
+1 here... Lenovo business laptops have a history of being particularly good at being user repairable.
I'm probably going to go with Framework myself whenever I do upgrade. Still using an M1 air, which suites my day to day needs, I don't develop on it, as I can remote to my desktop from anywhere.
What if the repairable ones crunch the numbers and find out that Apple got the right idea from business standpoint and the only reason they can't do the same is that their laptops or their brand is not as good? It will mean that if they actually end up making a product that people want that product will not be easy to repair as well.
100% agree. If you don’t like that Apple products are expensive to repair, don’t buy them or suck it up
I came to terms with it, mostly. I buy AppleCare. I’ve had my screen on my M1 Mac replaced twice.
I agree with the sentiment tho. I had the rubber foot come off the bottom of a MacBook Pro, Apple wanted $350 to replace that $1 part. I found other solutions
> If you don’t like that Apple products are expensive to repair, don’t buy them or suck it up
Yea exactly. This is why I switched from Apple to Framework.
I like MacOS better than Linux, but it was worth the hardware trade off for me.
I believe in this case regulation would work just fine. My old Macbook Pro from 2012 was just as solid and high quality as the newest models, but much more repairable. It's possible to create repairable devices without compromising much in other areas.
Your individual choice will not make systemic changes.
>One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair.
Lol what.
Nothing about apple design is a sacrifice to repairability. The only reason they make it hard to repair is because when your Mac breaks, you go buy another one. Can't afford it? Then you are not "classy" enough to own a Mac.
I swear, there must be some epidemic where Mac fans are losing their marbles even more so today.
Then why do newer Apple devices have significantly better repairability vs older ones ? The build quality has gone down?
also, let's not conflate easy to repair with cheap to repair.
The macbook is quite easy to repair, it's just insanely expensive because they made the choice that, for user experience, they attach the keyboard to the machines body.
You can have ease of repair and build quality, but then you give up portability I guess (bulky and heavy). And also cost goes up
No.
You are wrong.
There are Apple laptops, and other devices, that were relatively easy to service and were lauded for their build quality.
I was hoping with the new Replaceable Battery Law from the EU entering this summer, all (i)Phones and tablets were to become easily repairable / battery swap-able. I was super disappointed learning recently, when considering why the new iPads weren't build to be easily open-able like the new Macbook Neo, that there's a pretty big loophole the lobby got in: if you can proof your battery lasts for 1000 cycles with 80% capacity remaining, you can exempt yourself and still seal the device in a user not-openable fashion.
(btw: people claiming that it has to be this way because of "waterproof": just no. Devices have existed before the whole glue sealing non-sense Apple introduced and exist now that are equally waterproof without glueing it all together to keep user's from the hardware. And even if you think it is that, it still wouldn't make sense to glue laptops and desktop pcs together who don't even claim to be waterproof)
At least there is a bright side: The EU Repairability Law is still pushing companies to make their devices more repairable - by demanding that professional repair must be possible from independent professionals and tech manufacturers must also provide repair parts for x years.
Yeah we can keep saying that, but thanks to the EU we have everybody with shared chargers. Thanks to the EU, the nintendo switch has a replaceable battery. Thanks to the EU, we have USB-C on iPhone.
I'm sorry but your argument conflicts with reality at this point: regulation works better for expectations on hardware.
you seem to assume that markets regulate themselves. This is a common fallacy. Good regulation is fundamental in any working society.
Yes, the belief that markets self regulate, was proved incorrect by the 2008 financial crisis.
I'd like to know what planet you live on where a single time over the last 50 years a company has done one solitary thing that was good for the consumer without having the gun of regulation against their head.
well it's a good solution in the sense that it would solve the problem and it would be great for all of us.
MostlyStable, are you a deregulation zealot?
By extension, are you also an antitrust enforcement denier?
Also by extension, do you understand the term late-stage capitalism?
Because if you truly believe that regulation isn't necessary, then you are either ok with, or unaware that, unregulated capitalism ends in monopoly (or duopoly to keep up appearances). A free market only has a chance of existing under regulation, otherwise it's immediately gamed to maximize profit, which leads to runaway wealth inequality (the antithesis of a free market).
In other words, a €730 ($835) top case replacement is only allowed to exist because your worship of deregulation prevents the very competition that you yearn for.
I don't normally word my comments this strongly, but we seem to have lost our BS detectors since yours is the top comment.
Remember that it's ok to change your mind. So I'm not criticizing you, but the mindset that's allowing fundamental mistakes to not only go unchallenged, but be celebrated.
Lol I think watching the entirety of the EU run on shitty plastic laptops that are government approved would really top the British fight against heatwaves by smearing yoghurt on their windows.
I think I’d really enjoy this. Yes, please do this.
s/zealot/advocate/
s/denier/opponent/
s/late-stage capitalism/socialist propaganda/
If you're asking genuinely:
1. It's wrong to assume beforehand that the other party is irrational.
2. To refute the other side, you have to engage with their strongest argument.
This is an intellectual issue, and no intellectual issue could be resolved by dismissal.
What a wildly incorrect comment. You realize its perfectly feasible and fully within apple engineers powers to design trivially repairable notebook (or any other device) while not losing any of those qualities you mention (which are easy to find in expensive competition too)? Don't make those extremely well paid engineers incompetent just because it suits your argument.
But vendor lockin mandated by management is way more powerful than powers of engineers, apple ain't immune to this since its accountants and lawyers running the company.
I'll give it a benefit of a doubt and won't claim its a PR comment and just a uncritical fanboy one, but its pretty close.
[dead]
I replaced the keyboard MacBook Air M1 keyboard with a $20 model from Amazon and it's been going strong for a full year. I had spilled ginger ale on the original.
The board is riveted in, but there are enough screws to hold the replacement in place. Removing the board is a shockingly violent process, but it worked for me.
Keyboard: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQBVMM3X (price has gone up).
Video of rivets breaking: https://i.tonybox.net/9f2083b218d5.mp4 (you can see I missed a screw and slightly cut my hand here too).
> I missed a screw and slightly cut my hand here too
After a nasty gash from a washing machine, which impacted my typing for a week, I got a pair of these:
https://www.amazon.com/Mechanix-Wear-Utility-Gloves-Large/dp... $14, may save a doctor visit
I recommend ANSI rated cut protection gloves: https://www.mcmaster.com/9915N987/
I use them when working with sheet metal. They are high-dexterity. Thin and flexible. Steel threads are woven into the fabric. McMaster has a variety of high dexterity gloves - fingerless, insulating, cut-resistant.
I wonder if anyone has hacked it (in the "Hacker News" sense of hack) so that the above keyboard can be used in an external casing, without inserting it into the Macbook body. I'd pay a lot of money for that. The Magic Keyboard is different.
i mean it's pretty nice for a laptop keyboard, but i've never thought of it as good enough to use externally tbh
or do you mean integrating it into a different laptop a la framework? that could be cool, but would also have to think how much the chassey stiffness/specific construction contributes to the feel
p.s. has anybody here tried (the external) magic trackpad? the macbook trackpad is infuriatingly good
I have the external Magic Trackpad. It is wonderful. I use it with my split Moonlander keyboard, and keep it in the middle. I honestly can't use a normal keyboard now, MacBook Pro included.
Anecdotal but I never had more hand pain than when I ordered a Magic Trackpad and tried to commit to it. Pretty bad cramps after a few weeks.
