Word, I'm pretty fed up with throw-away culture, especially with big ticket items.
I've used pretty much all the developer laptop contenders as daily drivers at some point. You get used to what you get used to, so marginally better isn't so important, I've found.
I'm going to pick one of the framework laptops because they look decent, but my secondary objective is to support a company that at least is walking some of the walk I want to see.
> I'm pretty fed up with throw-away culture, especially with big ticket items.
I love what Framework are doing, but integrated hardware does not immediately equal throwaway culture (saying as something who still uses their late 2013 MacBook Pro).
I think it's fair to say though that even if you don't have a throwaway culture, apple certainly has a throwaway culture and has been cultivating it in their users heavily (often by integrating their devices more than is necessary). Seems you managed to escape their wiles but many haven't.
No I think there are certain aspects about Apple products that are definitely not throwaway culture, mainly software support. The hardware is also holding up really long (I also use a MBP 2013, I have several iPhone 6s users in my family). The main issue is that in case of defects, repairs are not economical and I wish Apple would recognize that. Given the long viability of hard and software, I have reasonable doubt to believe it’s a decision made to maximize profit, but rather a legacy Jony Ive sized blind spot.
Apple makes hardware that is extremely durable, I and others use MacBooks that are getting close to 10 years old. I really doubt people will use the Framework for longer.
The main reason people buy new phones and macbooks is not that the old ones stop working, it's that the new ones are desirable, they are even slicker than the one you've got.
Apple adds features in attempt to lure people to 'upgrade' from a nearly identical product. Touchbar, face-id, 'apple silicon'. Most of this stuff doesn't change the value proposition of the core product. I'd say that the majority of Apple's user base is largely there for status reasons, and those people upgrade to keep the status they feel the brand grants them. As someone who isn't an Apple fan, but who uses some of their products, I am very aware there are exceptions, but I'd suspect that, like me, these exceptions also don't follow the press release driven upgrade cycle.
It's this type of consumerism that I'm personally not interested in. I want a tool, I want it be under my control. I want to be able to maintain it for its natural useful lifetime. That thinking does not belong in the culture Apple is fostering.
(Edit: and yeah, I get that Apple isn't the only culprit here, it's just that if a company seems to be fostering a culture that fits my ideals, I'm willing to compromise on 'slickness')
Apple Silicon was a very significant upgrade, my M1 Air is just insane. It's a ridiculously good computer.
But if you want a tool, why do you want it to be "under your control"? I think most people are more like me, I just want a really nice computer that works well, I have exactly zero desire to replace the RAM or upgrade the SSD.
I own an M1 Air. It is a macbook, and seems fine so far, but it's over-hyped.
I'll agree that it seems that currently most people are like you. They don't think about maintainability when it comes to belongings. If they care about the effects their actions have on the environment, they might want to start.
If you are buying a new phone and laptop every two years, where are you putting the old one? What happens to the toxic materials in the batteries? Did you need to have a new machined aluminum shell, or could you have just replaced the part that was bad inside it?
That all said, I don't have any illusions about changing the course of the average person's thoughts or habits via an HN post.
Like I said in the original post, I'm done with buying throwaway goods if I have an alternative. I'm happy that an option like the framework exists.
I definitely don't buy a new laptop every two years, few people do, and when I do buy one, like most people, I sell or hand it down. Same with a phone, I don't think many people throw away 2 year old phones.
Using a laptop intensively for 5-6 years cannot be called "throwaway culture".
When it's finally unusable, Apple will recycle it for free, at least if you buy a new one at the same time. I don't know what they do with the battery, but I can't see why it would help if it was easily user replaceable.
Maybe you feel that the M1 is overhyped because you only had your previous laptop for a year or two? Coming from a 2016 MBP the difference was huge. And of course that laptop is still in use 5-6 hours a day.
Most importantly, assuming Framework is still around in 10 years, do you think you'll use it for significantly longer than 8 years, which I suppose will be the lifetime of my old MBP?
I have three old macbooks laying around that people just gave me because they didn't know what to do with them - all broken in some way. I wonder how many people actually recycle their laptops, and am worried about the answer.
