• 4dpuzzle@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The main motivation isn’t to reduce size and weight. The main motivation is to squeeze the customers for the last ounce of revenue.

    The claim that reparability has to be sacrificed for reduction in size and weight is a lie that they reinforced through repetition. They can achieve it without that sacrifice if they wanted to - but it won’t help their perpetual double digit profit growth target.

    • sanzky@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Im sorry but this is not correct. Most design decisions are a trade-off, you gain something but you loose something. You might argue that reparability should have a higher priority than size, but saying that you can be more repairable without gaining any size is nonsense.

      • 4dpuzzle@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s completely false. There’s no technical basis for this assertion or tradeoff. On the other hand, there are plenty of device manufacturers that prioritize reparability without sacrificing anything.

        The only argument is that Apple and Apple fanbois repeat these claims. But they have vested monetary interests in such a design. That’s why it’s a lie. Agreeing to it just lends credence to Apple abusing their market position. So no.

        • beefcat@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          There absolutely is.

          SODIMM slots disappeared from laptops because of technical limitations, and it took an entirely new design to eventually bring socketable RAM back to laptops. And those new sockets still take up more space than just soldering the RAM in place.

          Engineering is all about tradeoffs.