I have a magic keyboard for my studio, bloody expensive, but I just love the ergonomics and feel compared to my two TKL (really nice) mechanical keyboards.
Thanks for posting, I might attempt this if I feel brave enough one day! Mind if I link to this from the post? Could help someone in the future
Sure - of course! Hope it can be helpful.
You can use tiny drill to drill off the rivets - much less violent. I covered everything in paper / masking tape to be able to vacuum off the metal shavings and used small dremmel like electric drill with chinese used re-sharpened pcb drillbit.
Well done! This is the sort of "old HN" spirit that I love. Though if I ever need to do this myself I think I would try using a tiny "crowbar" to break each rivet individually, just to spare myself from cutting my hand.
wow, you are not underplaying the force needed. You can hear the rivets going.
Mind sharing an Amazon link to the electric screw driver you used in your video?
I'm fairly sure that's the iFixit precision electric screwdriver: https://www.ifixit.com/products/precision-electric-screwdriv...
My MacBook Pro M1 keyboard broke too and Apple wanted $900 to replace it. I bought a $30 replacement on Amazon and started replacing it myself. Unfortunately the repair was a bit too complicated for me, but luckily one of my co-workers had more patience and replaced it for some beer.
This video is a good overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGmMpEEP5ls
Thankfully the m1 was the last of the evil design era for Macs. Modern ones are significantly better. The neo being the best, able to be fully disassembled with a screw driver in a few minutes
I don't even understand the functional purpose of the rivets if the keyboard is already held in place with a million screws and the key slots cut into the aluminum frame. It makes no sense, seems like a waste.
Can you not see why they might be incentivized to make it unrepairable?
Oh definitely, I'm no stranger to Apple's antics... but usually they're pretty particular about hardware decisions serving a functional purpose, and not just a way to protect their bottom line. They aren't exactly struggling to sell their stuff.
While i think the usecase of a Macbook and a Framework are really different i will always be thankfull to framework for how easy they make it.
Broke my keyboard, a few days later i had a new one that didnt even take a minute to swap. Wanted to upgrade my GPU twice, didnt even take 10 minutes. Biggest difficulty was swapping the motherboard, but even that was easy.
The ports i need change all the time, and i can just swap them all the time :D
While a framework might be a bit expensive, overpriced even, i think the repairability and upgradeability is worth it for me
I'd be curious to see hardware failure rates of Framework vs MacBooks.
Sure you can replace the keyboard on a Framework fairly easily but I'd bet MacBook users run into the need for it less (comparing modern models; we all know the butterfly keyboard era was a dark age for MacBooks)
It seems to be definitly higher but their support always just send a replacement with no issues to me.
My first GPU had an issue where the fans had a really annoying whirring sound and it got replaced.
I had a (pre-)release motherboard (one of the last FW16 pre-order batches) which had an issue with uneven heat on the CPU, also got replaced.
In both cases i could just use the Laptop like normal until the new parts arrived so i had no "downtime"
Consumer reports seems to agree. Although I'll take mostly reliable and repairable over very reliable and not repairable. Stuff happens after all.
> a few days later i had a new one
This really sums up the reason I stuck with MacBook hardware even during the dark days of the end of the Intel era: I can have a new MacBook in basically any moderately developed city in the world inside an hour, and in fact did so twice when something catastrophic happened on work trips. Waiting a few days to fix something or get some custom-order-only laptop would not have been an option.
Well even if my Framework would explode it wouldnt be THAT big of a deal to me, i would just move over to my ps5 or steamdeck for the time and since i dont really go outside i would have to wait for the shipment anyway. Only scenario where it would be troubling is if it happened during the rare weeks where i am not home due to being a bit away in school but even then i dont think i would just buy an entirely new laptop and instead just write on paper for the 3-4 remaining days.
So for me fixing a keyboard i spilled cola on fast, cheap and without sending the device away is far far far more important than replacing an entire laptop when it disintegrates into dust.
This indicates effectively trivial use instead of seeing a laptop as a business tool.
"Write on paper" when you're on a consulting site for a client is not an option - much less when you bill by the hour.
I've actually had the situation where someone spilled a drink in my Mac and I was due to give a conference talk three hours later - that was actually recoverable because I could buy a new laptop with approximately the same configuration immediately, and didn't ruin the week.
That level of service is far from universal - Apple don't do onsite repairs at all in the UK, let alone inside 1 hour. It's all random third parties with crappy return-it-to-the-shop as a fallback.
I'm not even talking about onsite repairs, just about getting a new laptop to use.
I have indeed had my laptop repaired very quickly in the UK though (I still order them with British keyboards as 30 years of muscle memory does not go away). The Apple Store in Bath just took care of it.
A Framework running a sane version of macOS would be peak computing for me.
Not that repairability isn’t great, but in 16 years of Apple devices my only needed repair was their atrocious butterfly-style keyboard, and Apple footed the bill thanks to the Class Action Lawsuit.
We merely have to wait on Apple to continue debasing its OS, and then many other options will look preferable. Or perhaps Linux on Apple Silicon will eventually become stable.
Linux on Apple Silicon is already stable and nice if you accept a few downsides: only M1 & M2 so far, max 8h on battery ('office usage'), max 30h with closed lid ('sleep'), external display via hdmi and no touch ID.
It’s _really_ not just a few downsides, although they’re catching up quickly. My Air would get USB-C video out soon, it seems. But I don’t think Asahi should be anyone’s main driver yet. (That reminds me that it’s time to donate again.)
That is sort of what we got when people were making Hackintoshes out of Thinkpads a few years ago. Great keyboards, great repairablity and upgradeability, etc.
I'm sure this is failure by design. A lot of customers will think "Hey well, this one's got a few years on it, good reason to upgrade"
It's worth mentioning that the Neo finally does away with the pairing of topcase and keyboard that has been present ever since the launch of the plastic and unibody macbooks! Probably to comply with upcoming EU regulations.
The planned obsolescence conspiracy theories about the company whose products famously last longer and hold more value than their competitors ring a little hollow.
I've never seen any evidence that either of those are true.
However, it's not planned obsolescence either. It's just math. Building things to be repairable costs more money and time. There is very little incentive to do so, because most customers simply do not care. Thus, Apple does not bother. Nothing conspiratorial about it.
Most people do care even though they won't do any repairs themselves. This very article explains how it makes a few broken keys a 700$ repair. Customers do care about that.
No, enthusiasts care about that. People who have a soldering iron and will try to fix things themselves.
Most people do the following:
* Take it to Apple * Apple says it will cost $X * Customer says 'yes' and gets it repaired OR customer says 'no' (and proceeds to buy a new one)
That's what the vast, vast, vast majority of customers do.
Yes but they will still remember 'damn they wanted 700 bucks because I broke 2 keys??" And think twice before buying the next one. Or just keep it broken.
Also, this might be the case in rich places like silicon valley or the US in general. But most of my friends would come to either me or the less official repair shops when Apple gives them such an outrageous quote. Because most of my friends don't just have $700 for an unexpected incident just lying around. That's a lot of money.
I agree most people don't care about self repair but the majority would care about cost of repair, and the ability to go to unofficial places for cheaper options.
I mean I still get friends coming to me with early 2010s hardware and asking if I can speed it up. Sometimes I install some old memory I had lying around or an old SSD to replace its spinning drive. These things help a lot.
