News: EU mandating changeable batteries starting 2027

[Matthew.H]

I can see some cheap 3rd party replacement lithium battery failing and igniting on a plane ...

Genuine batteries are perfectly capable of doing the same. Some 3rd party parts are no worse quality than OEM. Of course you can get bad parts but that can be both 3rd party and OEM.

 

[Silverstring]

Yes I am asking a person who claims a negative to prove said negative or retract their unproven and unfounded opinion

Ah, cool. Since "proof" is so important to you, have any proof for this (emphasis mine):

And nothing prevents apple from making their laptops more repairable within exactly the same chassi they have now outside of it not being in their economic intrest to do so.

But they arbitrarily prevent people from opening up their computers and to replace consumable parts such as batteries.

There are advantages to sealed-in batteries beyond Apple's (alleged Machiavellian master-plan-to-force-people-to-buy-new-laptops-produced-by-them) economic imperative. You failing to acknowledge those advantages doesn't change that fact.

You have zero basis to claim that there is "nothing that prevents apple from making their laptops more repairable within exactly the same chassi (sic)", let alone "proof". No, an ugly modular laptop that is bigger and heavier with more pieces to break off isn't "proof" of anything.

What you need today is not necessarily adequate in 8 years

You want to worry about maybe replacing the battery yourself in 8 years? Knock yourself out. Just don't make the overall selection of products worse (and less choice is worse) for everyone because of your rare edge case.

Your entire "argument" rests on nothing but your assertion that there is zero compromise to making the laptops the same, but just with a swappable battery instead of not.

Since you claim to stand on proof and data, unless you have either for Apple choosing to engineer laptops with sealed-in batteries for no other reason than to get consumers to pay more, your very own standard should compel you to withdraw your "unproven and unfounded opinion".

 

[Silverstring]

Most of the discussion I see is around how cool these modular systems are and how much better they're going to get as technology improves. Which is weird because we used to have more modular systems and part of the improvement in technology was to make them less modular.

This is entirely the crux of the issue, right here. Nailed it.

Same exact thing has happened in the world of automobiles. Old-head wrenchers love(d) to be able to get under the hood and work on/replace anything and everything. Modern cars much less so, but cars are safer and more reliable now than they've ever been. That's the tradeoff. The wrenches think of this as a loss (and weigh it more heavily due to the cognitive biases of loss aversion and recency bias), but the truth is they're much less likely to ever HAVE to wrench on their car at all, which is a net benefit.

All these corporate "planned obsolescence" conspiracy theorists miss the forest for the trees. They can only see what's taken away (and for sure will have an anecdotal story at the ready to "prove" how they have been wronged), and refuse to acknowledge any of the gains. It's even funnier to me that all of these armchair CEOs think that the way to make your company successful is to purposely and actively make your products worse, and for "arbitrary" reasons at that!

 

[Analog Kid]

This isn't a drug and electronics aren't that sensitive that it break if you look at it wrong.

No, but they're sensitive to break if you touch them wrong or set them down on the wrong surface. Much more sensitive than people without training will believe. And if you think upgrading and obsessing over minor performance variations don't share a lot of characteristics with addiction, you're not paying attention-- that's a big part of the reason modular is so compelling to many people.

I think you are vastly overestimating the competence of the median human. You might want to Google "TikTok challenges" and recalibrate yourself.

I'm amazed you know thers no after market for somthing already 🤔

I didn't say "no", I said "not much". I'd be interested in your evidence of an aftermarket for reselling Framework CPU boards that is as robust as there is for Macbooks. It's the third generation of products, if a resale market is going to form it should be in full swing by now.

I'm amazed you know the long term reliability of something already. Reliability is time based-- two years of low volume sales isn't long from a reliability perspective.

Thers only one module that could be obsolete and that would be the CPU, somthing that is completely reusable standalone.

Completely reusable standalone? Do you have evidence that people commonly completely reuse that module without a Framework laptop frame, power supply, display, etc?

And nothing stops anyone from doing that right now, but with the added benefit. What you need today is not necessarily adequate in 8 years and quite literally waste of money and resources just to be "future proof". And at the end if the day you can still use the computer as a small integrated computer

It's a not a question of stopping or not stopping, it's a question of encouraging or not encouraging. Nor is it a question of can or can't, but will or won't.

Notice that you're mixing objectives here. We're talking about reducing waste, you pivoted to cost and upgradeability.

Do you need 2TB today? Probably not so you can manage with 200gb-500gb today intill it becomes cheaper in 2 years. Do you need more than 8gb of ram? Perhaps not, better to purchase refurbished parts in the flute if you need it.

You're going to have to prove this generates less waste than simply configuring a more durable machine at the start.

Did you drop your computer and break the screen? Well then you can just replace the broken part instead of sending away the entire assembly.

You can have the broken screen in a Macbook replaced and do it with less waste, less risk of failure, and guaranteed recycling.

 

[Analog Kid]

But useful lifetime is extended by modularity. My current laptop (a little Thinkpad) is 6 years old, and back when it was new its max options were 16 GB RAM and 1 TB storage. Mine has 32 GB RAM now (and I use them), and 2 TB storage, close to full, which means I am debating whether to upgrad it to 4 TB or maybe straight away to 8 TB.

