Mac Studio teardown demonstrates relatively easy disassembly

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    XedXed Posts: 1,583member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    It’s hilarious to watch some of the “YouTubers” out there gnash their teeth and complain about how difficult it is to take apart a Mac Studio. 

    It’s clear to me that none of them have ever worked on a car, where one has to do things lying on his back, deal with grease and oil, etc. 

    Computers are easy if one takes his time, organizes parts, and has any mechanical ability. 
    Are there any cars where you have to damage a glued-on plastic seal in order to uncover screws that need to be removed in order to access anything?

    Those screws should not have been covered. For every right thing Apple does there’s always a mind numbingly stupid thing they do to compensate.
    Inconvenient to DIY hobbyists != stupid. Apple’s miniaturization and engineering is designed for their mass market consumer use cases, not for what is easiest for the very, very few people who like to tinker.
    What mass market consumer use purpose is served by obstructing access screws with a glued on plastic cover?  Those screws could very easily have been exposed.  Apple don't do this with any of their other computer devices.  Like I said, mind numbingly stupid.
    There's a very lucrative market of very expensive and one-off tools specifically designed for the less-than-repair-friendly designs by automotive manufacturers. This isn't to say that they're purposely designing their products to be difficult to repair, but that the focus is making a good product with the least amount of cost possible.

    For repairability of an Apple product 6/10 is pretty high marks from iFixit and Torx has been around since 1967. An invention by Textron, that owns Cessna, Lycoming, and other aviation companies, and was created to deal with cam-out better than Phillips head or slot head screws, which I'm sure we've all dealt with at some point. In fact, it's listed as ISO 10664 internationally.

    As for exposing screws, you look at any automobile and you'll see screws and connectors are constantly being hidden behind rubber and plastic to preserve an aesthetic.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 41
    It’s hilarious to watch some of the “YouTubers” out there gnash their teeth and complain about how difficult it is to take apart a Mac Studio. 

    It’s clear to me that none of them have ever worked on a car, where one has to do things lying on his back, deal with grease and oil, etc. 

    Computers are easy if one takes his time, organizes parts, and has any mechanical ability. 
    Thank you for pointing that out. (As I’ve replaced a seized front wheel bearing in three feet of snow.)

    I especially find it funny when places like iFixit cry “oh no! Dang proprietary screws!” even though they seem capable of selling me pricey repair kits for those screws … that conform the specs of international standards. (I have yet to see an apple logo shaped proprietary screw head.) Honestly, in my years of working on houses, cars, trains, and all manner of “repairable” things, I’ve found that most of them have connector mechanisms that aren’t just a #2 Philips. Western civilization has fallen! My kingdom for a T15! Oh no! A locking nut! 

    It really boggles the mind some times.
    Especially since Torx fasteners have been used in several places, like American cars, since about 1980.

    Heck, my old 1982 Buick Skyhawk was chock-full of Torx-headed bolts!

    They are used because they are far superior for robotic assembly, and they are much less prone to stripping-out.

    At this point, any toolbox without Torx tools is sadly need of updating!

    …and anyone who works on Apple equipment at this point shouldn’t be surprised by encountering a Pentalobe screw, either. Tools for those aren’t exactly proprietary, either!

    BTW, speaking of cars, one needs look no further than the automotive industry to encounter the need for all sorts of “special tools”! Special wrenches and other tools with cutouts, weird bends, truly proprietary heads, etc. have been necessary for decades.

    Ask an old mechanic to show you his homemade Chrysler Distributor Wrench! He’ll know exactly what you are talking about!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 41
    crowley said:
    citpeks said:
    crowley said:
    It’s hilarious to watch some of the “YouTubers” out there gnash their teeth and complain about how difficult it is to take apart a Mac Studio. 

    It’s clear to me that none of them have ever worked on a car, where one has to do things lying on his back, deal with grease and oil, etc. 