They do this by riveting the entire keyboard assembly to the top case. Meaning you can’t just replace the keyboard, you have to replace the entire top case.
As others have already alluded to, drills and self-tapping screws exist, as do replacement keyboards without the top case.
In many other machines, it is common for the factory to use rivets on initial assembly, but to service you drill them out and replace with bolts or screws. This is the expected procedure and even described in the service manual. I actually did this a few weeks ago for an old fan.
I'm advocating for right to repair as anyone else, and not fond of Apple's decisions in general, but this seems like a tempest in a teapot.
> In many other machines, it is common for the factory to use rivets on initial assembly, but to service you drill them out and replace with bolts or screws
That's surprising. I haven't had many brands of laptops, but I haven't seen rivets where screws should be. Not talking about Macs here.
Not talking about laptops but machinery in general.
Oh! I didn't pick up on that from context. Thanks for clarifying.
Framework Laptop + some form of Linux - MacOS keeps getting worse and the hardware exceeding hard and expensive to repair.
FYI, for those who are consider Framework, you are usually getting a laptop that is 2x as expensive as a Macbook but slower, with a worse screen, far worse performance and battery life, and likely not as reliable as a Mac long term.
You can basically buy 2 Macbook Airs for the same price as Framework 13 and keep one in the draw if you are ever scared that one breaks. That's how bad of a deal Framework is or how much of a value Macbooks are.
Try configuring a Framework yourself and you'll quickly find that even the basic configuration goes over $1400. Any upgrade on the CPU and you're already at $1770.[0]
You can usually get an M4 Macbook Air 16GB for $750 - $800 on sale. So you can get 2 of them for the same price as one Framework 13 and still significantly outperform it.
Framework is an idealogical buy. It just isn't worth it otherwise.
[0]https://frame.work/products/laptop13-diy-amd-ai300/configura...
The recent base Framework 13 would cost you $1,170, Ryzen AI 5 340, with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 4 full featured (USB4) USB-C ports. Note: You can buy the RAM and SSD separately, Framework even links PCPartsPicker (no price for 2x8GB RAM, so price is for single 16GB). How much storage space does your last gen M4 Macbook Air come with? 256GB would be irrelevant for most anyone, as you cannot upgrade... unlike with a Framework, where you can upgrade everything.
You are comparing dissimilar things, anyway. On a recent Macbook, you are hard stuck with MacOS. If you don't want MacOS (or ARM for that matter), Macbooks could be free and it's still the worse deal. Macbooks are subsidized by pushing you into the increasingly locked-down software/hardware ecosystem, where Apple is rent seeking. Paying for a firewall, or virtualization environment is mostly unheard of in the Linux world. It's like a cheap printer, where the real cost is DRM protected ink.
On a Framework you have excellent support for both Windows and Linux. You are free to do whatever you want.
You can buy RAM and SSD for many other much cheaper Windows laptops too. I don't see why anyone should buy significantly overpriced Framework laptops.
macOS is excellent, much better than Windows nowadays. If you're a dev, macOS is also generally superior to Linux since dev tools often come out on macOS before Linux. macOS is also generally a much better machine when you're not doing dev work.You can argue about how Framework is better here and there but in reality, Framework only makes sense for 0.001% of laptop buyers, maybe less.
You casually brush over the fact, that you were confidently misinforming people.
> macOS is excellent
> If you're a dev, macOS is also generally superior to Linux since dev tools often come out on macOS before Linux.
Lol. Sure, buddy.
You also misinform people.
I’m damn sure. macOS gets dev tools that Linux doesn’t even get.If you're price conscious, buy the self-assembled framework kit. It's fun and takes half an hour to assemble.
I got a framework 16 with a handful of upgrades for $1400. I added 96GB of RAM purchased separately for $300 (before the shortage). I also got a 4TB NVMe for $300. What do those upgrades cost cost in a macbook?
I think most people care more about their OS than their hardware specs, so they defend their purchase like it's part of their identity and it's hard to have a rational discussion.
Edit: If you're talking about the Intel model, I agree with you. The Ryzens are fantastic.
In the context of an M5 Max with 96GB of VRAM, it's a bargain compared to the price you'd have to pay for an Nvidia GPU with 96GB of VRAM for AI.
But if you're talking about slow RAM, you're right. Apple doesn't sell slow RAM on their laptops.
I've personally found the repairability to be worth the price for me. I got the baseline $999 back when it launched & have done stupid things like spilling a whole gallon of milk on it. Had to take it apart & clean as well as replace the keyboard but now it's still chugging along. Used to own a MacBook & the keyboard started dying after a year with a failed A key. Very expensive to replace so I just remapped caps lock to A. Then the screen started getting weird color issues and dead pixels. A MacBook Neo does look attractive though. Probably better performance.
I don't think the new keyboards have issues as the butterfly era. Indeed Mac keyboards were junk before Apple Silicon.
They were solid before the butterfly design too. It was just Apple's inability to admit the new design was shit and their hubris that they'd engineer their way to a solution for so long that the whole world became aware of the issue when mainstream journalists started writing about it in major publications. The Wall Street Journal article with no letter 'e's was brilliant.
Framework Laptop is more expensive than a Macbook Air with all around worse hardware. For a framework 13 I'd have to pay 1900€ with a 16GB setup. For 1450 I get a MBA with 24GB ram. Similar with a dell or lenovo who get smoked in performance comparisons.
It might still be worth it for those who hugely value open source and repairability but as for value I think its save to say that Apple is currently in a league of their own. Even if the altest os update is a flop.
Also, the Macbook has improved repairability. While its still not great its better than a few years ago.
> Framework Laptop is more expensive than a Macbook Air with all around worse hardware.
Is it though? I'd agree the hardware is less capable but if your Macbook anything is really just one 'top case' repair away from being more expensive. RAM failure is 'motherboard replace', the display? it is similarly expensive to replace.
So I would agree that it is more expensive to purchase a Framework laptop than a Macbook laptop, but also feel it is more expensive to own a Macbook laptop than a Framework laptop. Also I just replaced the screen on my FW13 not because it was broken but because they have one with 4x the pixels on it now. That's not something I could have done with the Macbook.
What is the probability of those things failing during the time you have the MacBook? I've had Apple portables since they were called PowerBooks and the only problem I've had that wasn't caused by violence was a battery swelling, and that cost me something like $120 to replace, not a big deal. If you add 5% to the price, that's probably about your expected cost for repairs or premature replacements if you don't have a habit of damaging your equipment.
If'd rather not take a low risk of a big repair/replacement bill and you don't mind helping Big Fruit make a bit more of a profit, you can pay them $50-150/year (depending on model) to take that risk. Multiply that by the number of years you expect to own the device to come up with a "real" cost including repairs/replacements.
My Framework 13 is a bit long in the tooth. I can pay 529 EUR to get a new mainboard and keep the same case/battery/speakers/camera/keyboard/mouse/screen/etc. Or, I can replace the keyboard for 32 EUR.
It's not just repairs, to upgrade a Mac you have to throw away all that perfectly working hardware just to get a new mainboard.
> I can pay 529 EUR to get a new mainboard and keep the same case/battery/speakers/camera/keyboard/mouse/screen/etc.
Or you can spend 50 euros more and get an entire new laptop that is not only much more powerful than your old framework but is almost as repairable: the neo.
At some point your argument begins to work against you, you should just have talked about the keyword repair being cheap. Not how you can get a new motherboard for "only" 530 euros.
