[sschueller]

I find that hilarious because we did that back in the day on laptops that let you put batteries in instead of a cd or floppy drive.

Then Apple happened and ever laptop maker only saw the cash, abondend what users needed and wanted to copy what Apple was peddling including making parts on replacable.

Now after waisting all these resources on form over function even Apple has started to go back to function (at least a tiny bit).

[ChuckNorris89]

>Then Apple happened

As much as I dislike Apple's anti-repair and anti-upgrade practices, they're hardly to blame for this. They only gave consumers what they wanted, and consumer collectively voted for their wallets for sexyer, slimmer and lighter notebooks at the expense of repairability and upgradability, regardless of who made them, Apple, Lenovo, Dell, Asus etc.

Consumers are a lot more likely to prioritize "hey look, my laptop fits inside a Manila Envelope" rather than "hey look, I can unscrew and replace/repair all these components in my laptop if something breaks".

Now the entire consumer electronics industry has conditioned consumers that whenever their laptop breaks they just take it to a "genius" bar where some dude who doesn't have any electronics repair knowledge (because that would be too expensive), takes a look at your laptop and says "sorry mate, looks like it's fucked and you're gonna need a new motherboard replacement for 800$", when in fact it can be fixed for 50$ in a 10 minute soldering job by a technician who actually knows electronics but is either retired or out of work because his job was offshored to China and we don't repair things anymore we just throw them in the landfill "because we're that wealthy and stuff made in China is that cheap".

Hopefully right to repair laws, stricter environmental rules and trade tariffs, will put an end to this consumerist throwaway madness that just jack up corporate profits at the expense of everything else, even if that means that MacBook Airs will have to be 1.5mm thinker.

[LightHugger]

"They only gave consumers what they wanted"

This is a complete myth and not how consumer economics works.

[throw9away6]

Sub 4lb laptops were a game changer. It was worth paying the premium for them and many consumers did

[ChuckNorris89]

Then please enlighten us how it works.

[sneak]

> Then Apple happened and ever laptop maker only saw the cash, abondend what users needed

99% of users don't need a powerful discrete GPU or an extended battery, as evidenced by the Macbook Air (the base, sub-$1k model) being Apple's bestselling computer by far.

[nordsieck]

> 99% of users don't need a powerful discrete GPU or an extended battery, as evidenced by the Macbook Air (the base, sub-$1k model) being Apple's bestselling computer by far.

To be fair to Apple, the m1 air has an absurdly good battery life.

[sneak]

The intel Macbook Air was Apple's best selling computer even before their switch to ARM.

[dabluecaboose]

In fairness as well, Apple's laptop battery life is top notch. So paradoxically it could be said that proves people do need more battery

[joe5150]

If we're really being fair, the vast majority of people buy cheap laptops with poor battery life and even poorer everything else.

[kaliqt]

Let's be honest... That's a new thing. Laptops have sucked for a long time prior.

[etse]

PowerBook G3 had expansion ports, too. Maybe it was the 1-inch thick titanium powerbook g4 that changed the game.

[brookst]

This is a really strange take on how product development works.

If Apple came out with something that users did not want, and other manufacturers were still shipping what users wanted, why would anyone have ever bought Apple products?

And even in the Windows PC market, if users really want modular batteries, wouldn't you have been the last manufacturer to move away from them? If you're Acer, and Dell / HP / Lenovo are shipping products users don't want, wouldn't you clean up by continuing to ship what users want?

I think you should be more upset that users want the wrong thing (from your perspective). Product design, especially in competitive markets, is all about differentiating by better meeting user needs. This tinfoil idea that users are sheep who are tricked into buying what they don't want is not realistic.

[nine_k]

There is no single user with a single taste. While some users sincerely like the razor-thin, flat-keyed macbook airs with their mirror-finish retina screens. Some others, like me, strongly prefer the bulky, perfectly user-serviceable Thinkpad T series laptops, with their superior keyboards and matte screens. Some other users love their tiny 12" mini-laptops. There are customers who consciously choose Alienware gaming laptops, or Thoughbooks.

What Apple make is always partly a fashion accessory though. Many wanted macbooks for the reason that they look cool, even though the hard edges are manifestly uncomfortable while typing. Some laptop producers made devices with similar aesthetics, again because it was a fashion statement, not because cardboard-thin laptops are more comfortable to carry around, or are functionally superior.

[brookst]

I think you may be misunderstanding the motivations of people who have different priorities than you.

[nine_k]

I mostly am trying to say that there are different priorities. Looking cool is a valid priority for some, and I'm not going to devalue it. Compactness and light weight is also very important for a lot of people. This is on top of some very impressive engineering that Apple put into their machines.