Decades of HN users finger wagging and suggesting FOSS hardware has progressed society nowhere. 12 months from EU mandatory replaceable batteries and products across the industry are being redesigned with repairability, usb-c, and user friendly designs.

It’s time to accept regulation actually does work when you have a competent government.

> No, this is a bad solution.

You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.

> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc.

It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair.

I assume you consider this a bad solution because the free market would always converge on the right solution(s), including reparable machines.

However, if all participants (in this case manufacturers) in a market conclude that:

(1) product B has a lower profit margin than product A, and

(2) product B is superior enough to eventually become the dominant variant and

(3) the market size is fairly static and

(4) the first mover on product B is unlikely to maintain a lead for very long,

then all participants would choose to suppess product B, even without having to resort to collusion.

Not only that, if the manufacturers consider regulation to be a market in its own right, i.e. it is available for purchase (which it de facto is in countries where lobbying is legal), then market forces will also drive regulation away from product B.

To me, this explains why some products peak in build quality sometime after innovation plateaus, and the continue to diminish over time (usually measured in decades). Some household appliances have already reached this stage. For Apple products, this phenomenon may still be in the future.

"No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one."

Fair to push back ... but your assertion implies one of the greater fallacies of free markets.

Free markets don't magically work like that.

When there are only a handful of participants in any given market, they don't provide all the options as we would like.

It's 100% true that Apple makes some 'good tradeoffs' for build quality - but it's also 100% true that they make tradeoffs for vendor lockin.

Lightning connectors are great examples of that.

The answer may be regulation. It depends, and it has to be careful.

While it's a very 'iffy' situation with respect to keyboards, if we move the conversation to 'batteries' you can see how we might want regs that enable some way for consumers to mechanically replace batteries - and definitely 3rd party repair - and plausibly enable standard 3rd party batteries.

These companies have incredibly monopoly and monopoly power, they reason their margins are so high is partly because of demand, but also because of 'market power' which can significantly distort innovation (think apps on iPhone, totally captured market etc).

Unfortunately it's never so easy as 'always regulate or always not'.

> No, this is a bad solution. If you want a repairable machine, buy one.

It's a good solution. Even if you don't want to repair your meachine, it would be worth more on the second-hand market meaning less ewaste for society in general.

> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair. Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.

The neo gets pretty glossy build quality reviews and is one of the most repairable macs in decades.

Interestingly, Apple's newest and cheapest laptop (the Neo) is super repairable. And even the keyboard is finally replaceable without having to replace the entire top case. Hopefully the trend is continued in the next redesigns of the Air and Pro which are due soon.

Here is the thing, replacing something may be hard or easy. But getting the parts (which are already produced and available for the manufacturers for their "added value" repairs) should be as easy as how they are getting them too.

Not to mention manuals/instructions. Regulation discussed here is about these too.

Also as consumer, I would argue the marketing done by apple is just scammy. They keep praising how much carbon saved or sustainable new machines are. But in fact, a minor issue becomes a massive electronic dump.

I also like Macs, I own several of them. Repaired a few. Mostly replacing batteries and keyboards. For example 2014 Macbook Air had a normal battery, no sticky business. Meanwhile 2020-2025 MacBook Air has sticky stuff, making repairs harder.

The best part is, 2014 macbook air has 54 Watt/hr battery, 2020-2025 models are 53 watts/hour. The lasting battery gains are coming from Apple silicon efficiency as well as modern BMS.

Simply put, regulation is the answer. Apple makes it difficult because they can, and also because it creates revenue. Of repairability was the source of income, you would see 10/10 repairable macbooks with no (significant) tradeoffs. (ie. it could be a few grams heavier for added screws)

> If you want a repairable machine, buy one. They exist. Others have already mentioned Framework

But that means Windows or Linux, not macOS. There's serious trade-offs that you're dismissing because you personally don't need macOS, but that's not the case for everyone.

#hn-bingo

Unibody Macbooks had excellent build quality (except for their vulnerability to spilled drinks), but were very repairable. I don't see how build quality and repairability have to be opposites.

    > No, this is a bad solution.

The "just buy another one" argument only works if the alternatives are even comparable. For a lot of people, macOS is a hard requirement and not a preference, so telling them just to buy a framework that runs Linux ignores that entirely. Right to repair regulation doesn't force Apple to make a worse product it just requires that the parts and repair information are available.

+1 here... Lenovo business laptops have a history of being particularly good at being user repairable.

I'm probably going to go with Framework myself whenever I do upgrade. Still using an M1 air, which suites my day to day needs, I don't develop on it, as I can remote to my desktop from anywhere.

> If you want a repairable machine, buy one.... Framework

Sure, but Framework doesn't run the OS I want, doesn't run the chip I want, doesn't quite meet the form factor I want. It's not an effective market because I can't pick and choose.

The problem here is vertical integration. If you want anything from Apple you have to buy everything from Apple.

And the answer to that is: regulation.

> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair. Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.

You're making an oversimplification. You could make a heavier, thicker device with those same qualities that was repairable.

The Macbook Neo is just as high-quality as any other Apple product. Apple has some of the most brilliant engineers in the industry, they can absolutely design a repairable device to their own standards.

this is such a classic american reply. "vote with your wallet" and "the market decides". thing is most people don't care, don't complain or are not in a situation where they can "vote with their wallet". truth is, some regulation must exist to nudge companies is the right direction. a good example of this is e.g disposable vapes, people love them for some reason, but they are extremely wasteful.

The MacBook neo keyboard is replaceable with a sticker and a bunch of screws. This was always possible. Apple just doesnt care.

