That more or less proves the point. There is very strong demand for old MacBooks because they last. Planned obsolescence is needed to ensure that people upgrade. That can be done multiple ways. This is just one of the approaches and will of course take time to settle in.
>There is very strong demand for old MacBooks because they last.
No, by "old Macbooks" I mean "including current and last year models". Not that only past macbooks had large resale value...
>Planned obsolescence is needed to ensure that people upgrade.
In the Apple world, upgrading is part of the idea and appeal -- you're not supposed to be running a 10 year old laptop or 2-3 versions old OS. The OS is not about backwards compatibility, it's about moving forward faster...
That's part of the appeal of the thing, and part of the reason for the extra control.
I don't want legacy 10/20 year old apps and frameworks to be supported, I don't want apps that don't take advantage of the latest frameworks, hardware and OS features, and so on...
If "compatible with 30 year old programs" is a desirable feature, there's always Windows.
>keep working fine for most people for close to a decade or so
doesn't mesh with -
>you're not supposed to be running a 10 year old laptop or 2-3 versions old OS
Planned obsolescence just means artificially shortening the upgrade cycle. That's it. And Apple has been doing this in the Mac world through different methods.
>Planned obsolescence just means artificially shortening the upgrade cycle.
No, it doesn't not. Planned obsolescence, just the like the actual words in the term are defined, means planning for the fact that technology and the components it's made from has a finite lifespan and that, at some point, users of that technology will have to upgrade. You're inferring that companies are intentionally sabotaging their products to compel and force people to upgrade and that might be the stupidest take I've ever heard.
>In economics and industrial design, planned obsolescence (also called built-in obsolescence or premature obsolescence) is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so that it becomes obsolete (i.e., unfashionable, or no longer functional) after a certain period of time.[1] The rationale behind this strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle").[2] It is the deliberate shortening of a lifespan of a product to force consumers to purchase replacements.[3]
Apple does this with their hardware by limiting the software support period and economical hardware repair. Having something like the T2 ensures that third parties are not able to extend the life of their systems in a reasonable manner.
I know what the definition is. Your second statement doesn't support your first one. Apple provides hardware and software support for their devices at a far greater level and duration than nearly every other hardware manufacturer. They're not artificially limiting the lifetime of their products, they're ending support for devices that, in most cases, literally can't support new features that they're adding.
The T2 is a security chip. It ensures the integrity of the system. If that integrity is compromised, the chip shouldn't allow third parties to replace components unless those components can be replaced and the integrity restored. You're acting like the T2 was added just to make repairs harder instead of to make the device more secure which, by design, makes repairs more difficult.
It's the same reason that car manufacturers don't let repair shops generate new key fobs unless they're registered with the manufacturer.
Sure it's a security chip but why is it they didn't make it so the owner can do a one-way unlock (like Android's bootloader unlock) so people can fix their own Macs?
Because preventing repairs is one of the desirable side effect of this design.
Because even a one-way unlock can be exploited and is a vector for compromised security.
Apple has no need to prevent people from repairing their devices. They lose money on most repairs they do. What they're concerned about is their brand. If someone gets their device repaired at a shitty shop that isn't Apple certified and uses parts that aren't real Apple parts (like every screen repair kiosk in your local mall), people don't see future screen issues as issues with that repair or screen. They see a problem with an iPhone. That's what the desirable side-effect is. Apple doesn't want to prevent repairs, they want to prevent shitty repairs and security breaches.
>Because even a one-way unlock can be exploited and is a vector for compromised security.
Evidence doesn't support this at all. When was the last root exploit due to an bootloader unlock?
Towing the Apple line gets you nowhere. There is overwhelming support for companies to allow for a right of repair. Most people don't have any issues with security advances, but they do have a problem with companies using this as an excuse to further lock-in to devices that are fully paid for by consumers.
