The main motivation isn't to reduce size and weight. The main motivation is to squeeze the customers for the last ounce of revenue.
The claim that reparability has to be sacrificed for reduction in size and weight is a lie that they reinforced through repetition. They can achieve it without that sacrifice if they wanted to - but it won't help their perpetual double digit profit growth target.
Im sorry but this is not correct.
Most design decisions are a trade-off, you gain something but you loose something. You might argue that reparability should have a higher priority than size, but saying that you can be more repairable without gaining any size is nonsense.
For VR it makes sense as lenses and displays are super fragile and need to be aligned to sub mm precision. But still the battery pack shoudn't use the proprietary connector for the battery.
Im not sure. you dont want to use anything that might disconnect easily. The battery pack does have an additional USB-C plug to 'daisy chain' it to other power source.
That's completely false. There's no technical basis for this assertion or tradeoff. On the other hand, there are plenty of device manufacturers that prioritize reparability without sacrificing anything.
The only argument is that Apple and Apple fanbois repeat these claims. But they have vested monetary interests in such a design. That's why it's a lie. Agreeing to it just lends credence to Apple abusing their market position. So no.
There absolutely is.
SODIMM slots disappeared from laptops because of technical limitations, and it took an entirely new design to eventually bring socketable RAM back to laptops. And those new sockets still take up more space than just soldering the RAM in place.
Engineering is all about tradeoffs.
Right, but that's not why companies started soldering batteries. Yes, there's truth in the concept that with some features you may trade some repairability for some portability, but it's not like it's a 1:1. It's close enough to the truth that it makes a good lie, but if you think Apple's resistance to allowing users to repair their phones is actually because of decisions made by engineers rather than decisions made in board rooms, I have a bridge in Florida to sell you.
Yes, engineering is all about tradeoffs. But not the ones made by a company with incentives for an unfavorable design. You're arguing against reparability based on the designs of such a company, not based on what could have been done with reparability in mind.
Nope. The set of repairable designs is a subset of the set of constructable designs. Bigger search space means you can optimize the weight further. I wish I could say this in a less abstract sounding way but no, you don’t get to claim that adding a new requirement to a design can definitely be done without sacrificing on weight.
Sure, there’s designs to be had that are in that space, but they’re harder to get to than the design they found.
you don’t get to claim that adding a new requirement to a design can definitely be done without sacrificing on weight
This is the 'My argument is right because I say so' argument. You don't get to unilaterally make unsubstantiated claims like that and then preempt the opposition like that.
Your arguments lack technical merit or the support by real world cases. Have you ever stopped to think that such arguments are only made by Apple and their fanbois? Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
The main motivation isn't to reduce size and weight. The main motivation is to squeeze the customers for the last ounce of revenue.
The claim that reparability has to be sacrificed for reduction in size and weight is a lie that they reinforced through repetition. They can achieve it without that sacrifice if they wanted to - but it won't help their perpetual double digit profit growth target.
Im sorry but this is not correct. Most design decisions are a trade-off, you gain something but you loose something. You might argue that reparability should have a higher priority than size, but saying that you can be more repairable without gaining any size is nonsense.
For VR it makes sense as lenses and displays are super fragile and need to be aligned to sub mm precision. But still the battery pack shoudn't use the proprietary connector for the battery.
Im not sure. you dont want to use anything that might disconnect easily. The battery pack does have an additional USB-C plug to 'daisy chain' it to other power source.
That's completely false. There's no technical basis for this assertion or tradeoff. On the other hand, there are plenty of device manufacturers that prioritize reparability without sacrificing anything.
The only argument is that Apple and Apple fanbois repeat these claims. But they have vested monetary interests in such a design. That's why it's a lie. Agreeing to it just lends credence to Apple abusing their market position. So no.
There absolutely is.
SODIMM slots disappeared from laptops because of technical limitations, and it took an entirely new design to eventually bring socketable RAM back to laptops. And those new sockets still take up more space than just soldering the RAM in place.
Engineering is all about tradeoffs.
Right, but that's not why companies started soldering batteries. Yes, there's truth in the concept that with some features you may trade some repairability for some portability, but it's not like it's a 1:1. It's close enough to the truth that it makes a good lie, but if you think Apple's resistance to allowing users to repair their phones is actually because of decisions made by engineers rather than decisions made in board rooms, I have a bridge in Florida to sell you.
Yes, engineering is all about tradeoffs. But not the ones made by a company with incentives for an unfavorable design. You're arguing against reparability based on the designs of such a company, not based on what could have been done with reparability in mind.
Nope. The set of repairable designs is a subset of the set of constructable designs. Bigger search space means you can optimize the weight further. I wish I could say this in a less abstract sounding way but no, you don’t get to claim that adding a new requirement to a design can definitely be done without sacrificing on weight.
Sure, there’s designs to be had that are in that space, but they’re harder to get to than the design they found.
This is the 'My argument is right because I say so' argument. You don't get to unilaterally make unsubstantiated claims like that and then preempt the opposition like that.
Your arguments lack technical merit or the support by real world cases. Have you ever stopped to think that such arguments are only made by Apple and their fanbois? Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.