[echelon]

It's easy to view every move Apple makes through the lens of money.

Their platform is locked down so that nobody can carve out their own turf. No custom browsers with modern web features. No runtimes. Apple's rules and taxes, or you're banned.

I've never been afraid of batteries compromising my system. Or new screens. Apple wants the extremely lucrative device repair market, and this is how they get it. Screens are the most common and expensive part to replace.

I am, however, afraid of my device reporting files that the government doesn't like. The Russian FSB is salivating at Apple's new device spying "CSAM" capabilities. Apple built this system to satisfy totalitarian regimes so they could still sell their devices. It turns their entire platform into a dragnet so that intelligence knows exactly who to target. The FBI probably put pressure on the DOJ for these same capabilities too. Apple is deathly afraid of antitrust breaking up their gravy train and would bow to pressure.

This is about money. Apple wants it all. They need extreme growth to justify their stock price and future outlook.

Everything is about money to Apple.

[dpkonofa]

>I've never been afraid of batteries compromising my system.

Another case of "this doesn't affect me so there's no way anyone else would need it" that has recently plagued this site. This doesn't affect you but it does affect the millions of users that depend on the security of the phone - any enterprise level corporation with employees, government organizations, companies that deal with sensitive data, hospitals and other parts of the medical industry.

You're not afraid of batteries compromising your system but you're not the only person using these devices. Offering a more secure solution benefits everyone using these devices, even if you don't personally recognize a benefit from it.

[donmcronald]

> Offering a more secure solution benefits everyone using these devices, even if you don't personally recognize a benefit from it.

It's a detriment to me. I don't need that level of security, so why should I pay extra for all my repairs which is effectively me subsidizing enterprise corporations and governments? Plus it's increasing the original development and manufacturing costs, so I'm paying a lot extra for something that doesn't benefit me at all.

If those companies and governments really need those security features, let them pay for them. I don't care if their phones cost $5k.

[echelon]

You know what affects them more?

A monopoly like Apple, hoarding and gatekeeping the tech, raising their prices. Making 3rd party apps and services more expensive because they have less margin due to Apple taxes.

That's way worse than some invented boogyman.

[dpkonofa]

Apple is not a monopoly so the rest of your statement is meaningless drivel. Also, if I recognize you from other threads, you tend to be pretty sensationalist so forgive me if I feel like you're the one selling a boogeyman.

[echelon]

> rest of your statement is meaningless drivel

To your sensibilities.

> I recognize you from other threads

Good. I keep telling folks to call their reps on Apple, Google, and the whole lot. These companies salt the earth for the rest of us.

Apple taxes 50+% of the mobile application development market with outrageous fees and prevents freedom outside of tightly set, draconian rules.

They're clearly bad for the market with their ever worsening device repairability and increasingly anti-consumer behavior.

Microsoft got handed a new one for behavior one tenth as bad.

The DOJ needs to break Apple in two.

[zepto]

Accusing a business of being motivated only by money is completely trivial and in informative.

For example iFixit clearly cares absolutely nothing for user security and is only motivated by money. They simply don’t care if devices are secure as long as they can sell repair kits.

Also it is clearly in ifixit’s interest to have unreliable devices that break often and need more repairs. This is true of the entire repair business - all they care about is money.

[commoner]

iFixit's business incentives are more aligned with the interests of consumers than the incentives of manufacturers like Apple who obstruct the repair of the devices they sell. The negligible security difference that Apple is using as an excuse to enforce high repair charges plays a minimal role in an informed user's decision to use a third-party part.

[dpkonofa]

>interests of consumers

Clearly this isn't the case. It seems that the majority of consumers prefer the higher security posture of the iPhone as opposed to the low repairability. You claim it's a negligible security difference yet government organizations and enterprise customers choose iPhones a majority of the time for exactly the security posture used by the iPhone.

[commoner]

Someone who purchases an iPhone does not automatically endorse every single aspect of the iPhone. Many people choose iPhones because they are fashionable, and not for any security consideration.

Governments and enterprises contract with original equipment manufacturers for repairs because it is more convenient at that scale. Most phone users are not government or enterprise users, and have lower budgets. The cost difference between an Apple repair and a third-party repair is negligible for an enterprise, but much more significant for the average user.

[zepto]

A lot of people who have iPhones indeed have lower budgets. They got their phones as hand-me-downs or secondhand.

This is only possible because of the durability of iPhones.

It is in apple’s interests to extend the life of iPhones and not to make money on repairs, because it translates into more users for their services.

[commoner]

Apple also intends to make money on repairs, which is why they are charging a higher markup for parts and labor compared to independent repair shops, and implementing anti-competitive restrictions to make it more difficult for third parties to repair Apple products when they break. Many phones from other manufacturers are also bought secondhand, just check eBay for examples.

[dpkonofa]

>Someone who purchases an iPhone does not automatically endorse every single aspect of the iPhone.

While this is true, it does point out that that's not an important enough factor for them to not buy the phone, though. All these claims that this is in the interest of consumers is meaningless when people aren't buying the other phones but are buying iPhones. It seems Apple is nailing the "interests of consumers" pretty well, if that's the case.

[Bud]

This would be more convincing if you were not, you know, just making it up out of whole cloth in a completely lazy and unsupported way.

"Negligible security difference"? "Excuse"? Come back when you have a real argument that isn't just obvious spewing of biases.

[zepto]

> iFixit's business incentives are more aligned with the interests of consumers

A device that breaks and needs repair is the last thing consumers want.

The best thing for consumers would be for ifixit’s business to become irrelevant.

[commoner]

Until phones and other electronics become indestructible, iFixit and independent repair shops continue to serve a consumer need by offering more cost-effective repair options than Apple and other manufacturers do.

[zepto]

Sure - but of course ifixit profits from devices that break easily, whereas Apple benefits from making devices more and more indestructible, which is why they keep working on that.

[Bud]

It's easy to view a lot of things in facile, inaccurate ways.

Not very informative, but, certainly easy!