Algo trading digital assets - <AUTHOR> http://johnmathews.eu/algo-trading.html <comment><USER2> Although simulations will predict good profits, you will probably lose your money doing this due to counterparty risk. Counterparty risk is the risk that, between the time you click the 'sell' button and the time you actually get the money deposited in your bank account a few days later, the exchange goes insolvent.

When a given coin trades at different prices on two exchanges (which is what these arbitrage algorithms look for), it will try to buy that currency on the cheap one and sell on the expensive one.

The main reason coins have different prices (more than a few cents) on different exchanges is that people are worried about the exchange being insolvent.

For instance, during MtGox's slide into doom, Bitcoin was cheap there. So this algorithm would have been busily buying Bitcoin with USD on MtGox, then transferring the Bitcoin to another exchange to sell, so it could pump the USD back into MtGox. Since withdrawals from MtGox were throttled, you would have built up a large balance there. When they shut down, you would have lost bigly.

People do make money doing arbitrage between exchanges, but you need a sophisticated model that considers counterparty risk, which isn't something you can read from a price sheet.

<comment> wc- This comment is almost like a copy-paste every time some kind of crypto trading article is submitted. I might have missed something in the article / code but this isn't an arb strat? It is just using some moving averages to try to follow a perceived trend in different trading pairs on a single exchange.

Counterparty risk definitely still exists, but it is getting better very quickly with the growth of regulated US-based exchanges like gdax, gemini, and ledger x. In the altcoin world, Bittrex is in the process of fulfilling state- by-state requirements for regulatory approval. The crypto world is very different today from when MtGox dominated and getting even better.

<comment><USER3> You forgot the most infuential (and unscrupulous) crypto exchange in the cyptocoin ecosystem: Bitfinex. [https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest](https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest)

<comment> wc- Yes, very familiar with finex and the bitfinexed guy's warnings / rants / whatever you want to call them.

If counterparty risk is a top concern (and it probably should be) then don't trade on unlicensed exchanges... That rule is great to follow and I haven't even gotten into any usdt tether issues...

<comment><USER4> couldn't you trade on decentralised exchanges where counterparty risk isn't a thing? at least if you're only trading between crypto pairs

<comment> wc- Yes, decentralized exchanges (dex) are coming and I'm very hopeful.

However, the ones I have looked at / tested so far just aren't ready for primetime. Slow transaction times, lackluster user experience, no liquidity.

But those are all problems that are to be expected for what are basically beta-status projects (at best) and I am excited to see where things go from here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Since the history of markets there have been people who believed they could define a set of rules that would allow them to win more than they lose (reliably enough to make it worth the gamble).

There are many reasons why this is a fool's belief, at least with one strategy over a long term. As many people pointed out already, properly calculating risk is the usual failure. But even if you properly calculate risk, there are still possibilities (which you may deem unreasonably small to consider) which can happen. This is was the final straw that caused the 2007/8 failures. Any possibility greater than zero can happen. It doesn't matter what your models prepare you for. If that "virtually impossible" scenario occurs, you lose.

The more commonly successful approach to algo trading is to identify an inefficiency in the market and capitalize on that. But that is a limited time opportunity. You either eat up all the inefficiency yourself (if you're lucky), or other people catch on and help you make the market properly efficient. Then you're on to the next game. And in many cases, the inefficiency you are capitalizing on is due to a lack of capability of your broker(s). And brokers don't like when you cost them money repeatedly. Eventually they catch on, and they shut you down. So you trade your time for money by way of constantly searching for new brokers and gaining access to a market only so you can profit your way right out of that market.

Summary: create value to win. Any other method of profit is an eventual failure.

<comment><USER6> You mean how companies like Renaissance Technologies are obviously flawed since they only rely on mathematical models and are thus doomed to fail?

<comment><USER7> it's ok, it was amusing to see the Nassim taleb meme still going strong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> wc- This is a decent first-steps guide into analyzing historical trading data. With resources like Quandl, QuantConnect, etc continuing to improve, hopefully we will see more and more people diving into the data.

That being said, the "todos" at the end of this article kind of understate just how much work is left to be done before a strategy like this could be put into production. Ignoring the actual viability of a simple moving average cross signal, you could have the best strategy out there but would never stand a chance without significant time and effort committed to the execution and risk management sides of automated trading.

If building trading systems in the crypto world is something that interests you feel free to reach out to me, company / contact info is in my HN profile.

<comment><USER8> Here's a question I've had for a while regarding trading systems in the cryptocurrency world --

What's the end goal? Would a perfect trading system fully automate the trading process to maximize returns, or is the goal to develop the best tool to assist a trader?

I'm curious what you, as someone in the field of developing these systems, see as the "ideal product".

As a follow up question, what would happen to a market that is 100% traded automatically (assuming thats possible and the end-goal) - would become stagnant?

Forgive my ignorance if any of this is obvious, my econ/trading knowledge is next to 0.

<comment><USER9> I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. What's the goal of building a trading system?

As someone who's worked on trading systems in a professional setting I'll give some thoughts.

First and foremost the goal is to make money. I guess some people build these systems for fun/hobby or for the challenge/educational value. But huge amounts of money are spent on trading systems, with the goal that they increase profitability. Sometimes that means maximizing returns, sometimes that means assisting traders. This is a very large market, with very diverse types of end-users. I believe crypto is similar, but a microcosm of the broader trading environment (with some of its own cyrpto-specific idiosyncrasies). You have some "HFT" traders, "institutional", HODLERs, etc... Each has different objectives and skill sets. A trading system has a different value proposition for each trader's needs and objectives.

In terms of a 100% automated market, that's an interesting question. The biggest world markets are very highly automated, such as the equities market. Google "hft percentage of volume" and you'll find various sources claiming up to 70% of the equities volume is HFT. Since HFT trades complete in micro- seconds, this is fully automated trading. The Flash crash was partially blamed on a high-level of automation, were a trader was trying to game the response to large orders[1]. I think a 100% automated market would collapse. Even the 70% automated market of equities has shown some scary positive feedback loops that need human intervention.

1 - [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-04-21/guy- tradi...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-04-21/guy-trading-at- home-caused-the-flash-crash)

<comment><USER10> HFT strategies are of course secret but aren't they really taking advantage of:

1\. Faster speed to market. Basically, front running 2\. Extremely low transaction costs. Not available to the retail trader or even electronic mkt makers. 3\. Extremely low time in each trade - when you dispense with bell curve predicting - risk becomes only the time you are not flat.

These are NOT prediction of future price. HFT don't make money 'predicting' the market - they are too sophisticated as traders to believe that's reliably possible. It is to some extent, but its very hard and theirs is a better play.

<comment><USER11> 1 - being faster isn't front running. Nobody can hop in front of orders that are already visible on the lit market.

2 - The electronic market makers ARE mostly hft and generally get the best transaction costs and other privileges excluding taker-maker exchanges. Take NYSE parity or CME mass quotes for example

3 - Somewhat true but not in general. Becomes a murkier quality when hft is combined with longer term signals

> These are NOT prediction of future price. HFT don't make money 'predicting' > the market - they are too sophisticated as traders to believe that's > reliably possible. It is to some extent, but its very hard and theirs is a > better play.

This is completely wrong. Plenty of HFTs do prediction to varying degrees, one of the biggest HFTs almost exclusively trades on price prediction. Other don't very much but hedge in very sophisticated manners. The smallest group is those who just use speed and fee structure to make money. There are certainly benefits to speed however (fill rate at the very least) and the market leaders are both intelligent AND fast.

<comment><USER12> 1) yes, if a large order has to be fulfilled across multiple exchanges then there's a race which HF can win

<comment><USER11> Nobody knows about a large order being filled cross multiple exchanges, at most they see a price level get filled at one exchange and take from that what they want. The majority of large cross-exchange orders are done via ISO orders which bypass routing mechanisms and exist for the sole purpose of executing large cross-exchange orders. Even if one doesn't want to lift the price, people trying to fill a large order generally route multiple orders to different exchanges.

An HFT might see one price level go away before another even with the ISO mechanism, but it's far too late to act on that information by the time it's visible on the lit markets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Summary: some code to calculate moving averages of crypto currency prices.

</comment><comment><USER14> I am unable to see the charts.

<comment><USER15> Had the same problem, they showed up later. I guess HN effect is to blame.

<comment><USER16> I would guess using a charting SaaS that charges based on views is to blame

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> During this summer I performed a similar analysis with SMA and variations from it. My initial explorations looked very promising so I started saving market data and build a Python back-tester to test it. Once I applied exchange fees, slippage and simulated over longer periods things changed. I was no longer able to create a profitable strategy that performed well in longer time-frames over multiple markets. However its something I still want to work with.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Hello Hacker News! Thanks for all the views. Due to increased traffic, Plot.ly won't serve any more plots until tomorrow. Come back then?"

A bit off-topic, but it teaches us a lesson about avoiding getting locked-in by too many services. If I'd use a plot in my blog post I'd like it to keep working even when I get more traffic than usual. Especially if my whole blog post is useless without it.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is cool. If you want to go further, checkout a small tool I made that automates technical analysis for crypto markets with major price signals: [https://github.com/AbenezerMamo/crypto- signal](https://github.com/AbenezerMamo/crypto-signal)

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm building a trading bot (ruby) that uses a collection of signals to trade. I have been working on the backtesting to do validation of different strategies across different pairs and intervals. The highest i've gotten it so far is 120X from start of LTC/BTC, but thats also on a fairly aggressive setting (and obviously idealistic);

SMA can work, but it can also bite you. I think using only 1 technical indicator is asking for trouble when determining entry. Use at least 2, but no more than 5 or 6.

As a software developer, its a cool field to tinker in. But theres lots of ignorance, hype, and crap.