Three years ago I considered a top range M1 Air; I bet it is a damn fine computer, but I would have to dump it now, because it is too small and cannot be upgraded. The M2 Air could never even be specced at a useful size for me. That old Thinkpad will keep trucking on while the non-modular Airs come and go like mayflies.

Nice anecdote!

 

[Analog Kid]

Same exact thing has happened in the world of automobiles. Old-head wrenchers love(d) to be able to get under the hood and work on/replace anything and everything. Modern cars much less so, but cars are safer and more reliable now than they've ever been.

And more powerful. And cleaner. So. very. much. cleaner.

That's the tradeoff. The wrenches think of this as a loss (and weigh it more heavily due to the cognitive biases of loss aversion and recency bias), but the truth is they're much less likely to ever HAVE to wrench on their car at all, which is a net benefit.

All these corporate "planned obsolescence" conspiracy theorists miss the forest for the trees. They can only see what's taken away (and for sure will have an anecdotal story at the ready to "prove" how they have been wronged), and refuse to acknowledge any of the gains. It's even funnier to me that all of these armchair CEOs think that the way to make your company successful is to purposely and actively make your products worse, and for "arbitrary" reasons at that!

Yep, they somehow think Apple rolls out these massive repair and support teams, processes, tools, and infrastructure just so they can make repairs so expensive that nobody wants to have their product repaired... But they keep buying Apple because they won't consider anything else.

Yet, somehow, saying "if you don't like Apple's approach pick a different option" makes me the corporate shill...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Ah, cool. Since "proof" is so important to you, have any proof for this (emphasis mine):

Yes I actualy do have such supporting evidence as the 2017 macbook air with screwed in batteries and a larger battery than current macbook air and the the macbook pro 2021- and today at least the 14inch have user replaceable batteries

Compared to 2012-2021 with the glued in batteries and the need to remove the entire computer to replace the battery.

The Storage not being uppgradable is also arbitrary and shortens the lifespan.

We have multiple computer that are thinner than the macbook pro with swappable storage and even ram in some cases down the line.

There are advantages to sealed-in batteries beyond Apple's (alleged Machiavellian master-plan-to-force-people-to-buy-new-laptops-produced-by-them) economic imperative. You failing to acknowledge those advantages doesn't change that fact.

Im not failing to acknowledge these facts. So far they have always been just statment and opinions with no facts actually proving the case.

You have zero basis to claim that there is "nothing that prevents apple from making their laptops more repairable within exactly the same chassi (sic)", let alone "proof".

Apple have proved this themselves with the macbook air or the 2017 macbook 13 inch version. That is thinner

No, an ugly modular laptop that is bigger and heavier with more pieces to break off isn't "proof" of anything.

And yes it's a proof that it works. Considering its l8ghter thsn the equivalent macbook pro 13inch.

But indeed the macbook pro was 0.25mm thinner, or about two hairs thinner.

You want to worry about maybe replacing the battery yourself in 8 years? Knock yourself out. Just don't make the overall selection of products worse (and less choice is worse) for everyone because of your rare edge case.

No, but to have it easily replaced by a professional and if I need to i can repair it.

Your entire "argument" rests on nothing but your assertion that there is zero compromise to making the laptops the same, but just with a swappable battery instead of not.

Not at all, att no point did I make a positive statment about compromises. But you did make a negative statment with norhing to actually back it up outside of it being an opinion.

But as pointed to above, Apple have some it in a thin boody.

Since you claim to stand on proof and data, unless you have either for Apple choosing to engineer laptops with sealed-in batteries for no other reason than to get consumers to pay more, your very own standard should compel you to withdraw your "unproven and unfounded opinion".

Not at all, but gluing their batteries in making it extremely hard to change is by removing everything in the computer is circumstantial evidence in relation to the fact they have done it better and other manufacturers have also done it better.

It's a choice apple did because they wanted to, and not because they needed to.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No, but they're sensitive to break if you touch them wrong or set them down on the wrong surface. Much more sensitive than people without training will believe. And if you think upgrading and obsessing over minor performance variations don't share a lot of characteristics with addiction, you're not paying attention-- that's a big part of the reason modular is so compelling to many people.

No requirement of upgrading exist. And I would say it shares characteristics with penny pinching and outside anythi aimed have claimed.

I think you are vastly overestimating the competence of the median human. You might want to Google "TikTok challenges" and recalibrate yourself.

I'm not estimating the capabilities of humans, but I recognize equipment that is easier to repair will also be cheaper to repair. Instead of spending 1-3h to remove the batery, a 3mim swap saves me as a consumer money.

I didn't say "no", I said "not much". I'd be interested in your evidence of an aftermarket for reselling Framework CPU boards that is as robust as there is for Macbooks. It's the third generation of products, if a resale market is going to form it should be in full swing by now.

The Best evidence is the fact they're mostly sold out. And hard to compare when they have sold laptops for less than 2 years.

And not necessarily considering you don't need to buy a new computer after 3 years and less than a month ago started selling refurbished equipment.

I'm amazed you know the long term reliability of something already. Reliability is time based-- two years of low volume sales isn't long from a reliability perspective.

