6 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 20.7 ms ] thread
These remind me of the era of Netbooks in mid 2000s. None of those lasted more than a year. Not because they broke, but because people just wouldn’t want to deal with the slowness and fitting 2 paragraphs on the screen all the time. I lived in a third world country at the time doing home computer support on the side and every time someone would call me complaining about their netbooks we’d come to the conclusion that it was just a limitation of the device. Not to mention that back then they would ship full of bloatware.

“But Linux works great!” Yeah well no one wants to have to learn a new office suite or learn how to use Flatpak to install Spotify.

Great that they are repairable and all but no one will want to spend a dime on these things, ever. The moment they break a few times or people get fed up with the limitations they’ll just stop using them.

I

This is in clear response to the right of repair movement. That devices should be able to be repaired and schematics to be given to repair centres. Most people don't care, but when repairing is cheaper than a new device the majority of people will support it passively. The only reason it isn't cheaper now is from efforts to reduce repairability. Also, for those who do care and understand about repairing computers, they'll support that company more. Oh and on the computer support thing, they'll always be people who'd rather call someone than to try figure out the problem by theirselves. That's never gonna change no matter what happens in the industry.
Why would They go 16:9? Isn’t 16:9 mostly for watching movies
It's cheaper to get 16:9 screens, would be my guess.
Well 16:9 has been the format in laptops for a long time. Why wouldn’t they conform to that?

Or better yet, why didn’t we ask this question 15 years ago?