• Mongostein
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s like when I read a book in the 90s that explained planned obsolescence in a child-friendly way.

      • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        When should have we stopped developing new processors and computing architectures? I just want to make sure that we never improve upon existing tools to avoid that pesky planned obsolescence.

        Pentium? Core Duo? Core i7? AMD Ryzen? Apple M1?

        • Mongostein
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Never, but the yearly iterations are there to keep people upgrading. Same thing with cars.

          Some people need the newest hottest thing when they could upgrade every 5-7 years (10-15 in the case of cars) and be fine and companies cash in on that.

          • Satelllliiiiiiiteeee@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            It was roughly 2 years between the M1 and M2 which is a longer time between generation refreshes than Intel and about on par with AMD. The A series updates roughly as often as the top tier Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 processors. Apple really isn’t doing anything outside of industry norms here.

          • bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Doesn’t really apply here, I’m perfectly happy with my m1 and will be for years. If Apple wanted to design these processors for planned obsolescence they wouldn’t make them run so damn fast.

          • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I think what the guy above is missing is the concept that companies schedule certain performance aspects on a timer so that they can release things in the most financially beneficial release cycle with only enough performance benefit to maximize their sales numbers. People seem to think that tech companies like these are releasing their very best product at coincidentally regular intervals with surprisingly similar performance increases