I didn't claim i did know. So I would say it's unknown curently and that's the fairest answer you can give.

Completely reusable standalone? Do you have evidence that people commonly completely reuse that module without a Framework laptop frame, power supply, display, etc?

Well the bes evidence i guess is the main board parts being sold out from time to time and subreddits discussing interesting ways to use it?

It's a not a question of stopping or not stopping, it's a question of encouraging or not encouraging. Nor is it a question of can or can't, but will or won't.

Notice that you're mixing objectives here. We're talking about reducing waste, you pivoted to cost and upgradeability.

Not at all. Upgradability prolongs equipments usable lifespan to be reused before being recycled.

You're going to have to prove this generates less waste than simply configuring a more durable machine at the start.

I said it's wasteful to purchase somthing today that you don't have use for

You can have the broken screen in a Macbook replaced and do it with less waste, less risk of failure, and guaranteed recycling.

I will bet a macbook will produce more waste considering you send away the entire laptop to be replaced, or replacing the topp case. For somthing any repairshop can do in 15min.

And we'll you Objectively produce less waste if you don't need to buy a new computer.

And I think Linus demonstrates it quite well in 45 seconds.

 

[jlc1978]

This would be in contrast to just popping open a battery compartment (with screws I’m sure), and switching out the battery with just the battery connector to worry about.

Apple and other manufacturers could still avoid screws by, for example, making the battery and rear case one unit and having a seal around that that must be broken and replaced. I doubt we'll see a return to swappable batteries of old, but rather a new way of sealing the item.

If the EU put a 100 euro deposit on the purchase of Airpods refundable when delivered to a recycler, maybe you'd do the right thing? Better yet, charge Apple or Samsung the cost of the negative consequence between the products they sell minus the products they retrieve at end of life and let Apple figure out the right incentive plan to get stuff back and to a recycler

The proposal actual has the consumer paying all the recycling costs as part of the purchase price, so unreturned product is a windfall for the company as they've already collected the recycling costs up front. I agree a deposit would help ensure items are actually recycling by putting a cost to the consumer on failure to recycle; how to collect it is problemmatic.

And beside some discounted American fast foods, Apple is the only recognizable US brand outside of the US.

I think Nike, Amazon, Microsoft, Ford etc. would take issue with that.

So when is the EU going to finally start forcing Apple to provide OS support for their hardware longer?

Considreing targeting one company is tough , it likely would be a rule for all sellers above a certain market share perhaps and raise the costs of the products as manufacturers account for the added support costs.

Then, when the latest system is much slower or leaves out functionality the hardware won't support, users will claim the manufacturer is doing that to get users to upgrade.

Anyone else have a solution to torsional strengthening they want to share? We're at the point where we agree delaminating the assembly will reduce torsional strength, so how do we add it back so we can go to screws?

The assumption appears to be that screws will be needed, but it's possible to make the battery replaceable without resorting to screws. Screws might make the swapable, but that is not the point of the directive.

RAM is standard off the shelf parts. Extra components? They are hotswapable external modules that uses standard USB 4/3.2.

An interesting design but future upgrades are limited to USB 4/3.2 and whatever ram standard comes out. From the pictures it appears to simply be a moherboard with a lot of USB ports.

Genuine batteries are perfectly capable of doing the same. Some 3rd party parts are no worse quality than OEM. Of course you can get bad parts but that can be both 3rd party and OEM.

But genuine parts have some QC requirements, I doubt many sellers of cheap knockoffs care about the quality; especially it adds costs to them without any greater return.

 

[Silverstring]

Yes I actualy do have such supporting evidence as the 2017 macbook air with screwed in batteries and a larger battery than current macbook air and the the macbook pro 2021- and today at least the 14inch have user replaceable batteries
View attachment 2221776
Compared to 2012-2021 with the glued in batteries and the need to remove the entire computer to replace the battery.

The Storage not being uppgradable is also arbitrary and shortens the lifespan.

We have multiple computer that are thinner than the macbook pro with swappable storage and even ram in some cases down the line.

Im not failing to acknowledge these facts. So far they have always been just statment and opinions with no facts actually proving the case.

Apple have proved this themselves with the macbook air or the 2017 macbook 13 inch version. That is thinner View attachment 2221812


And yes it's a proof that it works. Considering its l8ghter thsn the equivalent macbook pro 13inch. View attachment 2221814
But indeed the macbook pro was 0.25mm thinner, or about two hairs thinner.

No, but to have it easily replaced by a professional and if I need to i can repair it.

Not at all, att no point did I make a positive statment about compromises. But you did make a negative statment with norhing to actually back it up outside of it being an opinion.

But as pointed to above, Apple have some it in a thin boody.

Not at all, but gluing their batteries in making it extremely hard to change is by removing everything in the computer is circumstantial evidence in relation to the fact they have done it better and other manufacturers have also done it better.

It's a choice apple did because they wanted to, and not because they needed to.

You’re entirely missing the point.

Just because Apple made machines with user-replaceable batteries in thinner cases, and other companies have too, doesn’t mean they could produce the exact same computer save for one aspect, user replaceable batteries vs. not.

Same size battery, same battery life, the same thermal envelope, same performance, same weight, same EVERYTHING except on one, you can swap the battery.

