On: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

[hilbert42]

"If lower repairability is a way to pay for that, that’s great.'

You are implying the two concepts are incompatible. There is no reason why they should be other than a manufacturer's planned obsolescence strategy, which is what the Right to Repair movement is all about and fighting to fix.

[jpttsn → hilbert42]

Assuming there's planned obsolescence, it will make the manufacturer money. This money lets them build better products, stay in business longer, et.c.

If Apple made a repairable iPhone with the same profit margins and specs, I'm guessing it would have to be more expensive. I would have to pay for this, even though I don't want to repair my stuff (I just buy new stuff when it breaks).

[omgwtfbyobbq → jpttsn]

The money can do that, but it can also go to their bottom line instead, or even be used to lobby against stuff like Right to Repair.

Who knows, the amount Apple has spent lobbying may have allowed them to create a more repairable iphone without increasing consumer prices.

[jpttsn → omgwtfbyobbq]

I don’t think that’s how it works.

Apple makes about 38% on hardware, right?

Suppose I pay $100 “extra” for an iPhone thanks to limited repairability.

Without that $100, Apple would have to find $38 somewhere else.

As I don’t value repairability, all the options seem worse.

Maybe it would make me $100 happier at the cost of $38 to Apple’s “bottom line”. But I don’t think they would like that investment strategy.

[omgwtfbyobbq → jpttsn]

It's gone beyond that. Apple matches parts in their phones so that only Apple can replace certain things, which I believe increases the cost of their products a little.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/complete-control-apple-a...

At the same time, restricting how and what customers can repair is good for future phone/etc sales, which I imagine it's why they're doing it.