[drivingmenuts]

The problem is getting manufacturers to implement the new RAM standard. While the justifications given are great for the consumer, I didn't see any reason for a manufacturer to sign on.

They are going to lose money when people buy new RAM, rather than a whole new laptop. While processor speeds and size haven't plateaued yet, it's going to take a while to develop significant new speed upgrades and in the meantime, the only other upgrade is disk size/long-term storage, which, aside from Apple, they don't totally control.

So, why should they relenquish that to the user?

[cesarb]

> While the justifications given are great for the consumer, I didn't see any reason for a manufacturer to sign on. [...] So, why should they relenquish that to the user?

It makes sense that the first ones to use this new standard would be Dell and Lenovo. They both have "business" lines of computers, which usually offer on-site repairs (they send the parts and a technician to your office) for a somewhat long time (often 3 or 5 years). To them, it's a cost advantage to make these computers easier to repair. Having the memory (which is a part which not rarely fails) in a separate module means they don't have to replace and refurbish the whole logic board, and having it easy to remove and replace means less time used by the on-site technician (replacing the main logic board or the chassis often means dismantling nearly everything until it can be removed).

[masklinn]

> To them, it's a cost advantage to make these computers easier to repair.

Alternatively, it allows them to use more efficient RAM in computer lines they can't make non-repairable so they can boast of higher battery life.

[babypuncher]

They also charge a lot more for these "business-class" machines. That higher margin captures the revenue lost to DIY repairs and upgrades.

[AnthonyMouse]

> They are going to lose money when people buy new RAM, rather than a whole new laptop.

You're thinking about this the wrong way around.

Suppose the user has $800 to buy a new laptop. That's enough to get one with a faster processor than they have right now or more memory, but not both. If they buy one and it's not upgradable, that's not worth it. Wait another year, save up another $200, then buy the one that has both.

Whereas if it can be upgraded, you buy the new one with the faster CPU right away and upgrade the memory in a year. Manufacturer gets your money now instead of later, meanwhile the manufacturer who didn't offer this not only doesn't sell to you in a year, they just lost your business to the competition.

[petemir]

I doubt the consumer mass that actually matters to manufacturer's earnings understands RAM value and if the computer they are buying is RAM-upgradable or not.

They are going to buy the 800$, any of the two, complain when it inevitably "works slower" in a couple of years (if they are lucky), and buy a new 800$ once again then. I don't see the manufacturer's motivation to offer upgradable RAM.

[AnthonyMouse]

They don't have $800 to buy another one so soon. So they take the one that "works slower" to some tech who knows the deal and tells them this machine sucks because you can't upgrade it, and now they think your brand is crap (because it is), curse you for the next however many years until they have the money and then buy the next one from someone else.

[makeitdouble]

I'd see two angles:

- the manufacturer themselves benefit from easier to repair machines. If DELL can replace the RAM and send back the laptop in a matter of minutes instead of replacing the whole motherboard to then have it salvaged somewhere else, it's a clear win.

- prosumers will be willing to invest more in a laptop that has better chance to survive a few years. Right now we're all expecting to have parts fail within 2 to 3 years on the higher end, and budget accordingly. You need a serious reason to buy a 3000$/€ laptop that might be dead in 2 years. Knowing it could weather RAM failure without manufacturer repair is a plus.

[bugfix]

Even if it's just Lenovo using these new modules, I still think it's a win for the consumer (if the modules aren't crazy expensive).

[rock_artist]

Unlike Apple, where they are in in-direct competition on computer hardware, For PCs, If Lenovo starts doing it, then it's a marketing point. now Asus, HP, Dell would try and get it.

So it's the egg and the chicken where if it'll be important to consumers, it might end up as catching up.

[7speter]

These companies did plenty well 12+ years ago when users could upgrade their systems memory.