Your conjecture is “given context clues, Apple could probably get close to x design of y, just adding replaceable components”. You’re then taking that conjecture—which isn’t proof—to make a huge logical leap that the only reason Apple doesn’t do that is pure arbitrary whim.

Since your internal definitions of “evidence”and “proof” are just assumptions made from inductive reasoning that slide around to match your predetermined conclusion that user replaceable is “better” and discount others (that good ‘ol conformation bias I mentioned in another comment), no use in continuing to discuss.

It is also your opinion that user-replaceable batteries have been removed for no other reason than financial incentive. Saying “these other computers are kinda similar and I personally thought they were better” doesn’t prove your assertion. All it means is that you don’t like the design and engineering tradeoffs that devices with sealed-in batteries have. You’re entitled to your opinion, obviously, but don’t delude yourself that it’s anything more than “just statement and opinion, with no facts actually proving the case.”

 

[strongy]

This is excellent news I think. Although I have one and love it and it’s design, I hate the fact that when the battery expires my Apple Watch becomes an item destined for the bin no matter what, as it’s designed in a way that it will be destroyed if you try to take it apart to replace the battery. And it’s probably the same for all smart watches. then we have phones that are screwed AND glued together, require special security torx screw bits, heating pads or devices just to replace a battery, in your £1400 phone.
Manufactures went down this route as it made it far cheaper and easier for them, to make the designs they have, it allows for massive profit increase at the end of the day. Sure we get lovely designs but they are not designed to last for the average consumer. And obviously in Apples case it’s laptops are the same, even your £7000 one. So I find this news to be positive. Less ewaste. It will be a design challenge though for sure for phones and I guess tablets. Not for laptops as many on the market have replaceable batteries still.

iFixIt has an article showing them replacing an Apple Watch battery so i don't know why you think its not possible they are certainly not destroyed, their are even youtube videos showing you how to do it, its clear you haven't actually done any research before posting this misinformation

 

[Analog Kid]

No requirement of upgrading exist. And I would say it shares characteristics with penny pinching and outside anythi aimed have claimed.

I'm not estimating the capabilities of humans, but I recognize equipment that is easier to repair will also be cheaper to repair. Instead of spending 1-3h to remove the batery, a 3mim swap saves me as a consumer money.

The Best evidence is the fact they're mostly sold out. And hard to compare when they have sold laptops for less than 2 years.

And not necessarily considering you don't need to buy a new computer after 3 years and less than a month ago started selling refurbished equipment.

I didn't claim i did know. So I would say it's unknown curently and that's the fairest answer you can give.

Well the bes evidence i guess is the main board parts being sold out from time to time and subreddits discussing interesting ways to use it?


Not at all. Upgradability prolongs equipments usable lifespan to be reused before being recycled.

I said it's wasteful to purchase somthing today that you don't have use for

I will bet a macbook will produce more waste considering you send away the entire laptop to be replaced, or replacing the topp case. For somthing any repairshop can do in 15min.

And we'll you Objectively produce less waste if you don't need to buy a new computer.

And I think Linus demonstrates it quite well in 45 seconds.

Ok, I think this response makes the point for me, so I can skip going back through our exchange and trying to resurface all the points you dodged.

"I was on the waitlist for batch x and can use unofficial thunderbolt support to play games and Linux runs if you're willing to customize the kernel and while I was at it I updated to the new stronger frame". This is all hobbyist level stuff. Any time the argument is "you don't have to throw it away, you can put it in this 3D printed something and now you have a whole other thing!" you're clearly out on the long tail of consumer behavior. No broad conclusions can be drawn from it and it isn't what government policy should be based around.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Considreing targeting one company is tough , it likely would be a rule for all sellers above a certain market share perhaps and raise the costs of the products as manufacturers account for the added support costs.

Well apple have some of the longest software support its unlikely they would ever be targeted.

An interesting design but future upgrades are limited to USB 4/3.2 and whatever ram standard comes out. From the pictures it appears to simply be a moherboard with a lot of USB ports.

Well it isn't. The motherboard is swappable so you can keep everything. If a future motherboard would have USB 5 it would just be backwards compatible, and you would keep the same screen, battery, speakers, keyboard, mouse pad, SSD, RAM etc etc

The USB ports are used to be able to add HDMI, Displayport, extra storage etc.

And the ram standard is limited by the CPU the motherboard have.

You’re entirely missing the point.

Just because Apple made machines with user-replaceable batteries in thinner cases, and other companies have too, doesn’t mean they could produce the exact same computer save for one aspect, user replaceable batteries vs. not.

Yes it does. They customize everything in their computers. If they can do it in a computer with smaller tolerances and less room, then they can do it in a computer with bigger tolerances and thermal envelope. Especially when they have some it with the 2023 maxbook pro 13in

Same size battery, same battery life, the same thermal envelope, same performance, same weight, same EVERYTHING except on one, you can swap the battery.

Yes exactly, the oly difrence would be you don't need to dismantle the entire computer just to remove the battery. Example the 2021/2023 macbook pro. And the macbook air is en example how they would need to fix it one way. Not having the cable going under the motherboard

Your conjecture is “given context clues, Apple could probably get close to x design of y, just adding replaceable components”. You’re then taking that conjecture—which isn’t proof—to make a huge logical leap that the only reason Apple doesn’t do that is pure arbitrary whim.

