1) I really like that there's a lot more high technical skill videos coming out (I can link a few if others are interested and maybe we could grow a list?)
2) Apple makes a big stink about their carbon footprint and sustainability. It is on every product page. But Apple products are not very sustainable when you consider beyond materials. Remember it is "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" (there's 3 arrows on the recycle symbol for a reason!), and I'm concerned that a lot of the focus for green stuff has shifted to only the last R. They're big fighters against the Right To Repair, meaning, they are against Reduce. They also really lock down the OS (especially on iPhones) meaning it is difficult to Reuse.
I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I'm now mostly on Apple (Air for laptop, switched to iPhone this month, but main machine is Linux). I switched because privacy, but I'm also mad about this loss (I felt that they have won, especially with overcharging...): But my old laptops? They become servers or machines I give to others. My old phones? Same thing. Your old phone is probably more powerful than a raspberry pi and comes with a battery backup, microphone, camera, and other things you might want. This is the __Reuse__ part of all of this.
Here's the thing Apple:
- If you want to "go green" you need the other R's. Reduce and Reuse matter MORE than recycling!
- If you want better products, stop blocking power users
That second point is tied in, and important for the reuse aspect. And you know what? I'm willing to bet that if Apple does this, they would actually make more money (as the video joked about). Because this is a big reason people turned to Apple in the first place. Because the machines lasted longer, people were willing to pay more. Programmers preferred them because they were the most linux like.
You were the first trillion dollar company, the first 2 trillion dollar company, and the first 3 trillion dollar company. But you're losing your place. It's time to think different.
I totally agree with you that Apple is not very staintly on being anti-repair, anti-upgrade, all that stuff.
However, I don't really think it's as big of a problem as this portrayal.
Firstly: let's not forget that external storage exists, and that many of Apple's content creator customers prefer it and understand it better.
It's important to remember that Apple is largely not marketing devices at power users. If you want a Linux laptoop get a Linux laptop, a MacBook Air is not meant for someone who is confident to open up a piece of electronics with a screwdriver just like a game console isn't meant for someone who likes to build and customize a gaming PC. The parts of an Apple laptop that aren't modular are parts that legitimately shouldn't need to be replaced for the expected lifespan of the system.
In that sense, I can understand why soldered in storage of, e.g., 256 GB, is not such a big deal for the right buyer. The users who bought that laptop will likely never fill up that internal storage and it will reach end of life for another reason. Someone working in Microsoft Office and Chrome will never fill that up. Their computer gets replaced every 10+ years when the device is simply too slow or unreliable to be used daily.
When it comes to sustainability, it's a bit of a tradeoff between lifespan and design. Nobody knows how to design an effective tire for a car that will last forever, it's a part that has to be completely changed. In that same way, nobody really knows how to design a computer where in 15 years it's still going to be powerful enough to perform basic tasks as the needs of computer users evolve – at some point it's not really "economical" to run the system daily anymore, and it also is not really practical to have it designed in such a modular way that an upgrade will make sense at that point in the furture.
Desktop computers are the perfect demonstration. They are about the most modular computer you could possibly imagine. However, new processor designs will eventually not work with the same socket, as it is physically impossible to keep it compatible with newer designs. Yes, I can change out RAM to add more, but in a decade the RAM speed will be a major bottleneck where I will need a new type of RAM to keep up with my workflow. Just about the only part of the system that will be lasting me over 10 years is the case and power supply, if I'm lucky.
So, is Apple telling their customers that they are going to replace their entire laptop sometime before 15 years has gone by all that wasteful? I'm not so sure it is abnormally wasteful. By then there will be hot spots and uniformity issues in the screen, the battery will need replacement, there could be capacitors and other electronics going bad, there might be physical damage or worn out parts that are being touched by the user. If I'm already replacing the logic board, screen, and battery, the rest is just a hunk of aluminum that's basically the simplest thing ever to recycle (and therefore reuse).
There's just a reality where no amount of modularity will actually make the item last much longer.
Worth noting - this is not a m.2 adapter, you couldn't use it to attach standard drives. This is an adapter for fitting proprietary flash cards with NAND on.
This is super impressive! It's a cool POC, although it is already clear that it would be feasible for Apple to put M.2 slots in Macbooks if they wanted to.
I wonder how much it would cost to have someone replace the BGA NAND chips in my Macbook. Apple charges $6-800 for a 2TB upgrade for a Macbook (depending on whether it's a 250 or 500GB drive originally). Someone would have to be able to do it for like $2-300 for it to be a feasible upgrade, especially considering that my warranty would be void. I assume there are people overseas who could do it cheaply. I assume it would be fairly quick for someone who knows what they are doing.
Ok, so you upgraded the storage, but most of these as well use soldered memory too, not to mention a _lot_ of these ship with _only_ base 8gb of ram. I imagine they'll run out of ram at some point, when apple will deprecate even m1-3 "low-end" 8gb macs to obscurity with the intel variants now that their low-end is 16gb.
How much is too much to upgrade a system vs replacing it and paying more apple tax?
Better ROI making them run linux in a less-needy desktop environment than trying to keep them usable as a mac with macos.
I agree with your sentiment and wanted to point out that for the RAM it's even worse than the storage. The RAM is not soldered on the board, its included in the package with the CPU, which makes upgrading the RAM effectively impossible for these machines.
1) I really like that there's a lot more high technical skill videos coming out (I can link a few if others are interested and maybe we could grow a list?)
