[kennywinker]

95-99% of first owners, maybe. But when you make devices that can be affordably repaired / expanded, they will be - and then they gain another 5-10 years of useful lifespan for a second owner.

If we ever want computers to be sustainably made - instead of scorching the earth with each new device - we need to stop thinking the way people treat their devices is some natural law of how things will always be.

[kube-system]

> If we ever want computers to be sustainably made - instead of scorching the earth with each new device - we need to stop thinking the way people treat their devices is some natural law of how things will always be.

If this was solved by upgradable components, we would have "solved" e-waste in the 90s.

Component upgradability is not a sustainability solution, because it is architecturally bounded.

[kennywinker]

Hard disagree. First of all, it’s true that upgrades were not a solution to sustainability in the 90s, but the issue was that computers were gaining ground exponentially. In just a few years, everything you had was so outmoded it was hard to imagine hardware that lasted more than maybe 5 years. That has changed.

Second, sustainability isn’t a true false state. My previous computer, a 2015 macbook air, lasted me until this year. If it had upgradable ram it might have lasted me another 5 years. A computer that lasts forever is probably impossible, but 15 years is better than 10, and 10 is better than 5.

[kube-system]

In the same vein, as hardware changes have slowed down since the 90s, so have the causes of obsolescence shifted away from CPU speed or RAM capacity. Lack of TPM/secure boot and end of Windows 10 support is what has recently pressured a lot of PC users to upgrade. End of support for x86 MacOS is what will cause a lot of Mac users to upgrade.