> Its a phone for christ sake, they only last a few years
ah yes, "right to repair" was going so well, up until it led to a place you didn't like and then "it's a phone for chrissake, throw it away and buy another every 2 years".
what happened to e-waste concern, weren't you saving the planet?
like if your goals can only survive if you utterly steamroll everyone else's concerns and cross-purposes/goals that's probably not a goal that's accomplishable in a multilateral society, or at least your attitude towards those goals is unhealthy.
people want to know that a used phone isn't going to be full of shitty parts that diminish the experience, and we are trying to bias towards longer device lifecycles and more re-use. driving down cost to the absolute dropshipped-firehazard minimum isn't the only singular goal that people might have.
in fact sometimes these goals are inherently contradictory, like parts quality vs cost! cost encourages repair, but bad parts are also e-waste and every repair increases the likelihood of a total failure (damaged board, damaged back, etc). Shipping 27 batteries from amazon or china so you can replace them every 2 months is carbon-intensive and resource-intensive, on top of all the social issues it causes (like people who get upset and sue apple for "breaking their phone" when their knockoff part uses a legacy driver from an older phone that was removed from a certain iOS release).
in this situation, diminished trust in used products probably also has a negative effect on device lifespan and e-waste, and you've explicitly codified this with the "it's a phone, throw it away every 2 years" standard. That's not very eco-minded. You absolutely should care about parts, because parts keep those devices running and out of landfills.
If anything we should be pushing harder to force vendors to provide verifiable first-party supply chains with defined, long-duration lifecycles. Why can apple keep a battery or a display or a camera in stock for 10 years but google or samsung can't?
> Parts avaliability bites all the time... You are not if there are no repair parts avaliable
well, apple has better parts availability and supply lifetimes than any other brand on the market, so sleep easy. You are getting 8+ years more parts availability than most android vendors. That's great for the planet.
> As they should, it is my phone after all. Imagine your car manufacturer shows up in your garage at night and removes something because it's "legacy"
your car manufacturer is under no legal or moral obligation to support your modifications to the car.
practical example: if you replace the head unit (which ties into the rest of the control electronics nowadays) with a third-party model, and the car manufacturer does an OTA software update which changes the way the car interacts with the head unit, and it breaks the third-party integration: wow, sucks to be you.
they don't have to keep supporting legacy cruft forever just so that a third-party modification doesn't break, just like anything in the software world. if it's not advertised as being a publicly-exposed interface then it's subject to breakage at any time. Carplay is a supported interface, swapping in a new head unit and a CAN interface to try and mimic the OEM head unit's CANbus traffic is not.
if you use sun.misc.unsafe, you're gonna have a bad time, period. That's on you. Tinker all you want but don't cry and sue when the unstable ABI is changed. Linux kernel explicitly formalizes this philosophy. You're approved (in-tree), or you're subject to breakage and we don't care about the consequences, you brought it on yourself.
again, you can say that's software and it's different because we need to keep phones out of landfills, but apple is providing long-life availability guarantees of OEM parts at OEM rates for 3-4x the total lifecycle of their competitors' products.
If apple advertises somewhere that you can use older phone screens then fine, sue, but otherwise they’re under absolutely no obligation to support them when misused on other models. The fact that it worked for a while is irrelevant - you touched com.sun.unsafe.
ah yes, "right to repair" was going so well, up until it led to a place you didn't like and then "it's a phone for chrissake, throw it away and buy another every 2 years".
what happened to e-waste concern, weren't you saving the planet?
like if your goals can only survive if you utterly steamroll everyone else's concerns and cross-purposes/goals that's probably not a goal that's accomplishable in a multilateral society, or at least your attitude towards those goals is unhealthy.
people want to know that a used phone isn't going to be full of shitty parts that diminish the experience, and we are trying to bias towards longer device lifecycles and more re-use. driving down cost to the absolute dropshipped-firehazard minimum isn't the only singular goal that people might have.
in fact sometimes these goals are inherently contradictory, like parts quality vs cost! cost encourages repair, but bad parts are also e-waste and every repair increases the likelihood of a total failure (damaged board, damaged back, etc). Shipping 27 batteries from amazon or china so you can replace them every 2 months is carbon-intensive and resource-intensive, on top of all the social issues it causes (like people who get upset and sue apple for "breaking their phone" when their knockoff part uses a legacy driver from an older phone that was removed from a certain iOS release).
in this situation, diminished trust in used products probably also has a negative effect on device lifespan and e-waste, and you've explicitly codified this with the "it's a phone, throw it away every 2 years" standard. That's not very eco-minded. You absolutely should care about parts, because parts keep those devices running and out of landfills.
If anything we should be pushing harder to force vendors to provide verifiable first-party supply chains with defined, long-duration lifecycles. Why can apple keep a battery or a display or a camera in stock for 10 years but google or samsung can't?