How does blowing the dust out from the outside violate the warranty?
I'm sorry, but your whole notion that manufacturers deliberately make their products to break is absurd. Yes, there are many easy to break items, but they are that way because consumers want cheap things, so they use cheaper components to meet that demand. A company that makes products to fail deliberately is not going to last in the market for very long.
Also absurd is your notion that the design of modern products is deliberately intended to remove accessibility. That is simply a byproduct of their function and form factor. They consist of hundreds of tiny components in a small space. How can you assemble something like that without it being complex? Do you think they do it for shits and giggles?
Maybe if your way is so much better, you should start up a company and make these amazing advanced products that are also simple in construction and easy to take apart by the end user. You could make a lot of money. But I'm guessing you don't know the first thing about it.
I mean, some of your examples are completely backwards. The removable battery thing for one. That decreases longevity, and adds points of failure, creating a product that fails sooner. How often have you seen phones and laptops where the battery retaining latches have failed long before the end of life for the battery? And removing the complexity of a battery bay and casing allows for greater structural integrity, again, increasing the chance the product will last longer.
You also forget that we're talking about (in consoles and phones) cheap consumer appliances here, not rackmount servers or tower computers.
My OLPC likes to disagree, that thing is easy to open up, in fact so easy that children can do it with a single screwdriver. It also comes with a few additional unused screws in the case, in case you lose some.
And it is very underpowered. Thanks for making my point. And what can you do once it is open? Not much.
With special training and equipment.
Apparently not. Did you even read the slashdot summary? It links to a site that shows you how to do it.
Just look at a disassembly of an Xbox 360 Slim, that thing is way more complex to disassemble then it would need to when properly designed.
So, instead they should should make it a huge beast so tiny percentage of users can conveniently open it? People mocked the 360 on release because it was so huge - what do you think the reaction would have been if it was 50% larger in volume?
Tell me that the only way to "get so much power in a small" iPhone was to build it so that the battery could not be changed by the owner.
Right. To add a removable battery, you'd either need to use a smaller battery (less battery life) or have a bigger and heavier device.
Tell me that the only way to "get so much power in a small" game console was to build it so that dust could not be cleaned out of cooling ducts.
But dust can be cleaned out of the cooling ducts. This article has a link to a site that tells you how to do it. (or you could just blow it out without opening the device.
Tell me that the only way to "get so much power in a small" iPod Touch or MS Zune(or pick your favorite MP3 player) is to build it so that the audio jack could not be replaced when it inevitably gets a short and one side of the stereo output goes out.
Not sure what you're talking about there.
I understand that you're trying to deny that "planned obsolescence" or even "planned breakage" is fundamental to the design of most consumer electronics,
It may or may not be, but none of your arguments or examples support that conclusion. If planned obsolescence is built-in, then why is it that so many of my devices that are 3,5 and even 10 years or more old are working just fine? I haven't had a single piece of electronics die (except for hard drive failures) in the last decade.
I'm not trying to pick on Apple, in case that's what caused your hackles to become erect.
When did I mention Apple?
Apparently, you're ignorant of technology. As it progresses, it gets beyond just needing a screwdriver and soldering iron to fix. If you're so against gluing things shut, then I assume your computer's processor can be opened with four screws so you can fix a faulty logic gate? No? Then why aren't you outraged about that?
I'd rather a box with 4 screws that I could open up and service instead of one that's glued shut.
But that's not what's being discussed. Would you want your laptop designed that way? Because that's going to be one huge and heavy laptop. Nobody is gluing these things shut. They are just complex and difficult to work with because that's the only way to get so much power in a small space.
This story is about servicing game consoles that have been designed specifically not to be serviced,
No it's not. You're just reading that into it. The consoles are serviceable - how else do you think the companies' technicians service them?
That depends, do I get a 3.5" Floppy drive that can store 8GB of data
No, you don't. You don't get such high data densities and get to service them by hand. That's the point. Progress relies on miniaturization, which relies on industrial processes and tools beyond the individual's means.
I must have been absent the day it was put to a vote that we want "slim" devices that cannot be serviced.
So, let's see... which would you prefer to use?
3.5" Floppy drive and disk
8GB Flash memory card in either SD or CF format
The Floppy drive is easy to service. Big parts, you can fix the mechanics and solder the components. On the other hand, you are not going to be able to fix your 8GB Flash memory if something internal goes wrong.
Same with things like motherboards and components. Would you rather a machine with discrete transistors or vacuum tubes, or would you rather something with surface-mount devices and microchips? There's a massive difference in performance.
Also, you're weird. It sounds to me like you have an issue with authority in general, as you immediately suspect that operators would gladly abuse their power to zap convicted felons.
