Oh I absolutely think the primary reason for this is an amoral technical reason (please note I said amoral not immoral). But I also think given Apple's aggressi

Oh I absolutely think the primary reason for this is an amoral technical reason (please note I said amoral not immoral). But I also think given Apple's aggressive history of trying to fuck with 3rd parties. It would be naive to think that wasn't an important factor in this design decision. Even with the most charitable interpretation, someone knew that this would fuck with third parties, and instead of trying to avoid it. They're going with the solution, again with the most charitable interpretation, appears to look like they're obstructing 3rd party repair. I pretend to be a security expert on TV; and I fully support the decision to disable face id when there might be a hardware mitm attack. But there's options available to Apple that allow you to have security and 3rd party support. But they're clearly still making decisions that obviously obstruct user choice. And it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. ps. I don't think you're being dishonest, you're clearly explaining the rational. My issue generally is the apologists who use these arguments without context, and pretend there's no other options.