No. This is a bad solution. You can't blame consumers for not making the right choice when there's a sea of irreparable junk and a few niche repairable options on the market. Reparability should be the default expectation.

Then why do newer Apple devices have significantly better repairability vs older ones ? The build quality has gone down?

Consumer choice only works when there's a free market. Computer systems are encumbered by copyright and patent monopolies, so there's no free market. I can't buy a third-party Macbook. Because these monopolies are granted by the state it's reasonable for the state to correct any market failures they cause with regulation.

Ease of repair and "build quality", are to some degree (although not entirely) tradeoffs against each other.

Thinkpads are a counterexample.

I believe in this case regulation would work just fine. My old Macbook Pro from 2012 was just as solid and high quality as the newest models, but much more repairable. It's possible to create repairable devices without compromising much in other areas.

also, let's not conflate easy to repair with cheap to repair.

The macbook is quite easy to repair, it's just insanely expensive because they made the choice that, for user experience, they attach the keyboard to the machines body.

You can have ease of repair and build quality, but then you give up portability I guess (bulky and heavy). And also cost goes up

This was my first thought too.

Not everything you personally dislike needs to be illegal.

MacBooks are great as long as you have the money. OP could keep looking for 3rd party repairs, etc.

No.

You are wrong.

There are Apple laptops, and other devices, that were relatively easy to service and were lauded for their build quality.

100% agree. If you don’t like that Apple products are expensive to repair, don’t buy them or suck it up

I came to terms with it, mostly. I buy AppleCare. I’ve had my screen on my M1 Mac replaced twice.

I agree with the sentiment tho. I had the rubber foot come off the bottom of a MacBook Pro, Apple wanted $350 to replace that $1 part. I found other solutions

What if the repairable ones crunch the numbers and find out that Apple got the right idea from business standpoint and the only reason they can't do the same is that their laptops or their brand is not as good? It will mean that if they actually end up making a product that people want that product will not be easy to repair as well.

I was hoping with the new Replaceable Battery Law from the EU entering this summer, all (i)Phones and tablets were to become easily repairable / battery swap-able. I was super disappointed learning recently, when considering why the new iPads weren't build to be easily open-able like the new Macbook Neo, that there's a pretty big loophole the lobby got in: if you can proof your battery lasts for 1000 cycles with 80% capacity remaining, you can exempt yourself and still seal the device in a user not-openable fashion.

(btw: people claiming that it has to be this way because of "waterproof": just no. Devices have existed before the whole glue sealing non-sense Apple introduced and exist now that are equally waterproof without glueing it all together to keep user's from the hardware. And even if you think it is that, it still wouldn't make sense to glue laptops and desktop pcs together who don't even claim to be waterproof)

At least there is a bright side: The EU Repairability Law is still pushing companies to make their devices more repairable - by demanding that professional repair must be possible from independent professionals and tech manufacturers must also provide repair parts for x years.

Your individual choice will not make systemic changes.

Goverment regulates everything including cow farts!

Apple can keep their unrepairable macbook. Butc should not be marketed as "green product". It should pay extra as ICE cars, be excluded from educational markets, public institutions etc...

I'd like to know what planet you live on where a single time over the last 50 years a company has done one solitary thing that was good for the consumer without having the gun of regulation against their head.

MostlyStable, are you a deregulation zealot?

By extension, are you also an antitrust enforcement denier?

Also by extension, do you understand the term late-stage capitalism?

Because if you truly believe that regulation isn't necessary, then you are either ok with, or unaware that, unregulated capitalism ends in monopoly (or duopoly to keep up appearances). A free market only has a chance of existing under regulation, otherwise it's immediately gamed to maximize profit, which leads to runaway wealth inequality (the antithesis of a free market).

In other words, a €730 ($835) top case replacement is only allowed to exist because your worship of deregulation prevents the very competition that you yearn for.

I don't normally word my comments this strongly, but we seem to have lost our BS detectors since yours is the top comment.

Remember that it's ok to change your mind. So I'm not criticizing you, but the mindset that's allowing fundamental mistakes to not only go unchallenged, but be celebrated.

Regulation is the only reasonable answer to this sort of problem. The specific suggestion may not be the best possible regulation, but we have several hundred years of proof that individual market-based action cannot solve what is basically an insurance problem.

Yeah we can keep saying that, but thanks to the EU we have everybody with shared chargers. Thanks to the EU, the nintendo switch has a replaceable battery. Thanks to the EU, we have USB-C on iPhone.

I'm sorry but your argument conflicts with reality at this point: regulation works better for expectations on hardware.

you seem to assume that markets regulate themselves. This is a common fallacy. Good regulation is fundamental in any working society.

well it's a good solution in the sense that it would solve the problem and it would be great for all of us.

>One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc. These quality features are, in part, achieved by the same choices that make it hard to repair.

Lol what.

Nothing about apple design is a sacrifice to repairability. The only reason they make it hard to repair is because when your Mac breaks, you go buy another one. Can't afford it? Then you are not "classy" enough to own a Mac.

I swear, there must be some epidemic where Mac fans are losing their marbles even more so today.

What a wildly incorrect comment. You realize its perfectly feasible and fully within apple engineers powers to design trivially repairable notebook (or any other device) while not losing any of those qualities you mention (which are easy to find in expensive competition too)? Don't make those extremely well paid engineers incompetent just because it suits your argument.

But vendor lockin mandated by management is way more powerful than powers of engineers, apple ain't immune to this since its accountants and lawyers running the company.

I'll give it a benefit of a doubt and won't claim its a PR comment and just a uncritical fanboy one, but its pretty close.

[dead]