
Hackers gonna hate - shawndumas
http://nickchaves.com/post/hackers-gonna-hate
======
polemic
Either the author does not know the meaning of the word "Luddite", or is
making presumptions on what people value in technology.

Kyle Wiens was clear: Apple was experimenting with two divergent strategies -
small, portable and inflexible vs larger, modifiable and upgradeable. Neither
is _anti-_ technology or _anti-_ progress, they're just different paths.

Instead, Nick first _assumes_ that the first option represents progress and
draws his inference from there. This allows him to look down his nose at
Kyle's clearly superior knowledge of Apple's product history and strategy.

Of course, this is ass-backward.

EDIT: --

Well there you go. John Gruber, who snarkily wrote off Kyles well written
analysis as a whine, has linked back to Nicks _categorical imperative_.

I'm sorry, but that is the worst sort of circle jerk.

~~~
hsmyers
When he says "Do we imagine that such progress is achieved through the kind of
Luddite thinking that leads people to value "hackability" over never-before-
achieved levels of precision and portability?" he pretty much proves that he
does not understand either the word Luddite or it's origins. Essentially Ned
Ludd was rebelling over looms that had been 'hacked' with the technology of
the day. A complete contradiction to what the author said.

~~~
polemic
And let's be honest, referencing _Avatar_ , _Minority Report_ and _moral
philosophy_ (!) raise a few red flags about the quality of the argument too :D

------
jtchang
This conversation is ludicrous. All I want is ram that isn't soldered in so I
can upgrade it at a later date. If this takes me out of the Apple's target
demographic (which I most certainly believe it does) then so be it.

~~~
stickfigure
This.

There are two components in modern computers that are experiencing Moore's
Law-style rapid improvement: RAM and SSD. Whatever you buy now is going to be
obsolete (or half the price) in two years.

This means that I either have to overspend for bleeding-edge RAM capacity now,
or replace the whole machine later. Neither are attractive options -
especially with Apple's large built-in margin on upgrades.

~~~
alanh
> Moore’s Law: RAM and SSD

Not true with RAM, at least for capacity!

My late-2008 MacBook Pro has been upgraded to 8GB of RAM, which is the maximum
available for all current MacBook Pros except the new Retina edition (16GB).
Just barely doubling in 4 years ≠ doubling every ~2 years.

Likewise, SSDs are not doubling in meaningful specs every two years, either.

~~~
stickfigure
Apple seems a bit behind here; you have been able to get 16GB notebooks from
other vendors for quite a while now.

Still, the _price_ of that 8G has dropped pretty dramatically over the last 2
years.

------
smoyer
I think iFixit provided a useful commentary on how the new Apple products are
made. If people still buy them after knowing they're not as expandable,
serviceable and recyclable as they used to be then at least they knew what
they were getting.

My biggest issues were the lack of a socket for RAM and the use of glue to
bond the glass and aluminum.

As a side note, I have. PowerBook Wallstreet G3, a five year-old Compaq and a
nine year-old Dell that are all still functional and in good shape. The
Powerbook and the Compaq both have over 100k miles of travel on them and I'm
convinced the biggest factor determining longevity of a laptop is the owner.

It's true that your batteries are somewhat beyond your control and there are
some models with known issues (e.g. hinge problems), but how can I only person
that's never had a laptop just up and die on them. I've also have had five or
six other laptops assigned to me by the companies I've worked for over the
last 15 years and I've generally turned them in to be upgraded (processor and
RAM limitations).

~~~
mdonahoe
Did your laptop make a daily commute to work in a bag? Did you walk or drive?

~~~
smoyer
Yes, it made a daily commute in a well-padded backpack. I drove in the winter
and rode my bicycle when the weather was suitable. It also flew across the
country at least once per month.

------
roguecoder
Two years _is_ a short life span. My 2001 ThinkPad is under-powered, but now
used by a four-year-old who otherwise wouldn't have access to a computer.

Two year product life cycles are incredibly brief for people who aren't
circuit-heads like us.

~~~
keymone
define "life span"? a laptop only "used by four-year-old" is pretty dead
laptop. can it fully replace your every-day development/whatever machine?

~~~
donall
The laptop he's talking about is from 2001. It's 11 years old. Of course it
can't replace a modern dev machine! However, it still works as a machine and a
4 year old child is using it as an introductory machine. That doesn't sound
like dead laptop; it sounds like one that has exceeded expectations and
continues to work in a limited capacity (like a Mars rover!).

~~~
keymone
technology progresses fast, more than that - it progresses faster than it
progressed 2, 5, 10 years ago. getting newer laptop is not a linear jump in
benefits you could get with upgrades so from consumer point of view getting
shorter life span is logical.

also less repairable/upgradable device is often more solid and reliable.

dropped repairability is just a tradeoff between delivering more "awesome"
device and delivering longer-lasting device - no wonder apple has taken the
path it did.

p.s. no-one forces you to throw away laptop you own just because new version
was released. in fact most macbook owners will just sell current devices and
in 10 years time it might still end up in hands of 4 year old

------
alanh
Absolutely disingenuous and/or dickish to call the preference for
maintainability/extensibility/hackability/repairability “Luddite.” Not to
mention, throwaway culture is short-term anti-environment thinking.

------
koeselitz
>> Do we imagine that such progress is achieved through the kind of Luddite
thinking that leads people to value "hackability" over never-before-achieved
levels of precision and portability?

