this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
609 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
60084 readers
4914 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok but first manufacturers must "rethink" planned obsolescence and right to repair
I agree. I'm tired of always blaming the end users for everything
This.
we don't "this" here.
But apparently you do diss.
Planned obsolescense is a myth. It's just cost-benefit that makes old tech crappy. Tech keeps getting better, and supporting the old device is a pain for no extra money. And phone architecture is stupid so they need every single part supplier to provide updates if they want to update the OS, unlike PCs where the hardware is better-abstracted.
You're either a troll or an uninformed idiot who has never done operating system development. A properly modularised OS can allow for minimal upkeep for older hardware. A leading example is Apple's .kext system allowing for near 10 years of OS support both on macOS and iOS. Not that I think Apple is a great company but they do have some really good software development practices.
Also regardless of the technical explanination above, accepting a constant flow of e-waste for the sake of a new shiny year is just unethical regardless of the supposed reason.
I actually did do operating system development, at least back in school. But comparing Apple to everybody else is insane when Apple controls the full vertical stack of end to end hardware. You may as well compare them to the driver support on Nintendo or Toyota.
And also there's the problem that the Android OS is based on Linux which handles the "wierd new hardware" problem by recompiling the kernel, which doesn't work so well with closed-source binary drivers. And that's before even getting into the ARM architecture.
I'm playing around with OS development only as a hobby currently. I don't know much about black box insides of macOS however I have used third party drivers as well as looked into how the kext system is structured and it really seems like a master class of software engineering. Having the drivers structured hierarchically under categories/subsystems and with multiple kernel API revisions supported means the kexts work over a wider lifespan.
Also comparing Apple to the rest of industry is not completely unreasonable for one reason. Modern register level documentation is hidden under shitty NDA's and aren't even complete half the time, with the usually poorly written SDK being used as documentation instead. Even better is when parts of the SDK are fucking binaries with no hopes of figuring out where the bug lies. The top dog of course is no SDK whatsoever and instead opting to release a fixed, factory compiled linux kernel release for Android only. I believe this is what Qualcomm mostly do and why those Android releases have a fixed lifespan of 3-5 years. When this is how over half the Android phone SoC market operates, I wonder how half of them make it to market working as well as they do.
Linux on the other hand is just a mess (In more ways than one. I have low opinions of it). That is not a good example of modular driver support. The unwillingness of the Linux community from both userspace applications / libraries and kernelspace to maintain a versioned API system with rigorous testing for compliance and to instead create a moving target is nothing short of a fucking joke. It's no wonder Android can't easily maintain cross-generation support. Then there is the lack of support for running different versions of libraries side by side as necessary.
I run a Linux server for home use as it's still king in this regard and have sometime attempted to use Linux as a desktop. However I eventually come to the same conclusion that it's just too unstable and "patched together". My daily driver is still a mac, no matter how much I want to move away due to Apple's worsening business practices.
Sorry for getting heated. It just really boils me when people defend poor software development practices because it the "industry standard". I disdain manufactured e-waste stemming from rubbish software development practices.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted because your argument is right. Apple has a rather small number of hardware devices to support. That makes long term support a lot easier.
Edit: I mostly disagree with your previous argument though. Planned obsolescence is alive and thriving. I've seen so many PCB layouts where heat sensitive parts were placed right next to heat emitting ones that I cannot believe this is by accident.
Sir, you can prove someone wrong without insults. You need to chill a bit.
Sorry about that but it really boils me when people defend poor software development practices when making the point of supporting hardware for a long time is difficult.
Shh corporation bad giv updoot.
it's not just phones or devices that need updates, though. None of my refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers have ever lasted more than 10 years; I think the average is about 5 years before they stop working, get all rusty or a very expensive piece breaks so they are not worth repairing. Meanwhile all of my granma's old kitchen appliances are still working perfectly after 60+ years of service.
Sure, it might be just that over-optimizing their production so they are more performant while being cheaper to make is also making them less durable, but I don't see a lot of motivation from companies to go out of their way to build durable things either. And it's not that I think Corporate = Bad; as you say it's a cost/benefit thing, it's just that the "benefit" companies try to maximize is their shareholders', not our planet's. It's on Politics to create a legal framework where some of the cost to our planet is shared with companies (so they have incentives to make things durable/repairable again) and on us consumer to choose wisely what to buy, when and from whom.