For anyone who wants to build a simple bot, checkout gekko [https://gekko.wizb.it](https://gekko.wizb.it)

<comment><USER21> > The highest i've gotten it so far is 120X from start of LTC/BTC

120x sounds impressive (and overfitted), but if you compare this to a simple buy-and-hold strategy it is a rather depressing result.

<comment><USER22> Indeed; for crypto trading, your unit of account matters a lot. I'd recommend using BTC as the unit of account, so you aren't counting 100x+ USD increases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Time in the market beats timing the market.

</comment><comment><USER24> Can someone summarize the returns and risk-level of his strategy?

<comment><USER25> Trying to trade purely off technical analysis is a disaster waiting to happen. Have a look at the technical analysis of ETH/USD, for instance, they have absolutely no clue what's going on:

[https://www.ethnews.com/analysis/10-30-2017-ethereum- forecas...](https://www.ethnews.com/analysis/10-30-2017-ethereum-forecast- ethusd-facing-key-resistance)

As to the linked article, the idea of SMA crossovers is nothing special: [https://www.babypips.com/learn/forex/moving-average- crossove...](https://www.babypips.com/learn/forex/moving-average-crossover- trading)

Take a look at their example. Say you sold at the peak, great. Then the currency drops and you buy at the bottom, great. But then the SMA crosses again and you sell - oops, look where the graph is going. You can't predict this stuff with technical indicators.

<comment><USER26> My opinion is that technical indicators can work well... when it's clearly a bull market (but then, so can every other strategy). They absolutely suck and can't predict when it's clearly going to crash. Which make technical indicators pretty much useless because you can easily lose all your gains when that happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm unable to see the charts:

        Refused to display 'https://plot.ly/~mthwsjc/69.embed' in a frame because it set 'X-Frame-Options' to 'sameorigin'.

<comment><USER28> Me too :/

<comment><USER29> me three

<comment><USER30> me fourth. See devTools console. Usual chrome on mac</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are installable webapps feasible/worthwhile? - <AUTHOR>

I've an idea for a consumer-oriented HTML5 app that I'm working on. Without giving away too much information, it's an age-old piece of consumer software that's typically done as a shrink-wrap, install-from-CD kind of thing. But these days, most of the core functionality can be done right in the browser, so I'm developing a webapp to do just that.
How important is it that such an app be "installable" for consumers? The potential concerns as I see them are:
1. puts an icon in the Start Menu/Dock
2. app works offline
Assuming these things even matter, is it feasible to build apps that can do this? Although HTML5 supports offline operation (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/offline.html) I'm not sure it's widely implemented yet.
Chrome has an app store (http://code.google.com/chrome/apps) but you apparently need a developer build of Chrome for it to work.
Perhaps installability isn't needed at all for a MVP... a simple bookmark might suffice.  Thoughts? <comment><USER2> I think its gonna take some time for this approach to standardize across browsers. Right now, Chrome is offering installable apps solely to allow developers to charge and to allow users instant access to webapps. IE9 beta is doing somewhat the same by having users instant access through pinning webapps onto the taskbar. Safari and Firefox will definitely have some solutions that are likewise. At the very core, your webapp will still be accessible through a url. And if you would like to extend your reach, why not make it as an installable app for Chrome, which just requires some extra manifest files. Unless you want that app to totally be at the client side? I hope i am not interpreting it wrongly.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, item 1 is really a simple thing. I'd just start it as a bookmark, then I'm sure you can find a wrapper that will allow you to push a bookmark into the start menu. Really shouldn't be hard.

For item 2, that depends on your product. Your statement, "without giving away too much information," makes me think you're overvaluing your idea. I'd be happy to offer more advice on 2, but without knowing the product and target market, it's tough to estimate how important it is. For someone who spends a lot of time on the plane, it's vitally important. For someone like me, working in the office all day, with wired internet, not that important.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough. It's a typing tutor. Obviously these have been around forever, and there are even some in-browser implementations already, but I'd like to try my hand at it.

Thanks for your feedback.</comment></comment>


New report says coronavirus pandemic could last for two years - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-two-years-70-percent-immune/ <comment><AUTHOR> The report in question:

"COVID-19: The CIDRAP Viewpoint"

[https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downlo...](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/cidrap- covid19-viewpoint-part1.pdf) (pdf) 9 pages.</comment>


Parliament must vote on whether government can start Brexit process - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320 <comment><USER2> This puts Labour in a very difficult position. The bill will, of course, carry. But this will expose the wide gulf between the Labour leadership and its traditional white working class base (who were overwhelmingly leave) as it tries to straddle two stools and fails.

I expect the Prime Minister is quietly allowing herself a wry smile as she realises what a powerful weapon to beat the opposition with she has been handed by the court.

Be under no illusions, although the bill will pass, this could do serious damage to the opposition in the process, as Labour MPs decide whether to vote against their hearts and frustrate the democratic will of their constituents or prefer to ensure their career prospects.

Around 70% of Labour MPs are in seats where leave was a majority, but most Labour MPs are urban liberal types who want to remain and will be viewed as traitors by the Twitterati and Guardian set if they side with their constituents.

I really don't envy Jeremy Corbyn.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure sure it'll be an overwhelming majority - this is a great opportunity for constituents to write to their MPs to appeal for them to vote in favour of staying in the union.

There was a lot of remorse, particularly when the NHS promises turned out to be lies.

<comment><USER4> The NHS promise is a funny one to latch onto. We've not left the EU yet so how can the promise be broken?

Now you might think it's likely to be broken in a couple of years (and you're probably right) but still.

Not that anyone making the "promise" had any authority to do so.

<comment><USER5> > We've not left the EU yet so how can the promise be broken?

Because all of the people making the claim backtracked the day after the result.

<comment><USER6> > Because all of the people making the claim backtracked the day after the > result.

Much as remain advocates backtracked on their claims that a vote to leave would trigger the end of the world, economic catastrophe, would require an emergency 'Brexit budget', etc.

Both of the official campaigns were criticized in the run-up to the referendum for presenting claims they knew to be false.

<comment><USER5> The NHS money was a simple direct claim printed on the side of a bus and used as a backdrop in photocalls.

It was a blatant lie; very manipulative, and people who knew it was a lie but who said nothing before the vote should be ashamed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What hypocrisy to even consider bypassing the parliament in the first place. Thank god the Surpeme Court still stands up for the Parliamentary supremacy [1]. Have a non-binding referendum and then the government bypassing the parliament altogether would have really put the UK in a constitutional crisis and created lasting damage to the very institutional stability that is behind the success of UK governance.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Parliamentary_supremacy)

<comment><USER8> The failure lay with David Cameron's government, by not putting any legal effect in the bill that authorised the referendum. One paragraph was all it would have taken. 'If the referendum carries, the Prime Minister shall be authorised to invoke Article 50'.

Why didn't he? Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. He was an idiot.

<comment><USER9> > Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. > He was an idiot.

Was he an idiot? Or did he figure that, if he did lose the referendum, he needed to put as many obstacles between the result and the actual Brexit as he could?

<comment><USER10> "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with stupidity"

<comment><USER11> I don't think it's being attributed to malice in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> still confused on the whole politics on HN things I guess. This is fine, obama's promises are not. Can someone explain please.

</comment><comment><USER13> I found the headline quite misleading: it sounds to me like "Court orders that Parliament give Article 50 the go-ahead", but it's actually "Court says that Article 50 cannot go ahead without Parliament's approval".

<comment><USER14> This is a context thing, in the UK this issue is so much discussed that the meaning is clear.

I agree that if you're not familiar with the case you could read it the wrong way though.

<comment><USER13> I am in the UK, and I'm sufficiently familiar with the case that I'm willing to stick my neck out and say "no, it was just unclear".

But it's changed now (thanks, mods!), so _shrug_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If Parliament refuses to carry out the people's wishes, would this be a case in which the Queen would be justified in stepping in?

<comment><USER16> > _If Parliament refuses to carry out the people 's wishes, would this be a > case in which the Queen would be justified in stepping in?_

No.

Parliament authorised Britain's EU accession with the 1972 European Communities Act. It then consulted the people in a non-binding referendum. It has every right, Constitutionally, to do as it pleases. Note that the "Crown _only_ dissolves Parliament before a general election under conditions laid out in the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 (dissolution)" (emphasis mine) [1].

[1] [https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with- othe...](https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other- institutions/parliament-crown/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find it interesting that an article about British politics stays on the front page but American politics seems to not exist in the HN universe.

But I am all in favor of dumb ideas people vote on go ahead, that way everyone will see the end result, and then quietly or loudly realize how dumb it really was. Speculation is entertaining but reality is much harder to dismiss.

<comment><USER18> What are you talking about? HN is very US-centric, American politics appear here all the time.

Also, Brexit is not a "dumb idea", if you think so, argue you point (or provide your credentials).

<comment><USER19> I'm interested, what benefits will a Brexit have in your opinion? I can't see any way that the UK is better off after a Brexit. Especially if you take the looming WTO problems into account: [http://www.politico.eu/article/forget- brussels-brexits-tough...](http://www.politico.eu/article/forget-brussels- brexits-toughest-battleground-is-the-wto-uk-theresa-may/)

<comment><USER18> Ok, will prepare that reply over weekend, since it's nuanced: but as replied below, I don't know if it represents most brexiters, I only know the reasons for a few other brexiters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> And the GBP goes down again. May's speech at least brought some certainty now what?

If they want to call art 50 before March it will require a rush vote that may be have a different outcome. And even then the EU might come and say well sorry but the referendum was binding in our view so better call it anyhow.

This can turn into a very Kafkaesque shit show.

<comment><USER21> Well, the pound goes up and down. Surely, rule of law is more important than currency fluctuations.

<comment><USER22> if currency swings outside of sane levels the rule of law collapses. nothing is forever.</comment></comment></comment>


A Design Flaw Behind MacBook Pro's "Stage Light" Effect [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLALpD004Gk <comment><USER2> Meanwhile the hinge in my £600 Lenovo ideapad broke after 4 years of carrying it to university pretty much everyday. After a quick phone call they agreed to fix it free of charge (including return postage to Germany). This was because Lenovo had independently determined that my laptop model suffered from weak hinges. A year on, I am typing on that very same laptop. It is starting to show its age and its price. And you know what? When I do finally replace it, it is probably going to be another Lenovo. That is great customer service.

Meanwhile the richest company in the world fails to acknowledge a significant design flaw in their expensive, "Pro" laptop. Really, they should be willing, if not eager to replace the screens in every affected laptop free of charge. A laptop that fails after opening and closing the lid for a year or two is defective. There is should be no doubt about that.

I don't know how the laws stand in the US (it probably varies state by state), but in the UK with the 2015 Consumer Rights Act, customers have potentially up to five or six years to make a claim irrespective of warranty: [https://www.which.co.uk/consumer- rights/regulation/consumer-...](https://www.which.co.uk/consumer- rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act)

<comment><USER3> I'll add that I have 3 T-series laptops. All are over 6 years old and still in great shape. The worst I've ever dealt with was a lose monitor cable after a drop. Build quality is only one of the reasons that I continue to recommend them over any other laptop.

<comment><USER4> And even if the keyboard breaks at some point on a Thinkpad it's easy to replace it. A new replacement keyboard for the T480s currently costs $50 on eBay and it doesn't take longer than a few minutes to install it.

<comment><USER5> I had a tech come over and install and he was done in like 3 minutes. I asked him how he did it and he lead me through it... so I guess now I can do it myself?

Either way, it's insanely easy.

<comment><USER4> Lenovo even has official videos on YouTube that describe how to do this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7FI_y4FXdA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7FI_y4FXdA)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Everybody makes mistakes, and that's fine. The issue itself can be forgiven for a technical design flaw. BUT, what is NOT fine is trying to censor customers who have paid a lot of money for these products, trying to voice their concerns. There is simply NO excuse for doing that.

I'm absolutely disgusted by how anyone can delete forum posts that have not violated forum rules simply for exposing the company's design fault. Why have an open forum in the first place then?

I can't believe what the morale amongst the Apple employees running these forums must be whose day job is to shut the voices of these customers on no valid basis. They probably got their orders higher up in their chain.

Absolutely appalling. I will NEVER recommend Apple products to anyone around me although I'm already invested with almost all of their computer products.

<comment><USER7> This has been going on with Apple for as far as I can remember. Apple puts out a new product, a significant number of people are affected by what seems to be a manufacturing defect, Apple suppresses mentions of it as much as they can, and a year or two later, they offer some kind of a remedy (usually free repairs) to whoever didn't rage sell or return their defective product. And because their machines are barely repairable, users can rarely fix the issue themselves.

This seems to work well for them, people keep clamouring for more overpriced apple hardware and are happy to run on Apple 's treadmill to buy the new iteration every year or two, while running the risk of getting a lemon yet again. So I'm guessing that's a valid strategic decision for Apple and that's why it continues unabated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Man, how is it defensible that they delete forum posts talking about the issue? Same with denying keyboardgate, this firmly puts their products in my do-not-buy list, because they'll even deny being terrible product engineers when their products break and turn your money to paperweight.

<comment><USER9> Apple never denied the keyboard issues.

They offered an extended warranty and fixed the core issue in a subsequent design.

<comment><USER10> "Never" is the wrong word here. They offer "quality program" long after the issue was discovered like:

\- MacBook Air 2008 broken hinge issues

\- image retention issues with Retina 2012 model

\- GPU issues with NVIDIA GPU in Retina 2012 model

only to name a few that I personally faced that they later admitted to only after you likely fixed it out of pocket yourself (or sold the device) and with threats of lawsuit.

<comment><USER11> >2012 model

Don't forget the infamous 2011 model! And it's less publicized but a similar GPU issue affected the 2010 models as well.

<comment><USER10> I was personally affected by all those three I had listed, among other things. To add, I also personally faced:

\- The 2016-2017 keyboard issue on _all_ MacBooks of that generation I had (5-6 devices).

\- The MacBook Air 2008 "core shutdown" issue that the machine thermally throttled itself to a grind and shut down all but a single core.

\- Most recently, I faced a water damage issue with iPhone XS Max (the device is advertised as water resistant). Class action lawsuit, anyone?

My face gets grim when I have to admit that I am still a customer, even an advocate, because all the competitors produce mostly crap, insecure, poorly- made and/or invade your privacy. I have, however, started to break the ecosystem chain.

There's been obviously plenty more. Especially on the GPU side it was super annoying. Most of these things will break even after they "fix" it under their quality programs.

<comment><USER12> > I am still a customer, even an advocate, because all the competitors produce > mostly crap, insecure, poorly-made and/or invade your privacy

Not true. There is hardware that is better made and more reliable than Apple (e.g. ThinkPad) and operating systems that are far more secure (e.g. Qubes).

<comment><USER13> Love the build on my ThinkPad laptops, and the customer service I've received when I've had minor issues has been amazing.

They sent a tech to my house to fix one device that was delivered with a badly fitted bottom cover, even though I had a return to depot warranty. I had a keyboard that died, I asked to replace the part myself and they happily posted it out. When one of the rubber feet came off another laptop they couriered me a brand new battery overnight (the foot is glued to the battery).

And, if I want more memory or disk, I can do that myself no trouble. No seals, no glue, no warranty stickers.

<comment><USER10> Lenovo is a manufacturer that shipped spyware to the users. No thanks, I'd rather do business with Apple. To be fair to Apple, when their devices work, they usually work fine. The issues that they don't resolve are engineering defects that are present across the entire fleet. One-off issues they are mostly good with and the warranty experience overall is better than any other brand I worked with. That said, I believe Apple Retail leadership is bankrupt and the Apple Store experience has gone to shit. It feels like Nordstrom not Apple.

<comment><USER13> The first thing I do with any computer I receive is to install Fedora. I suppose BIOS/EFI is still scary though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is just awful. I would like to throw my hat into the ring with an anecdotal story that Dell was good to me in the past. It was a few days before the warranty gave out and a printer shorted the USB to 240V, a bang, flash of light and the magic smoke was gone. I contacted them asking whether the USB bus had poly fuses and they told me I had warranty (this was a second hand laptop and I wasn't aware of this). I sent it away, one week later a large number of components (motherboard, USB buses, sound board, webcam, etc) were replaced, as well as the keyboard that I hinted was unreliable.

My point is, something that was clearly accident and not a result of their product being faulty, they fixed the device for me with no questions asked. For that, a tip of the beanie and a future customer. I wish more customer- company relationships were like this and I hope that Dell don't change.

On a different note, can we please pass laws globally that:

1\. Allow for the right to self/3rd party repair - where you can't sign an agreement to waiver those rights

2\. Replacement parts at a sane price (markup), especially if the part to be fixed is the result of an engineering design fault

3\. Prevent device manufacturers from making the process of dismantling a device a destructive one, i.e using glue, welds, etc

4\. Internally used service materials should be freely available with the device (even if proof of ownership is required to access them) in the language of the Country being sold to

5\. Increase the warranty for parts that shouldn't break quickly (modern laptops should last for at least 5 years) - i.e. the difference between a battery (expected to wear faster) and a CPU (not expected to wear)

6\. Damage markers are not to be used to void warranty (i.e. Apple's water damage markers that can even be triggered by humidity)

<comment><USER15> Maybe instead of trying to develop some laws that may or may not help to solve the issue, we will simply stop buying Apple products?

<comment><USER16> I think OP was trying to come up with realistic solutions, not platitudes like "vote with your feet".

Laws have been really effective in the past at putting Apple's "heart" in the right place.

<comment><USER15> Sorry but I don't think they are realistic at all. OP writes about _global_ rights that:

1\. "Grant the right to self-repair": Maybe someone would _want_ to have a product that _doesn 't_ allow 3rdparty repairs? I.e. user would _want_ to be sure there were no unauthorized repairs when buying some used hardware because user would like to have confidence the last repair wasn't sloppy or the used product contains only original parts? Why would you want to deny that possibility? Medical equipment, weapons, devices used in expensive mass transit like planes, I'd say to leave repairs of those to the proper companies.

2\. "Replacement parts at sane price": how would you want to control the price of a part that is actually expensive to manufacture? Should prices of other, cheaper parts be bigger so that the expensive part will be cheaper? In such case, if I never own the MacBook with a design fault, but I will need the cheaper part, why should I pay more so you can buy your expensive part cheaper?

3\. "Prevent using glue, welds": Isn't it cheaper and produces devices that have less moving parts? It allows quicker assembly and allows automatization during production so again, cheaper devices. The adhesive used in the phones are not as bad as people think, I've replaced batteries and screens from multiple phones, it's a PITA but nothing that can't be done. Also Chinese kids are also doing it on the streets in few minutes.

4\. "Service material should be distributed on the same market as the device": Again, more costs. The customer will pay for those costs, not the company. The devices will be more expensive.

5\. "Increase the warranty for parts that shouldn't break". I have no idea how anyone would be able to pass the law that already knows what part will break in a new device in the day of bringing this device to the market.

6\. "Damage markers are not to be used to void warranty". What about vehicle crash sensors? Hard disk sudden motion sensor?

The problem when a user tries to think of new laws is always the same, those laws only address user's problem and nothing more. Just please, leave the law alone, imagine it's kernel mode programming and you're a web designer.