I don't think that's precisely fair. I'm not exactly a fan of King Ludd - I
like machines a lot, I like taking them apart and putting them back together
and doing cool things with them. For this reason, though I think they're
really neat, and I've even thought about it just because they're so cool, I
don't think I'll ever buy a Macbook.

Even so, I am not foolish enough to believe everyone is just like me on this
count. I've even recommended Macbooks to at least three friends, helping them
purchase and set them up, not that anybody needs much help with such intuitive
machines. They're just not for me, and I know why - because I'd like to be
able to disassemble them, and at the very least I'd like to be able to add or
replace my own RAM.

Does that really make me a Luddite?

~~~
mkmkmmmmm
No, it makes the author a moron that wants to jump on a bandwagon to get a few
pageviews.

------
benwr
I think the dichotomy here between PCs and Macs is harmful to the discussion.
I don't think of Apple as a bad guy here any more than Microsoft, whose UEFI
secure boot is just as hack-unfriendly. The point remains that there is value
in being able to fix your own devices.

------
jfoutz
I love that inserting a sim correctly is somehow a "hack". I've literally
talked my then 75 year old grandmother through reseating memory over the
phone.

If anything, the closed nature of the hardware is going to make actually
fixing things a lot more valuable.

~~~
unimpressive
This too, if we've degraded the options for "Hackability" to upgrading the
components, then we may as well just say that the machine isn't hackable. (If
the capability was designed to be there and is used for it's intended purpose
then it doesn't qualify as a hack; period.)

------
dfc
_"When we look at futuristic computing devices in movies such as Minority
Report or Avatar, do we think 'Neat, but those definitely don't look
upgradeable. No thanks.'"_

When did "movie coolness" become a legitimate metric (let alone an important
metric) to gauge the value of technology?

 _"devices that are more about the human interface and less about the
components is a form of a categorical imperative"_

If you are going to toss around weighty philosophical terms like "categorical
imperative" I think it is important that you do not beg the question in the
process. The author assumes that "hackability" is not a component of the human
interface? In my opinion the human interface includes a discussion of user
serviceable/upgradeable hardware. It is certainly not the most important
aspect but of the human interface but it is on the list.

I also think it is a little curious that the author does not mention what
brand of PCs he bought. If I had to guess I would say that the omission was
because it was hardly an apples to apples comparison. All of my thinkpads have
lasted a lot longer than two years...

PS

If we are going to talk about human interfaces lets drop the CSS floating
vignette/border/frame thingy...

------
maytc
I think laptops are becoming like smartphones in their design. After two or
three years of use and when they break, you go out and buy a new one. It is
much cheaper (opportunity cost speaking) for the user to get a new faster
computer and the company to sell out new model than having companies pour a
significant amount of time and money to have repairable components.

------
mindcrime
_Do we imagine that such progress is achieved through the kind of Luddite
thinking that leads people to value "hackability" over never-before-achieved
levels of precision and portability?_

OK, that makes no sense whatsoever. I don't think the OP really knows what
he's talking about on this bit. "Luddite thinking" is what leads to a desire
for upgradability and hackability? Really? WTF?

If anything, it's _exactly_ the opposite. Hackers are the ones who like to
take things apart, explore them, explore their boundaries and find ways to
push them beyond their boundaries and do things they weren't meant to do. If
you can somehow make that into an analogy for Luddite thinking... well... your
analogy is flat wrong.

~~~
chavesn
Being brief in the quote you've replied to meant that I poorly communicated
what I actually meant.

The analogy was meant to communicate the harm of hanging on to methods of the
past longer than necessary. Consumer hacking in terms of computer hardware is
in decline.

I absolutely value hacking in any new technologies, I believe it to be
essential to progress (totally agree with your comment on pushing the
boundaries). But when it's time for things to progress again, I don't want to
be caught arguing against _those_ methods for the sake of my own need to
tinker.

My chief complaint with Wiens is that he argues for consumers as a mass market
to "draw a line" in support of user-repairability. I don't see that as
forward-thinking at all.

------
stevewillows
My main concern with this entire 'non-upgradeable' situation is having to
eventually recycle a laptop due to one or two components that could have been
replaced or upgraded.

My Dell XPS1640 isn't the best by any stretch, but I know that I can repair
the hinges and upgrade the ram when I need to.

I'd rather spend more money upgrading and refurbishing a system than just
buying another because it won't run the eventual CS8.

"Shame to let a good toaster go to waste over a frayed cord” \- Proposition
Joe, The Wire

------
kposehn
We, as hackers, are not the target.

Apple is targeting everyone else; they are selling to the rest of the world,
the people who want something that works and don't care a whit about
upgradability.

The only people that care about upgrading hardware are an extreme minority and
Wintel salespeople.

After all, when was the last time your uncle Bob, that guy who does some
computer stuff but is not a power user, told you he needed to upgrade his ram?

------
unimpressive
>"Do we imagine that such progress is achieved through the kind of Luddite
thinking that leads people to value "hackability" over never-before-achieved
levels of precision and portability?"

There's a lot of irony in linking people to the word Luddite when the author
himself uses it incorrectly.

------
eagsalazar
I'm at peace with the upgradablity issue. It is personal taste so whatever. I
agree with others that it is a silly debate and that the author is overly
butt-hurt.

However, his "rebuttal" completely ignores the 2nd half of the original
article's point: the new macbooks, and all ipad, are _not_ recyclable despite
what Apple says.

Not that Apple has a monopoly on callously diluting terms like "all natural",
"recyclable", "free range", etc to increase profits and mislead consumers,
thereby, eh, destroying the...EARTH. But still, even as the norm, it's pretty
f-ing evil.

