Your article's title piqued my interest, largely because it suggests something along the lines of Silicon hardware degradation. That would be pretty wild and certainly worth reading.
Your article's thesis, however, can be rejected on its face. When I can offer clarification or wish to thank an author for a thoughtful piece, I will occasionally write a comment. This comment is different.
Continuing from above, your thesis is prima facie baseless, wrong, misguided, and misleading. What's fascinating is that you've actually assembled an argument of sorts to support the thesis. Each point of your argument is, at best, spurious. Most are wrong. Many are both spurious/wrong and irrelevant to the argument.
With two or three exceptions, I still have every computer I've owned. Of the PCs, all but a laptop supplied by an employer was assembled by me. All still function, though my phone is objectively more capable than all but the most recent build.
Without exception, I still have every Mac I've owned. All are functional. Of the two 2010 iMacs, the 21.5" runs Windows via Bootcamp and the 27" is unsullied. They still even backup to and use as a modem an AirPort, or at least they would if they were plugged in. They wouldn't be able to access all the wonders of the modern Apple ecosystem but they're surprisingly capable. The 27" is in my office, not the closet with the other antiques. A few months ago I used it to tweak a batch of photos. Sometimes it's just easier to do that with Photoshop, and that machine runs a non-cloud, perpetually-licensed, old version of PS. Old PS is still a good tool to have around.
Of the Mac laptops, I still use 16" MacBook Pro with Intel architecture but don't use it as a Windows machine. The M2 Air, however, happily runs Windows within Parallels. I would only ever use MS software within VIM, and there are several ways M-architecture Macs are capable of handling Windows. You argued the contrary, and you are incorrect.
I have new computers. The newest, an M2
Mac is an elegant beast. I'll replace it for daily use in five years, but I won't retire it. It'll still be of value because it'll still be functional.
I have old computers. I plugged in a 13-year-old iMac, and 20 minutes later I'd applied level corrections and multiple filter layers to a batch of photos and transferred them back to a shiny new Silicon laptop.
My old iPad Pro operates in kiosk mode and can control a home theater while adding an extra rinse cycle to laundry in the washing machine. It can give the cats a snack. Those are not the features I used for five years, nor did I imagine myself opening the trunk of my car with it, but I have. My M2 iPad is astonishingly fast, functional, and it would be rude to the old iPad to draw comparisons of any significance. In six or seven years it'll be managing some part of my life, performing functions that don't yet exist or are not widely adopted.
You fail to comprehend the current state of the platform. You fail to place what is current within meaningful context of the past or future. You fail entirely to support your thesis. Your thesis is unquestionably flawed, but your sin was failing to make it the slightest bit convincing. You displayed a failure of imagination and conviction, the two things that can make a dumb idea, at the least, interesting.
Just use the hourglass model next time. Be wrong. Explain your flawed logic. Then support it with increasingly insightful arguments. That's the fun part. I can disagree with you but as long as you support your stupidity intelligently, I'll give you my time. Anyway, after presenting and supporting your argument, then expand your scope and draw whatever ridiculous conclusions you'd like. That's supposed to be the part people whine about in the comments.
Your entire article is an assault on the sensibilities of your readers. Don't do that again. OK? Seriously. You got it?
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar