Thank you for this interesting perspective. I’ve moaned a little on HN previously about the relative value of the FW13 - IIRC it was roughly 60% more than an equivalently (or in some areas, better) specced ASUS.
Taking your position —that repairability is a premium feature to pay extra for— the question then becomes how much more is that feature worth? (After all, we’re well used to making value judgements regarding a better screen, more memory, etc.)
I guess what’s missing for me is a more thorough understanding of why the FW13 is so much more expensive than the competition? I can write off some of the difference down to lower production volumes, and some of it down to the direct costs of repairability (i.e. extra items that need to be made that just wouldn’t exist in a non-repairable laptop). But this feels a long way away from explaining the ~60% I think I’m looking for, when many of the major parts of the laptop (e.g. processor, RAM, SSD, screen, hinges, fans) are (or could be?) available ‘off the shelf’ at a similar cost to any other manufacturer?
Taking your position —that repairability is a premium feature to pay extra for— the question then becomes how much more is that feature worth? (After all, we’re well used to making value judgements regarding a better screen, more memory, etc.)
I guess what’s missing for me is a more thorough understanding of why the FW13 is so much more expensive than the competition? I can write off some of the difference down to lower production volumes, and some of it down to the direct costs of repairability (i.e. extra items that need to be made that just wouldn’t exist in a non-repairable laptop). But this feels a long way away from explaining the ~60% I think I’m looking for, when many of the major parts of the laptop (e.g. processor, RAM, SSD, screen, hinges, fans) are (or could be?) available ‘off the shelf’ at a similar cost to any other manufacturer?