| General > General Technical Chat |
| Video on planned obsolescence. |
| << < (16/37) > >> |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: wraper on April 10, 2021, 12:48:49 pm --- --- Quote from: tooki on April 10, 2021, 12:25:45 pm ---but it certainly would reduce their maximum drop distance, for example. --- End quote --- Not sure about that. It may actually increase robustness since glass is compressed. Think about is as if it was a spherical structure with tension cables inside preventing its deformation. --- End quote --- I suppose that is possible. I’m certainly not an expert on glass. Either way, can’t you just try to be a tad less pointlessly argumentative?! I mean, come on, you already got a person on the internet to admit they were wrong, can’t that be enough for you?!? ;) Let’s instead focus again on the person making silly arguments about incandescent lamp design, like how we should just make the filaments way thicker... |
| SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: tooki on April 10, 2021, 01:01:03 pm ---[...] Let’s instead focus again on the person making silly arguments about incandescent lamp design, like how we should just make the filaments way thicker... --- End quote --- Hey - I resemble that remark! :D |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on April 10, 2021, 01:04:08 pm --- --- Quote from: tooki on April 10, 2021, 01:01:03 pm ---[...] Let’s instead focus again on the person making silly arguments about incandescent lamp design, like how we should just make the filaments way thicker... --- End quote --- Hey - I resemble that remark! :D --- End quote --- ::ducks:: No hate intended, just to be clear, just a bit of a collegial hard time. :p |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: tooki on April 10, 2021, 12:15:14 pm --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on April 08, 2021, 09:14:13 pm --- --- Quote from: tooki on April 04, 2021, 07:30:24 pm ---Or maybe it’s because it’s actually not. The useful lifespans of Apple products is well above average, and this has been the case since the 80s.* Apple provides OS updates for its phones and tablets for 5+ years, far above the 0-2 years typical in the Android world. (My iPad is from 2014 and still gets OS updates, and is still more than snappy enough for daily use. My 2015 iPhone 6S running the current iOS is nearly as snappy as my year-old SE. I only upgraded because I couldn’t get replacement parts quickly enough due to COVID delays, and my screen was cracked.) --- End quote --- I haven't seen any evidence that Apple products don't last as long as their competitors. The consensus seems to be they're fairly reliable. Apple frequently get criticised for making new products incompatible, with accessories designed for older products and updates which deliberately slow the device down. --- End quote --- That doesn’t mean those accusations are true! Apple has been using the same connector on its phones since 2012. And while some versions of iOS were annoyingly slow on very old hardware, Apple put a lot of effort into fixing that, and iOS 12 sped up older devices dramatically. (On iOS 11, my iPhone 6s was annoyingly slow. On iOS 12, it was as snappy as on iOS 9. iOS 13 and 14 didn’t slow it down at all.) I think many people don’t understand that adding new software features, which they have, does take up storage and runtime resources. There are 3 options I can think of: 1) don’t let the new software run on older hardware at all 2) restrict some new features to newer hardware that can handle it without being too slow 3) release all features for all devices, even if doing so makes it sluggish overall, or even if running some new feature requires dreadfully slow software emulation for something newer devices do in hardware You see the problem? No matter which approach Apple chooses, some people will complain that it’s planned obsolescence, even though 2 and 3 in actuality extend the useful life of the device compared to the alternative. Re-engineering software to be more efficient takes a lot of work, which isn’t always feasible to do with every release. For many, many years Apple has had the approach of a few years of “feature” OS releases, followed by a “performance” release that adds few features but does a ton of cleanup. That doesn’t get the same press as new features, of course. (That’s a common way of developing software: do an initial release of a feature using code that works reliably, but hasn’t been optimized for performance. Then later go back and see how you can speed up the main code paths.) --- End quote --- Oh, I can see your point, but other companies don't attract the same level of criticism: why is Apple any different? --- Quote --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on April 08, 2021, 09:14:13 pm --- --- Quote ---*Through the mid 2000s, researchers continuously found that Windows PCs were replaced after an average of 3 years, while the average Mac was replaced after 4-5 years. Between the longer lifespan and the dramatically higher resale value, the higher up-front cost was more than compensated. Since then, the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot, but the much higher resale value of used Macs is still the case. --- End quote --- That's not been the case for a long time though. I've had the same computer for nearly five years and it was nine years old, when I got it. The only upgrades were the RAM and a solid state hard drive. --- End quote --- Huh? I said “Since then [the mid-2000s], the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot”. Doesn’t that perfectly agree with your experience?? 14 years ago was 2007, and to me, the middle of the 2000s was 2005. What’s definitely still the same is the appreciably higher resale value of Apple products. A used Mac will retain far more value than an equivalent PC. (This can make used PCs excellent bargains for a buyer, whereas I have never found it sensible to buy used Macs. Great if you’re selling one, though!) --- End quote --- Yes, the PC I'm currently typing this from was made in 2007. It's an Intel Duo, with 3GB RAM, upgraded from 1GB and a solid state hard drive. It still does all I need, since I don't game, edit videos, or use 3D CAD, I'll keep it, until it breaks, or someone gives me a new one. I wouldn't consider buying a Mac. They seem overpriced, for what they are. --- Quote --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on April 09, 2021, 07:40:16 am ---Oh, I'd forgotten about the crappy cables, which I believe were due to Apple going halogen free and nothing to do with planned obsolescence, so it didn't enter my mind. Going by the dates on that screenshot, none of the complaints are recent, so hopefully it's been resolved now. I've had similar problems with halogen free cables, on a project I've worked on. --- End quote --- Yep, it was when Apple went PVC-free. Those first few years of PVC-free cables they used were awful. I don’t know what material it is (it’s not silicone, since it readily melts), but it was terrible. I concur that they appear to have gotten it under control, though they’ve never reached the high reliability of truly top-quality cables like Anker. (But those cables also cost a lot of money, and they’re a lot bulkier than Apple’s sleek cables.) --- End quote --- The cable I had an issue with was low smoke halogen free. The insulation on the conductors was so soft, I could strip it with my fingernails. |
| SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: tooki on April 10, 2021, 01:10:23 pm ---[...] No hate intended, just to be clear, just a bit of a collegial hard time. :p --- End quote --- OK I'll take the bait! :D Where did we get to... We have established that an incandescent filament gets rid of its heat via radiation (yes, 20% escapes via other means including gas convection, we'll ignore this for now). All else being equal: 1) Doubling the length of the filament essentially doubles its ability to emit radiation for a given current (think: two bulbs in series with a current source). 2) Doubling the thickness of the filament essentially halves its ability to emit radiation for a given current (think: two bulbs in parallel with a current source). 3) Doubling both the length and the thickness of the filament therefore balances out perfectly (think: four bulbs in series-parallel with a current source). The 'problem' is that since the same radiation is now coming from 4x the original source area, the intensity (temperature/colour) of the radiation is now 4x lower per bulb... we do get the expected total amount of energy being radiated, but at a lower frequency / longer wavelength, shifted towards red (heat)! Our ancestors, before the invention of planned obsolescence, came up with the idea of coiling the lamp filament, which reduces its ability to radiate (due to the inside of the coil "containing" the radiation) which means: the coiled filament runs hotter for a given current. Thus, coiling the filament let them use a thicker, longer wire while still getting a good colour (wavelength) of the emitted radiation. (Note: Everything here is thinking out loud, for discussion/entertainment purposes, and not statements of fact!) |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |