That may be true, but the point was about empowering the end user. Making programing popular through the app store (arguable) is a separate (also important) topic.
Empowering the end user to not look at the computer as a black box that they have no idea about how it works is quite freeing and mind-expanding.
In the long term, I do believe there is a real risk for programming to become a niche where you end up asking for permission from the h/w vendor before you are allowed to write code on the device. We're slowly heading in that direction with app stores being bundled with the OS, and we may end up in a situation where you can only install s/w through the app store. And only "authorized" persons can download IDEs and dev tools. A large population that has no concept of programming is likely to not oppose this because the vendor will throw the security/privacy boogeyman at them, about "unauthorized" developers writing software that can harm them.
IMO, you can take the dev word out, many productivity metrics are of dubious value, because corporate people love applying structures and systems to problems, only due to the fact that it is a structure rather than any inherent benefit.
Person A might need a completely different style of management/metrics than Person B, and Person A after a year might need yet another style of management/metrics. Its all messy and ad-hoc, because such are humans.
(Not a perfect analogy) If you replace humans with processors, and work with code, its the same efficiency paradox that devs know all too well. You apply an abstraction to solve a design problem, even if you already are aware that the Good™ solution is a hardware specific optimization or a new API design just to solve that one problem. Abstractions are seen as seemingly scalable, give you flexibility and leverage in other ways so they are Better™.
Performance focused devs are the complete opposite they give you maximum efficiency, by have a near-perfect match with the code>compiler>hardware. But at the significant cost of increased dev timelines, code complexity, stress, etc. The manager equivalent here would be the same where they are able to match their own style to the specific person they're managing. But these styles are impossible to create a universal system around.
Ideally you will have a different definition of repairability for each category of devices or even per-manufacturer. Policy wise, the problem is the specificity of the legal language/phrasing.
To me the easier approach is to make exclusive supplier contracts illegal in the retail segment. A third party repair shop should be able to buy the same parts as Google and offer a repair service if Google is unable to provide one.
I think its OK if they can't fix it. The problem comes when companies like Apple (don't know about Google) block right-to-repair legislation, or block access to parts for third-party repair or generally spread FUD about third-party repair.
So you’re ok with the company that sells it to you not being able to fix it and dropping support, but the company that provides repair services up to 7 years and battery replacements for Macs up to 10 years is somehow worse than that because they refuse to provide access to parts to third party repair shops that don’t join their program?
Again let me recap here:
- company that drops support, with no access to parts at all
- company that provides support for almost a decade and limited access to parts
And somehow you see that and say that the first one is better?
> but the company that provides repair services up to 7 years and battery replacements for Macs up to 10 years is somehow worse than that because they refuse to provide access to parts to third party repair shops that don’t join their program?
Apple is well known for forcing customers to swap expensive internal components (instead of repairing them) and contributing to greater e-waste. They force suppliers to not sell parts to independent repair stores. It sounds like you're not very familiar with it, so I won't blame ya.
I have the option of not taking my car to the dealership and instead doing simple stuff like oil changes myself, or taking it to a mechanic I trust. I'd like the same option for my electronics. If you don't trust anyone except Apple, you can keep going to them.
> Apple is well known for forcing customers to swap expensive internal components (instead of repairing them) and contributing to greater e-waste.
I’ll do you one better, they often swap out the entire device.
The customer doesn’t have to wait for a repair and can walk out with a working device, the defective device meanwhile is send off to one of their repair centers for further assessment.
I don’t know if this contributes to more e-waste because I don’t know the percentage of devices repaired, stripped for parts to be reused and stripped for parts to be recycled.
What I do know is that they heavily invest recovery of parts and other environmental focused processes and that they make extensive information on it available[0] just so they can brag about for 20 seconds during their keynotes.
It seems unlikely to me that, despite this, they secretly bury a bunch of e-waste in their backyard (so to say).
> They force suppliers to not sell parts to independent repair stores. It sounds like you're not very familiar with it, so I won't blame ya.
They have no issues providing parts to independent repair stores, provided they’re part of the Independent Repair Provider Program[1].
The main requirement of which is that the technicians get certified, certification fees are waived and there’s no fee to join the program.
I can hardly blame them for wanting to make sure the parts end up in skillful hands if the repair is going to be advertised as done with genuine Apple parts, because the customer will sooner blame Apple than know to blame a shoddy technician.
> I have the option of not taking my car to the dealership and instead doing simple stuff like oil changes myself
Have at it, go change that oil[2].
> or taking it to a mechanic I trust. I'd like the same option for my electronics.
And you have. Like with cars you can go to a mechanic you trust that can’t get their hands on OEM parts and will use imitation parts or you can go to a mechanic you trust that does have access to OEM parts.
With cars it’s actually a bit more complicated because it depends on the car make, model, the part in question, the region you’re in and some other factors.
But without devolving into a new tangent, you have those same options.
I'm talking about component level repair, not recycle. Apple doesn't offer that service, and has never offered that service. They tell the customer to replace entire motherboards (costly + wasteful) which is so costly that its often cheaper to just buy a new device. Repairing a product by replacing a part that costs 50 cents is a lot better than extracting rare earth elements from the planet all over again. This isn't about forcing Apple to repair stuff, I just want them to get out of the way. Also, I don't mean to single out Apple, they're just a popular target, many companies have the same anti-repair policies.
That's a very disingenuous recap, the commenter was complaining about Apple opposing and derailing right to repair legislation. Apple doesn't just refuse to provide parts either, they're increasingly serializing parts such that perfectly working components from 2 brand new Apple devices can't be swapped between them.
Not that Google is any better, they're all inexcusably terrible, anti-consumer, e-waste generating operations.
The commenter said “Shit action is Ok, but boy that other company is worse” and that just doesn’t compute for me.
> Apple opposing and derailing right to repair legislation
I guess you didn’t hear the latest news[0]?
> they're increasingly serializing parts
A pedantic minor correction: they haven’t so much increased it as people have started noticing stuff that had been serialized prior
> such that perfectly working components from 2 brand new Apple devices can't be swapped between them
They can be swapped, the device doesn’t block it outright or refuses to boot (with the exception of biometrics).
The problem is that some of the calibration and configuration is component specific, so in certain cases a replacement has unintended consequences, which, because it’s Apple, gets explained a purposeful attempt by Apple to break non-authorized repairs.
Personally to me this is rather hilarious notion because Apple isn’t known to be shy about being explicit in their messaging, case in point would be the messaging when replacing a battery.
The simple fact of the matter is that calibration is simply part of the repair and if not done, the repair isn’t done properly.
It’s the same as replacing your tires without aligning them and then blaming the car manufacturer for all the vibrations you feel during your rides.
Just about now the conversation then shifts to who gets access to calibration tools.
Currently Apple, Apple Authorized Service Providers, independent repair shops that are part of the free Independent Repair Provider Program and customers using the Self Service Repair service have access to these tools.
That covers pretty much all scenarios, with the exception being cowboys that want to go at it alone because they don’t want to subject their skills to any form of scrutiny.
I think it stands to reason that they then use their unimpeachable skills to transfer the control chip that holds the calibration data.
>The commenter said “Shit action is Ok, but boy that other company is worse” and that just doesn’t compute for me.
If you're using quotes, you should be quoting something I actually said, rather than making stuff up. Don't worry, I'll tell you exactly what I think, so you don't have to do that.
Yep. Regardless of whether it is positive or negative, you don't want your general employees commenting on the safety of the companies products. On such sensitive topics, you want to leave the floor open to SMEs and recognized industry experts.
Look, this time its bullshit. But let's say the company in this case is something like DuPont. Let's say the recognized industry experts are paid to shut up and write whitepapers backing up the company. This has happened plenty of times over the course of history and employees talking about unethical or even downright dangerous behavior should at least be heard I think... even if they don't understand what non-ionizing radiation is.
Why would I give a theory when I don't even agree with your position. That is a bizarre request. I don't quite understand what point you're making except calling it a problem.
I find that answering a question with a question often results in better understanding and insightfulness by the pupil than just spoon-feeding it to them. Every good parent and professor will be familiar with this technique.
I don't know to what extent this person goes to hide their legal name, but with public records, its fairly easy to find your residence if you own a home or some other property.
Somehow, I can't imagine how HN is any better. Reasonable comments are mass-downvoted when people disagree with you on seemingly hot button topics - blm, vaccines, musk, trump, immigration, lgbtq etc. I know many people who had to create new accounts because of this.