AirPods die within a few years and then get tossed in the trash. Modern MacBooks aren't built like they used to be. I don't see any reason you couldn't use the Framework Laptop for that long. Just replace anything that wears down over time.
My 2016 MPB is in perfect shape, except the keyboard that was overly sensitive to dirt from the outset. Not sure if that counts as modern? My new MBA seems extremely well built too, not sure what you are referring to.
Using my airpods pro at least 5 hours a day since they were released, also perfect shape. Like the AirPods 2 i handed down. I'm sure they won't last forever, but they've already provided a hell of a lot of usage for 200 bucks.
How is the battery life on your 2016 MBP? Like I said in one of my other posts, my 2019's battery is already slowly degrading. I'm at ~300 charge cycles after ~2 years of moderate usage. Apple says the battery is "consumed" after 1000 cycles[1], so it seems my battery is already 30% consumed, which doesn't make me very hopeful for the longevity of this device.
I wish it was easier to find actual data on battery life of 2016+ MBP models. Googling for "how long does MacBook Pro battery last" yields mostly useless results. There's a macOS app called "Coconut Battery" that tracks battery health over time, with an optional reporting feature that uploads the data to a server for comparison purposes.[2] Unfortunately the online viewer only allows you to view data by each individual model. It might be more helpful to aggregate the data from all 2016+ models, since the battery is the same, afaik. The online viewer also doesn't show how many reports the averages are based on. I wonder if it would be possible to scrape their data, to produce an evidence-based answer to the question "how long will my MacBook probably last?", rather than relying mostly on anecdotal evidence from Mac users.
Anyway, I think the idea that a $1300-$6500+ laptop ships with a glued-in, non-replaceable component that Apple themselves admits is "consumable" is just absurd, regardless of how long it may last.
> Apple offers a battery replacement service for all MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro notebooks with built-in batteries.
I believe you probably mean “user replaceable” in your comments above. I do see the value in that for myself, which is why I still have my 2012 MacBook Pro. Nevertheless, I continue to my iPhone 6s after 3 battery replacements (I paid Apple for two and one was covered by them due to a recall).
I point this out because I think your criticism of Apple designing disposable hardware is less true of them than their competitors, at least in my experience. My Apple laptop and phone are the first Apple ones I’ve bought, and have outlasted my PC laptops and Androids by at least 2x.
If you want to make a criticism about Apple designing hardware that’s costly to repair, that’s something I could agree with.
The batteries on 2016+ MacBook Pro are not Apple-replaceable, either. They replace the entire top case because they can't replace just the battery.[1] (If anyone has any source for the contrary, please provide it.) Assuming it's not user-replaceable nor Apple-replaceable, can we agree that it cannot be called a "replaceable" battery? Yes, technically it may be possible, but if even the company who made it thinks it's too difficult, it's not very useful or accurate to call it "replaceable". To be honest, I disagree that it should be called "replaceable" even if only the company who made it can replace it. It's a linguistic debate at this point.
By the way, the 2018+ MacBook Air does have a replaceable battery, in that Apple can replace it, so by extension, users can too (if they can track down a replacement).[2] Apple must adopt the adhesive pull tab approach on the MacBook Pro. The glued-in battery is completely unacceptable.
> I think your criticism of Apple designing disposable hardware is less true of them than their competitors, at least in my experience.
Keep in mind that, as the most profitable tech company in the world, Apple deserves to be held to a very high standard. Time and time again other companies follow their lead. Also keep in mind that Apple uses this profit to actively lobby against right to repair, making things worse for everyone in the long run.
Though laptops mostly don't care about repairability and any repairability they have is usually an accident, I don't think most other laptops on the market are quite as egregiously anti-repair as the MacBook Pro.
As a user, my main concern with a battery replacement is that I get a new battery, that the device continues to work, and that it doesn’t take too long. If Apple decides the best way to meet those objectives is to swap the top case, I’d still consider the battery replaced.
