1. People would like to fix vacs too. Cheaper doesn't mean everybody just replaces a vac every year. 2. Fusible links are designed that way for safety. The hoo

1. People would like to fix vacs too. Cheaper doesn't mean everybody just replaces a vac every year. 2. Fusible links are designed that way for safety. The hood of a car is designed to be opened so that even a fusible link can be fixed. 3. When I asked: Do care have unexpected loads? I answered that question right after I asked it. The question was rhetorical. I'd rather replace a fuse in a 25$ blender then buy a new one. But either way, you wouldn't throw away a $100 dollar vac or a $500 dollar iPhone just because a $0.10 fuse shorted out. >Mainstream phones (iPhone, Samsung, etc) are typically designed with adhesive that has removal tabs which deactivate the adhesive and allow someone to remove it cleanly. True. BUT these batteries are still extremely hard to remove as they are locked into the case. They were designed to be hard to remove so that apple service people can repair the few phones that statistically beat the warranty. We both know that the iphone is basically designed with a battery that is so hard to remove that it can be basically classified as not removable by the average layman. Very different from the way all phones use to have removable batteries. >It's hard to open as a result of the design/engineering trade off. Just because it's hard to open doesn't automatically imply that someone must have plotted to make it hard to open. It just means that end-user serviceability wasn't a high-priority design feature. That's my point. How do you know it's a tradeoff? How do you know it's not a design decision? Basically Apple is incentivized to make the phone hard to open. Additionally all apple policies of "repairing" a phone basically make "repairing" the phone cost as much as buying a new one. With every policy surrounding the phone is positioned, it's more than likely that the decisions are deliberate. >Your point is valid for instances of proven malice, but one should not assume malice where a valid alternative explanation exists. My point is valid for instances of suspected malice. The motive exists. Do you trust someone trying to sell you a new crypto just because there's no evidence of malice and that an alternative explanation exists? No. It's stupid to believe there is no malice. It is far wiser to assume malice exists wherever profitable incentive exists, such is the nature of business.