Merely being downvoted isn't a form of harassment. The worst people on Reddit will DM you vile shit/threats and stalk you across various subreddits if they think you're a person worth targeting (particularly if you belong to one of those so-called "hot button" marginalized groups). Meanwhile HN doesn't even have a DM feature.
If you express a reasonable opinion that is even mildly positive, or even ambivalent about musk or trump you get mass downvoted, and people assume you completely lack integrity. I have seen this exact behaviour on HN for years, and the mods do nothing, and the bad-actors are often the long-term users with tons of karma. I'm not into conspiracies so I won't speculate as to the reasons.
Anyway, that in and of itself doesn't bother me - The parent was trying to present a "holier than thou" attitude towards Reddit. I merely pointed out that HN is not all that great when it comes to that.
>mildly positive, or even ambivalent about musk or trump you get mass downvoted, and people assume you completely lack integrity
With the amount of time musk and trump have had in the spotlight and the awful shit they've objectively actually done, it should make people question your integrity if you are writing positively about them. Like it or not, downvotes are an expression of disapproval.
Most elections are about electing the least-bad person. Bush started wars, Biden/Obama dropped bombs on civilians (even US citizens), tortured detainees, trump.. well we all know what trump did. Most voters either voted for biden or trump, both have done "awful shit". Every politician has done "awful shit".
If you can't find a single positive impact of trump's (or any politician) policies or a single positive thing musk has done, consider that you maybe be in an echo chamber yourself, or you're just deluding yourself into thinking you have some kind of moral high-ground.
Love how you oversell "Biden/Obama" as having dropped bombs on civilians while just handwaving away "we all know what trump did". Be more specific, maybe? Trump created an insurrection and tried to dismantle democracy itself, which seems far worse than accidentally dropping bombs on US citizens - let's be clear, Biden was VP at the time, not president, but you put Biden first? lol, you're so clearly trying to skew everything you wrote in all kinds of ways.
You're practicing whataboutism here.
>If you can't find a single positive impact of trump's (or any politician) policies or a single positive thing musk has done
A broken clock is right twice a day. So let's let broken clocks rule and profit as much as they want regardless of the consequences, I guess? That's what you're advocating for. trump and musk have very dubious ideologies, they are both awful businessmen that treat their employees like shit. They've proven this over and over. And yes, there is moral high ground and these two are not in the same category morally as many other politicians and business people. Your whataboutism doesn't make them seem any better than they actually are to anyone but yourself.
lol I also like when people trot out the "Obama did bad stuff too!" talking point as if the non-establishment left isn't in full agreement there.
Like, yeah dude. You think me being pissed that Obama didn't close Guantanamo is a sign that I'm going to be more sympathetic about Trump's policies? Come on now.
exactly this, well said. If Obama actually committed crimes while in office I'll listen to the evidence with an open mind, sure go after him. The right want to give trump a free pass for insurrection. There's a huge difference between the two mindsets, and I can't not call out anyone for still supporting him that happens to cross my social-media path. I'll use downvotes, too. I'm not going to do nothing while actual US fascism creeps upward, not sure what the parent commenter expects.
I assume people downvote you about Musk and Trump because they disagree with your takes and think you're not contributing anything interesting to the discussion. People are allowed to downvote. What would you propose mods do in that situation?
Honestly, "everyone" knows there are acceptable boundaries of opinion in a lot of circles generally--including this one--that even nuanced takes cannot cross without bring out the knives. By and large, it makes sense to accept that and move on. You likely won't change anyone's mind and you'll just get upset.
Sure, someone could have a bad take, could be simply wrong, or simply have a different opinion. Why do you assume that I cannot differentiate between them?
Empowering the end user to not look at the computer as a black box that they have no idea about how it works is quite freeing and mind-expanding.
In the long term, I do believe there is a real risk for programming to become a niche where you end up asking for permission from the h/w vendor before you are allowed to write code on the device. We're slowly heading in that direction with app stores being bundled with the OS, and we may end up in a situation where you can only install s/w through the app store. And only "authorized" persons can download IDEs and dev tools. A large population that has no concept of programming is likely to not oppose this because the vendor will throw the security/privacy boogeyman at them, about "unauthorized" developers writing software that can harm them.