> Assuming it's not user-replaceable nor Apple-replaceable, can we agree that it cannot be called a "replaceable" battery?
I could agree to calling these batteries “non-user replaceable”. What you’ve described is that Apple can do it, but they replace more components at the same time.
For what it’s worth, I like MacBooks but I skipped that generation of MacBook Pros because it didn’t seem worth it to me. I bought a non retina MacBook because I didn’t like the soldered on comments. After having 3 iPhone 6s battery replacements done by Apple, I guess I’m somewhat okay with glued in components as long as _someone_ can service it.
> If Apple decides the best way to meet those objectives is to swap the top case, I’d still consider the battery replaced.
The only reason Apple "decides" this is because they designed the laptop with a non-replaceable battery. It would cost less money and be much less wasteful for them to replace just the battery, but they can't, because it's too difficult, because they designed it that way. This isn't the "best" way, it's most likely the only way for them to do it at their scale. They replace just the battery in the MacBook Air because they designed it with a replaceable battery.
The top case is replaceable -- Apple can replace it, and so can the user, if they can source a replacement. But the battery, individually? It's not replaceable. That iFixit guide you sent is not news to me. This is what I was referring to when I said:
> Yes, technically it may be possible, but if even the company who made it thinks it's too difficult, it's not very useful or accurate to call it "replaceable".
Most people (including myself) would never consider performing this procedure on their device. Apple won't do it. You would be hard-pressed to find a repair shop that would. It's far too risky and time-consuming.
Your definition of "replaceable" seems to be "theoretically possible to replace, even if extraordinarily difficult (by design)". Under this definition, basically any part in any product is "replaceable", so it is not a useful definition. Apple could probably not have made it any more difficult than it already is to replace the battery, and they don't even do this themselves, so it's perfectly fair to call it non-replaceable. Definitions are subjective; we must collectively decide how to use the word "replaceable" in this context, and I see no reason to adopt the almost meaningless, Apple-friendly definition. For example, depending on the definition, you might even be able to say the MacBook Pro battery is "user-replaceable". Does "user-replaceable" mean "designed to be replaced by the user", or "easily replaceable by the user", or "theoretically possible to replace by the user"? If the latter, then the MacBook Pro battery is user-replaceable, I guess.
I think a better definition of "replaceable" would be "feasible to replace, at least by the company who made it", and an even better definition would be "feasible to replace by the user". Either way, your definition is not useful.
> After having 3 iPhone 6s battery replacements done by Apple, I guess I’m somewhat okay with glued in components as long as _someone_ can service it.
The iPhone 6S battery uses adhesive pull tabs like the MacBook Air, so it is (easily) replaceable (by Apple, or by users, or by independent repair shops). The screen is lightly glued on, but that's standard procedure for phones these days, and the removal process isn't too difficult, risky, or time-consuming with the right tools [1].
In fact, it has been relatively easy to replace the battery in every iPhone released since at least the iPhone 4, and every iPhone since then has scored at least a 6/10 on iFixit [2]. So, afaik, the non-removable battery is currently only a problem with these Apple products: MacBook Pro (1/10 iFixit), AirPods (0/10), AirPods Pro (0/10).
The battery life was never stellar, compared to previous and of course current Airs, but my daughter can use it a full school day without plugging in.
>Anyway, I think the idea that a $1300-$6500+ laptop ships with a glued-in, non-replaceable component that Apple themselves admits is "consumable" is just absurd, regardless of how long it may last.
This is where my view differs, since I can just hand it in for replacement, I don't have any issues with that. To me it doesn't matter at all if I can do it myself or not. Well except if you have to leave it at the Apple store for several days, then that's very inconvenient.
In general I just see it as a practical and financial question, and since I use my laptop 10 hours a day, and earn a very good salary from it, 200 dollars more or less every three years is really insignificant.
I've used pretty much all the developer laptop contenders as daily drivers at some point. You get used to what you get used to, so marginally better isn't so important, I've found.
I'm going to pick one of the framework laptops because they look decent, but my secondary objective is to support a company that at least is walking some of the walk I want to see.