This is more like gossip than news. Its quite likely that Apple does use the new screws to lock you out of the device. But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices.
The entire article rests on one person's speculation. Yeah, the source is credible when it comes to DIY Apple repairs but he's still in no position to say definitively that "Yes, this is the reason they're doing this".
I don't take issue with the premise of the article. Like I said, its quite likely to be true. What I take issue with is how misleading the article is. It tried to spin speculation into fact with a few lines spritzed throughout that they can point back at and say "well, we didn't actually say it was a fact". I just think its pretty lame to do this sort of thing. If it was called "Why Does Apple Use Pentalobe Screws in its Devices?" and pose it as a question, and make it clear that the article is pure speculation, that would be a much better start.
EDIT: As of right now, every single reply to my comment has missed the point entirely. Quit getting hung up on the screws or my half assed counter suggestion that they're using it for another reason. The point I'm trying to make is that this post is misleading people to believe something that is speculation is fact. No matter how much sense it makes for Apple to use these screws to keep people out there is still no reliable evidence or any sources to support that. Only speculation. Its very possible that there are other explanations but the big idea here is that its upsetting to see speculation passed off as fact and people falling all over themselves to believe it.
It doesn't matter. That's beside the point. I'm trying to point out that publishing speculation as fact is dangerous and its not specific to Ars or tech media but its endemic in all news, journalism, and media outlets. What's happening is that those who used to be held to the highest standards have lowered the bar and everyone else is taking advantage. So now when the nightly news reports some speculation as fact that signals to everyone lower on the food chain that they can do it too and they end up doing it worse and more often. Things weren't always this way and they don't have to be. I will not accept cynical or conspiratorial rebuttals as having any merit. The news used to be the news and reporting, no matter if its the nightly news or some blog, should at least try to hold themselves to some kind of standard.
But I digress. The point isn't why Apple uses new screws. Its about making it clear that this article is putting forth the suggestion that it does but that there are no facts to back this up. Just speculation.
But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices.
If they're cheaper, then how come they only use them on the outside?
So either they're doing it to keep owners out -- and most people would agree that they have readily explainable motives for that -- or they're doing it for some mystical reason that makes it "easier" for them, a reason that nobody so far has been able to imagine.
I think I'll bet on "keeping the owners out" as an explanation.
Of course, you're completely right insofar as that doesn't make it news. But it's still worthy of fussing about, as far as I'm concerned ;)
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.
I 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 ;)
Every article is an opinion piece unless it contains authoritative quotes that meet journalistic standards. A reminder of that might be polite, but we shouldn't become so credulous that we need it.
Apple has been building in obstacles to casual hacking for decades (the original Mac case required some weird custom tool and a screwdriver). They've never gone on record as to why, but I don't see much room for doubt.
> Its quite likely that Apple does use the new screws to lock you out of the device. But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices.
If you were speaking of the manufacturing line, and of a fact that iDevice v1.1 had phillips off the line, while later iDevice v1.2 had pentalobe off the line, I would agree. (i.e., maybe pentalobe is more amenable to robotic insertion, etc.)
But, there is no "cheaper for them" argument for exchanging the screws on existing devices brought in for repair work. Unless the old screws are damaged beyond reuse by being removed, exchanging the screws is an additional, unnecessary, expense.
Which leaves one to speculate, why exchange the screws for repair items? There must be some reason?
I've often heard the same kind of judgement when people see a Torx for the first time.
Thing is, a curiosity about Torx born from their prevalence on cars I've worked on led me to learn that Torx were designed with the intent of preventing cam-out [1] as opposed to the intentional, damaging, torque-limiting cam-out of Philips screws.
This makes Torx attractive for all kinds of applications, particularly automated ones where fit and finish are important.
The use of something other than the most common fastener, connector, whatever is not necessarily a matter of "making things difficult".
Torx, just like Philips were both originally licensed designs, it's just that the patents have expired.
When Torx showed up in 1967, Phillips were surely considered "standard" as the patent had been gone for 18 years. Today, the Torx patent has been up for 22 years.
I expect that when encountering Torx for the first time in 1967 people ignorantly made the same assumption, that it was non-standard for the sake of being non-standard.
The entire article rests on one person's speculation. Yeah, the source is credible when it comes to DIY Apple repairs but he's still in no position to say definitively that "Yes, this is the reason they're doing this".
I don't take issue with the premise of the article. Like I said, its quite likely to be true. What I take issue with is how misleading the article is. It tried to spin speculation into fact with a few lines spritzed throughout that they can point back at and say "well, we didn't actually say it was a fact". I just think its pretty lame to do this sort of thing. If it was called "Why Does Apple Use Pentalobe Screws in its Devices?" and pose it as a question, and make it clear that the article is pure speculation, that would be a much better start.
EDIT: As of right now, every single reply to my comment has missed the point entirely. Quit getting hung up on the screws or my half assed counter suggestion that they're using it for another reason. The point I'm trying to make is that this post is misleading people to believe something that is speculation is fact. No matter how much sense it makes for Apple to use these screws to keep people out there is still no reliable evidence or any sources to support that. Only speculation. Its very possible that there are other explanations but the big idea here is that its upsetting to see speculation passed off as fact and people falling all over themselves to believe it.