> Or you can spend 50 euros more and get an entire new laptop that is not only much more powerful than your old framework but is almost as repairable: the neo.
You forget to mention - less powerful than his old FW 13 with new mainboard/CPU.
I assume he's referring to the AMD AI 340 for 530 euros.[0]
Macbook Neo 31% faster ST speed and a bit slower on the MT.[1]
I wouldn't call the Neo less powerful than his 530 euros upgrade. In fact, I'd much rather have the faster ST speed in this kind of laptop. Most of the apps you're running with this class of laptops will be ST bound anyway.
You can literally get a brand new Macbook Neo using Apple EDU pricing for the price of a slower AMD motherboard upgrade. This is why Framework is an absolutely terrible deal overall. I'm not even convinced that Framework is better for the environment since Apple laptops last extremely long and will very often have second and third hand buyers.
[0]https://frame.work/nl/en/products/mainboard-amd-ai300?v=FRAN...
[1]https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/17360869?baseli...
> What is the probability of those things failing during the time you have the MacBook?
and
> ... you can pay them $50-150/year (depending on model) to take that risk.
These things are related, Apple knows what the failure rate in the field for their hardware is, and they "price in" that failure rate into their AppleCare costs. On my iPad pro, that's $90/year.
That said, it is entirely a 'bet' on your part as to whether or not you're in a position to cover costs of repair/replacement in the event of damage. That depends on a lots of factors and includes how much you can tolerate not having the equipment for a while, Etc.
The downside of an Apple is generally you can’t improve the hardware by replacing it piecemeal as new hardware comes out.
That was my goal buying a Framework… to get to refresh hardware regularly as better stuff came out rather than waiting 10 years to buy a new laptop.
Will it work that way in reality? No idea, but I thought it was at least interesting enough to take a gamble.
I can configure a 1400E framework 13 with a bring-my-own ssd + linux.
I can drop it down to 1050E without the ram if i take ram from my older laptop.
Upgrading or fixing this is very easy. RAM/SSD i can take with me over multiple generations of a laptop.
I can't do that on a macbook, if anything breaks there (screen, ssd, ram, keyboard, battery bulging...) I might as well buy another.
Then there's the issue of macos... you're stuck with it, if you don't like it, it's a dealbreaker.
There's also issue of waste... I can make a router/firewall from an old framework mobo. I can't do that with a macbook.
Sure, a poweruser can bring their own ram/ssd. But again they pay almost as much and have a worse system performance wise.
Normal users don't profit from anything you listed. They do have to buy a notebook with all components, and thus currently have to pay more for linux/windows hardware compared to Apple.
Also, RAM isn't backwards compatiple. Literally had this problem with my old ddr4 not fitting in the newer ddr5 slots when my ddr5 acted up.
> Normal users don't profit from anything you listed.
They can get their technical friends to set up a laptop for them and profit from what I mentioned.
> They do have to buy a notebook with all components
Sure, first time they do that, then they can reuse.
> and thus currently have to pay more for linux/windows hardware compared to Apple.
Sure, first time they do that. If they try framework, there are plenty of other cheaper options with pretty good specs.
> Also, RAM isn't backwards compatiple. Literally had this problem with my old ddr4 not fitting in the newer ddr5 slots when my ddr5 acted up.
Of course... but once you have something with ddr5 it should last you a long time, same as DDR4 did.
Now... you missed another point, some people just don't like or want MacOS, as nice as hardware might be, it's not acceptable software wise.
As for normal people, they'll just buy whatever is cheapest. If they even bother since phones/tables have already taken over.
I'm not sure laptops will have a market other then power users going forward...
It's not just Tahoe; macOS is simply insufferable for many users. You can pitch Apple Silicon to gamers, warship captains or datacenter users, but they won't care when the dust settles. It's a device for people that want a Mac, and if you want a PC, server or homelab then you gotta get different hardware. It's entirely a software limitation, imposed by Apple.
I don't value open source or repairability that much. I just want to develop server software, and on macOS I always end up with the same janky VM-based workflow I suffer through on Windows. On the desktop I have no reason to waste my time with macOS, and I don't use a laptop often enough to justify reincorporating macOS into my life.
If they would have sprung for the AMD395+ in the latop @ 128GB, you'd have a fair comparison for AI compute.
HP Zbook G1a 14. OEM Linux support.
> I say “stopped working”, but technically it works too well now, it is being pressed constantly, which makes the laptop pretty unusable.
I had this problem in my Framework. I fixed it by... holding the laptop upside down and mashing the offending key for several minutes. Didn't work immediately, but now you wouldn't tell that it was ever broken. I've managed to panic-order (~€80) another keyboard though, so now I have a spare.
For context a laptop keyboard is build like this:
https://www.iqsdirectory.com/articles/membrane-switch/membra...
This problem is caused by the layers sticking together. In the case of the Framework 16 the "d" key sits on top of a foam pad which in turn is placed on top of a heat pipe, so this area gets particularly hot under load. The layers are often made from PET, which starts softening anywhere in the range of 65-87C - so easily within range of a laptop heat pipe.
By mashing the key I was hoping to detach the layers and apparently it worked.
That being said for gaming I use an external keyboard now, because the one built-in is made by an external supplier and I don't think they'll start using a more heat-resistant material anytime soon.
My first computer was a Mac Plus.
I got to experience Apple's customer hostile practices.
Many years ago l decided never to buy an Apple product again.
AppleCare is honestly a great deal, especially for laptops. M1 Macbook Pros from 2020 are humming along just fine for regular people who see no reason to upgrade.
The future is now, old man.
I just looked up Apple Care. Costs $449 AUD (~$300 USD) for 3 years of coverage on a MacBook Pro.
A quick search shows that it's ~$500-$600 to fix the screen if it does break; I didn't bother looking up the keyboard but I'd assume it's much, much less.
So basically, on the off chance that your MacBook does shit the bed in the most expensive way, you save ~$150 or so? But in the almost-certain case that your Macbook is fine, you're down $450?
That is not a great deal at all, haha!
>A quick search shows that it's ~$500-$600 to fix the screen if it does break; I didn't bother looking up the keyboard but I'd assume it's much, much less.
_The_ point of that the article you're commenting on, is that a keyboard replacement on a MacBook is very expensive. Why would you make that assumption?
The "most expensive way" to shit the bed is also not the peripherals of the computer dying, it's the logic board giving up the ghost.
I'm a repair tech - hence made some assumptions that the author did not make.
Have done riveted keyboards on non-Mac machines before and would be surprised if an independent shop charged more than about $150 USD for it. It's not that hard to do.
You're right about the logic board being an extremely expensive fix, but it's also significantly less common than something like a keyboard, USB port, speaker or screen.
This is also something extremely Australian-specific, but consumer guarantees would probably cover any logic board damage within the first 1-3 years anyway, regardless of AppleCare warranty.
What if your screen breaks or logic board? Top of the line MacBooks cost ~4-5k. I recently had to service a battery and they replaced a top case and a keyboard free of charge. I will continue paying for AppleCare as long as they will allow me
You’re underestimating the probability of multiple things needing attention over 5-7 years.
That is baked into the price of AppleCare just like any insurance premium.
I definitely think coverage should be free for 2 years though.
Bought AppleCare for my AirPods. Never again.
AppleCare is leaps and bounds better than any other insurance you can buy for mobile or laptops.