    Computers are easy if one takes his time, organizes parts, and has any mechanical ability. 
    Are there any cars where you have to damage a glued-on plastic seal in order to uncover screws that need to be removed in order to access anything?

    Those screws should not have been covered. For every right thing Apple does there’s always a mind numbingly stupid thing they do to compensate.

    There are trim panel fasteners that are essentially one-use only, because they get destroyed, or at least damaged, when removed.  Need to replace something like a window regulator?  Order new clips for the door panel as well.

    Things like head bolts are torque-to-yield, and need to be replaced.  Aluminum bolts (seen on BMW engines) that are single-use and replaced.

    Self-locking nylon nuts used on suspension parts.  Gaskets, especially metal ones, are replaced when parts are disassembled.

    Shall I go on?

    No self-respecting tinkerer, or mechanic is going to panic when they encounter a fastener or other obstacle they aren't prepared to remove.  They either procure the proper tool, fabricate one of their own, or find the solution to get the job done.

    Screwgate was a self-serving publicity stunt concocted by iFixit to bring bad press to Apple, and promote their own tool sales.  I can appreciate their teardowns, guides, and even the need to support their efforts through such sales, but the manner in which they perpetrated that brouhaha cost them my respect, at least.

    On a broader level, the cliché about the insanity of doing something over and over and expecting a different result became applicable to Apple a long time ago.

    Why people still expect the company to design their products differently is puzzling, and the bellyaching is tiresome. But it garners clicks, views, and sales.

    It's easy to tell those who have worked on things, and those who pretend to.
    So no, there is no car where you have to forcibly remove a seal to access anything.  There are some places where you might need to replace something to do a very particular task.  Pretty different.

    And in any case, car manufacturers also being shitty doesn't make Apple any less shitty.
    Get over yourself!

    there are myriad pieces of equipment where the only way to begin disassembly is by prying-off adhesive-backed rubber feet to access the screws. Sometimes the feet stick back on, often they don’t.

    This is nothing new.

    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.

    If they wanted to make it so you couldn’t open their equipment, I assure you, companies such as 3M and Loctite sell a whole range of industrial adhesives that are much stronger than the materials they are attaching!

    ProTip: Placing those adhesive feet (or the Studio’s rubber ring!) on a piece of waxed-paper after removal will help them stay clean so they will stick back on. A small amount of Rubber Cement or “Repositionable” aerosol artist’s adhesive may help when replacing, if the ring/feet won’t stick back on!

    https://www.amazon.com/Elmers-E904-Rubber-Cement-Repositionable/dp/B0141N3080/


    https://www.amazon.com/Gorilla-Heavy-Adhesive-Multipurpose-Repositionable/dp/B0752XM8VN/
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 41
    xp17 said:
    zimmie said:
    So at least we know the SSD on the Mac Pro will still be replaceable, like it is today. There wouldn't be any reason to have a non-user-accessible flash cart if they didn't plan to make a replaceable one.

    I wonder if anyone has compared the pinout of the Mac Studio's flash carts to the flash carts in the iMac Pro and Mac Pro. The Mac Studio carts are shorter, so maybe the notch is moved to make them physically incompatible.

    I haven't yet been able to find a report of anybody who has changed the flash carts in an iMac Pro, but I bet it's the same process as the Mac Pro. Shut down, pull the SSDs, restore the T2 using Apple Configurator. The Mac Studio and new Mac Pro will probably be the same once Apple Configurator is updated for the new Mac Pro.
    You're wrong. This is not SDSD. it's just NAND memory modules. All electronics, drivers are on the motherboard. This cannot be changed
    But the modules can be changed, added-to, and upgraded, providing a few rules are followed:

    1. All modules remaining after the Update must be the same manufacturer and capacity as each other (but not necessarily the same capacity and mfg. as the original module(s)).

    2. You must make a Time Machine backup (if you value your data!) of the entire machine.

    3. You must use DFU mode and IPSW tools to prepare the “Secure Enclave” inside the M1 SoC to accept the new storage configuration.

    Sorry for cross-posting; but…

    https://www.macrumors.com/2022/03/21/mac-studio-ssd-not-user-upgradeable/


    zimmiewatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 41
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
  • Reply 26 of 41
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    Only all of them, since the Lisa.

    As far as adhesives, Apple (and everyone else!) uses Adhesives in some part of the final assembly of every mobile device on the market. Universally, Display assemblies are glued-into the chassis of smartphones and tablets. Why do you think all these repair-kits have those guitar-pick looking tools to help hold the pieces apart while pry-off the display? Why do you think all those repair guides start with using a heat gun to soften the adhesive?

    Some people seem to revel in their willful blindness. . .
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 41
    XedXed Posts: 1,583member
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/28/new-macbook-pro-uses-battery-pull-tabs-for-easy-replacement
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 41
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Xed said:
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/28/new-macbook-pro-uses-battery-pull-tabs-for-easy-replacement
    Nope.  Exposed screws on the outside.  I wasn't asking about internals.
  • Reply 29 of 41
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    Only all of them, since the Lisa.
    False.  Every MacBook I've ever owned has had exposed screws on the outside.  The iMacs I've had haven't had screws, but have been accessible without any breakage or waste product.  Certainly every Mac Pro has been very easily accessible.  And from my knowledge of the Mac mini, that's been the case there too, via the bottom disk which screws out in some manner.

    As I said to the other guy we're talking about access from the externals chassis to the internals, not specific replacement of particular internals.
    edited March 2022
  • Reply 30 of 41
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Actually, now I think on it, my first iMac did have exposed screws on the RAM port on the bottom of the device.  So chalk another one up for exposed screws.
    edited March 2022
  • Reply 31 of 41
    XedXed Posts: 1,583member
    crowley said:
    Xed said:
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/28/new-macbook-pro-uses-battery-pull-tabs-for-easy-replacement
    Nope.  Exposed screws on the outside.  I wasn't asking about internals.
    What you quoted in your replay started off with "You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type," so I addressed that as the subject relating to this in your comment. Those pull tabs were a bug win for people like myself that do self-repair.

    As for "exposed screws on the outside, which is an odd statement since you can't look at an automobile and find "exposed screws on the outside" unless you look underneat or in wheelwells, look at 
    lug nuts (which can also have plastic or metal covers on them), or looking at the license plate holder, but the car itself doesn't have 20 screws showing how the bumper is held on or bots sticking though the trunk showing how it's latched and hinged.

    But if you really want to see a Mac with a screw mechanism on the outside just look to the Mac Pro. The top has a screw lock to keep the case on and the feet are simply screwed on which leave exposed threads if you remove them. But what is this odd fascination with a screw? Do you need to get laid? That PCs should be made the same way as automobiles? If so, that's a horribly shitty way to build anything but an automobile.




    PS: Do you actually do any repairs or are you just complaining for its own sake?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 41
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    Only all of them, since the Lisa.
    False.  Every MacBook I've ever owned has had exposed screws on the outside.  The iMacs I've had haven't had screws, but have been accessible without any breakage or waste product.  Certainly every Mac Pro has been very easily accessible.  And from my knowledge of the Mac mini, that's been the case there too, via the bottom disk which screws out in some manner.

    As I said to the other guy we're talking about access from the externals chassis to the internals, not specific replacement of particular internals.
    You are right about the MacBooks, and the Mac Pro is absolutely designed to be opened up.

    But both the iMac (all aluminum models) and original Mac mini have no visible case fasteners (iMac and mini’s Screwtop RAM Doors notwithstanding). I seem to remember some adventure getting to the fasteners on my Bondi iMac and my eMac, too.

    So, no, it isn’t every Mac since the Lisa; but, suffice it to say, many Apple computers have had non-obvious ways of gaining entry to the innards.

    Bottom line: The Mac Studio’s stick-on ring (that is easily and non-destuctively removed and replaced) is 100% equivalent to using stick-on feet used to hide the initial disassembly fasteners on literally millions of consumer products.