2) Apple makes a big stink about their carbon footprint and sustainability. It is on every product page. But Apple products are not very sustainable when you consider beyond materials. Remember it is "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" (there's 3 arrows on the recycle symbol for a reason!), and I'm concerned that a lot of the focus for green stuff has shifted to only the last R. They're big fighters against the Right To Repair, meaning, they are against Reduce. They also really lock down the OS (especially on iPhones) meaning it is difficult to Reuse.
I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I'm now mostly on Apple (Air for laptop, switched to iPhone this month, but main machine is Linux). I switched because privacy, but I'm also mad about this loss (I felt that they have won, especially with overcharging...): But my old laptops? They become servers or machines I give to others. My old phones? Same thing. Your old phone is probably more powerful than a raspberry pi and comes with a battery backup, microphone, camera, and other things you might want. This is the __Reuse__ part of all of this.
Here's the thing Apple:
That second point is tied in, and important for the reuse aspect. And you know what? I'm willing to bet that if Apple does this, they would actually make more money (as the video joked about). Because this is a big reason people turned to Apple in the first place. Because the machines lasted longer, people were willing to pay more. Programmers preferred them because they were the most linux like.You were the first trillion dollar company, the first 2 trillion dollar company, and the first 3 trillion dollar company. But you're losing your place. It's time to think different.
I totally agree with you that Apple is not very staintly on being anti-repair, anti-upgrade, all that stuff.
However, I don't really think it's as big of a problem as this portrayal.
Firstly: let's not forget that external storage exists, and that many of Apple's content creator customers prefer it and understand it better.
It's important to remember that Apple is largely not marketing devices at power users. If you want a Linux laptoop get a Linux laptop, a MacBook Air is not meant for someone who is confident to open up a piece of electronics with a screwdriver just like a game console isn't meant for someone who likes to build and customize a gaming PC. The parts of an Apple laptop that aren't modular are parts that legitimately shouldn't need to be replaced for the expected lifespan of the system.
In that sense, I can understand why soldered in storage of, e.g., 256 GB, is not such a big deal for the right buyer. The users who bought that laptop will likely never fill up that internal storage and it will reach end of life for another reason. Someone working in Microsoft Office and Chrome will never fill that up. Their computer gets replaced every 10+ years when the device is simply too slow or unreliable to be used daily.
When it comes to sustainability, it's a bit of a tradeoff between lifespan and design. Nobody knows how to design an effective tire for a car that will last forever, it's a part that has to be completely changed. In that same way, nobody really knows how to design a computer where in 15 years it's still going to be powerful enough to perform basic tasks as the needs of computer users evolve – at some point it's not really "economical" to run the system daily anymore, and it also is not really practical to have it designed in such a modular way that an upgrade will make sense at that point in the furture.
Desktop computers are the perfect demonstration. They are about the most modular computer you could possibly imagine. However, new processor designs will eventually not work with the same socket, as it is physically impossible to keep it compatible with newer designs. Yes, I can change out RAM to add more, but in a decade the RAM speed will be a major bottleneck where I will need a new type of RAM to keep up with my workflow. Just about the only part of the system that will be lasting me over 10 years is the case and power supply, if I'm lucky.
So, is Apple telling their customers that they are going to replace their entire laptop sometime before 15 years has gone by all that wasteful? I'm not so sure it is abnormally wasteful. By then there will be hot spots and uniformity issues in the screen, the battery will need replacement, there could be capacitors and other electronics going bad, there might be physical damage or worn out parts that are being touched by the user. If I'm already replacing the logic board, screen, and battery, the rest is just a hunk of aluminum that's basically the simplest thing ever to recycle (and therefore reuse).
There's just a reality where no amount of modularity will actually make the item last much longer.
Worth noting - this is not a m.2 adapter, you couldn't use it to attach standard drives. This is an adapter for fitting proprietary flash cards with NAND on.
This is super impressive! It's a cool POC, although it is already clear that it would be feasible for Apple to put M.2 slots in Macbooks if they wanted to.
I wonder how much it would cost to have someone replace the BGA NAND chips in my Macbook. Apple charges $6-800 for a 2TB upgrade for a Macbook (depending on whether it's a 250 or 500GB drive originally). Someone would have to be able to do it for like $2-300 for it to be a feasible upgrade, especially considering that my warranty would be void. I assume there are people overseas who could do it cheaply. I assume it would be fairly quick for someone who knows what they are doing.
M.2 slots? M.2 SSDs have drive controllers on them, but in the Apple Silicon world, those controllers are integrated in the SoC.
They should absolutely not reuse the slot type for incompatible products.
They should make one though, their storage offerings are lame.
Consider that by the time you’ve ran out of storage you may have also ran out of your warranty.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41971060
Ok, so you upgraded the storage, but most of these as well use soldered memory too, not to mention a _lot_ of these ship with _only_ base 8gb of ram. I imagine they'll run out of ram at some point, when apple will deprecate even m1-3 "low-end" 8gb macs to obscurity with the intel variants now that their low-end is 16gb.
How much is too much to upgrade a system vs replacing it and paying more apple tax?
Better ROI making them run linux in a less-needy desktop environment than trying to keep them usable as a mac with macos.
I agree with your sentiment and wanted to point out that for the RAM it's even worse than the storage. The RAM is not soldered on the board, its included in the package with the CPU, which makes upgrading the RAM effectively impossible for these machines.