Draco

If you have $3K to spend on computing, you'd be better off buying a $500 iPad and a $2500 laptop. 

I don't see how an iPad can possibly be one's only computing device. I dare say virtually all iPad users also have access to another computer. 

"Engineers endure 12-hour workdays and often work weekends as well."

There's a reason manufacturing of semiconductors and other goods have moved to Asia. There are way more engineers available in Asia; these are needed in large numbers to run a modern factory. Engineers in Asia work longer hours without complaint, so no surprise TSMC is finding American engineers difficult to work with. 

Ternus is being truthful here. To the extent parts are paired, it's for security reasons, preservation of calibration data, or for safety reasons in the case of batteries. Apple makes enough money on the initial phone sale that they don't need to intentionally lock out third party repair parts to make more money. They also want to avoid returns and support calls from cheapskates who installed some random module from Alibaba to repair their phone. 

Having said that, Apple should do a better job making their devices easier to open. iPads for example, are essentially sealed shut. I have an old iPod classic that I want to upgrade to flash storage, but I'm dreading the idea of opening the unit up because from what I've seen on YouTube, opening a 7th gen iPod is slightly less complex than diffusing a bomb. 

zimmermann said:

I made the 80% battery max with Automate and an intelligent plug on my iPhone 14. But I truly don’t understand, as this is a simple software addition, why Apple doesn’t add this to all recent phones. 

Phones past a certain age, I think it was the iPhone 12, have a different gas gauge chip set that may not like never seeing 100% state-of-charge. Many gas gauge chips rely on  seeing 100% to re-calibrate the capacity of the battery. 

tht said:

Draco said:

This woman's mere existence on the payroll proves that Apple is wasting money on these efforts which are nothing more than virtue signaling. "Carbon emissions" go hand-in-hand with a productive, developed economy; those who obsess over carbon emissions would have us living in the stone age. No thanks. 

You have to remember that this notion of carbon emissions going hand-in-hand with economic development is flat out false. Carbon neutral means that method of production of energy comes from carbon neutral energy sources, rather than fossil fuels. 

If carbon-neutral sources were more economical than "renewables" like wind and solar, we'd be using them already, and China wouldn't be building 7 new coal plants every week. The only way renewables can compete is if carbon taxes or other government "thumb on the scale" schemes are put in place to shift the economics of fossil fuels. "Climate change" is a false externality created by those who've been trying to get rid of fossil fuels for as long as I can remember--which is almost 60 years.