<comment><USER14> >Sorry but I don't think they are realistic at all.

Not complete, but I think they outline some general ideas that would be useful for most customers.

[1]

>Maybe someone would want to have a product that doesn't allow 3rdparty repairs?

Perhaps, but I don't see how you could ever possibly stop that from happening. Even with Apple's very tight control over the repair market, repairs are still made to their laptops, phones, etc. When you buy from the second hand market, all bets are off. If you own the device from new and it is from the manufacturer, you can guarantee that repairs are carried out how you want them.

>Medical equipment, weapons, devices used in expensive mass transit like planes, I'd say to leave repairs of those to the proper companies.

Again, if you want to make those guarantees, you would have "trusted" re- seller markets or purchase new. Hell, go a step further, have the devices pulled apart and manually checked for their fitness for purpose.

On the other hand, one only needs to look at an iron lung or an old military device needing restoration to realized why the right to repair is important even in those cases. Manufacturers can die, parts can go out of production and manufacturers may not always be incentivized to make the right repair (for example in cases where the right repair costs them money).

[2]

>In such case, if I never own the MacBook with a design fault, but I will need the cheaper part, why should I pay more so you can buy your expensive part cheaper?

The parts would be cheaper for everybody by forcibly locking in the cost of replacement parts. One would expect that the replacement parts in total not cost more than a multiplier of the original retail price of the device. For example, it shouldn't be more expensive to replace a part of a machine that to buy one new.

[3]

>Isn't it cheaper and produces devices that have less moving parts? It allows quicker assembly and allows automatization during production so again, cheaper devices.

Yes it is. So is making use-once e-cigarettes. Electronic waste is a massive problem and should not be encouraged at any level. Manufacturers of expensive devices should make said devices fixable. Most of Apple's competitors somehow manage to build devices with screws whilst delivering on a lower price, so I don't believe for a moment Apple is incapable of also doing so.

[4]

>Again, more costs. The customer will pay for those costs, not the company. The devices will be more expensive.

A well known secret: The devices are priced to be a multiplier of the customers annual disposable income. Besides, devices being slightly more expensive but being more repairable is a good trade off.

[5]

>I have no idea how anyone would be able to pass the law that already knows what part will break in a new device in the day of bringing this device to the market.

Parts have an expected life time. Most vehicles have an expected life time of 10 years. Depressingly, mobile phones are ~1/2 years. Other than some agreed degradable parts, such as batteries which depend on charge habits, one wouldn't expect the processor to give out in less than 1/2 years with normal use. If it did, it would point towards a design flaw. Of course not all design flaws can be seen before production, but these can be reduced with better prior testing and more easily replaceable internals.

[6]

>What about vehicle crash sensors? Hard disk sudden motion sensor?

In both cases, there is either damage or there isn't. If a vehicle crashes and there is absolutely no damage at all - what's the difference? Of course this calls on better testing of devices being returned, but this should be the case anyway. It shouldn't be that difficult to build a bed of nails to send out to repair centers to test whether a motherboard is damaged.

\--

>The problem when a user tries to think of new laws is always the same, those laws only address user's problem and nothing more. Just please, leave the law alone, imagine it's kernel mode programming and you're a web designer.

This is a very poor attitude to have. We should be having open discussions about everything - who knows where the next best idea will come from. Elitism usually turns out bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What bothers me about Apple [since 2013] is the showboating about environmentalism in their corporate marketing, but the complete disregard for such things in their designs.

Their designs since 2014 have been the least environmentally friendly out of any company; encouraging consumers to throw heavy metals into the ecosystem without the slightest hope of repair. The 2012 Mac Mini was the same chassis as the 2014 but the repairability level is next to nil. The same story is on the current line of MacBooks.

E-Waste is the largest and most harmful stream of consumer waste an Apple is leading the way. It doesn't matter how many of your data centers are running on solar panels if all of that energy is being used to destroy the environment.

<comment><USER18> Apple will collect any of their devices for recycling in most countries, [https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/](https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/)

From what I understand they built special-purpose robots to disassemble the past several phone versions and recover most of the content. I imagine they can recover the glass and frame from laptops; not sure what happens to the microchips.

It would be interesting to see some data about how long a typical device from each manufacturer continues to see active use, and how often they get repaired. I am skeptical that e.g. the typical consumer-owned Dell/Asus/etc. laptop stays around any longer than typical Apple laptop. Anecdotally I know a bunch of people whose PC laptops were pieces of junk when they bought them, and didn't last more than a couple years before they threw them out for a new model, and also some people who mostly buy used 3–4 year old Apple hardware.

<comment><USER19> _Apple Forces Recyclers to Shred All iPhones and MacBooks_

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple- recy...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling- iphones-macbooks)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175771](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175771)

<comment><USER18> Interesting. 60% of the recycling collected by Apple in Illinois in 2013 was televisions? [https://video- images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1492713617275-S...](https://video- images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1492713617275-Screen- Shot-2017-04-19-at-84948-PM.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There are lots of laptops which have better price/quality ratio than MacBooks. HP ZBook is one example, there are of course more. I've bought my previous HP EliteBook 6 years ago which was already in _used condition_ , had better performance than MacBooks for fraction of their price. I had to switch to a newer HP model only because I've needed more than 8GB of RAM.

Some EliteBook/ZBook models have 2 slots for hard disks plus a DVD tray, which can be replaced to 3rd HDD slot. They can be plugged to a docking station that give them plenty of ports, even old ones like LPT or PS/2 should anyone need them. I really see no benefit of using a MacBookPro with 2 multifunction ports that requires buying expensive cable converters.

Enterprise-graded laptops (like EliteBooks) often allow upgrading the graphics card inside the laptop, because they often use the MXM slot.

I won't even mention the fact that RAM is never soldered in and can be replaced / extended if needed.

Keyboard is changable, so if a key will be damaged, user can buy a replacement keyboard and switch it after unscrewing 3 or 4 screws. Bought a laptop from Scandinavia? You can change the keyboard to your local one after buying it for $25.

Apple products quality is good, but they're overpriced to a level of ridicule.

<comment><USER20> Not to mention that the service manuals are public and very well written. The laptops are made to be serviceable. Not that one may need to, as the standard warranty is 3 years, on-site, worldwide. I was issued an elitebook at work. Liked it so much I bought my own, got stolen, bought a zbook. I cannot recomend them enough.

<comment><USER5> I love the service manuals from Dell/HP/Lenovo!

Examples:

Lenovo P52 hardware maintenance manual: [https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/mobiles_pdf/tp_p52_hmm_en...](https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/mobiles_pdf/tp_p52_hmm_en.pdf)

Dell XPS15 service manual: [https://topics- cdn.dell.com/pdf/xps-15-9560-laptop_setup-gui...](https://topics- cdn.dell.com/pdf/xps-15-9560-laptop_setup-guide_en-us.pdf)

HP ZBook 15 G2 maintenance and service guide: [http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/c04493862](http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/c04493862)

They're well-written and easy to follow. It's great.

All of these are public and freely available on the website of the manufacturer. They're also in PDF format (or similar) and can be opened easily in full in a browser.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am currently having issues with my 2018 Touchbar. The display has these quick, thin lines which flicker and appear. The anomalies are lines and checkered patterns composed of many different colours which appear for much less than a second and disappear quickly thereafter. I should note that the checkered patterns are across the whole display and uniform in colour, typically a shade of white or grey.

I have sent my Macbook Pro for repair three times now. Apple has replaced the board and display (as well as the keyboard for a different issue with the "E" key double-typing) and the issues are still present.

Apple told me to wait for a software update.

I bought a 2011 Macbook Air which I still use today. What are the odds that my 2018 laptop serves me until 2025?

Are the days of high resale values for Macs over?

</comment><comment><USER22> Previously (374 comments from 10 days ago): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18968940](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18968940)

</comment><comment><USER23> The Pro I'm using right now is the 15" 2016 model, bought it brand new off the shelf, and had used several other models years prior to purchasing this one.

After less than 2 years of usage, the keyboard has hardly any buttons left that I haven't had to take out and clean out, and as a result -- break the clippings that hold them together.

There are also strange cracks below the screen area which makes me think the fabric is much cheaper this time around. And this whole touch bar thing... what a waste of my time and money. Absolutely unnecessary and horrendous.

</comment><comment><USER24> If you watch Louis Rossmann's channel, who runs a component-level repair shop in NYC and campaigns/ed for Right to Repair, you'd know modern MacBook Pro's were poorly-designed, designed to wear out, and are expensive and difficult/impossible to repair. Memory: soldered in, SSD: soldered in, battery: glued-in in several pieces, board diagrams: proprietary, test tools and utilities: proprietary, service knowledge-base and forums: exclusive, genuine parts: exclusive.

Older Macbook Pro were better but still have their issues. I have an A1278 MBP that sleeps spontaneously all the time because, in the palm rest by the HDD bracket, either the Hall effect sensor wore out or the bar above it (ferrous metal or magnet; magnets are around the screen) became too magnetized. Also, the screen hinges must be loosening or self-polishing, so the screen is getting floppier. I'll try tightening the set screws and maybe even Loctite them. [https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup](https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup)

<comment><USER25> Louis Rossmann spends countless hours talking about what he perceives as "design flaws" with Apple products but never offers anything resembling context. He is looking with a microscope—both literally and metaphorically—at tiny details on a circuit board which don't seem to be a problem for >99% of Apple's customers.

Are these points of failure really any more common on Apple devices than their competitors? Are other major manufacturers' products substantively better in any of these regards? Has he ever spoken to anyone who actually designs laptop circuit boards?

One of the interesting things I've noticed is that Apple product owners have a near-universal expectation of long life and durability, whereas owners of PC laptops are _more likely_ to treat them as unfixable and/or disposable. I think this unspoken bias is playing deeply into the Rossmann perspective.

