4 ms·
>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 fastene
by 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 agoI 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 agoSure. If I'd meant that to be in response to all of your points, I'd have quoted them all.