| General > General Technical Chat |
| Video on planned obsolescence. |
| << < (17/37) > >> |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 10, 2021, 02:09:44 pm --- --- Quote from: tooki on April 10, 2021, 12:15:14 pm ---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? --- End quote --- The media, and most of the computer industry, has always treated Apple differently, mostly because they simply do not understand Apple’s success*. And now that Apple is, and has been for years, one of the most successful and largest companies in history while maintaining industry-leading customer satisfaction (which they also don’t understand*), they know that putting Apple in a headline will get more clicks. *They cannot wrap their heads around the concept of people willing to spend more (sometimes**) on a better-designed product. They can’t let go of the concept of specs above all else, not understanding that the specs alone don’t tell the whole story, that a product is more than the sum of its parts. And the rest of the industry is salty because they got outperformed by people they perceived as “slackers” or artists, not “proper” engineers. **Apple refuses to make bargain basement junk, that’s true. But their pricing is largely similar to other high-quality manufacturers. A ThinkPad isn’t any cheaper than a MacBook. And I have literally (literally!!) had people argue with me that Samsung’s most expensive phone was way cheaper than Apple’s most expensive phone, at a point in time where Apple’s most expensive was $999 and Samsung’s was $999. In my world, $999 and $999 are actually the same, but maybe that’s just me... And they wouldn’t budge from their claim even when provided with screenshots of stores that carried both, showing the same price for both! :o |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 10, 2021, 02:09:44 pm --- --- 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. --- End quote --- And? Still doesn’t answer my question of why you disputed my claim, even though your experience is a perfect example of my claim! --- Quote from: Zero999 on April 10, 2021, 02:09:44 pm ---I wouldn't consider buying a Mac. They seem overpriced, for what they are. --- End quote --- Well, “overpriced” is a value judgment, not an objective fact. (When comparing one product vs another from a different vendor.) Clearly, the millions and millions of people that buy Macs do think they’re worth it, or else they wouldn’t buy them! And as I said, their TCO is actually quite favorable due to the high resale value and low support costs. (Some years ago, when hell froze over and IBM started letting their employees choose whether to be issued a PC or a Mac, they found out that the long term TCO of the Macs was appreciably lower than that of the PCs, because the Macs needed only a small fraction as much support as the PCs. And think about that: that’s the experience of a company that not only invented the IBM PC, but is now specialized in IT consulting. As I said: a product is more than the sum of its parts, and Apple has produced a killer product.) To be clear: nobody is saying that ONLY Apple makes a good system. Nor is anyone saying that an Apple product is ALWAYS the best fit for a particular purpose or user. What just irritates me is the frequent attitude of “it’s not the right fit for me, therefore anyone who chooses it is an idiot”. :/ |
| SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: tooki on April 10, 2021, 02:46:34 pm ---[...] What just irritates me is the frequent attitude of “it’s not the right fit for me, therefore anyone who chooses it is an idiot”. :/ --- End quote --- Obviously, it is confusing to some that both minivans and supercharged Mustangs can be called "cars"! :D |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: tooki on April 10, 2021, 02:46:34 pm --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on April 10, 2021, 02:09:44 pm --- --- 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. --- End quote --- And? Still doesn’t answer my question of why you disputed my claim, even though your experience is a perfect example of my claim! --- End quote --- I didn't dispute your claim. You imagined it. --- Quote --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on April 10, 2021, 02:09:44 pm ---I wouldn't consider buying a Mac. They seem overpriced, for what they are. --- End quote --- Well, “overpriced” is a value judgment, not an objective fact. (When comparing one product vs another from a different vendor.) Clearly, the millions and millions of people that buy Macs do think they’re worth it, or else they wouldn’t buy them! And as I said, their TCO is actually quite favorable due to the high resale value and low support costs. (Some years ago, when hell froze over and IBM started letting their employees choose whether to be issued a PC or a Mac, they found out that the long term TCO of the Macs was appreciably lower than that of the PCs, because the Macs needed only a small fraction as much support as the PCs. And think about that: that’s the experience of a company that not only invented the IBM PC, but is now specialized in IT consulting. As I said: a product is more than the sum of its parts, and Apple has produced a killer product.) To be clear: nobody is saying that ONLY Apple makes a good system. Nor is anyone saying that an Apple product is ALWAYS the best fit for a particular purpose or user. What just irritates me is the frequent attitude of “it’s not the right fit for me, therefore anyone who chooses it is an idiot”. :/ --- End quote --- I'm neutral on Apple. A friend of mine gave me an old iPhone which I'm extremely grateful for, but I could no way in my right mind justify the cost of a new, or even second hand one. If you like Apple that's fair enough. I put it in the same category as designer labels, expensive cars, with custom number plates, posh frocks etc. |
| David Hess:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 10, 2021, 11:05:15 am ---There is no fan in my refrigerator. The evaporator is in the top of the enclosure and cools by convection. It's much more reliable than a fan. I have seen refrigerators with a fan, but I doubt they're more efficient, because the extra energy used to circulate the air, will probably outweigh the tiny saving in improved evaporator efficiency. --- End quote --- Frost free freezers use forced air convection so require a motor for the evaporator. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |