It's not difficult to replace RAM or SSD with the right tools (which may be within reach of an enthusiast), problem is that you often cannot buy spare chips as manufacturers can only sell them to Apple or that they are serialised - programmed to work only with that particular chip and then the unit has to be reprogrammed after the replacement by the manufacturer. I think they started doing it after rework tools became affordable for broader audience. You can get a trinocular microscope, rework station and an oven for under a $1000 these days.
You can get a screwdriver (allowing you to replace RAM and SSDs in most laptops, including older macs) for $5. There's really no excuse for them to do this all the while claiming to be environmentally friendly.
Depends on the model. My 2012 mbp15r uses glue and solder, not screws. Maxed out the specs when I got it, which is why it's still usable. Would've been delighted for it to have been thicker and heavier to support DIY upgrades and further improve its longevity while reducing its environmental impact, but that wasn't an option. Needed the retina screen for my work, bit the bullet. Someday maybe there will be a bulletproof user-serviceable laptop form factor w a great screen, battery life and decent keyboard, that can legally run macOs... glad to say my client-issued 2019 mbp16r checks most of those boxes. /ramble
Something like ATX standard but for laptop shells would be awesome - imagine being able to replace a motherboard etc, just like you can with a desktop PC.
Intel tried this more than a decade ago. The designs were as horrible as you might imagine, and a few OEMs did come out with a handful of models and parts.
As I recall, consumers didn’t care or wouldn’t live with the awful designs that they initially brought out. I don’t remember. I remember thinking I wouldn’t touch one after seeing a bunch of engineering samples.
Mmm... it's certainly better than they had before. But really they ought to be designing repairable machines. If that makes them a little slower then so be it.
Sure, but you add the option to ignore the serialization, or options to reset the IDs as part of the firmware or OS. That way the machine owner can fix it after jumping through some security hoops, rather than requiring an authorized repair store.
Mostly because, its doubtful if state level actors (or even organized crime) aren't going to pay off an employee somewhere to lose the reprogramming device/etc. Meaning its only really secure against your average user.
I don't believe those reasons are more important than open access and reducing the environmental impact of planned obsolescence, outside of the kind of government agencies that are exempt from consumer electronics regulations anyway.
Surely there is a better (and I'd bet, more effective) way to handle environmental regulations than mandating specific engineering design patterns within the legal code.
Perhaps instead, it might be a better idea to directly regulate the actions which cause the environmental impact? i.e. the disposal of those items themselves?
Engineers tend to get frustrated with laws that micromanage specific design choices, because engineering practices change over time. Many of the laws that attempt to do so, backfire with unintended consequences.
It is quite possible that your solution might be just that -- many industries with high security needs are already very concerned with hardware tampering. A common current solution for this is "burner" hardware. It is not uncommon for the Fortune 500 to give employees laptops that are used for a single trip to China, and then thrown away. Tech that can give the user assurance that the device hasn't been compromised decreases the chance that these devices will be disposed of.
As a side note, I don't think serialized components is even one of the top 25 factors that does(/would) contribute to unnecessary electronics disposal.
I think resetting instead of bricking doesn't compromise security, but saves a burner laptop from ending up in landfill. I get your point, but I think company would have to demonstrate that e.g. serialising meets particular business need that is different from planned obsolescence. Could be a part of certification processes that products before getting marketed have to go through.
In practice, such a law could resemble right-to-repair bills like the one recently passed in Massachusetts, which requires auto manufacturers to give independent repair stores access to all the tools they themselves use. A bill like this for consumer electronics could practically ban serialized components, even without mentioning them explicitly.
Why beating around the bush? If the function of extra tax is to stop producers from implementing planned obsolescence, then why not just stop them directly and require that components are not serialised etc. as a part of certifications products need to go through? If you add tax, then all you do is restricting access to such products for people with lower income.
the point is to push the market into the correct^Wdesired direction without outright banning anything. non-serialized would be cheaper, hence more accessible. there are use cases where serialized parts are desired (e.g. if i don't want somebody swapping my cpu with a compromised part).
Normally I prefer nudges to bans, but I'm not sure they work on giant monopolies. Unless the tax were high enough to have no chance of passing, Apple would dodge it or write it off as cheaper than being consumer-friendly.
