[sjwright]

Google is the most popular smartphone platform. That's why they should be called out first.

Samsung makes the most number of handsets. That's why they should be called out first.

Apple likes their products to look pretty. That's why they should be called out first.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. That's why they should be called out first.

Xiaomi are evil Chinese copycats. That's why they should be called out first.

We could do this all day.

[viraptor]

Then please do. Instead of doing this in comments about one company releasing anti-repair tech, post your information about the others. List their issues. Summarise why their products are hostile to third party support. Help people make informed decisions.

"There are other companies just as bad" is whataboutism, not informative.

[sjwright]

> "There are other companies just as bad" is whataboutism

As someone who specifically polices whataboutism in a fairly large online community, I plead for you to not dilute the importance of that word. Asserting a double standard is not whataboutism.

It would have been whataboutism if I was saying "Stop criticising Apple because Company X is just as bad!" Rather I'm suggesting we be more aware of inconsistencies in dishing out criticism where it is warranted.

Apple didn't invent unrepairable electronics and they're not even the best at it—they just so happened to combine their weak efforts with aggressive miniturisation, giving the appearance of being more repair-hostile than they really are. Meanwhile Nintendo's use of the tri-wing predates Apple's pentalobe by decades. And the latest iPhones get a repairability score of 6 out of 10 by iFixit.

To be clear Apple is repair-hostile, but it's because of their non-existent parts supply chain—not because of "purposefully repair-hostile" engineering.