Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Jun 2012 02:49 UTC
Apple After a proper teardown, iFixit concludes that the new MacBook Pro has no user-serviceable parts at all, which some think is a really bad thing. I honestly don't know - I mean, my ZenBook isn't particularly user-serviceable either, and my smartphones, tablets, and whatnot are pretty much entirely soldered together as well. What do you guys make of this?
Thread beginning with comment 521994
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Sounds like a challenge.
by spiderman on Thu 14th Jun 2012 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Sounds like a challenge."
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

I think he didn't want to say he missed the pollution or the reliability. He just said he missed the serviceability.
Pollution is a con.
Reliability is a pro.
Serviceability is a pro.
I take this macbook over a 486DX2-33 of course, but if there was 2 models with same look, same price, same content, one serviceable and the other not,only an idiot would take the inferior model.
I think what he meant was that there has been a regression in that area.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Sounds like a challenge.
by zima on Thu 14th Jun 2012 09:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Sounds like a challenge."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

All I meant: keep things in perspective - it's not like we didn't get very nice benefits in exchange for lower serviceability, a result of technology advancement (that was the goal - not complexity for the sake of it, not limited serviceability itself).

People too often forget that the past wasn't, in fact, better; start to believe, step by step, in myths about it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Well, I don't think we got any benefit in exchange of serviceability. There is technology advancement and we all benefit from that, but the lack of serviceability is not an effect of this. It is an effect of a design decision. It is removed by design to fulfill some commercial requirements. It is defective by design. The screw is designed to not be standard. This is not a result of any technology advancement. They could have provided the exact same technology and provide a standard screw instead and that would even cost less. They went out of their way to make the product not user serviceable.

Reply Parent Score: 4