zoetmb

If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it.   If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac.   It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service.  Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement.    And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years.   Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine.   Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing.   My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage.  I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning.   Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.  

I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed.   So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?  

I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.  

My bet is that all of the tech companies cave, including Apple, and do not pull out of Russia.   But it would be nice if Apple could implement some technology into the OS that when one deletes an app, it does a true cleanup and would delete any accompanying spyware, Trojan horses, etc.   I could live with that compromise because users could simply delete the apps they don't like and still feel secure. 

mark fearing said:

gatorguy said:

The only way I can see Apple "losing" money on their repair program is by including products under the original one-year guarantee. AppleCare is obviously a profit center, just as nearly all extended warranty programs are.  If it wasn't they wouldn't be pushing them. Why willingly repair at a loss unless required by the original one-year free warranty that came with the device purchase. AppleCare is meant to profit. 

They are not talking about Apple Care or 'just' Apple Care. But I think you know that and are just trying to be argumentative. 

Well then they should be.  Presumably, the majority of repairs are on machines outside of the original 1 year warranty.  Either they make or lose money on what they charge.  In the case of laptops, it's $300, isn't it?

And if Apple is losing money on their repair program, then would it not be in their own interest to make their products more reliable and easier to repair?  Doesn't it stand to reason that their labor costs are high because their products are generally so difficult to repair?    How does a company with Apple's resources and skills produce machines with such crappy keyboards?  It would be one thing if it only happened once, but it happened repeatedly.   

My G4 tower was a dream and it was easy to replace components (it never had to go back to Apple).   My late 2008 MBP, was also fantastic because a user with no tech skills could replace the memory, storage and battery and with only a little tech skill, the DVD drive.   That machine did go back to Apple once under warranty because the DVD drive failed.   It finally died in 2016 and no one could fix it because they said there were no replacement parts available.  I think it was probably the power supply that died.    I replaced it with a late 2016 MBP which went back to Apple early on because the screen was defective and one cannot service the memory, battery or storage themselves.   The battery, which never gave me decent daily life, now needs to be replaced and the local Apple Store quoted $450 in parts and labor.   I find that untenable.  And if Apple isn't making good money on that repair, then they should design the machine better.

I do have to say that if Apple doesn't return to serviceable machines in the future, this will be my last Mac and I've been using Apple products since the late 1970's.   This might be acceptable in a $400 machine, but it's completely unacceptable IMO in a product that costs over $3000 and it also belies Apple's marketing of itself as an environmentally friendly company.   If you have to replace a machine when you need more memory or storage, that's clearly not environmentally friendly.   It's like buying a new car because it needs a muffler or new tires. 

randominternetperson said:

lkrupp said:

I hope they advertise this as “Assembled in the USA from imported parts” as opposed to “Made in the USA.” The latter would be misleading. 

I did some more research and "Assembled in the USA" is accurate.  "Made" in the USA can only be used when the parts are US-sourced; "Assembled" is the term when substantially assembly happens in the US using imported parts.  Exactly what Apple is doing.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-made-usa-standard

Assembled in USA Claims
A product that includes foreign components may be called “Assembled in USA” without qualification when its principal assembly takes place in the U.S. and the assembly is substantial. For the “assembly” claim to be valid, the product’s last “substantial transformation” also should have occurred in the U.S. That’s why a “screwdriver” assembly in the U.S. of foreign components into a final product at the end of the manufacturing process doesn’t usually qualify for the “Assembled in USA” claim.

Example: A lawn mower, composed of all domestic parts except for the cable sheathing, flywheel, wheel rims and air filter (15 to 20 percent foreign content) is assembled in the U.S. An “Assembled in USA” claim is appropriate.

Example: All the major components of a computer, including the motherboard and hard drive, are imported. The computer’s components then are put together in a simple “screwdriver” operation in the U.S., are not substantially transformed under the Customs Standard, and must be marked with a foreign country of origin. An “Assembled in U.S.” claim without further qualification is deceptive.

That's all fine, but is any of this really enforced?    Seems to me there's been a trend away from enforcement of such regulations in the last few years.  

Kuyangkoh said:

Soli said:

lkrupp said:

I hope they advertise this as “Assembled in the USA from imported parts” as opposed to “Made in the USA.” The latter would be misleading. 

Has Apple used made, assembled, or USA in the past, as opposed to Designed by Apple in California?

Never seen Made in USA stuff anymore, other than Babies....sometimes inceptions by foreign bodies, hahahaha

Except that in the summer of 2017, manufacturing output in the U.S. hit an all time peak.   It just doesn't employ the number of people it once did because of automation.     Apple sold 18 million Macs in fiscal 2018.  If one assumes that this machine would constitute 5% of Mac unit sales, that's about 900,000 units needed each year.   That means each employee has to build about 36 Macs per working day.   

I don't know how much Apple pays factory workers, but if they make $20 an hour (about $40K per year), that adds $20 million a year to the local economy from wages alone.