biogene

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.

>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.

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.

Thanks, but I want my beliefs to be based on more truths and fewer falsehoods as much I can, so your input doesn't really help me with my goals.

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.

> 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.

I agree with you, people are twisting your words and setting up a strawman.

How does that change the decision of not letting the company's accountant comment on safety?

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.

How many managers have you had? Seems like an odd generalization.

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.

Is this peak or sustained? I can't imagine an SoC inside a water tight (IP68?) enclosure having better heat management.

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.

Thanks for proving my point. Goodbye.