Many, many psychological experiments have shown this to be the case. In fact, some of them are among the most famous psychology experiments that have ever been conducted. Perhaps you should look them up?
The "zapping" is particularly relevant here, as we have seen how Tasers have been massively abused by police forces. Non-lethal weapons in general appear to encourage abuse.
Nobody agrees that people should be beaten by the cops for no reason.
Yet it happens every day, every hour, every minute.
The police kill innocent people much less often than criminals kill innocent people.
Now, that's a completely different thing. When a cop kills somebody it usually comes with a pretty serious investigation. That's why non-lethal weapons are so popular among sadists. It enables them to get their kicks without being punished themselves. It's too easy for police to claim that they had to restrain or Taser somebody. It's a lot harder to claim that you needed to kill them.
Maybe its mind boggling to those of us who expect a quality long lasting product for a reasonable price... An idea that seems fairly obsolete these days.:(
Modern electronics are so miniaturized that everything is pretty packed in. And people want it that way, they want "slim" devices. Your "easy to service" products are going to be a lot bigger and cost a lot more. People want cheap and small.
Also, having the average person open up their devices is ultimately going to result in screw-ups and an increased volume of customer support requests, which is expensive.
I don't think it's some kind of conspiracy to make your products break. It's just the result of economics and demands of modern technology. If you want long-lasting quality products, you'll usually pay more. But when has that ever not been true for most things?
Having the entire Oxford dictionary in paper form means that future generations and cultures can simply pick up the text and start reading/translating it based on context.
What makes you think future generations will have eyesight or be able to recognize letter forms? Perhaps they will have lost those capabilities from having their brains constantly plugged directly into a data stream?
What exactly is the point of jetpacks supposed to be? They don't seem to be useful for any civilian or military purposes that other technologies aren't more appropriate. Is the obsession with jetpacks just about being like a comic book superhero?
As with most engineering exercises, if your not intrigued by the novel and clever and application of new technology, there's little value to be seen by non-technical types. Hence observations such as the summary mentions 'Why would anyone ever want to view his or her pictures on a TV?"
What a load of myopic bullshit. Do you not realize there have always been narrow-minded bureaucrats within businesses? And that there also have, and will continue to be visionary innovators and gutsy start-ups?
As with most engineering exercises, if your not intrigued by the novel and clever and application of new technology, there's little value to be seen by non-technical types. Hence observations such as the summary mentions 'Why would anyone ever want to view his or her pictures on a TV?"
What they should have been asking is "Is it possible to take photos of cats with this camera and superimpose poorly spelled captions over them?"
In 40 years of development, it has never flown with a passenger. Moller has been convicted of securities fraud. I suspect it would be faster and easier to start from scratch with a workable design than to pump more money into the failed Moller Skycar.
You know, I think the post you were replying to might have been using that thing... what's it called again? Oh right. Satire.
Well, as James Brown said, "It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." Also, something about some kind of Sex Machine. I think this creed could be adapted to this era of Aeron chairs and teledildonics somehow.
Hold that thought. You just said it's "pretty normal" for a corporation to have a "do no evil" value, yet you just said in your own previous post that it "shouldn't need to be said".
Google has it as a company motto. That's a bit different to the standard practice. Maybe it is said by other companies, but they don't make such a big deal of it.
You're pretty confused.
I think you might be the one who is confused if you can't wrap your mind around this.
That comes off to me as particularly naive, and again you are showing your confusion.
It's naive to think that people have a moral/ethical framework? If they didn't society just wouldn't work, and we'd all probably be dead by now. So, are you saying that you have no moral/ethical framework? Or that you are an extraordinary person who is unlike most people?
If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:
How so? Google might be particularly prone to evil, hence the need to proclaim "do no evil." I don't see how that is in conflict with the idea that most people have a moral/ethical framework. Do you even grasp the basics of my argument?
Slashdot Mirror
How does blowing the dust out from the outside violate the warranty?
I'm sorry, but your whole notion that manufacturers deliberately make their products to break is absurd. Yes, there are many easy to break items, but they are that way because consumers want cheap things, so they use cheaper components to meet that demand. A company that makes products to fail deliberately is not going to last in the market for very long.
Also absurd is your notion that the design of modern products is deliberately intended to remove accessibility. That is simply a byproduct of their function and form factor. They consist of hundreds of tiny components in a small space. How can you assemble something like that without it being complex? Do you think they do it for shits and giggles?
Maybe if your way is so much better, you should start up a company and make these amazing advanced products that are also simple in construction and easy to take apart by the end user. You could make a lot of money. But I'm guessing you don't know the first thing about it.
I mean, some of your examples are completely backwards. The removable battery thing for one. That decreases longevity, and adds points of failure, creating a product that fails sooner. How often have you seen phones and laptops where the battery retaining latches have failed long before the end of life for the battery? And removing the complexity of a battery bay and casing allows for greater structural integrity, again, increasing the chance the product will last longer.
You also forget that we're talking about (in consoles and phones) cheap consumer appliances here, not rackmount servers or tower computers.
My OLPC likes to disagree, that thing is easy to open up, in fact so easy that children can do it with a single screwdriver. It also comes with a few additional unused screws in the case, in case you lose some.
And it is very underpowered. Thanks for making my point. And what can you do once it is open? Not much.
With special training and equipment.
Apparently not. Did you even read the slashdot summary? It links to a site that shows you how to do it.
Just look at a disassembly of an Xbox 360 Slim, that thing is way more complex to disassemble then it would need to when properly designed.
So, instead they should should make it a huge beast so tiny percentage of users can conveniently open it? People mocked the 360 on release because it was so huge - what do you think the reaction would have been if it was 50% larger in volume?
Tell me that the only way to "get so much power in a small" iPhone was to build it so that the battery could not be changed by the owner.
Right. To add a removable battery, you'd either need to use a smaller battery (less battery life) or have a bigger and heavier device.
Tell me that the only way to "get so much power in a small" game console was to build it so that dust could not be cleaned out of cooling ducts.
But dust can be cleaned out of the cooling ducts. This article has a link to a site that tells you how to do it. (or you could just blow it out without opening the device.
Tell me that the only way to "get so much power in a small" iPod Touch or MS Zune(or pick your favorite MP3 player) is to build it so that the audio jack could not be replaced when it inevitably gets a short and one side of the stereo output goes out.
Not sure what you're talking about there.
I understand that you're trying to deny that "planned obsolescence" or even "planned breakage" is fundamental to the design of most consumer electronics,
It may or may not be, but none of your arguments or examples support that conclusion. If planned obsolescence is built-in, then why is it that so many of my devices that are 3,5 and even 10 years or more old are working just fine? I haven't had a single piece of electronics die (except for hard drive failures) in the last decade.
I'm not trying to pick on Apple, in case that's what caused your hackles to become erect.
When did I mention Apple?
Apparently, you're ignorant of technology. As it progresses, it gets beyond just needing a screwdriver and soldering iron to fix. If you're so against gluing things shut, then I assume your computer's processor can be opened with four screws so you can fix a faulty logic gate? No? Then why aren't you outraged about that?
I wouldn't exactly call that fixing the "internal components." That's just fixing the external connectors, not the Flash memory itself.
Stick a warranty seal on it and be done with it.
And that's exactly what they do. But then people like PopeRatzo whine about it being unfair.
I'm not getting your point, as you seem to be making much the same argument as I am, but stating it as if you disagree..
Don't change the subject.
I'm not.
I'd rather a box with 4 screws that I could open up and service instead of one that's glued shut.
But that's not what's being discussed. Would you want your laptop designed that way? Because that's going to be one huge and heavy laptop. Nobody is gluing these things shut. They are just complex and difficult to work with because that's the only way to get so much power in a small space.
This story is about servicing game consoles that have been designed specifically not to be serviced,
No it's not. You're just reading that into it. The consoles are serviceable - how else do you think the companies' technicians service them?
That depends, do I get a 3.5" Floppy drive that can store 8GB of data
No, you don't. You don't get such high data densities and get to service them by hand. That's the point. Progress relies on miniaturization, which relies on industrial processes and tools beyond the individual's means.
I must have been absent the day it was put to a vote that we want "slim" devices that cannot be serviced.
So, let's see... which would you prefer to use?
The Floppy drive is easy to service. Big parts, you can fix the mechanics and solder the components. On the other hand, you are not going to be able to fix your 8GB Flash memory if something internal goes wrong.
Same with things like motherboards and components. Would you rather a machine with discrete transistors or vacuum tubes, or would you rather something with surface-mount devices and microchips? There's a massive difference in performance.
Also, you're weird. It sounds to me like you have an issue with authority in general, as you immediately suspect that operators would gladly abuse their power to zap convicted felons.
Many, many psychological experiments have shown this to be the case. In fact, some of them are among the most famous psychology experiments that have ever been conducted. Perhaps you should look them up?
The "zapping" is particularly relevant here, as we have seen how Tasers have been massively abused by police forces. Non-lethal weapons in general appear to encourage abuse.
Nobody agrees that people should be beaten by the cops for no reason.
