"I don’t think a reasonable evidence-backed case can be made for your implication that Mac laptops are designed to be obsolete more quickly than, e.g., HP, Dell, or Toshiba laptops."
Just more obsolete than all the laptops that can be serviced and upgraded without the same restrictions.
I wouldn't go lumping all of the models from all of those makers and settling for a blanket statement like that because that reads false just by picking one model that passes the conditionals, just one per any given maker.
In the end it is a choice and some will try to sugar coat that choice with whatever makes them feel better about it.
But if you have to imagine a given brand tops the lot because you "don't think a reasonable evidence-backed case can be made", when it clearly can, that speaks lots about brand engadgement from your part as a customer and not much else to the merit of that brand, and stand for the ethics behind it.
There are piles of evidence that Apple's computers have a longer useful life than a typical PC if you look for it. For instance, comparing measures of installed base vs market share. Here are a couple of links. If you put some time into it, you can find more going back to the 80s and 90s:
By your own provided links, and some third party information on the subject it should be considered that;
The second hand market for such a highly valued brand is a factor that improves real product life cycle. Also, access to said premium priced devices and user brand entanglement tend to slant device usage past its prime.
Pc's (mostly corporate windows machines) tend to be cycled at higher rates, and that has to do with finantial arrangements linked to fiscal incentives. This data will slant any analisys that doesn't account for this specific motivation.
I was just showing how the premise presented by the poster didn't hold up if only one single model per poster referenced brand showed positive.
So, machines that can be serviced and upgraded without the same restrictions, in comparison, will have expanded usage life cycle. This is parallel to your provided information but doesn't become mute by its introduction, it does however make good thinking points on the amount of waste we currently produce...
I think we should distinguish between Apple's _restrictions_ (as in App Store policy) and the _constraints of their engineering_ (as in the serviceability of unibody laptops.) I'd venture the latter is weighed against e.g. weight and battery life, not "restricted" out of spite.
Could Apple deliver the specs of a Retina MBP with a replaceable battery?
> Could Apple deliver the specs of a Retina MBP with a replaceable battery?
They can certainly deliver the specs without switching to proprietary screws. That colors their other actions and makes it far more likely that the unreplaceable battery is about control and not about delivering certain specs.
Just more obsolete than all the laptops that can be serviced and upgraded without the same restrictions. I wouldn't go lumping all of the models from all of those makers and settling for a blanket statement like that because that reads false just by picking one model that passes the conditionals, just one per any given maker.
In the end it is a choice and some will try to sugar coat that choice with whatever makes them feel better about it.
But if you have to imagine a given brand tops the lot because you "don't think a reasonable evidence-backed case can be made", when it clearly can, that speaks lots about brand engadgement from your part as a customer and not much else to the merit of that brand, and stand for the ethics behind it.