3 ms·

But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices. If they're cheaper

But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices. If they're cheaper, then how come they only use them on the outside? So either they're doing it to keep owners out -- and most people would agree that they have readily explainable motives for that -- or they're doing it for some mystical reason that makes it "easier" for them, a reason that nobody so far has been able to imagine. I think I'll bet on "keeping the owners out" as an explanation. Of course, you're completely right insofar as that doesn't make it news. But it's still worthy of fussing about, as far as I'm concerned ;)

incision 14y ago
>nobody so far has been able to imagine. Perhaps they wanted mechanical benefits similar to, not precisely the same as those of some existing, patented fastener and to have total control of both the screws and bits end to end (no chance of someone causing damage by using a wrong size bit)? By rolling their own fasteners the knock all of those potential questions at the same time. I object to the parent use of "likely", but some reasoning beyond simply "keeping owners out" is possible and even logical, in my opinion.
- CodeMage 14y ago
  I don't think anyone was arguing that they want to "simply" keep owners out, just because they can or they're bad, bad people. Remember how I said "most people would agree that they have readily explainable motives for" keeping owners out? Some of those motives are "total control of both the screws and bits end to end" and "no chance of someone causing damage by using a wrong size bit". The reason why people are complaining about this is not because they think Apple has no reasons for this, but because they think Apple's reasons are wrong, as in (for example) "it's my device, I paid for it, so I should be able to change the battery and if I damage it, it's my fault." Of course, other people are free to disagree. I'm not arguing that, either ;)
  - incision 14y ago
    Sure. If I'd meant that to be in response to all of your points, I'd have quoted them all.

incision 14y ago

>nobody so far has been able to imagine. Perhaps they wanted mechanical benefits similar to, not precisely the same as those of some existing, patented fastener and to have total control of both the screws and bits end to end (no chance of someone causing damage by using a wrong size bit)? By rolling their own fasteners the knock all of those potential questions at the same time. I object to the parent use of "likely", but some reasoning beyond simply "keeping owners out" is possible and even logical, in my opinion.

CodeMage 14y ago
I don't think anyone was arguing that they want to "simply" keep owners out, just because they can or they're bad, bad people. Remember how I said "most people would agree that they have readily explainable motives for" keeping owners out? Some of those motives are "total control of both the screws and bits end to end" and "no chance of someone causing damage by using a wrong size bit". The reason why people are complaining about this is not because they think Apple has no reasons for this, but because they think Apple's reasons are wrong, as in (for example) "it's my device, I paid for it, so I should be able to change the battery and if I damage it, it's my fault." Of course, other people are free to disagree. I'm not arguing that, either ;)
- incision 14y ago
  Sure. If I'd meant that to be in response to all of your points, I'd have quoted them all.