genuinely curious as to why people choose that brand, are alternatives really that bad?
As I see it:
- you pay for the hardware and software, which is fine, but
- if you want to upgrade the OS, you have to pay once again, but this doesn’t work if your hardware model stops being supported. Why pay for something with a limited life expectancy?
- you cannot get rid of bloatware, only hide it
- software is made specifically to be only compatible within their ecosystem. If you want to build up on existing software and hardware, you either stay in their system and keep paying them or start anew with a freer alternative.
- I find it ridiculous they use fancy names to name even their support staff instead of just calling it support staff. Why make things complicated?
- I don’t understand why they use pentalobe screws instead or regular ones (with a line or a cross section)
Feel free to correct me, I may be misguided.
They make computing appliances. And are progressively locking them down more and more.That said, the hardware apart from the anti repair lockouts is fine.
But if you want to make major changes to the look and feel, that is not the apple way. If you want to make basic changes to the hardware configuration, that is not the apple way. An apple product only does what it’s designed for and what they allow it to do. But only for as long as they allow it. Apple was one of the first outside the phone space to push artificial obsolescence heavily. Which MS recently adopted as well.
But to people with very basic needs it’s what they want. Opaque inscrutable slabs with a tightly designed stack that does what they need reliably. They don’t want to have to install an OS or change out hardware. And can live with the bland conformal interface.
There is very little else like it anywhere else, outside of… Maybe something like raspberry pi os. Maybe Microsoft Surface hardware that they’ve had a hard time committing to.