    I have been an electronic repair tech. You are absolutely out to lunch on this one. Give it up!
    Xedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 41
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    Only all of them, since the Lisa.
    False.  Every MacBook I've ever owned has had exposed screws on the outside.  The iMacs I've had haven't had screws, but have been accessible without any breakage or waste product.  Certainly every Mac Pro has been very easily accessible.  And from my knowledge of the Mac mini, that's been the case there too, via the bottom disk which screws out in some manner.

    As I said to the other guy we're talking about access from the externals chassis to the internals, not specific replacement of particular internals.
    You are right about the MacBooks, and the Mac Pro is absolutely designed to be opened up.

    But both the iMac (all aluminum models) and original Mac mini have no visible case fasteners (iMac and mini’s Screwtop RAM Doors notwithstanding). I seem to remember some adventure getting to the fasteners on my Bondi iMac and my eMac, too.

    So, no, it isn’t every Mac since the Lisa; but, suffice it to say, many Apple computers have had non-obvious ways of gaining entry to the innards.

    Bottom line: The Mac Studio’s stick-on ring (that is easily and non-destuctively removed and replaced) is 100% equivalent to using stick-on feet used to hide the initial disassembly fasteners on literally millions of consumer products.

    I have been an electronic repair tech. You are absolutely out to lunch on this one. Give it up!
    Nope.   I disagree.  The stick-on-ring is unnecessary and mind numbingly stupid.  It's the underside of the unit, the screws should absolutely be exposed, just like on many other Macs (including Macs where you're far more likely to see the underside), there is no need at all to cover them and require a removal that is likely destructive to access the internals.  It's an actively hostile and provocative design choice.

    If other manufacturers have done similar things then they're also stupid, I don't accept that as an excuse.
  • Reply 34 of 41
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    Only all of them, since the Lisa.
    False.  Every MacBook I've ever owned has had exposed screws on the outside.  The iMacs I've had haven't had screws, but have been accessible without any breakage or waste product.  Certainly every Mac Pro has been very easily accessible.  And from my knowledge of the Mac mini, that's been the case there too, via the bottom disk which screws out in some manner.

    As I said to the other guy we're talking about access from the externals chassis to the internals, not specific replacement of particular internals.
    You are right about the MacBooks, and the Mac Pro is absolutely designed to be opened up.

    But both the iMac (all aluminum models) and original Mac mini have no visible case fasteners (iMac and mini’s Screwtop RAM Doors notwithstanding). I seem to remember some adventure getting to the fasteners on my Bondi iMac and my eMac, too.

    So, no, it isn’t every Mac since the Lisa; but, suffice it to say, many Apple computers have had non-obvious ways of gaining entry to the innards.

    Bottom line: The Mac Studio’s stick-on ring (that is easily and non-destuctively removed and replaced) is 100% equivalent to using stick-on feet used to hide the initial disassembly fasteners on literally millions of consumer products.

    I have been an electronic repair tech. You are absolutely out to lunch on this one. Give it up!
    Nope.   I disagree.  The stick-on-ring is unnecessary and mind numbingly stupid.  It's the underside of the unit, the screws should absolutely be exposed, just like on many other Macs (including Macs where you're far more likely to see the underside), there is no need at all to cover them and require a removal that is likely destructive to access the internals.  It's an actively hostile and provocative design choice.

    If other manufacturers have done similar things then they're also stupid, I don't accept that as an excuse.
    How in TF is pulling off a rubber ring “…likely destructive to access the internals.”?

    Listen: Gently use a hair dryer on Low a little to soften the adhesive before using the guitar pick to pry up the Rubber Ring, if the adhesive is too strong for you. The ring will come right off! And go right back on, provided you don’t wash it in the sink, use it to de-fuzz your pants or groom your cat, or spray it with WD-40…

    tl;dr

    Nothing to see here; move along.
    Xedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 41
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,456member
    I don't know why this is always such an issue with people. I bet 9/10 people that buy this would never care to open it up anyways. If this product is for studios and that is who buys it they will buy what they need, use it until they need something better and then buy something better. This isn't as much of an issue in my opinion as some make it out to be. I know people fill argue against me and find the 1 or 5 people they've upgraded RAM for or whatever but its very little compared to the millions that were sold or will be sold. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 41
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not done to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    Only all of them, since the Lisa.
    False.  Every MacBook I've ever owned has had exposed screws on the outside.  The iMacs I've had haven't had screws, but have been accessible without any breakage or waste product.  Certainly every Mac Pro has been very easily accessible.  And from my knowledge of the Mac mini, that's been the case there too, via the bottom disk which screws out in some manner.

    As I said to the other guy we're talking about access from the externals chassis to the internals, not specific replacement of particular internals.
    You are right about the MacBooks, and the Mac Pro is absolutely designed to be opened up.

    But both the iMac (all aluminum models) and original Mac mini have no visible case fasteners (iMac and mini’s Screwtop RAM Doors notwithstanding). I seem to remember some adventure getting to the fasteners on my Bondi iMac and my eMac, too.

    So, no, it isn’t every Mac since the Lisa; but, suffice it to say, many Apple computers have had non-obvious ways of gaining entry to the innards.

    Bottom line: The Mac Studio’s stick-on ring (that is easily and non-destuctively removed and replaced) is 100% equivalent to using stick-on feet used to hide the initial disassembly fasteners on literally millions of consumer products.

    I have been an electronic repair tech. You are absolutely out to lunch on this one. Give it up!
    Nope.   I disagree.  The stick-on-ring is unnecessary and mind numbingly stupid.  It's the underside of the unit, the screws should absolutely be exposed, just like on many other Macs (including Macs where you're far more likely to see the underside), there is no need at all to cover them and require a removal that is likely destructive to access the internals.  It's an actively hostile and provocative design choice.

    If other manufacturers have done similar things then they're also stupid, I don't accept that as an excuse.
    How in TF is pulling off a rubber ring “…likely destructive to access the internals.”?

    Listen: Gently use a hair dryer on Low a little to soften the adhesive before using the guitar pick to pry up the Rubber Ring, if the adhesive is too strong for you. The ring will come right off! And go right back on, provided you don’t wash it in the sink, use it to de-fuzz your pants or groom your cat, or spray it with WD-40…

    tl;dr

    Nothing to see here; move along.
    Un-nec-ess-ary.
  • Reply 37 of 41
    citpekscitpeks Posts: 196member
    crowley said:
    So no, there is no car where you have to forcibly remove a seal to access anything.  There are some places where you might need to replace something to do a very particular task.  Pretty different.

    And in any case, car manufacturers also being shitty doesn't make Apple any less shitty.

    You asked for examples, and yet chose to ignore the ones that were provided.

    The fact of the matter is that the disassembly and repair of products that were not designed to be user-serviceable often involve sacrificial elements in the due course of such procedures.

    If those, including yourself, have ever picked up a tool, and made such repairs, you would be able to comprehend and acknowledge that fact.

    It's clearly evident that you, and others who like to argue these points, have not, and only like to argue for argument's sake and ignore the facts.

    That's your prerogative, but don't expect any respect from those who actually have done it, not just talk about it, in an ignorant fashion.
    XedAppleSince1976watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 41
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    You will note that the adhesive that Apple used is a non-hardening, reusable (with care) pressure-sensitive type. It was not don to thwart access, or to make something non-repairable; but rather because Apple, like many companies, generally dislike the look of exposed fasteners.
    Name a single other Apple computer product where this is the case.
    Only all of them, since the Lisa.
    False.  Every MacBook I've ever owned has had exposed screws on the outside.  The iMacs I've had haven't had screws, but have been accessible without any breakage or waste product.  Certainly every Mac Pro has been very easily accessible.  And from my knowledge of the Mac mini, that's been the case there too, via the bottom disk which screws out in some manner.

