I really didn’t want to but their comment just reeks of it my guy.

Except that you did want to. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have done.

Unless by “doing this shit here as well”, you’re referring to the act of not reading the article, jumping to conclusions, and spreading fear and disinformation.

In order to be as fair as possible, I went back and read the comment again.

Is it inflammatory and excessive, while putting out an outlook of distrust towards a new technology? It can be understood as such. Yet, to a degree, I respect and understand that opinion.

Spurting out “okay boomer” doesn’t dismantle that comment; it’s a personal attack.

Either add to the conversation on just keep your peace. Makes the world a better place.

How is that?

As it is, that same argument was used by Apple to try to dodge from complying with the demand for having an industry standard for data and charge port/cable - the USB-C.

Planned obsolescence is a thing. Having law put in place to curb it is a good thing.

If you know you can buy something and you know that something will be repairable at least for a decade, it passes confidence to the end user.

Competition is welcome. Innovation as well. Legislation like this just means companies need to share standards and cooperate more and not aim to skin the client in an endless cycle of replacing expensive items that get thrown out before they are worn out.

Are we doing this shit here as well?

Your reply adds zero value to the thread.

If you want to make a point, try full paragraphs to express arguments.

Considering the serious move EU as made regarding right to repair and imposing that any equipment must be repairable and have parts for it for at least 10 years, this ia going to be another serious pain for this brand.

I’ve also read an article recently where it was reported that all cell phones circulating in the EU must have replaceable batteries. And from what I took from the article it was meant replaceable by the end user.

Serious anti obsolescence legislation.

This will hurt Apple again.

Why can’t I state that some place is a hell hole where no one should be stuck but, nonetheless, state the people living there - or at least a good majority - are actually good people?

Considering the stain politics is for the majority of places nowadays, with the growing effort for extremists/conservatives/right wingers/religious zealots trying to roll back civilizational conquests attained in least 50 to 80 years, it’s not hard to infer that a very small group can and will make life terrible for those unaligned with their views.

So, where is the contradiction?

You can dislike a place and have nothing against people living it.

Considering the mentioned locations are, boiled down, hell holes run mostly by angry white men, I’d risk the living conditions in those places is due to systemic racism and other outdated views on what a society should be.

People living in those those areas are victims and most probably poverty blocked to even consider to leave, regardless of melanin skin levels, although in the US being a shade over milk white is a detriment for having peaceful life.

Stating those places are a bad choice to live is not racism: is stating a fact.