I think it's important to recognize that morality does not apply to any corporation. Corporations respond to incentives and disincentives, that's it. If we want to change the way a corporation behaves we need to arrange things so that its incentives align with our own.

People like to ascribe malice to Apple's history of making difficult-to-repair devices. I think that's wrong-headed. It's more appropriate to say that Apple had higher priorities such as miniaturization, performance, battery life, and ease of manufacture.

Now that the right to repair movement has been gaining steam and regulations are being drafted, Apple has been given the incentive to prioritize repairability. Thus they are responding to that incentive with the iPhone 16 (with its new battery adhesive), the repair kits, and the documentation they've provided. They likely also see the opportunity to get ahead of their competitors and tout repairability as a competitive advantage. I would not be surprised at all to see future models have even higher repairability scores with Apple aiming to become the market leader.

As for the serial numbering and activation of replacement parts: that also has a simple explanation that doesn't involve a nefarious lock-in plot. Witness the recent attacks in Lebanon. How were they carried out? By a supply-chain attack! This sort of capability represents more than a physical danger from explosives or chemical weapons, it's also a major cyber security and privacy threat. Supply-chain attacks via counterfeit, backdoored parts is a huge area of concern for Apple. The potential is there for the company to suffer severe reputational damage should a large-scale attack occur.

This has long been a kind of systematic public relations problem for the EU; generally, the fruits of EU regulation become, in the minds of the consumer, an example of corporate benevolence, with the EU's role being solely as a thing to blame when things go wrong.

The EU being EUseful.

The reason they do the serial coding is to reduce the incentive for stealing iPhones. Due to locking, you can't really sell a stolen iPhone. Instead, thieves break it apart and sell the parts. Serial coding disincentives this. I know many people that had their iPhone stolen and it is an awful experience.

I'm a simple man, I'd never have the ability to solder and fix my own phone. Instead of repairing it myself, I'd always go to an official repair shop. I'm not benefitting from non-coded parts. On the other hand, reducing the likelihood of people stealing my phone is a huge upside for me. So for me, and people like me, these measures that Apple takes are a net benefit. I understand that for tinkerers it is a different equation - but you have to agree that for the majority of iPhone owners the equation might also tip in favour of not having to worry about stolen phones instead of being able to fix their own hardware (which most normal people also would never do).

> I don't know any other company that does that.

It's common in the car industry as well. Seems to be the reason my airbags are still in place after 10 years while a certain popular german brand here is uninsurable because it's not a question if but when the airbags will be stolen.

All this just means that replacement parts are expensive, repairs are expensive and Apple continues to control the ecosystem. I can't believe people are praising Apple for it.

Well, they just introduced the “Repair Assistant” which allows you to pair new parts after a repair. They talk about it in this article, had you read it.

But, yeah, about fucking time, I agree on that.

Forgot the /s