[beeboobaa]

Shrug. That's their problem. Or it should be, at least.

Don't sell crap you can't support for a decent amount of time. Stop ruining this planet we live on by creating immense amounts of e-waste every few years.

We both know your argument is dishonest or at least naive, though. They could easily support updates if they want to. But it's about money. This way they are forcing people to buy a new phone every few years. It's clever, shame about the planet.

[nindalf]

> dishonest

Dishonest? You're saying I'm lying to support a trillion dollar corporation I have no financial stake in and never have? Is such an accusation really in the spirit of this forum?

I suggest you review the guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Don't be snarky. Don't sneer. Assume good faith.

[smoldesu]

I will say that certain comparisons (eg. "The PC way doesn’t work at scale") are objectively wrong. Even Apple uses the PC model internally, despite not having an open bootloader or really supporting UEFI anymore. AFAIK, the XNU kernel even uses the same DeviceTree layout as Linux for supporting ARM SOCs. Apple hasn't really broken any new ground that can't be re-covered by modern operating systems.

Also, your claim that it's "not economical" is entirely unproven and arguably false. iPhones are still architecturally supported by Linux and will continue to be for a while (even longer on BSD). Other Apple products (eg. Apple Silicon) received community driver support entirely from donations and volunteer time. There's no reason to assume that iPhones lack community interest, especially since Apple has never given the iPhone community the same leverage they had on Mac.

If that's the sum of both arguments, then you're mostly just leveraging FOMO to support an unproven concept. At best you're jumping the gun, at worst you're twisting the facts to preclude discussion of open iPhone software alternatives.