For accessories I don’t see the point, those are effectively disposable wear items.
Ironically a large part of deciding to migrate to an iPhone from android was final frustrations with even Google purchased devices under warranty coupled with hardware quality requiring repairs. My wife’s experience with AppleCare won me over.
If nothing else it’s first party insurance. I will never purchase device insurance offered via a third party ever again. Either its first party so I’m dealing with the place I bought it or nothing at all.
Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
Unless for some reason you know you will be breaking your device much more than the average person.
Insurance is for things that are unlikely to ever happen but would financially ruin you if they did.
Definitely agreed, to a point. Phones I used to break so often it seemed worth it, although a lot seemingly had to do with device quality vs. me being especially clumsy. My iPhone has been dropped, dunked in the bath, etc. just as much as my past Pixels but is going on 3 years now. I never made it a year previously.
My laptop I'm on the fence about. It's a $3,000 machine that isn't especially robust if dropped, but I haven't broken one in a decade or two. Probably won't pick it up on the next one I buy. The unrepairability of modern Macbooks is what got me to buy it in the first place though. An old Thinkpad I could self-insure for quite cheap because I had the ability to replace any component failure myself. Not so true on the Macbook. I also see it as travel insurance - I can walk into any Apple store in a major city and in theory get a replacement device on the spot. Of course that theory has yet to be strongly tested.
As a longtime iPad Pro (large) user that always gets the AppleCare, I have walked out of the store with a brand new device a half-dozen times with only a few questions asked.
>Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
Not sure about Applecare but Lenovo has support packages where if your thinkpad breaks they'll send a technician over to your place to fix it within 24 hours. That's definitely worth it for a work device IMO.
I bought this kind of insurance for my PhD (Dell laptop, same 24 hours technician on site guarantee). Although quite expensive, I don't regret it: my screen and motherboard got replaced about two years in.
>Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
"Peace of mind" is not free.
Paying ~ten bucks a month to insure my phone and not have to worry about it getting damaged is worth it to me, even if I could afford to replace it if I broke it; because now I just _don't worry about it_.
Why would you worry about it if you can afford to replace it?
If you say you worry about the cost, shouldn't you worry even more about the higher cost of the insurance? Sure, for one item the variance is higher if you are uninsured, but if you have several such items, variance goes down, and you are saving all the more money.
Because even though I can afford to buy/repair a new phone if I break mine; it still _feels_ terrible to have to spend 500+ bucks because I was a dumbass.
I literally toss my phone to my couch or my bed from across the room dozens of times a week without worrying about misjudging the throw (which happens more than I’d like to admit), toss is on the ground at the gym, have no problems taking long baths with it, washing it under the sink if it gets dirty, and do dozens of things I would not do if I had to pay a full price if I ended up actually breaking it.
Having AC+, lets me treat the device with the level of carelessness that is worth the price to me.
Math-wise with how durable recent flagship devices are, you are probably correct that I’d be better off financially to just accept that I will break a phone every couple of years and just eat the cost.
But psychologically, I’m happier paying ~120bucks a year, than $500 in repair fees once in a while.
Yes, the argument is that the entity providing the insurance is surely earning more income that they are paying out since in addition to payouts, they also have overhead costs and must be profitable. Said another way, their customers are paying more than they receive, on average. That's a mathematical and economical certainty.
You are right that it might still feel better to you to pay regularly instead. That's subjective.
Knowing that you will likely end up paying less in the long term if you don't pay the insurance might help getting over that feeling, but that's a personal choice in the end.
It's bordering on insurance fraud and I usually trade-in my devices back to Apple so I don't bother with it; but there's probably at least one case where both you and Apple come out ahead financially.
AC+ includes what they call "Express Replacement Service", where you will send you an entirely new device as part of your claim, and they'll reuse your old one for parts.
If you _just happen_ to accidentally fall with your phone in hand right after the new ones come out, the delta in price between "a scuffed up, used 1-year old phone" and "brand new refurbished device from Apple" is higher than the price of the insurance and incidental damage fees.
The peace of mind I have is that the $1000 for a new phone is sitting in my bank account. If I break my phone, I can get it replaced, and if I don't, I get to keep the money. While buying Apple care is ensuring you lose since you pay for a new phone whether you break it or not.
> AppleCare is leaps and bounds better than any other insurance you can buy for mobile or laptops.
Which doesn’t tell you a lot because they are pretty bad, too. Being better doesn’t mean it’s a good offer.
AppleCare is only worth it for expensive things with big repair costs; the "repair fee" for AirPods is such a high percentage of the replacement price that it just is not worth it.
I've never worried about AppleCare for my Apple products, until this year when I signed up for AppleCare One. I bought a few new devices, including the Studio Monitor XDR. For the XDR alone it's worth it, since replacing the screen is a multi-$1k repair.
I had AppleCare when my keyboard failed. They blamed it on me because of an dent about 1mm wide I never noticed on the back corner.
So you just get screwed twice.
Cautiously optimistic, given the repairability of the MacBook Neo keyboard, that this design will make it to the rest of their laptops when the refreshed designs are released (next year?).
Finally got my $45 payout from the last class action suit against Apple for the butterfly keyboard fiasco. Seems like Apple didn’t learn the overarching lesson here: keyboards have to be robust and replaceable because they frequently need replacement.
Does anyone know if this is covered under the Apple Care plans? My 16" M1 MBP keyboard has been no problem, I'm just curious. Not saying that negates the issue.
Unfortunately, AFAICT, these repairability issues are largely due to the move to thinner and lighter laptops. Replacing my MILs Microsoft Surface tablet was a pain in the butt. Had to cut the case open and tape it back together. But that thing was insanely small and light. My MIL liked it because she has a lot of trouble carrying anything very heavy.
Yes it is, I had my M! Max keyboard replaced as repairing the individual keycaps didn't work, and then they replaced the entire logic board while they were testing due to finding an error. Total cost was around €1400, to me €0. New bottom case, new battery, new logic board.
Keyboards on MacBook Pros have been riveted since at least 2014. That doesn’t necessarily disprove your argument, but it does move the “thin and light” bar farther back than one would expect from the phrasing.
The new MacBook Neo's keyboard is not riveted and instead held with screws. As far as I could tell it is still just as thin and light as other MacBooks.
Apple has long made trade offs in pursuit of "thin and light". Apple announced the 2014 MBP as "People love their MacBook Pro because of the thin and light, aluminum unibody design". https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/07/29Apple-Updates-MacBo...
Ah, that timeframe is helpful to know. I had to replace the keyboard in my 2012 MBP twice, and was able to do it myself both times.
Since then, I always use keyboard skins.
> I’ll remember this experience and choose to buy a more repairable laptop like a ThinkPad or a Framework laptop.
> Here’s hoping governments regulate laptop manufacturers to actually make repairable machines in the future.
So there is already a solution on the market but for some reason the immediate desire is for the government to get involved and start regulating laptop keyboards?
That's why I only buy Thinkpads from the business/professional lines... Replaced the keyboard om my t480 for $24, and replacing it myself was a 2 minute job (2 screws, pop 2 connectors, replace, and put back together).
At least some Thinkpads also have an actual drain: if you spill a not-especially-corrosive liquid on it, you should be okay — the liquid will drain through a channel and out a drain hole on the bottom of the laptop.
> After thinking about it for a bit I decided to remap all the arrow keys using Karabiner Elements . I disabled the right arrow key and mapped capslock + J K L I. And donated $10 to the project. A small price to pay to postpone a very expensive repair bill.