Yes because otherwise the conclusion would mean they intentionally design their computer to be hard to repair. And the fact they can and have done it multiple times with existing products. It's arbitrary because it doesn't make sense

Since your internal definitions of “evidence”and “proof” are just assumptions made from inductive reasoning that slide around to match your predetermined conclusion that user replaceable is “better” and discount others (that good ‘ol conformation bias I mentioned in another comment), no use in continuing to discuss.

My from deductivereasoning are made based on the available evidence. I don't have a preretermind conclusion, and I'm both the deductive and inductive conclusion is logically sound.

I have a preset objective standard of extended device usability is beter. User replaceable = easy to repair. With this you can make objective messurments towards it.

It is also your opinion that user-replaceable batteries have been removed for no other reason than financial incentive. Saying “these other computers are kinda similar and I personally thought they were better” doesn’t prove your assertion. All it means is that you don’t like the design and engineering tradeoffs that devices with sealed-in batteries have. You’re entitled to your opinion, obviously, but don’t delude yourself that it’s anything more than “just statement and opinion, with no facts actually proving the case.”

Thers no evidence of any trade of that justifies the compromises apple implemented earlier with no apparent benefits.

The new macbook pro is more modular and repairable. The ports are connected by cable instead of soldered to the motherboard, battery is largely removable with pull tabs instead of glued. Parts between the M1 and M2 are interchangeable.

Ok, I think this response makes the point for me, so I can skip going back through our exchange and trying to resurface all the points you dodged.

"I was on the waitlist for batch x and can use unofficial thunderbolt support to play games and Linux runs if you're willing to customize the kernel and while I was at it I updated to the new stronger frame". This is all hobbyist level stuff. Any time the argument is "you don't have to throw it away, you can put it in this 3D printed something and now you have a whole other thing!" you're clearly out on the long tail of consumer behavior.

It's shows its resellable and usable.

No broad conclusions can be drawn from it and it isn't what government policy should be based around.

It absolutely does. Example ifixit showed that the m1 and m2 macbook pro are modular and interchangeable, but software prevented to work fully as the keyboard, track pad and toutchID is disabled. You would need change the motherboard and track pad together.

The macbook pro actually isn't that far of from being completely modular and repairable, and the M2 motherboard and parts Fitts perfectly in the older M1.

The macbook air for example that is thinner than the macbook pro uses a combination of pull tabs AND screws.

 

[Jim Lahey]

At first blush this sounds great. But the EU will never EVER stop finding things to legislate. Including us. They, and the UK, are already trying to undermine private encrypted communication for the proles. Next you’ll need biometric login in order to access the internet. Then it’s jail time for offending someone. Et cetera.

Careful what you wish for…

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Ok, I think this response makes the point for me, so I can skip going back through our exchange and trying to resurface all the points you dodged.

"I was on the waitlist for batch x and can use unofficial thunderbolt support to play games and Linux runs if you're willing to customize the kernel and while I was at it I updated to the new stronger frame". This is all hobbyist level stuff. Any time the argument is "you don't have to throw it away, you can put it in this 3D printed something and now you have a whole other thing!" you're clearly out on the long tail of consumer behavior. No broad conclusions can be drawn from it and it isn't what government policy should be based around.

Apple are extremely close to a fully modular and repairable design.
battery is 95% user removable.

Antenna is replace, the screen, the speakers, ports, magsafe, trackpad etc are modular and relatively easo to replace.

What apple currently does to break the modularity and repairability of the computer is with software prevention making part unusable.

Currently, the only available fix is Apple's System Configuration tool (which is only available through Apple when purchasing a genuine replacement parts. Or suffer degregraded visual artifacts on the screen.

What happens in 10 years when apple droppa support and no longer provide replacement parts? it’s important to repair existing equipment from a sustainability standpoint as much as anything else. Resycling equipment should be a last resort.

What in my opinion prevents it from being completely repairable 9/10

• Repairs are hindered by pentalobe screws, a riveted keyboard, glued-down speakers, and some software barriers(Wasn't present in the m1).
• Permanently soldered NVME storage
• Pull tabs are under the trackpad instead of accsesable from the bottom.

It's a shame the internal storage isn't removable to make data recovery easier and upgrade the storage down the line so you don't need to regret buying 256Gb if that's the limit you have of the time. It's hard justifying 800$ for a 2TB storage uppgrade

What would make it a 10 would be the ability to upgrade storage or ram 10 years down the line.

 

[jlc1978]

Well it isn't. The motherboard is swappable so you can keep everything.

Right, because the machine design is basically a motherboard with a bunch of usb ports. It's a laptop version of the old desktop design, where the mobo was basically a processor with a bunch of industry standard parts.

It's an interesting concept but I doubt it will catch on.

If a future motherboard would have USB 5 it would just be backwards compatible, and you would keep the same screen, battery, speakers, keyboard, mouse pad, SSD, RAM etc etc

The USB ports are used to be able to add HDMI, Displayport, extra storage etc.

