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 522147
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Sounds like a challenge.
by rexstuff on Fri 15th Jun 2012 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sounds like a challenge."
rexstuff
Member since:
2007-04-06

If my glasses are too rose-coloured, mehtinks yours are maybe too tinged with cynicism.

It is certainly doable, and I think not as difficult as you imagine it. I think there are some people who would see the value of a self-serviceable car; perhaps not enough to make it marketably viable, but there are people who would pay for the ability to repair and *tinker* with their vehicles. If there weren't people like that, things like Linux and Arduinos and Raspberry Pis wouldn't exist at all.

So yes, I might buy it, if it could be made at not a significant premium, which I think it could be, if there was sufficient demand.

And I don't think that the old self-serviceable cars were really THAT unreliable. In fact, I tend to think that when the trend toward non-user-servicable vehicles took off in the 80s is when we really started to see a decline in quality and reliability. Don't make the mistake of comparing a 2010s vehicle with one from the 60s and concluding that user serviceability makes cars unreliable. That's hardly a fair comparison.

Nor am I suggesting to get rid of things like computerized safety controls, only to make them accessible to the amateur technician. Many modern cars are basically designed to lock out all but the dealer-certified mechanics; not even that modern, I remember I had a 94 Sable that required special, impossible to find tools to do even the most basic maintainance tasks.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Sounds like a challenge.
by zima on Fri 15th Jun 2012 07:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Sounds like a challenge."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't say it's not doable.* Just... who's going to pay for it? (while there are cars roughly following the priorities you cherish; just often markedly more expensive due to being built very solidly; or clearly targeting, like that Dacia, more ~impoverished areas - hence laughed at in "developed" places; why not get such?)

And, well, I do think they were THAT unreliable. Perhaps because I was really surrounded by such cars much longer ( http://www.osnews.com/permalink?522136 ), and even more user-maintained, *tinkered* with ...probably often more unreliable because of it.
Now I ride a 13+ years old C-segment car: virtually flawless, just scheduled maintenance and more recently one small hiccup with the engine (resolved within an hour in the service) - which seems to be more or less the rule nowadays. 2-3 decades ago it would be an exception.


Call it cynicism if you like ...but may I just point out that ~"old times were better, new things are destroying proper order" examples are known since the beginning of written word.
Human memory is generally very poor, despite our beliefs to the contrary (in controlled experiments, eyewitness identification is basically no better than chance ...and yet, look how frighteningly often we believe in it and with serious consequences; also, go through a list of cognitive biases)

computerized safety controls, only to make them accessible to the amateur technician.

Seriously? Anything but those.

*Note: I'm also not saying we're doing things in the most optimal way now - I actually think something very far from it. But it's better.

Edited 2012-06-15 07:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2