Great idea! Though I'd suggest to use RightCmd instead of Capslock, it's more ergonomic - you use your right hand just like before.
(and yes, it's both insane that the hardware is not repairable and that the OS software sucks so you have to use some other apps)
Suggest https://rossmanngroup.com/ unless you know how to do the repair yourself. A trustworthy not-apple-certified shop can do a repair cheaper by replacing fewer parts. Rossman doesn’t charge unless they’re able to fix the device - even if it takes them some time to look at it.
My camera started malfunctioning lately (because tropicalized doesn't mean you can use it in tropical weather). It worked, but when I switched batteries I had to wait a minute for whatever capacitor was blown to discharge before it would boot again.
I sent it back for repair to the manufacturer, they gave me an "estimate" that it wouldn't be repairable, and generously offered a replacement with a refurbished one, at $10 off the price of new (plus shipping, of course). I declined the "repair" and asked for the camera back.
When it arrived, the stickers I had put around made it clear it hadn't even been open. Having seen enough Louis Rossmann, I brought it to a camera shop around which is doing microsoldering. They replaced a single capacitor (after making me sign papers that it would probably never work again, and charging me quite a bit - still better than wasting an otherwise perfectly functional camera). The unrepairable camera was repaired.
It is so disappointing and unsurprising that a manufacturer wouldn't put even remotely any effort into actual repairs, that a street shop with actual expertise will happily do. I've come to expect no expertise from any service department I communicate with. Sending something for repair is almost a sure way that it will be broken even further. When even replacing the top case in the example of that mac seems overkill, when they could probably replace the faulty key with skill and will.
I guess that's a matter of incentives, given that in mass market, repairability is not something people look into when shopping.
I had the opposite happen to me. I made the same assumption when my GPU broke (it was 2-3 months old). I thought I'll save time and spend some more money to have it repaired in a local shop instead of sending it back to the manufacturer.
Turns out it was a fatal irreparable failure. A capacitor overheated and left a small crater on the surface. Because I took it to the shop, the warranty sticker was void. Had to buy a whole new GPU :(
I strongly recommend not buying a Macbook and instead hacking a mini: https://github.com/vk2diy/hackbook-m4-mini ... cheaper and restores control of peripheral selection and replacement. That is to say "such a system will last ~forever instead of ~3 years [when the first major component dies and replacement costs ~70% of a new Apple product]". Particularly with Asahi Linux progressing so quickly. https://asahilinux.org/ Without Asahi Linux I would not buy a Mac in 2026.
I too looked at Framework and like the idea, unfortunately in my case the supply chain was too slow to be tolerable, before even considering the price-performance ratio.
I strongly support the idea that the EU should force vendors to make consumer device repairs cost-effective and available or open source and expose their component interfaces in exchange for the right to sell in Europe. After all, the EU brought us USB-C, so we know regulatory pressure works. Thanks, EU!
FWIW the Macbook Air is slightly more repairable and modern ones are decent enough to do work on without the display limitations of prior non-pro apple silicon. As a travel machine, I shy away from the Pro because of how poor it is to repair.
Unfortunately a Macbook is a hard requirement for travel simply because of battery life, at my desk I use my Windows gaming rig for work.
I have a Framework that I love and bought for that exact reason, but recently Lenovo seems to have upped their repairability game again as well:
https://de.ifixit.com/News/115827/new-thinkpads-score-perfec...
I'm glad to hear you are able to fix it with software for now. So many people can't just do that though and it is ridiculously expensive to have it repaired.
Any purchase is a gamble, macs are one of those gambles that seems more risky with its difficulty to repair, however I guess the expectation is that it's less likely to need it.
> order a replacement keyboard, take the laptop apart, replace the keyboard and good to go
That’s all it took with my Framework laptop, and I’m very grateful for it. I was in a good place financially when I got it, but now I’m not. I feel a strong sense of relief that if an accident occurs and I need a repair, it won’t set me back too much.
ifixit sells just the keyboards, why doesn't that work?
https://www.ifixit.com/products/macbook-pro-14-a2442-a2779-a...
I don't see a replacement guide link on that page, but curiously there's this note:
> The aluminum upper case and installation screws are not included.
I would assume you likely need those too, as the article also mentions.
Wouldn’t the screws in your existing generally be reusable for this replacement?
the keyboard in the current macbook pro is RIVETED.
Yes, they're not highly torqued or anything. I would reuse them even if it did include new screws.
The article is ten paragraphs (two of which are four words or shorter). The entire sixth paragraph is dedicated to answering that question.
Someone posted a video on how to slam out the rivets with a screwdriver.
Looks like it’s possible to replace just the keyboard https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeSQ0DpG1HA&t=907s&pp=2AGLB5AC...
It is. It's simply expensive.
No, a new keyboard is between 12 and 50 euros depending on where you get it, the video is the missing piece.
Over a decade ago, my father would fix washing machine controllers, replacing mechanical timers, buttons, panels, or other parts; Now, for the same problem, we just need to replace a control circuit board; the circuit board itself is sealed with adhesive for waterproofing, which also means the circuit board is not repairable.
Maintainability is actually not a mandatory standard, but a design trade-off; the biggest problem with the MacBook is not this, but rather that Apple does not allow other means of repairing the MacBook, such as various certification chips, etc.;
I'm reminded of my surprise when my Mac's 'super' (their name) floppy drive quit working because the CPU fan was pulling air through it all day. Post 90-day warranty, the replacement cost at the time was 1/5 of what the machine cost.
IMO, Apple hardware was never the company's strong point. And they refused to supply individual replacement parts.
What exactly broke? I had this problem recently and thought the keyboard was done for, but turns out you can also replace the switches (not keycaps) and that solved the issue in my case. You have to be very careful though since it is very easy to break the switch or key cap if you remove it incorrectly (this happened to me while I was trying to clean the keyboard)
> mapped capslock + J K L I
you need to visit the confessional for that
An anecdote on third-party keyboard replacements.
I have an ASUS Zephyrus G15 (2021), GA503QM. I’ve been using it extremely heavily for five years. After about three years the left arrow key gradually stopped working. I adapted. Some keys have become a little less reliable, too, most notably E, and it’s nowhere near as crisp as it was when new. But it’s still a decent keyboard, which definitely wasn’t the case for two of my three previous laptops after even three years.
Anyway, a couple of weeks ago I tried getting a replacement keyboard on Amazon, not clearly identified as inauthentic (looks identical to the original; perhaps you should guess it, as a brand name is attached, WeFly in this case; but I know some of these things do claim to be genuine parts despite that). Worst new keyboard I have ever even heard of, barring those dumb roll-up keyboards. F2 a little sticky, have to press it straight. F and J requiring firm pressing to activate. Space not activating at the ends. And maybe worst of all, 2KRO (the original is NKRO!), with horrific ghosting. When you touch-type, you frequently have three keys active at once. Typing “you” would get a bonus F11 activation around half the time. “he ” a bonus N activation. Mashing the keyboard put the laptop to sleep, which doesn’t even make sense, and badly messed up key pressed state (though that’s possibly a software problem). Some combinations activated keys which don’t even exist, like Numpad 0.