Now I don't doubt that a lot of what Louis says is technically correct, and if everyone in the independent repair industry was as competent as Louis is in 2019, he would probably have a point. But they're not, so he doesn't. Given the shoddy low standards that dominate the independent Apple device repair industry, it's unsurprising that Apple doesn't do anything to help them.

<comment><USER26> Hinges are no. 1 wear sensitive component in flip phones and laptops. They must be properly engineered. Even some cheap flip phones had slip rings for display connection 15 years ago, why Apple can't do the same?

<comment><USER27> As much as I want to agree with you, those old phones had low resolution, low refresh rate screens. You need a much higher quality connection to push UHD video down, and I doubt you can get a slip-ring to reliably carry signals of that high a frequency. The capacitance and signal reflection issues would be tricky to work around.

<comment><USER26> That's at least not a problem for a two lane displayport (10 wires,) which is quite high frequency

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I just picked up the latest MacBook Air. I can literally see the display ribbon cables in the hinge area. They do not appear to be under as much tension as the Pro in the iFixit video, but I wonder if my Air will exhibit the same issue at 366 days after purchase...

<comment><USER29> Hope it goes well and looking forward to the 366 day report on that. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The recent Macbook Pro's models are beginning to sound synonymous to "design flaw". How can such a super expensive highly sophisticated computer be unreliable that much. I guess that Apple now has hit the level-of-integration wall.

<comment><USER31> Yeah, it makes all of apples marketing about being environmentally friendly seem pretty disingenuous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wish I could get away from Apple products.

I use macbooks. The display is great and I do like that macos typically just works. No futzing. I'm on iOS because I trust Android less.

It's the lesser of two evils, unfortunately.

<comment><USER33> I love apple hardware and still have a $5000 latest-gen laptop from them and haven't had any of the commonly described problems of the last half-dozen years... but I still find myself using my 16gb Pixelbook at least 5x more than my touchbar retina MBP while on the road. Something about the case, the keyboard, the aspect ratio... also ChromeOS is secure like iOS, and can run Real Linux in a VM. It's an excellent machine. The only thing I super miss is iMessage and Facetime.

<comment><USER4> I would really love to buy a Pixelbook (or another Chromebook) because I really like the software stack. But the fact that Google never updates the kernel on those things (you're stuck with whatever kernel version was on it when you initially purchased it) is a major reason for me to not get one.

On my Linux laptop I can always run the latest software. On my Macbook Apple will stop to provide software updates at some point, but in practice the hardware is probably going to die before that anyway. On a Chromebook parts of the software stack are never going to be updated. And while most of the users probably don't care about the kernel version itself, a lot of Chrome OS features are dependent on the kernel version: with an older version you're going to miss some features (such as being able to run Linux apps), although the hardware itself would be capable of supporting them.

<comment><USER33> I don't know the kernel versions on my phone, my Pixelbook, or my rMBP. They are all up to date from the vendors.

I don't understand this argument.

<comment><USER4> On iOS macOS the kernel version isn't an issue as Apple ships OS updates with the latest version of Darwin.

On Chromebooks the kernel version doesn't matter if you only use basic features. But for more advanced features the kernel version determines which features are available. For example, Linux app support for Chrome OS isn't available on kernel 3.14 and older.

Chrome OS devices usually ship with a certain kernel version which isn't updated later on. So you could have a device where the hardware would be perfectly capable to support a given feature, just to not be able to use it because the vendor refuses to update one of the core components of your system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It seems to me the design flaw may actually be in the material of the ribbon cable itself; Apple has always been using slightly different plastics formulations (presumably for environmental or maybe cost reasons) than other manufacturers, and have had past issues with cracking and such.

I'm not sure what the material is, but the black cables they use don't look like regular (Kapton) ribbon cable to me. Ironically, it might be better being thinner, as then it can handle the same bend radius with less strain.

Edit: replacing the cable in the top half is very difficult yet probably still possible, judging by what the various Chinese phone repair shops have been able to do with glued-together screens.

</comment><comment> type-2 I wanted a macbook pro but then keyboard issues stopped me. I was absloutely sure I would buy the new air, but I had seen some youtube videos where some keys would behave abnormally. So I'm still with my old air. Old one has served me well, and I guess I will just have to do without the retina display.

</comment><comment><USER35> I was a mac user for 13 years - last year I switched away to Thinkpads. I really hope that the ones making decisions for the new mac mini are in charge of the next macbooks - maybe they become tenable again at some point. After all this, they still haven't learned with the Air.

<comment><USER36> Would Thinkpad / Lenovo create an extended warranty for an issue like this?

<comment><USER37> I think most companies wouldn't have an issue to fix a design defect for free because most laptops can be cheaply serviced.

On a Lenovo you can easily replace the keyboard becuase it is not rivited into the main case. You could also replace the display without the entire case.

<comment><USER36> Beyond what is required by law or contract?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> "Stage light"! Thank you! I've been struggling to find help on that one.

I've had that problem on a lot of my MacBook; I'd say most of the models 2012-2015. (I haven't upgraded since.) I'm happy to pay for repairs: I just did on my power cable, the second time for that model, roughly every two years. Most of the time, I notice the problem at the peak of Summer, when I've been working like crazy, and internal temperature is likely far from bounds.

My biggest issue isn't design flaws (yes, you would expect fewer for a machine at that price) but _findability_. There is a ton of help online but it's useless if I don't know how to describe it in a search engine. I can't take a screen capture; photos don't show it well. Given the patterned look of the problem, the fact that I had it on several machines, I knew it was something explainable. I simply could not. Because it's intermittent, bringing it to the Genius Bar is unhelpful.

If relevant posts are being deleted, that's horrible. If Apple wants the problem (and the independent repairmen) to go away, offer a high-production description of the problem on your Help page; if you really feel the need to add some scaremongering that it's too high-tech for independent shops to deal with it, but _give that symptom a name_.

</comment><comment><USER12> From an environmental and ethical standpoint, I find it quite abhorrent how unrepairable these machines are. As iFixit said, this would be much less of an issue if the display cable could actually be changed.

</comment><comment><USER39> Keyboard ( 2018 3rd Generation Butterfly keyboard Still have the same issues )

Now the hinge, or Flexcable.

Thunderbolt 3 / USB Port frying.

Just what more to come from these 2016+ MacBook Pro TouchBar.

I am typing this on a 2015 MacBook Pro with AppleCare running out next year. Not entirely sure what happens if this laptop have problem. I surely don't want any of the current MBP.

</comment><comment><USER40> (Disclosure: I own a 2017 MacBook Pro with Touch Bar whose moving parts have not had any problem but whose sound/speakers [technically moving?] has been sent for warranty repairs twice.)

Another way of looking at the Touch Bar MacBook Pros is that the design of their moving parts is so flawed the entire product could probably be categorized as defective.

This is unacceptable and made even worse by their SOP of removing posts that expose them to liability.

Apple has not had hardware problems like this since the Sculley years and I'm very worried things will get worse for their general-purpose computing devices before they get better. (iPhones, for now, do not seem to have the same show- stopping usability issues.)

EDIT: add missing conjunction to first sentence. Replace closing parenthesis with square bracket.

</comment><comment><USER41> Wouldn't it be great if there were compartmentalized laptop designs, with standard-sized places to snap in whatever accompanying hardware that you want?

You can essentially plug a desktop computer into whatever keyboard, mouse/trackpad and display that you want; or at the very least, you have a lot of options. Why, in modern laptops with some of the most advanced industrial designs ever, is the entire experience now a pain in the neck?

A significant number of annoyances with modern laptops are _not_ in the computing itself but in the surrounding components that are just too damned unreliable. What's worse, these surrounding components have an entirely different useful lifetime than the interior.

I want a Mac laptop but I want to be able to "slide in" $MODERN_MAC_MOTHERBOARD under an existing _robust_ frame that has whatever keyboard/trackpad I want. This could well include a frame that isn't broken yet from a previous generation, and would _definitely exclude_ unwanted "innovations" like Touch Bars. I want to slide in new batteries. I want to unhook the entire top display and replace it with a new generation of display. And if repair is required, I want to be able to go into a store and borrow a temporary display module (say) that I can slide in _to my own laptop_ , while mailing in the broken display _only_.

I have a really hard time believing that there are any _technical_ reasons not to design laptops with this kind of flexibility.

<comment><USER42> It adds a lot of affordances and interface requirements that add the cost for everyone and more opportunities for something to go wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I convinced myself that Mac was the best laptop to buy in 2015 after comparing all available options.

The design, beautiful. Technology unmatched at the time, Magsafe was genius, Retina display and build quality fantastic.

I was soon to be an Apple fan boy and decided to buy the next model of MBP, hoping for just minor improvements on CPU RAM etc.

I stopped myself when I saw 2016 MBP. I take Apple negativity with a lot of salt but even for me, it seems Apple has compromised Mac's quality year on year in so many ways. I still await.

</comment><comment><USER44> Apple just wants to sell you AppleCare I think. Joke's on them, though, my ThinkPad X1 is still going strong after 4 years of heavy use. I'm otherwise in the Apple ecosystem, I have the latest iPad Pro, iPhone 8 and Apple Watch 4. But $3K for a laptop that doesn't have esc key and craps out if I drop a bredcrumb on it or _open the hinge_? Give me a break.

</comment><comment><USER45> This thing needs more exposure. Apple fix your reputation!

</comment><comment><USER46> Are there any other manufacturers of metal laptops ? Seems like there are no competing metal-bodied laptops with a good centrally-mounted trackpad.

<comment><USER37> Why does your laptop need to be out of metal? I would think features such as performance, battery live, etc. would be most important and not what material it is made out of.

<comment><USER47> it feels nice

<comment><USER48> This is the gist of what Apple's customers are after: luxury, vanity, fashion.

<comment><USER49> Aesthetics and good design are not mere vanity.

<comment><USER48> They are when they take top priority. Also: "design is how it works."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Don't worry. With Tim's money driven approach we might see macOS XR on Lenovo targeting the Chinese market

</comment><comment><USER51> Quit buying Apple products already.

<comment><USER52> And do what? I've used Linux as my sole OS for a couple of years and it was a terrible user experience where I spent way too much of my time trying to get things to work. This was before I bought a 4K monitor, so it wasn't even as intolerable as it would be today.

I actually want to like Linux by the way. The philosophy and the fact that you can use it on environmentally sound (and repairable) hardware is exactly what I want. Unfortunately ease of use is more important to me than that. Apple has that. Everything works out of the box, from the shared Callander, notes and reading iMessages across devices to plugging into a 4K monitor and having things just work.

I mean, even if you don't care about the repairable hardware, the surface book is frankly a cooler piece of hardware than a MBP. Sure it's more expensive and has no thunderbolt port, but it's really damn sexy. Unfortunately it runs windows and that's an even worse user experience than Linux.

So I buy Apple products, not because I really want to, but because they are the lesser evil when you want unix that just works.

<comment> black-tea > Unfortunately ease of use is more important to me than that.

Why even mention "environmentally sound" hardware if the only thing you care about is convenience? When it comes time to ask yourself why you didn't do the right thing you already have your excuse: it was just so _convenient_. No shit.

<comment><USER52> I'd like to say you had a fair point, but what is the "right" option? There is a reason I outlined environmental and repairability as two separate things because unfortunately there isn't always a correlation between the two.

It's sad but sometimes the non-repairable options are actually better for the environment, even if you have to replace them[0].

And this is assuming the repairable option will even last longer, which isn't always the case. It's anecdotal but when I bought my 2018 MacBook Pro last October it was to replace my old 2011 MacBook Pro. The old one still works by the way. In a shorter period of just five years I've gone through three dells at work. Despite the dells living mainly in docking stations and being repairable two of them are dead.

To me it's a priority list, and you are certainly free to disagree with how I prioritise, but my point was that Apple fits my list better than the other options.

[https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/greener- electronics-2...](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/greener- electronics-2017/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Absolutely fascinating analysis. Makes the hardware engineers at Apple look like rookies.

</comment><comment><USER53> Apple consumerist NPC followers will find excuses for it anyway.

</comment><comment><USER48> Apple's decisions are really unforgivable lately. Soldered on RAM, soldered on SSD, irreplaceable display cables... what the hell ever happened to modular design? How can this be anything but Apple wanting to shut down DIY repair and even third party repair shops? I wonder how much of their revenue is repairs...

<comment><USER34> _I wonder how much of their revenue is repairs..._

I don't think they repair much, but they'll be certainly happy to sell you a whole new replacement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I remember that the version of the Macbook Air with an Apple symbol light on the casing. It has the unfortunately flaw that over time the light burns into the screen, it looks like someone has put a large mug of hot coffee on the closed laptop...

<comment><USER55> That doesn't make sense. There isn't a dedicated light for the logo in any of Apple's laptops -- what you see is the LCD backlight shining through a cutout in the case. This has been the case ever since they started doing that with the Powerbook G3 (iirc).

<comment><USER56> The logo was translucent and also allowed light in from the back. There was a logo-shaped burn issue but it was caused by ambient light shining through the logo. At least that's how I understood it.

Edit: [https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3476393](https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3476393)

<comment><USER57> +1. I can imagine someone leaving the laptop in full sunlight, and it burning through the logo - but it feels more like user issue, you don't leave electronics out like that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Gmail: the slowest website I'm using - <AUTHOR> Has anyone else noticed how incredibly terrible Gmail has become lately? In addition to a slow loading splash loading screen, the navigation isn't nearly as responsive as it used to be. Inbox was somewhat better when it was available, but I look back at classic gmail as being really responsive. I've personally switched to protonmail but I still use my gmail account to look up old information and maintain a few things. Doing this I just use the basic html page which works fantastic (I just wish I had the keyboard navigation on top).<p>Aside from Gmail, there are a lot of SWA these days that load tons of javascript and use loading splash screens (a lot of SASS) apps. I reference Gmail because of all the webapps I expected to never be slow, Gmail was supposed to be one of them. That being said, I'm thankful that I can even use the Basic HTML option at all and I wish more websites allowed this option. <comment><USER2> Yes. Most actions have become so slow that quickly closing the Gmail tab after doing something (e.g. sending an email) triggers the onunload confirmation dialog most of the time. That didn't happen nearly as often with the old version.

<comment><USER3> I've also started experiencing that even though all actions are cleared and I can navigate away that sometimes those actions "didn't take" and I'd be cleaning up emails for the N-th time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's interminably slow.

Worse, I have multiple accounts – and it always defaults to the 'wrong' one, which means I have to go through the splash screen all over again.

I'm moving to Fastmail as soon as I have time to switch things over.

<comment><USER5> I believe it defaults to the account you sign into first, so you can log out of all of your gmail accounts, and log into what your want your "default" to be first.

If you're using chrome and logged into your google account on chrome, I think you're already logged in.

I don't know how you'd do this if you didn't want your chrome account to be your "default" account. I personal use firefox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's funny, just yesterday night I was trying to send a quick reply in Gmail. I clicked on the mail I wanted to reply to. Gmail said "Loading..." I waited and waited, how long can it take to load a single mail message? Then as a last resort I went to inbox.google.com and wrote my reply in seconds. I find it ironic that Google wants to abolish Inbox in favor of Gmail, when Gmail became worse than Inbox has ever been.

</comment><comment><USER7> My solution was to use a machine that's similar to what Googlers use. Even though devs at Google use 64GB RAM and Xeon chips, I've found that an Eight- core Ryzen chip at 4GHz with 32GB of RAM on Linux makes Gmail fly. I can run and work with Mutt efficiently on a Raspberry Pi, but I need an desktop machine to make Gmail work fast. We live in interesting times.

Gmail is unusable in my 2012 MacBook Pro. I wonder how Gmail works on low-end Chromebooks.

<comment><USER8> I use Gmail on my 2014 Acer Chromebook C720 (2GB of RAM). Works fine. Takes a while to load initially but I leave the tab fine and it works fine for searching, reading, composing, working with labels, etc.

<comment><USER9> Same device, same year, more impatient. Just like most of the web apps I have to use (facebook,slack), it feels terribly slow compared to what I have been used to before (before what? before. the web constantly gets slower). Meanwhile, I run crouton on the same device and can do amazing stuff with blender, git, emacs, latex, python, etc.

Weird how the web allows seemingly simple task to become so performance intensive for the computer. Reading email and performing similar tasks is nothing new to the computer world (thunderbird, outlook, evolution have worked well and fast for years).

It seems that somehow, throwing more developper at a given problem (such as email interfaces) seems to only make products slower.

<comment><USER10> Maybe forcing google devs / management to use 4gb ram machines would incentise them?

Requiring 16gb or more for email is excessive.

<comment><USER9> I Agree. Programmers in general should use worse machines sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> PG wrote this[1] essay in March 2012, where he was saying the same thing. Paul Buccheit reviewed the essay and had a suggestion to make. PG wrote "GMail is painfully slow.", PB changed it to "GMail has become painfully slow."

[1] [http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html](http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html)

Your comment reminded me of the essay hence posting it here.

Gmail app is still pretty fast. When they launched the new one, I was hoping to find a function where you can run a fast version (just like html for slow connections in old gmail, which was super quick even for slow connections) but could not find it anywhere. You can switch back to old gmail, that is faster (less slow) if you like, or if you like the smart compose, you can just kill the apps GMail loads by default - Calendar, Hangouts, keep, Tasks, and much more. Then it may become faster.

</comment><comment><USER12> The new design is very slow and does not good look on firefox at least. I am trying to use a mail client whenever I can for my primary email ID's. but if you want to check an email quickly on the browser and you see that new design, it's not very welcoming. I even tried switching between the design options that they provide, and still not helpful at all

</comment><comment><USER13> The splash screen alone drove me back to using the HTML version - it's just so much faster!

Direct link:

[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/)

<comment><USER14> alternatively [https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=html](https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Google went trough a lot of effort to make their products slow on any browser other than Chrome. So I guess it's their way or the high way.

<comment><USER2> Still slow on Chrome, though.

<comment><USER16> I also see slow downs on Chrome.

That mail loading icon just halts at times, it seems random ish.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Same. It's ridiculous.

I remember when gmail was introduced (invite only) and it was blazingly fast and so appealing. Years ago, on browsers that haven't had their JS optimized even 1/10th as well as modern ones.

Wirth's law.

</comment><comment><USER18> Gmail tab in chrome usually take between 500mb to 2gb or RAM on my computer... That probably explain part of the issue...

</comment><comment><USER19> > _I look back at classic gmail as being really responsive._

The classic Gmail is still available and you can still use it though...

I switched to fastmail, but I honestly miss Gmail's interface whenever I for some reason log in again.

Nor can I really confirm that slow loading speed. I keep hearing about it on hn, but it always finishes within 1 seconds on my end... And is even quicker on refreshes or navigating

/edit: chrome network monitor said 5.6s. it was useable after ~1s though. firefox takes ages, however

</comment><comment><USER20> I am using the new UI, and I haven't found it to be particularly slow. I like it, primarily for the ability to snooze. I wouldn't switch back to the classic version, although they took away that menu option for me a week or so ago so it's not like I could anyway.

I too use Proton Mail, but I still have to use my Gmail and Google account for various things I don't have control over.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've developed a workaround for the slowness, I star an email and when I open it, the email appears much faster as compared to when I open the email in the gmail tab it belongs to.

</comment><comment><USER22> I too switched to Protonmail. Privacy reasons aside Gmail is always the slowest to load and on sketchy connections often doesn't load at all. I see this most on airline Wifi.

</comment><comment><USER23> I disabled "Hover actions" under general settings and the slowness is fixed for me.

</comment><comment><USER24> Yes! I did some profiling of it and it took nearly 2 minutes to finish loading, and 30mb of data transfer! All for checking my email.

This is on a fairly decent MacBook pro with 150mb down, living near one of the largest data centers in the world.

</comment><comment><USER25> I avoid going to the gmail website as much as possible. It's way faster to just use POP/IMAP access or to use my phone.

</comment><comment><USER26> they have become the victims of their own success

</comment><comment><USER27> Shortcuts works as expected and no slowing for me, who handles about 300 email a day ( mostly tagging and standard reply )

</comment><comment><USER28> Gmail is slower than Yahoo mail now!

</comment><comment><USER29> They hired the guys that did the Reddit re-design I reckon (after they did hotmail :).

</comment><comment><USER30> Also the design is too American/AOL looking.

</comment><comment><USER31> Then don't use gmail. Or use gmail with an imap client if you insist on retaining that service. gmail is not the only web mail service.

> I've personally switched to protonmail

So what's the point of this post then?

<comment><USER32> The point of the post is to see if others are having the same issue or not.</comment></comment>


VC Fundraising Up 22% In Q1 2013, But Number Of Funds Raised Down - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/08/u-s-vc-fundraising-up-22-percent-to-4-1b-in-q1-2013-but-number-of-funds-raised-down/

<comment><USER2> As a VC just want to point out to tech entrepreneurs (and I was one before) that whether a VC funds you ("blesses you") or not does NOT mean your idea or you and your team are worthless. Hang in there and try to achieve as many milestones as possible with as little money as possible. And it's never been more possible to do so cheaply as it is today.

If you do, believe me we will be calling YOU.</comment>


Tim Cook Passes on $75 million dividend - <AUTHOR> http://www.slashgear.com/tim-cook-turns-down-75m-dividend-25230107/

<comment><USER2> That's... odd. Can anyone guess why he did this? Maybe tax reasons? He got a million shares for becoming CEO, so it's not like he's just into saving Apple money or anything.

<comment><USER3> This is a guess:

Perhaps its because he's the new CEO, and Apple has just issued a large dividend for the first time in a long time - it looks better if the new CEO isn't a major beneficiary of the policy shift. This shows everyone that he's in for the long run - there's no possible accusation that the dividend was for short term personal gain.

This also sends the signal that he isn't just paying the dividend because he thinks share growth (otherwise his main compensation) is finished with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Apple really has some classy people representing their company. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER5> This seemed extremely bizarre to me until I read the filing itself[1].

The RSUs in question are unvested. Apparently a change was just made by the board that means unvested RSUs will collect dividends which will be paid out upon vesting. Cook is declining those.

I can kind of understand that it would look strange to make a change like this to already-granted RSUs, but if it were that big of a concern, it seems odd that only Cook would decline the dividends, or that the board would have made the change retroactive in the first place, so I still don't entirely understand declining them.

[1] [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/00011814311203...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000118143112032458/rrd346000.htm)

<comment><USER2> Dividends on unvested stock options kind of suck. You don't get the money, but the value of your stock goes down (in theory by the amount of the dividend).</comment></comment>


Metatrader Java API - <AUTHOR> http://www.jfx-api.com Provides Java interface to MetaQuotes™ trading servers using the standard MetaTrader client terminals <comment><AUTHOR> He said: "...product looks good, it offers a great opportunity to place orders via brokers to the underlying technical providers such as Integral and Currenex and Dukascopy and DBank etc at the same time. Probably is the easiest way to go and simpler and cheaper than opening a $50,000 FIX account with each broker". Do you dis/agree ?</comment>


What If You Ran an Ad, and Nobody Saw It?  - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2008/10/14/what-if-you-ran-an-ad-and-nobody-saw-it/ <comment><USER2> _"... Ads might as well not exist as far as users are concerned, except for search ads ..."_

Do gigaom read their own articles? Above the article at the top of the page is a banner ad.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ummm,no, display ads is still the dominant format for major advertisers who make millions of sales from banner ad traffic. Display ads may get lower CTR or conversion rate than search ads, but properly targeted display ads most definitely work.

</comment><comment><USER4> Some advertising works better than others. Before I started using noscript, I noticed the ads on cnn.com and nytimes.com. In both those cases, they made the animation of the ad move along a big path on the screen (sometimes by having 2-4 flash ads embeded in different parts of the page and then synchronized together to create one big animation).

Also, interstitial advertising seems to be effective, but annoying.

</comment><comment><USER5> the human brain has it's own ad block! cool! guess i won't be needing my firefox plugin anymore.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm not totally blind to banner ads. I still consider them visual noise and hence consider them annoying. Whenever I am on a machine without ad-block, I find myself having to scrolling a lot more, and usually I do it a lot faster.

Ad-block lets me relax and focus on the content, so despite my mind subconsciously "ignoring" these ads, it offers a so much better user- experience.

Hopefully one day these extensions will be a thing of the past and people can once again enjoy the unfiltered web.</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to create a landing page? - <AUTHOR> Let's say I have an app, residing at app.example.com. I want a separate landing page for this app at example.com.
This landing page should be easily managed for updating content and also have multiple pages. What stack would you use for this today?
I want it to be SEO optimized.
I use Vue for the app but feels overkill for the landing page and also not ideal in terms of SEO. I don't feel like going the SPA+SSR way either.
Is wordpress still a good alternative?
Or maybe just a html+jquery site hosted at for example Firebase?
I don't expect to update it too much with news etc so a CMS is not required.
What would you do? <comment><USER2> I recommend using a static site generator. It brings precisely the features you ask for:

      - easy SEO optimization, especially compared to SPA
      - easy content management, GitOps
      - fast, scales well
      - free to host via various services (e.g. GitLab and GitHub)

Personally, I like Hugo. They have an amazing gallery of free templates: [https://themes.gohugo.io/](https://themes.gohugo.io/)

You might enjoy my blog post on how I host my personal website for free with Hugo and GitLab Pages: [https://tkainrad.dev/posts/using-hugo-gitlab-pages- and-cloud...](https://tkainrad.dev/posts/using-hugo-gitlab-pages-and- cloudflare-to-create-and-run-this-website/)

<comment><USER3> Is hugo appropriate for a reasonably technically competent non-programmer?

<comment><USER2> If you are happy with a given template and only want to make minor modifications (i.e. coloring, logos,...) it should still be a good choice. But the same goes also for e.g. Wordpress.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wordpress is a great option, many large companies use Wordpress for landing pages (also the most popular on Builtwith). Its CMS also makes it easy to set up a blog, update pages, etc.

If you're not well versed with using Wordpress (like me) than there's 2 routes you can take:

Developer route: Use a static site generator. (not meant to be exhaustive)

\- Gatsby: if you know React

\- Hugo

\- Jekyll: ruby

\- simple HTML + CSS static website

Non Dev route: If you're not a developer, you could use one of the following paid tools:

\- clickfunnels

\- hubspot

\- mailchimp

\- leadpages

\- unbounce

\- and many more

If you're using a static site generator, it's really easy to host it on AWS Amplify Console for free.

Disclaimer: not associated with any of the above listing products

</comment><comment><USER5> I always start with [https://html5up.net/](https://html5up.net/) where you have a nice selection of free HTML5+CSS templates! I hope it helps.

</comment><comment><USER6> An option that I like to use is Middleman (or any other static site generator) for creating the pages and Netlify for hosting, all for free even with your own domain and HTTPS.

You have nice static HTML pages with a CDN, super fast, and there's even a CMS option with NetlifyCMS, which works by creating git commits for you and then automatically pushes the new static version on Netlify. The basics in Netlify are free and there are nice add-ons where some are also free (e.g. forms).

Check out the template list here: [https://templates.netlify.com](https://templates.netlify.com)

<comment><USER7> I think Netlify has an amazing product and have been looking into using Gatsby for some projects. Thanks for linking those templates!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [https://carrd.co/](https://carrd.co/) is your friend here

<comment><USER9> Their landing page doesn't work without JS enabled, not even a single line of text. I wouldn't recommend this to build a landing page.

If the objective of a landing page is to reach the largest audience possible in a sustainable, fast and efficient way, I wouldn't choose any SPA solution. And I must add that this comes from experience. For few years I did try to go the SPA way, with server side rendering, but the extra work and overheads are just not worth it.

IMHO, nothing beats static pages for landings.

<comment><USER8> > I wouldn't recommend this to build a landing page. If the objective of a > landing page is to reach the largest audience possible

I dunno. This means you're excluding people who disable JS from your audience. I'm going to stick out my neck a suggest that they're probably very few and very unlikely to spend money on your product (my bias)

> extra work and overheads are just not worth it.

I'd say the other way around, this tool will get you a fast, single page site in shorter time than it will take for you to decide which static site generator to use (I'm being facetious)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Is wordpress still a good alternative?

No, you just said you don't need a CMS.

I would hand edit the HTML and deploy it on Netlify with a Parcel build step, at least that's what I've done.

[https://parceljs.org/](https://parceljs.org/)

        parcel build *.html --public-url https://your.page

> I want it to be SEO optimized.

It's a complex problem, it all boils down the template you use. I usually hunt hours for free HTML/CSS templates then get mad about them and create one from scratch using some CSS framework :)

</comment><comment><USER11> In a somewhat similar situation I used PHP with `include`.

The structure was something like this:

      - index.php
      - header.php
      - sidebar.php
      - footer.php
      - page-1.php
      - page-2.php
      ...

In `header.php` I used variables for the title, description, etc. and then in each page I specified the values for those variables. This way each page had the same header HTML code, but with a different title, description and so on.

<comment><USER12> I do my PHP in completely different way, which in turn was the way I did ASP back in the day, also in a weird way.

All my HTML is held in template .html files, with %%PLACEHOLDER%% text where the dynamic content should be, Then my index.php is the main 'app' loading in the templates to build the output, doing string replaces on the html, and then a single final 'echo' to send the result to the user at the end of the process.

I think this is called 'code behind' \- I've just always had a problem with mixing code and layout in the same file.

Does anyone else do it like this?

<comment><USER13> Yes, I've done it that way before. Actually just did a few weeks ago when building a frontend for a WordPress site. The frontend consumes the API and takes care of lightning-fast delivery by cutting out all the normal WordPress stuff that normally runs, when building a theme.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Take some Bootstrap 4 Template and just stick to HTML + CSS. It's enough for a first impression, don't go for the tech stack overkill.

</comment><comment><USER14> Surprised webflow.com has not been mentioned yet. Been using it for years and its an absolute Wordpress killer.

You can make simple landing pages, full sites, etc. All with as much or as little custom coding as you want.

It feels like what Squarespace sold me on back in 2011 for my first site... but it actually works, you can export the HTML if you want to self host, or use their backend. Great stuff

</comment><comment><USER15> Personally, I would use Next.js. It allows you have dynamic pages (e.g. your app) alongside static pages (e.g. landing page). Since it's server-side rendered, it's great for SEO.

You mentioned you don't want to do SPA+SSR. With static pre-rendering from Next.js, there isn't a SPA. It's a fully static site.

You also mentioned having multiple pages. Rather than dealing with React Router or other SPA approaches, Next has a `/pages` directory where each file nested inside maps to a route. So `pages/about.js` is /about. It's similar to PHP in that regard.

If you don't need CMS, then you don't need Wordpress. For hosting, I would recommend Zeit's Now. They're also the creators of Next.js, so the tech pairs well together.

It's as simple as `npx create-next-app` to make the app and then `now` to deploy.

[https://nextjs.org/](https://nextjs.org/) [https://zeit.co/home](https://zeit.co/home)

</comment><comment><USER16> I would personally use Jekyll, it's pretty easy to build, free to host (thanks to Netlify or Github pages), perfect for SEO since it's all static content.

There's tons of themes available: [https://www.jekyll- resources.com/](https://www.jekyll-resources.com/)

</comment><comment><USER17> \- Static HTML5 on a CDN (speed)

\- Responsive design (important; you will get penalized otherwise)

\- Minimal JavaScript (React still gets penalized)

\- Metadata like image alt text, JSON-LD structured data, <meta>, and so on

This is the best you can do for SEO without external resources.

</comment><comment><USER18> Personally I would go either with pure HTML/CSS/JS, or if you wanna get fancy with Gatsby + Contentful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, had a look at Gridsome which is the vue equivalent- looks great

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hugo can also serve as a no-code/low-code solution:

1) you install Hugo following the guide from gohugo.io/getting-started/quick- start .

2) You download any theme from themes.gohugo.io and set them up with instructions on theme's page. For example, the theme I used is for wrenches.io is hyde-hyde .

3) You change general settings for the site and add content by adding and editing files in your website's folder.

That's it! I usually host on netlify and deploy from GitHub, so it also doesn't cost me anything except for domain.

Hugo themes also allow to make many different kinds of websites, and they are fairly easy to use. Another example of a website made the same way is justfindthis.com ; the theme for it is Highlights

</comment><comment><USER20> I recently dealt with the same issue and was satisfied with prerender spa plugin ([https://github.com/chrisvfritz/prerender-spa- plugin](https://github.com/chrisvfritz/prerender-spa-plugin)).

It enabled me to quickly implement the landing page with Vue and then build it as a static page that I deployed on Netlify. I found it easier and faster to set up than an SSR solution.

There's also a Vue-CLI version of the prerender plugin ([https://www.npmjs.com/package/vue-cli-plugin-prerender- spa](https://www.npmjs.com/package/vue-cli-plugin-prerender-spa))

<comment><USER21> I too recommend prerendering as a general solution to the problem. You already have to implement it such that it works in the browser, so why add complexity with SSR, switching frameworks or worse: adding another framework/language/CMS just for the landing page?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "should be easily managed for updating content "

This is the key point for me. Who will be managing/updating the content ? If it is users who are non technical, then you have limited options and you can go with something like WordPress. The reason is that if you use those static site generators which are awesome btw, the non tech. users will be limited. Not to mention they will have no WYSIWYG builders to work with.

So the answer is it depends. If the people making changes/updates are technical enough, static site builders are great. If not, then go with something like WordPress.

</comment><comment><USER23> Since you're already experienced in Vue I would have a look at [https://vuepress.vuejs.org/](https://vuepress.vuejs.org/). I don't have any hands-on experience, but I've only heard positive things about it.

I'm currently converting a site from static HTML to Gatsby because I got tired of having to copy-paste changes to repeating elements between the different pages. The Vue/React component approach works really well in that regard. And you don't lose out on the static element, nor the SEO.

</comment><comment><USER24> Could someone explain to me why using a react app built using CRA is bad in this case? I have a similar use case where the app is on app.example.com (built using CRA) and I have a landing page (also built using CRA) on example.com

The landing page links to: \- The App at app.example.com \- Docs at docs.example.com \- Blog at blog.example.com

I have 0 front-end experience so this is an honest attempt at understanding why I should NOT be using the CRA for a landing page.

The landing page isn't doing much so its a very simple react app. But don't understand the implications on SEO

<comment><USER25> It might be because CRA does not have server side rendering and it is hard for some search engines to index pages if they are entirely rendered the client side.

Also CRA comes with tons of dependencies. If all we need is to display some texts and images, as most landing pages are wont to be, it makes little sense to utilize such complex technology stack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think the hardest part is the design of nice images and graphics, if you are not a designer. You can for example use this open-source collection of awesome svg illustrations. They are free of attribution and really good looking. [https://turtle.community/discovery/285](https://turtle.community/discovery/285)

</comment><comment><USER27> I've done a few static sites with Nanoc ([https://nanoc.ws/](https://nanoc.ws/)), a Ruby gem, and I really enjoy the results. It has quite a few useful helpers for stuff like XMLSitemap, which might be useful for you, and has filters that compile several formats (markdown, erb etc) into HTML.

</comment><comment><USER28> DesignModo's Startup Framework should be at least considered - [https://designmodo.com/startup/app/](https://designmodo.com/startup/app/)

We've used it to build Rezi - [https://rezi.io](https://rezi.io)

</comment><comment><USER29> To all the people using a static site generator. How do collect emails from interested people? Is there a way to easily integrate this into the static site? Ideally it would be a simple form, that collects the data and stores it somewhere? Google Forms comes to mind but it would integrate that nicely into the UI.

<comment><USER30> I made a landing page just HTML and CSS that integrated with Hubspot forms. You can check it out: [https://onefiftyone.run/assets/js/landingpage.js](https://onefiftyone.run/assets/js/landingpage.js)

There's no secret keys; it's just the guid identifying that form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I do a lot of GatsbyJS. Now adding Contentful for all landing pages so marketing folk can edit content.

<comment><USER32> Does it work in practice for the marketing folk?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I just use Wordpress with a plain theme and some builder, e.g. OceanWP + Elementor. Little code needed, decent plugin ecosystem (contact forms, cookie warning, seo stuff), one-click deploy on DigitalOcean, Linode...

</comment><comment><USER32> I'd use Gatsby with TinaCMS. Although TinaCMS isn't quite ready for primetime yet. [https://tinacms.org](https://tinacms.org)

And hosting with Netlify maybe.

</comment><comment><USER34> If you already know and you're familiar with Vue, why don't you use Nuxt.js? You can generate a SPA or a PWA if you don't want to have the SSR version.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah good question, maybe it feels overkill. I also found Gridsome which also looks very interesting

<comment><USER35> I've found for small sites, building a vue SPA and using react-snap to generate the pre-rendered static pages works great, and cut out a lot of the overhead I felt with gridsome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> How about pug.js for HTML templating and Stylus or Less for the CSS. Then just generate a static site. Static sites are fast and fast is always good SEO.

</comment><comment><USER37> I am using Webflow and highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER38> HTML and js is the way to go if you are a dev. All the other tools are better suited for non-technical people.

</comment><comment><USER39> Wordpress with a site builder plugin, a/b testing pligin, and seo plugin is what Id go with.

</comment><comment><USER40> Does anyone know if using Angular with Server-Side-Rendering is a good idea? Angular dev here

</comment><comment><USER41> You can use Webflow or if you want something quickly then try Product Hunt's Ship.

</comment><comment><USER42> [https://www.stormviews.net](https://www.stormviews.net)

</comment><comment><USER43> Instapage. We use it for all our PPC landing pages and it's a great, 0 code option.

</comment><comment><USER44> Ask Booligoosh

</comment><comment><USER45> just use www.carrd.co You will get your lander up within half day with all content. Easy to update, easy to learn. Saved a lot of hours and days for me so far. Nothing comes close for me.

<comment><USER46> I was about to recommend Carrd as well. Also Unbounce.com seems like an obvious choice.

These paid tools help focusing on the content and getting things done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Can Anyody tell which one is best for my youtube views [https://www.stormviews.net](https://www.stormviews.net) or [https://www.follower18.com](https://www.follower18.com)</comment>