Yet it happens every day, every hour, every minute.
The police kill innocent people much less often than criminals kill innocent people.
Now, that's a completely different thing. When a cop kills somebody it usually comes with a pretty serious investigation. That's why non-lethal weapons are so popular among sadists. It enables them to get their kicks without being punished themselves. It's too easy for police to claim that they had to restrain or Taser somebody. It's a lot harder to claim that you needed to kill them.
Maybe its mind boggling to those of us who expect a quality long lasting product for a reasonable price... An idea that seems fairly obsolete these days. :(
Modern electronics are so miniaturized that everything is pretty packed in. And people want it that way, they want "slim" devices. Your "easy to service" products are going to be a lot bigger and cost a lot more. People want cheap and small.
Also, having the average person open up their devices is ultimately going to result in screw-ups and an increased volume of customer support requests, which is expensive.
I don't think it's some kind of conspiracy to make your products break. It's just the result of economics and demands of modern technology. If you want long-lasting quality products, you'll usually pay more. But when has that ever not been true for most things?
Having the entire Oxford dictionary in paper form means that future generations and cultures can simply pick up the text and start reading/translating it based on context.
What makes you think future generations will have eyesight or be able to recognize letter forms? Perhaps they will have lost those capabilities from having their brains constantly plugged directly into a data stream?
That thing which involves bees and flowers.
Honey?
What exactly is the point of jetpacks supposed to be? They don't seem to be useful for any civilian or military purposes that other technologies aren't more appropriate. Is the obsession with jetpacks just about being like a comic book superhero?
As with most engineering exercises, if your not intrigued by the novel and clever and application of new technology, there's little value to be seen by non-technical types. Hence observations such as the summary mentions 'Why would anyone ever want to view his or her pictures on a TV?"
What a load of myopic bullshit. Do you not realize there have always been narrow-minded bureaucrats within businesses? And that there also have, and will continue to be visionary innovators and gutsy start-ups?
As with most engineering exercises, if your not intrigued by the novel and clever and application of new technology, there's little value to be seen by non-technical types. Hence observations such as the summary mentions 'Why would anyone ever want to view his or her pictures on a TV?"
What they should have been asking is "Is it possible to take photos of cats with this camera and superimpose poorly spelled captions over them?"
The date there is October 16, 2007
Well, at least slashdot's 3 years beats the 32 years it took Kodak to post the article on their website!
In 40 years of development, it has never flown with a passenger. Moller has been convicted of securities fraud. I suspect it would be faster and easier to start from scratch with a workable design than to pump more money into the failed Moller Skycar.
You know, I think the post you were replying to might have been using that thing... what's it called again? Oh right. Satire.
Is posting in a monospaced font cheaper than posting in a regular font?
Isn't the "swarm of robots" aspect slightly more interesting than the "touchscreen interface" aspect?
And people wonder why I only drink filtered or bottled water.
Is it because you're worried about your precious bodily fluids? That's why I only drink grain alcohol and rainwater.
Wow. There is ANY percentage of people that are not likely to die?
I think that it's the same percentage as there are women on slashdot.
Well, as James Brown said, "It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." Also, something about some kind of Sex Machine. I think this creed could be adapted to this era of Aeron chairs and teledildonics somehow.
Hold that thought. You just said it's "pretty normal" for a corporation to have a "do no evil" value, yet you just said in your own previous post that it "shouldn't need to be said".
Google has it as a company motto. That's a bit different to the standard practice. Maybe it is said by other companies, but they don't make such a big deal of it.
You're pretty confused.
I think you might be the one who is confused if you can't wrap your mind around this.
That comes off to me as particularly naive, and again you are showing your confusion.
It's naive to think that people have a moral/ethical framework? If they didn't society just wouldn't work, and we'd all probably be dead by now. So, are you saying that you have no moral/ethical framework? Or that you are an extraordinary person who is unlike most people?
If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:
How so? Google might be particularly prone to evil, hence the need to proclaim "do no evil." I don't see how that is in conflict with the idea that most people have a moral/ethical framework. Do you even grasp the basics of my argument?
Seriously? I would submit just the opposite: DOING evil is the most basic of human instincts.
I never said it was an instinct, I said it was an ethic. Ethics are the exact opposite of instincts.
For a company to even suggest that "do no evil" is a corporate value is amazing.
What's so amazing about it? It's pretty normal actually. I don't think any large companies these days don't have statements of ethics.
They may not always reach that standard... but heck, most actual people don't even try.
That seems very doubtful. Most people have some kind of moral/ethical framework.
But seriously, the gesture to shut something down would require exactly one finger...
I prefer to use the whole fist.