> They've been proven right too. The vast majority of people don't want to slot in their own parts.

How have they been “proven right”? Correlation is not causation. Just because they’re highly successful and they ship integrated components doesn’t mean the two are related.

The reason why their ecosystem “just works” is because it’s a tightly controlled vertically inte grated prison. The second you allow choice and a multitude of hardware and software configurations is when you start seeing complexity for users as well as instability.

I'm not saying they should, just disagreeing with the idea that it's a proven thing. Apple likely has many reasons for not selling a user-configurable Mac, but I don't believe "users don't want it" is in that list of reasons.

For example, customers definitely want lower prices, and a modular/user-upgradable Mac would clearly offer that (e.g. upgrading the stock hard drive with something much bigger, faster, and cheaper). So to say that Apple doesn't do it because users don't want it is simply wrong.

Not sure if you’re aware that Apple doesn’t use stock hard drives, they use raw Flash and implement their own controller. Part of the aforementioned vertical optimization of performance (and security in this case).

Anyway, yes, this argument always comes down to whether enough people want a larger, slower, less reliable, more configurable, more upgradeable device, and it’s hard to know for sure without trying the expensive experiment. At least we got some ports back!

Apple users above all want something that “just works”. The more flexibility and options that Apple offers, the less likely that will remain true. If you want choice, Apple is not the way to go.

What has been proven is that consumers don't care about customization too much.

If they want it, they don't want it that much.

How has that been "proven"? If your argument is that people are still buying Macs despite the lack of customization, well that's ignoring the state of the market. Most consumers only have two choices (Mac or Windows), and oftentimes it comes down to familiarity with one OS over the other, rather than any specific features or merits of the actual product.

If Apple released a "customizable" Mac, or one that could be upgraded like a standard PC, do you believe that would sell poorly? I highly doubt it.

Modular laptops currently exist, and have existed in multiple incarnations over their entire existence. They always flop in the mass market.

People in the tech community want modularity and upgradability. But you must remember that tech forums are tiny bubbles. The mass market overwhelmingly DGAF.

If you want to be successful at selling laptops to a tiny market, it is possible. You will have a company that looks like Framework or System76.

This thread isn't very useful since my original comment wasn't clear enough, and it seems like people are misinterpreting my point, and then making assumptions about those interpretations.

* I'm not saying Apple should make a "modular laptop", just disagreeing with the idea that users wouldn't buy one.

* I'm also not talking about Framework-style modularity, but "simple" things like swapping out the hard drive and RAM, two things you can't do on Macs or Macbooks anymore.

Even if the average consumer wouldn't ever think to swap out those components themselves, the modularity would directly lead to longer lifespans for devices, lower repair costs, and (significantly) less e-waste. There are many regular non-tech people who would want those benefits.

I'm following. Modular designs are not without tradeoff. Using memory on a board requires different types of memory (i.e. not LPDDRX), which have different performance and power characteristics. It requires changes to packaging and the overall design to facilitate that modularity. It changes their ability to share subcomponent designs with other products in their offerings. It introduces opportunities for commercial third-party modifications, which can be of varying quality. It requires a larger BOM. And it changes the mechanics of product tiering.

All of these attributes influence factors for which the mass market does consider when buying laptops.

All true, but what I'm saying is that nothing has been "proven". The market has not decided that this is what it wants, Apple has. They have a pure monopoly on the market for Mac-compatible hardware, so whatever they do is immune to the regular market forces which would normally require them to make different product decisions.

So again, whatever Apple manages to sell does not really reflect the reality of the market, since they 100% control that particular market. To say that consumers don't want something because Apple says so, is just wrong. Maybe Apple is right (and this isn't just a decision that's beneficial to their already-obscene margins), but there's no way to know. Hence, it is not "proven" in any meaningful way.

Apple's laptops compete in the same market for laptops that others do. I definitely doubt that Apple's customers prioritize modularity more than Linux or Windows users. Very likely the opposite. Yet, the most popular devices of any OS are moving towards non-modular designs.

There has been tons of research in this. Of consumer machines capable of being upgraded, only a low single digit percentage of them ever are.

Factor in issues with driver support and updates for arbitrary hardware, the weight premium for upgradability, compromises in chassis rigidity and resilience to add removable panels and it’s just hugely wasteful and compromises quality for the vast majority of owners.

Haha, I dont know about these studies but I was just browsing and randomly saw this. Checking in that I definitely upgrade my machines all the time.

Can you cite any of this research? I'm not doubting your claims, I'm legitimately curious.

It's proven through consumer choice of laptops over desktops. Proof is in the sales figures. Consumers choose a less customizable product over one that is customizable indicating logically that some features are more important then customizability.

Which continues to be in line with what I said. Consumers don't care about it as much. It is proof. Please refute this claim or acknowledge you are wrong. Thanks.

Now I know you're just trolling me

Sort of. But I mean I said it because it's definitively true.

The troll part is because it's also definitively obvious, and I know everyone knows about this, including you. And I can easily form a statement that can't be challenged at all. You're still welcome to prove my statements wrong even though it's impossible.

Obviously you're just not thinking in that direction and you're sort of heavily biased towards modularity and other niche nerd features.

It's not univariate, but if the software outweighs hardware modularity then that's useful information.