As with the old desktop designs I referenced, you might get a faster processor but now your bottlenecks become the USB parts. When I was building my own machines, I could replace the mobo (and sometimes just the CPU), but my old HD, video card, etc. slowed the machine down.

In this design, USB-C 4/3.2, a now 5 year old standard, becomes the limiting factor.

And the ram standard is limited by the CPU the motherboard have.

Which means either your current RAM may not offer the speed for max performance or need to be replaced.

It's an interesting idea, but highlights the challenges of modularity; something many of us experienced years ago when building your own computer was much more prevalent.

Which is why I think manufacturers have moved away from such designs, even with RAM and SSDs. Most user would never upgrade their machines and simply replace them when they get need better performance and specs, those who did would find the performance bump is much less than a new machine due to the age of the reused components; thus why add teh complexity and costs for no real benefit to most of you customer base?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It is also your opinion that user-replaceable batteries have been removed for no other reason than financial incentive. Saying “these other computers are kinda similar and I personally thought they were better” doesn’t prove your assertion. All it means is that you don’t like the design and engineering tradeoffs that devices with sealed-in batteries have. You’re entitled to your opinion, obviously, but don’t delude yourself that it’s anything more than “just statement and opinion, with no facts actually proving the case.”

I think it's an highly probable they have done it for finacial motives. Having people repair/upgrading their computers instead of purchasing a new mac is bad buisness and bad for profits.

Just going by how apple vs ifixit describe how to replace the battery proves this.
30 steps vs 162 page manual battery replacement.
Apple wants you to replace the entire topcase ( expensive, hard to do, time consuming and environmentally wasteful)

Mac Manuals and Downloads - Apple Support

Manuals, technical specifications, downloads, and more for Apple software and hardware

support.apple.com

I fixit replaces only the battery (cheaper, easier, environmentally better)

MacBook Pro 14" 2021 Battery Replacement

Use this guide to replace the battery in your MacBook Pro 14" 2021. The MacBook Pro uses stretch-release adhesives to secure the battery. Some of...

www.ifixit.com

I can see some cheap 3rd party replacement lithium battery failing and igniting on a plane ...

Haven't been a probem the last 20 years with eveelse, why do you think it will be a problem now?

This is entirely the crux of the issue, right here. Nailed it.

Same exact thing has happened in the world of automobiles. Old-head wrenchers love(d) to be able to get under the hood and work on/replace anything and everything. Modern cars much less so, but cars are safer and more reliable now than they've ever been. That's the tradeoff. The wrenches think of this as a loss (and weigh it more heavily due to the cognitive biases of loss aversion and recency bias), but the truth is they're much less likely to ever HAVE to wrench on their car at all, which is a net benefit.

Well in EU we can repair our cars just as easily today as 20 years ago. Parts and tools are readily available by law.

All these corporate "planned obsolescence" conspiracy theorists miss the forest for the trees. They can only see what's taken away (and for sure will have an anecdotal story at the ready to "prove" how they have been wronged), and refuse to acknowledge any of the gains. It's even funnier to me that all of these armchair CEOs think that the way to make your company successful is to purposely and actively make your products worse, and for "arbitrary" reasons at that!

That's the thing, it's not a question of making a product worse or building a successful company. But consumer friendly and easier to extend product lifetime. It's not arbitrary, but it's har to prove if it's deliberate designe or not striving for it to be repairable. One is malicious while the other is indifference

Yep, they somehow think Apple rolls out these massive repair and support teams, processes, tools, and infrastructure just so they can make repairs so expensive that nobody wants to have their product repaired... But they keep buying Apple because they won't consider anything else.

Yes, as its more profitable for Apple to be payed to repair their own devices than an independent or consumer repairing it.
It's all about consumer incentives to point them in their direction.

People buy apple product because they like the product, repairability and serviceability is not the important part.

Just as I refuse to use an android phone instead of iPhone as I love iOS.

I also love mac OS. But are pushed to purchase a windows computer because of the terrible software support i constantly run in to.

Yet, somehow, saying "if you don't like Apple's approach pick a different option" makes me the corporate shill...

Apple isn't the only sinner here. You can make a good product that is just terrible from a serviceability point of view. If you could just ship in your computer and just pay the price difrence to upgrade the ram from 8gb-16gb it wouldn't be such an issue, or that replacing the battery would just be the cost of the battery (80$)instead of half the computer for 530$

 

[jlc1978]

I think it's an highly probable they have done it for finacial motives. Having people repair/upgrading their computers instead of purchasing a new mac is bad buisness and bad for profits.

I disagree, computers have become much more powerful and reliable over the years, so there is much less demand to upgrade or repair than in the past. By the time they become slow or problematic people are ready to upgrade anyway.

Given the demand seems to be for ever thinner machines, designing for what consumers want when they buy means things such as upgradeablity go out the window.

Just going by how apple vs ifixit describe how to replace the battery proves this.
30 steps vs 162 page manual battery replacement.
Apple wants you to replace the entire topcase ( expensive, hard to do, time consuming and environmentally wasteful)

Manufacturers design so their techs can do repairs quickly so as to be able to do a lot with as few techs as possible since the cost of extra labor may very well wipe out any savings in parts.