With difficulty I was able to return it and get my money back. (I also got a refund on a counterfeit battery purchased at the same time—branded Wistar but unquestionably labelled as a genuine ASUS part, it was labelled in depth as 90Wh, but reported a design capacity of 74Wh and behaved so. Not sure if you can even find that information under Windows—maybe in Device Manager? So alas, for now I’m back on my original battery which is down to 51Wh capacity.) I wrote detailed one- and two-star reviews on Amazon, which were approved, and then deleted (one same day, one after a few days) for no apparent reason.
I’m trying to talk to ASUS to see if I can get a first-party replacement, but they don’t sell them independently at least, and can’t tell me a price, so I have to try talking to the local service centre. Hopefully it’ll be possible and not too expensive. Definitely not going to try third-party again for the keyboard, though maybe for the battery I’ll try one clearly marked as third-party.
Since reinstalling the original keyboard last week, a few days ago both Control keys stopped working, and the right tweeter (which gradually died a year or two ago) has started producing white noise when powered up. I should try reseating cables and such. It’s definitely fairly invasive surgery to replace the keyboard. The keyboard, incidentally, is fastened to the case by about 70 tiny screws (mine had 71 holes but only 69 screws). For now, I mapped Right Shift to Right Control, and have since been discovering that I used Right Shift more often than I realised!
You know what this means right? Turn this old man into a server (remove battery for safety). It will work for many more years.
I was planning on building a PC toward the end of last year, but several life things and the need for an inverter (I live in India now, and power is regularly off for hours) complicated and delayed it, and when I came back to it in December, RAM had got super expensive, and I just couldn’t justify the 50% increase in total price. Now if this laptop stopped working more…
If you can afford it, a small or medium ecoflow battery and one or two 200W solar panels with solve a ton of your issues in India, if nobody steals it. I'm in Africa and have frequent load shedding too, and I've replaced so many devices in my home with rechargeable/outdoor variants that can be recharged/powered by solar if needed.
Also, don't buy asus again. If you are looking for repairable laptops, dell, hp and lenovo are the only decent brands when it comes to repairs & parts (make sure the not to buy the cheapest consumer models).
If you want a fixed installation, EcoFlow products seem rather expensive. You look to pay a huge premium for the portability, which is actually less convenient than the traditional inverter design if you don’t need it. Simplifying things to a single number for their cheapest vaguely-comparable products, 1 kWh, LiFePO₄, solar-capable: EcoFlow Delta 3 1000 Air is ₹60,000, Livsol L-iON1500 is ₹27,500.
The only reason why I mentioned the brand, is because most of their battery systems have the yellow solar port - so you can plug solar directly into the system, some have two ports. They also have built-in inverters, so you can plug the laptop directly into that. There are probably other brands that offer a similar setup.
If your laptop can be powered by USB-C, even better. If the battery system doesn't have usb-c output, buy a GaN charger (mine is a 140W GaN charger and its amazing). They are super efficient and don't generate much heat.
Fixed-installs (or grid tie-in) requires electricians and sometimes rewiring some parts of your home's circuitry. Huge operation if done right but generally not needed if you only have one or two panels and a portable battery system.
There are very good benchmarks on youtube with the portable solar + battery setups.
Why would someone down vote this comment? Its perfectly reasonable to reuse old hardware with broken components (screens, keyboards) into server/passive devices that sits in the corner and still being useful, instead of going to the trash. Removing old battery is good advice as they are a fire hazard if you keep them plugged in and they are degraded - best to remove it completely and run the laptop off main power and/or add an external UPS if you can afford it.
Please let me know why this specific comment was down voted.
I had the same issue with a different key on 2 separate macs. A 1 and a 2 year old MacBook pro. 95% of the time I'm WFH using magic external keyboard, which also has the same problem so I bought a new one. Keyboards are a massive problem at apple.
For me, for day-to-day usage, I sit at a desk and use an external keyboard. The ergonomics of working directly on a laptop aren't very good for extended periods of time.
Case in point: I don't put a lot of stress on my laptop keyboards.
Had a similar experience with the XPS series. Was able to find a keyboard. When taken apart, realized they had used plastic bits, tape, and other things to connect the keyboard to the top lid. Seems they expected one to either be handy with epoxy or buy the combo.
This is what you get when you purchase Apple products. Nothing new here, I had to deal with this back in the G3/G4 days when the laptops were so stupidly-locked you couldn't even apply security updates.
Overpriced COTS garbage.
I thought the keys were replaceable now?
(first video I found on a search)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WYT7YIh00Xk
I know in the Butterfly days those keys would break when you removed them.
Far more likely it's an electrical contact issue.
Had an issue with a broken keycap hinge a couple of years ago. Went to local Apple store and they also told me it's a whole motherboard replacement. Got the keycap + hinge from Aliexpress for $2. :/
Been there with M1 Air. I needed to change my keyboard but the build made it unbelievably challenging.
Had a broken key on my m2 air that I couldn't easily fix. Took it to an Apple store and a tech worked on it for a bit and came back with it fixed.
No charge. I was pretty grateful!
Sure it's a giant PITA, but it's not expensive to repair if you do the labor yourself. Parts for macbook are easy to comeby since Apple decentralizes repairs so heavily.
I had the same issue and now I cannot use "F" and "Right arrow". It is a smart idea to disabled the right arrow key and mapped capslock + J K L I !
> mapped capslock + J K L I
This is such a good idea that it makes other peoples machines nearly useless for you
All credit to https://tonsky.me/blog/cursor-keys/
fyi. The keyboard in my last MacBook Pro also failed. Apple Store charged ~$500 to fix it.
It would have been cheaper if the author would have bought AppleCare.
so this happened to me some years ago. visited a local shop and they wanted to change the whole board. went to Los Angeles, visited an apple store, got an appointment. went back again to the appointment brought the MacBook, they said the same.
went to ebay bought the key, replaced it with tweezers after removing it from above without disabling the keyboard (I know, a little brutish) and it worked again for years.
give it a try
The trackpad on my 2.5 year old Macbook Air stopped working. Apple wanted over £400 to fix it. Thankfully I found a local guy who did it for a fraction of that. Screw Apple.
This is like complaining that BMW maintenance is expensive.
No this isn't even like that. Frameworks are 2x the price of a Macbook without the performance, battery life, build quality, screen quality, touch pad, speakers, etc.
If Apple is the BMW here, what is Framework? It's definitely not a Toyota.
I use right command + HJKL with karabiner and use it way too much, typing on someone else’s keyboard really throws me off but it’s great for my daily usage
I am sure there's a video guide on how to do it on your own. But actually, your solution is also quite good.
the macbook neo has gone back to a replaceable keyboard. The next line of macbookpros are appenrly getting a new case design. There is hope.
€780 is 1/5th of the price of a laptop?
That jumped out at me as well.
It is not hard to spec a Macbook Pro to $4000+ though
I'm a little skeptical of the top case cost - iFixit has these ranging from $90 to $160 usually. The most expensive I found was $299.
Maybe the author meant the entire repair would cost €780.
I just had the most horrendous Apple repair experience. In standard warranty with Apple care. Would NOT authorize a mail in repair. Would only authorize walk in to my local shitty Apple authorized third party repair center who were unable / unwilling to reproduce.
Fought with them for weeks. Escalated. They lied and said they were doing a no cost replacement. Had to fight the charge. Then they lost my return.
So much so that I’ve started switching to Linux and de-googled phone. (Switching off of iPhone just to go to google seems like the greater of evils)
The non Apple ecosystem is much more mature than last I checked but still irritating. De googling was my biggest challenge. Getting a viable replacement for Mac OS was the easy part.