    As I said to the other guy we're talking about access from the externals chassis to the internals, not specific replacement of particular internals.
    You are right about the MacBooks, and the Mac Pro is absolutely designed to be opened up.

    But both the iMac (all aluminum models) and original Mac mini have no visible case fasteners (iMac and mini’s Screwtop RAM Doors notwithstanding). I seem to remember some adventure getting to the fasteners on my Bondi iMac and my eMac, too.

    So, no, it isn’t every Mac since the Lisa; but, suffice it to say, many Apple computers have had non-obvious ways of gaining entry to the innards.

    Bottom line: The Mac Studio’s stick-on ring (that is easily and non-destuctively removed and replaced) is 100% equivalent to using stick-on feet used to hide the initial disassembly fasteners on literally millions of consumer products.

    I have been an electronic repair tech. You are absolutely out to lunch on this one. Give it up!
    Nope.   I disagree.  The stick-on-ring is unnecessary and mind numbingly stupid.  It's the underside of the unit, the screws should absolutely be exposed, just like on many other Macs (including Macs where you're far more likely to see the underside), there is no need at all to cover them and require a removal that is likely destructive to access the internals.  It's an actively hostile and provocative design choice.

    If other manufacturers have done similar things then they're also stupid, I don't accept that as an excuse.
    How in TF is pulling off a rubber ring “…likely destructive to access the internals.”?

    Listen: Gently use a hair dryer on Low a little to soften the adhesive before using the guitar pick to pry up the Rubber Ring, if the adhesive is too strong for you. The ring will come right off! And go right back on, provided you don’t wash it in the sink, use it to de-fuzz your pants or groom your cat, or spray it with WD-40…

    tl;dr

    Nothing to see here; move along.
    Un-nec-ess-ary.
    So, it’s just the same as your bullshit, mind-numbingly stupid, total-waste-of-bandwidth, Posts.
    edited March 2022 Xedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 41
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    So neither of you have anything useful to say.  You could have just offered that from the start instead of the nonsense car comparisons and lying about other Macs not having exposed screws. 

    The way I see it is, Apple know very well that they are being criticised by right to repair, and they hide access behind plastic rings knowing that it's a bullshit hostile move to user servicing and a provocation, even if ultimately it's trivial to remove (that was never my point, despite your silly insinuations that I've never repaired anything).  

    The Mac Studio looks like a great machine, I'm not knocking it, but Apple can be real assholes sometimes.
    edited March 2022 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 40 of 41
    citpeks said:
    crowley said:
    So no, there is no car where you have to forcibly remove a seal to access anything.  There are some places where you might need to replace something to do a very particular task.  Pretty different.

    And in any case, car manufacturers also being shitty doesn't make Apple any less shitty.

    You asked for examples, and yet chose to ignore the ones that were provided.

    The fact of the matter is that the disassembly and repair of products that were not designed to be user-serviceable often involve sacrificial elements in the due course of such procedures.

    If those, including yourself, have ever picked up a tool, and made such repairs, you would be able to comprehend and acknowledge that fact.

    It's clearly evident that you, and others who like to argue these points, have not, and only like to argue for argument's sake and ignore the facts.

    That's your prerogative, but don't expect any respect from those who actually have done it, not just talk about it, in an ignorant fashion.
    I agree with your Post in every way, except, respectfully, for the tacit acknowledgement/accession-to of Crowley’s Assertion, that the Studio’s allegedly-diabolical & Impenetrable Adhesive Ring/Foot/“Secret Handshake” as a “Sacrificial Element”, in a Disassembly/Reassembly Procedure.

    Rather than classify that Foot as a “Sacrificial Element”, I submit that anyone who has “ever picked up a tool” will be able to quickly, easily, and Non-Desructively R&R (Remove & Replace) that Silicone-Rubber(?) Ring.

    Respectfully.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.