Well in EU we can repair our cars just as easily today as 20 years ago. Parts and tools are readily available by law.

Easily is relative, if you want to pay for MB's Star system or BMW's equivalent just to run diagnostics and code parts to the build order. While you may be able to get them, the cost often makes going to teh shop cheaper.

Isn't the EU law 10 years for spare parts?

Apple isn't the only sinner here. You can make a good product that is just terrible from a serviceability point of view. If you could just ship in your computer and just pay the price difrence to upgrade the ram from 8gb-16gb it wouldn't be such an issue,

While that would be nice, I suspect very few people would actually do it, plus a manufacturer is likely to charge a service fee on top of the price difference. It simply wouldn't be that attractive to a manufacturer to make it worth the time and effort to offer that service.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Right, because the machine design is basically a motherboard with a bunch of usb ports. It's a laptop version of the old desktop design, where the mobo was basically a processor with a bunch of industry standard parts.

It's an interesting concept but I doubt it will catch on.

Unlikely to catch on with anyone who have normal computer they sell on this extreme end.

But apple and many already do this kind of modularity. But instead of more robust USB port they use internal headers

As with the old desktop designs I referenced, you might get a faster processor but now your bottlenecks become the USB parts. When I was building my own machines, I could replace the mobo (and sometimes just the CPU), but my old HD, video card, etc. slowed the machine down.

In this design, USB-C 4/3.2, a now 5 year old standard, becomes the limiting factor.

Not Nesesarely in this case considering USB 4 have nominal transfer rate of 9.6 GB/s. So I can't fathom anything that could ever bottle neck that Fitts in the 4 USB ports.

Would not be any more difrent than you plugging in an old usb 2.0 stick in a 3.0 port.
Or a Pcie 3 graphic card in a PCIE 4 slot.

Heck, even modern GPUs barely saturate pcie 3.0 that is about 13 years old.

Which means either your current RAM may not offer the speed for max performance or need to be replaced.

Well that's why the RAM is replacable so you can put in 2x 8gb ram sticks or 2x 32gb if that's what you prefer. No need to replace the bord on that level.

Replacing the bord is essentially just for REPAIRS or upgrading the CPU from an 11th Intel cpu to another 11th-13th CPU of fitting performance. Or an AMD if you really want DDR5.

It's an interesting idea, but highlights the challenges of modularity; something many of us experienced years ago when building your own computer was much more prevalent.

Which is why I think manufacturers have moved away from such designs, even with RAM and SSDs.

Well in the past we also had about a million difrent protocols and standards making it hard to ever build something reliable.

Most user would never upgrade their machines and simply replace them when they get need

Most PC builder tended to never upgrade their computers as well after it was made.

better performance and specs, those who did would find the performance bump is much less than a new machine

I think this has to do more with the fact users haven't had a real need of a faster CPU, but actually noticed the benefits of going from a mechanical har drive to an NVME ssd. To having CPUs with integrated graphical capabilities.

due to the age of the reused components; thus why add teh complexity and costs for no real benefit to most of you customer base?

Well it needs to be designed intentionaly with this goal in mind, and not just somthing that just happens by the nature of the available parts on the market.

And I would say all customers benefits from a repairable computer the day they send it in to be repaired. And all customers benefits from things being built to last, instead of being replaced. And at a minimum storage and batteries should be replacable as they need to be replaced after use.

I don't think it's good when your information will be lost to time if the mainbord ever breaks, making it an extremely complex and expensive procedure to recover.

 

[monstermash]

It is ridiculous this is even an issue. I mean, you need to change a phone battery after 3-4 years. Who cares if you need Apple to change it? I sure don't. I'd much rather have that and a more liquid-proof phone than an easily changeable battery and a phone that soaks up water like a sponge.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I disagree, computers have become much more powerful and reliable over the years, so there is much less demand to upgrade or repair than in the past. By the time they become slow or problematic people are ready to upgrade anyway.

Given the demand seems to be for ever thinner machines, designing for what consumers want when they buy means things such as upgradeablity go out the window.

I can agree with this, but I see it as very negative to diminish the reusability of things.
And the repairability of fundamental parts. At a minimum i would say are storage and battery as they can depending on user habits can lower the time for replacement to just a year or two.

Manufacturers design so their techs can do repairs quickly so as to be able to do a lot with as few techs as possible since the cost of extra labor may very well wipe out any savings in parts.

Well it can be priced to encourage upgrades instead of repairs. Pay 50% of a new machine or replace the 6 year comouter?

Easily is relative, if you want to pay for MB's Star system or BMW's equivalent just to run diagnostics and code parts to the build order. While you may be able to get them, the cost often makes going to teh shop cheaper.

Isn't the EU law 10 years for spare parts?

Every car in EU are European OBDII and Regulation (EU) 2018/858 compliant.

You can use any OBD tool available on the market and aren't required to use a specal diagnostic tool.

And spare parts to B2B customers, such as dealers, manufacturers are required to supply spare parts for two years after their product goes off the market. No requirements exist for private consumers. And or equivalent spare parts are available:

In general, law protects the design rights of car manufacturers for 25 years from the date of registration of the design

However, there are some
exceptions to this rule, such as for parts that are not visible when installed in a car, or for parts that are necessary to restore the original appearance of a ca. These parts are considered to be part of the "repair clause" or "must match" principle, which allows independent manufacturers to produce and sell them without infringing on the design rights of the original manufacturer
However, these parts must be of equivalent quality and functionality as the original parts, and must not bear any trademarks or logos of the original manufacturer.