What was the problem? If the local repair center couldn't reproduce it, what was going on?
And what do you mean they lost your return? Like it got delivered and then it was lost? Surely they gave you a working unit at that point?
I've had a bunch of experiences with Apple repair and always always been fast and great. I mean, they're definitely the best service of literally any corporation I've dealt with, by far. Sometimes you get unlucky I guess with a particular rep or something hard to reproduce, but it sounds like you got extremely unlucky? It definitely isn't representative in my experience, not even close.
What MacBook is it? If you don't have the insane butterfly switches single keys are pretty repairable now.
My MacBook Pro M1 keyboard repair costed >700€, this is not a butterfly keyboard. So also new models have an expensive keyboard replacement.
My previous MacBook Pro keyboard was a butterfly keyboard and also broke, but got replaced for free. I don’t feel I am a heavy user as the MacBook Pro is mostly connected to an external keyboard and am pretty annoyed by apples keyboard quality (based on my sample size of 2).
I think those are just the keycaps, not the switches or the actual board underneath
You can remove and replace the switches too
I was gonna suggest to the author to lobotomize the key, but Karabiner is a viable fix too.
Apple is disgusting from that standpoint. I have my MacBook Air M1's screen break overnight (the "bendgate"), without any reason, after 13 months. I didn't buy the extended two years warranty. I was one-month off warranty. On a MacBook Air M1 I paid something like 1000 EUR VAT included (don't remember the exact price but in that ballpark), they were asking 700 EUR to fix the screen.
I still just ordered a MacMini M4 (I know the M5 is coming but we've got something like 20 computers at home, including servers, NUCs, laptops, desktop, etc. so I may not mind buying a M5).
Still... Apple, from the bottom of my heart: FUCK YOU.
been there, done that
unfortunately, the karabiner workaround will work for a little while, but the rest of the keys will start failing until it's impossible to remap the keys :/
I have a broken left key and went with karabiner too. I still plan to take the laptop to assistance at some point and try to get it a deep clean up and maybe that will help.
Otherwise fuck apple I'm not paying 700+ to fix a key.
I remember being so disappointed with Apple back when I had a Macbook and the Apple store people were like "nah, if you spilled stuff on it you just buy a new macbook"
>Here’s hoping governments regulate laptop manufacturers to actually make repairable machines in the future.
if you thing government regulation will help you you are lying to yourself that's not how the world works
Government regulation has mandated USB-C in all devices, which helps me every day. Just to name something in the realm of what the article is about.
If you think Apple is incapable of designing repairable keyboards, then I'd like to know how Lenovo figured it out: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Lenovo+ThinkPad+T480+Keyboard+R...
Chewing on lead paint and reading Ayn Rand is not how to learn how the world works either.
Sounds like another (common) Apple L and reason to avoid all Apple products
Buy a framework bro
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Name me an american tech company that isn't complicit in the fascist project. I bet you they don't produce laptops
Your argument is valid.
However; this particular laptop I am using right now is a used Dell and runs on linux.
My main computer, I built by myself.
But yes I use AWS, google etc. I just try to use less :)
"Made in america" is dead.
It's getting there. The exceptions are exceptional.
Purism
Normally I'd agree purity tests are largely counterproductive. But large tech companies are major players and deserve extraordinary scrutiny for their actions.
Anyway, simply noting the impacts of their decisions doesn't seem deserving of an "ism"—surely there should be a normative component to make this a proper ideology—I haven't told you what to do.
It seems you misunderstood me. https://puri.sm is the company you asked for.
System76
This is a great answer. I lost the bet. I suspect even this falls apart if you consider the bill of materials, though.
Look my point is that commodity fetishization is real, it protects our entire economy, and once you look deeper/underneath the hood/covers, many reasonable prices become violations of our personal values. With such insanely complex and largely offshore supply chains, laptops and phones (and servers etc) become very problematic devices that we nonetheless rely on.
[flagged]
I think you might be right. According to Ebay, a complete OEM backlit keyboard + trackpoint costs $24.99 for my laptop. The iFixit is rated "easy" and supposedly takes 15 minutes.
Go figure. MacBook Neo Is the Most Repairable MacBook in 14 Years [0]
Much as a laptop would suit me, I opted for a mini and a large display.
Come keyboard time, I was ready to spend $$$$$ for an Apple keyboard, but the only backlit ones come on laptops. I'm using a Logitech now, with the option of charging it all the time, else the lights dim themselves to conserve battery.
Yes, I was 19 once. And three times after that. But there we go again, stuff designed for 19 year-olds.
How about this? (image at imgbb.com)
https://i.ibb.co/66RZd3b/mbp16-m3-max-01.jpg (JK)
Replying to myself because I forgot the reference [0]
I'm happy with the downvotes if they're for the JK laptop keyboard mashup.
Otherwise, pretty much as others have posted. Peripherals otta be peripheral, not welded in place.
I worked around the dilemma.
Twice.
An iPad pro has a keyboard, trackpad and BT mouse.
And I have a doorstop iMac because of a somehow dead display. (repair $$$$$ )
I very much favor separate everything.
Peace.
[0] https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r...
This isn't an issue with macbook keyboards, a lot of windows laptops have their keyboards riveted to the C cover of a laptop.
isn't an issue ONLY with macbook keyboards. It is absolutely an issue that shouldn't exist.
Yes, my bad. I totally agree with that it does indeed suck. I've had to replace the C cover of my laptop before for reasons not related to the keyboard (a screw post broke because Dell had the bright of idea of attaching a metal screw post to the body with plastic). I ended up fixing that issue, but the keyboard that was installed in the C cover was noticeably shittier than my old one.
I'm now on a Framework 13, and it's been pretty fun so far.
No symphaty!!!
Apple has been doing this since forever and people keep buying its hardware.
You cannot replace a screen even if you buy a genuine one because Apple locks hardware ID via firmware, so only they can replace that!
Apple own customer is the reason why Apple does what it does best: You rent your hardware, you don't and never will own an Apple hardware!!
Things may change. Macbook Neo keyboard is straight-forward to replace.
Swedes many times have a defeatist attitude towards companies and authorities, and expect that they will never get any help unless they have a right to it (from warranties or such).
The author doesn't mention ever contacting Apple to get his keyboard fixed. Maybe he could have gotten pleasantly surprised?
"Here’s hoping governments regulate laptop manufacturers to actually make repairable machines in the future."
However, this quote is not a surprise at all, and goes perfectly in line with Swedish philosophy. And the philosophy of this message board as well.
The author isn't Swedish. I've known him for 18 years. Not sure where this comes from.
His name is Swedish or it could be Norwegian.
Anyway, did he contact Apple to see if they could help him out? Because sometimes Apple fixes these things for free.
I've had very good and very bad experiences with Apple support for hardware failures. It's worth trying to contact them, instead of calling for more government regulation.
He went through the Apple Icon -> "About This Mac" -> "More Info" -> Coverage Expired Details Button -> Clicked the Get Support button and ended up in an infinite loop of questions on the Apple website if I recall correctly.
Not great support on Apples side there.
That's not the point where you give up. That's the point where you call or e-mail the company to talk to a human.
Hence my comment about defeatism. Sometimes you have to push a little bit before giving up and crying for the government to come help you. Big companies aren't unbending stone statues.