Originally Posted by Hiro
You need to think deeper and refresh yourself if you are a former hardware engineer rendering an opinion. Your thought process is indicative of the lack of progress in design most of the electronics industry has seen over the last decade.
Glued batteries are because the SINGLE largest cause of battery failures/overheats is fastener puncturing.
I agree to the equation no fastener = no puncturing. But, on my late-2008 MacBook, this equation has been solved in a much more elegant way: the combination of the lock, the removable part of the enclosure and the connector keep the battery firmly in place, and it can be changed at any time without even possessing a screwdriver. Now I call that intelligent design. Glue is just awful.
Your comments on soldering RAM totally ignore modern IC robotic assembly techniques. Your assessment was only a statistically significant problem when done by early robotics or human hands, even with alignment guides. Production engineering has come a long way in the last 20 years, making previous assumptions obsolete.
Well, okay, the last PCB I designed was using the very first BGA chips. At that time, soldering issues with this new packaging were the norm.
We finally have an engineering outlook that takes more into account than just the engineers hourly cost and bottom line cost of manufacturing into account. Sure the results look alien to run-of-the-mill engineers, the results are coming from considering issues long left off the table either out of ignorance or lack of desire to increase the scope of the examination. These incorrectly labeled "engineering prototype actually industrialized without any further refinements" artifacts which are the result of exactly the opposite, actually have a far higher ROI for the engineering and manufacturing process costs than the old fashioned process of limiting the design process by cost constraining it. It's not surprising that an old school informed dismissal misses the point on all counts.
You’ll have to make yourself clearer for me to answer meaningfully. Either I’m tired (it’s beginning to be late here in Paris), either my command of English is insufficient to figure out what you mean (I am not a native English speaker).
If you right, and this is a deliberate choice, and not one commanded by haste, then John Gruber’s comment is right: this MacBook retina is a hardware Back to the Mac from iOS. We are beginning to behold engineering practices that were reserved to consumer products (sealed bodies, glued parts, whatever) like the iPad slowly creep into what is deemed a "professional computer". That "professional" adjective means, to me, a machine almost fully user-serviceable, with standard screws, easy accessibility to parts, etc. In this sense, the 2008 MacBook I own is more professional that this new machine: care has been taken to ensure more-than-easy swap of HD and battery and memory upgrade, albeit requiring to remove some screws, is straightforward and officially supported. Since that first Unibody model, Apple has made a U-turn: the recent MacBooks Pro are trickier to upgrade, let alone this new retina one.