Of the many consumer insults present in this entire topic, this one really shows the ridiculousness of Apple's position.
Isn't security-through-obscurity considered the worst kind of security?
Case: you need to protect a web server. If you can successfully hide/spoof your OS/software fingerprint, an attacker won't know whether your server has vulnerable software. This makes exploit selection extremely difficult.
You can protect an already secure system from 0-day or unknown exploits by hiding whether you're running windows/linux/bsd/whatever with IIS/apache/nginx/traefik/caddy.
Of course this should not be used as an argument to introduce laws that limit the rights of repair shops, users or even security researchers.
Yeah, it's called taxing users for the defects you engineered in the first place. Look at how ridiculous the glued keyboard fiasco was with Apple, which refused to admit any guilt in their design for several years and charged users several hundred bucks for official repairs if they did not subscribe any special warranty.
Nobody should be able to sell devices to millions of people without giving those customers the ability to install their own software. There should be no arbitrary limits such as "you have to plug your device into another device every 7 days just to keep your custom software installed".
Just to take one slice of the population as an example, Apple has many gay and trans employees and no doubt users as well, so they are keenly aware of the problems these people can face whether while growing up, or afterwards.
As another example, take a look at the /r/atheism subreddit FAQ about coming out to your family, and read some of the horror stories there. People get disowned, kicked out of their parents homes, physically threatened, and even physically harmed in some cases, just for thinking for themselves.
As another example, in some cultures, honor killings are also a thing.
Users deserve to have their personal devices be secure, even from hostile family or household members.
On the other side is right to repair. I would love to see both sides be satisfied, but I do think the right to repair folks have been too militant in ignoring and dismissing the legitimate concerns Apple has about preserving user privacy.
Then there is the bogus line of argument that Apple is only against right to repair because they are heartless, greedy, profit fiends. But there are plenty of profit opportunities they have forgone, such as gathering personal data to exploit for ad networks, which argue otherwise. So I don't buy it.
Just to address your one cherry-picked hardware item:
>Changing a broken screen does not invalidate any chips on the motherboard afaik..
On some devices (those with fingerprint sensors) there are security implications.
Since you mention battery, that's a big one. When Apple cannot control which batteries get swapped into their devices, their brand is at risk due to fires caused by bad batteries.
You can generalize this point to other components and quality in general. If people swap out third party parts, which some repair shops and end users will do to save money, the products end up looking bad and it damages Apple's reputation, which is valuable to them.
I disagree. I suspect (but cannot prove right now) that right to repair would lead to devices becoming more secure, more trustworthy.