1.
Manufacturers shall provide to independent operators unrestricted, standardised and non-discriminatory access to vehicle OBD information, diagnostic and other equipment, tools including the complete references, and available downloads, of the applicable software and vehicle repair and maintenance information. Information shall be presented in an easily accessible manner in the form of machine-readable and electronically processable datasets. Independent operators shall have access to the remote diagnosis services used by manufacturers and authorised dealers and repairers.
Manufacturers shall provide a standardised, secure and remote facility to enable independent repairers to complete operations that involve access to the vehicle security system.

2.
Until the Commission has adopted a relevant standard through the work of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) or a comparable standardisation body, the vehicle OBD information and vehicle repair and maintenance information shall be presented in an easily accessible manner that can be processed with reasonable effort by independent operators.
The vehicle OBD information and the vehicle repair and maintenance information shall be made available on the websites of manufacturers using a standardised format or, if this is not feasible, due to the nature of the information, in another appropriate format. For independent operators other than repairers, the information shall also be given in a machine-readable format that is capable of being electronically processed with commonly available information technology tools and software and which allows independent operators to carry out the task associated with their business in the aftermarket supply chain.

While that would be nice, I suspect very few people would actually do it, plus a manufacturer is likely to charge a service fee on top of the price difference. It simply wouldn't be that attractive to a manufacturer to make it worth the time and effort to offer that service.

Indeed and sad realy that repairability isn't in their intrest.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

Users can already replace batteries in Apple products, with the proper tools. But if anyone thinks this means that the product battery replacement will go back to the way it was in the 90s, 80s, etc. — that will never happen. Nobody wants that.

 

[monstermash]

My last three phones were destroyed by liquid.

I've had to replace "hard to replace" batteries in iPhones only twice in the last 10 years, and I did it myself and it wasn't even that hard (iPhone XS max and iPhone 6s Plus).

I'll take "max liquid resistance" over "easy to change batteries" ANY DAY, and it isn't even a close call.

 

[jlc1978]

I don't think it's good when your information will be lost to time if the mainbord ever breaks, making it an extremely complex and expensive procedure to recover.

That's why multiple seprate backups are important. I fyou don't back up regulalrly I have very little sympathy for someone who loses their data.

Not Nesesarely in this case considering USB 4 have nominal transfer rate of 9.6 GB/s. So I can't fathom anything that could ever bottle neck that Fitts in the 4 USB ports.

Today. Who knows what will be the data speed needs in 5 - 10 years.

Would not be any more difrent than you plugging in an old usb 2.0 stick in a 3.0 port.
Or a Pcie 3 graphic card in a PCIE 4 slot.

That's my point. Even with modularity you're stuck with a lot of old tech; modularity doesn't ensure you will be able to use teh lastest tech. I suspect even modular computers will be replaced at roughly the same rate as others.

Every car in EU are European OBDII and Regulation (EU) 2018/858 compliant.

You can use any OBD tool available on the market and aren't required to use a specal diagnostic tool.

Sort of. While OBDII is a modern plug with a standard design ,and very few vehicles are still on the road that are pre-OBDII, there is a vast different between cheap code readers and diagnostic equipment that use the same plug. To run diagnostics and not just / pull and clear codes requires specialized tools and software. Inexpensive hobbyist ones can be had in the 200-300 Euro range, but often don't havenearly teh sme capabilities as teh manufacturer's. For example, to add components to BMWs often requires coding the build order, something most dagnostic equipment can't do, or only do some of it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That's why multiple seprate backups are important. I fyou don't back up regulalrly I have very little sympathy for someone who loses their data.

Tell that to granny.

Today. Who knows what will be the data speed needs in 5 - 10 years.

The same as today. Just as we do just fine with USB 2 speeds for 23 years now.

It's a port for changing the interface. Such as having display port, hdmi, ethernet, headphone jack, SD card reader etc. Not to plug in gpus.

That's my point. Even with modularity you're stuck with a lot of old tech; modularity doesn't ensure you will be able to use teh lastest tech. I suspect even modular computers will be replaced at roughly the same rate as others.

Well how is it a problem? My computer can still connect sata drives.

Or change the motherboard and get access to new technology.

Sort of. While OBDII is a modern plug with a standard design ,and very few vehicles are still on the road that are pre-OBDII, there is a vast different between cheap code readers and diagnostic equipment that use the same plug. To run diagnostics and not just / pull and clear codes requires specialized tools and software. Inexpensive hobbyist ones can be had in the 200-300 Euro range, but often don't havenearly teh sme capabilities as teh manufacturer's. For example, to add components to BMWs often requires coding the build order, something most dagnostic equipment can't do, or only do some of it.

You can just use the EOBD and connect your laptop and use some software.

U less you can provide som concrete examples. I haven't found anything a 200€ reader can't do such as

iCarsoft POR V3.0​

Any capacity the manufacturers tools can do are available to 100% of the market tools