From 0/10 to 8/10: Microsoft Puts Repair Front and Center
ifixit.com
ifixit.com
There were rumors that because UK is leaving many banks from London City will move to Germany or Belgium or the Netherlands.
They did not because they actually did not want to be regulated by EU and UK can serve rich people better while poor people got it worse.
Under the guise that poor less educated people wanted brexit… where they were brainwashed.
It makes me think that the academic left should be a bit more careful with their regular calls to "burn down the evil capitalist system". It turns out a mob with torches might also set fire to the parts you like.
They are the most obvious example of "saw off the branch you're sitting on" I can think of.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/18/business/uk-millionaires-...
https://www.ft.com/content/383587ee-5b31-4549-9392-2f0b4612e...
That's not how banking regulation works though. If a bank wants to do business in the EU, and all the big banks do, then they have to have entities regulated by the relevant EU regulators. Prior to Brexit, it was ok for a bank to be regulated by the PRA or FCA to trade in the EU. Post Brexit, they need to have entities with banking licenses that are subject to EU regulators.
And that's what they did: they set up banking entities in Germany, France, Ireland etc. And they moved/hired staff into those countries to support that activity (if they weren't there already).
They didn't wholesale move out of London for 2 reasons: The UK is a big market and there is a large pool of skilled people in London that it wouldn't make sense to ignore.
> Real Brexiteers were bankers
Right. Bankers famously want their ill gotten gains to go to taxation, duty and red tape rather than into their own pockets. They lobby hard for extra regulation, multiple, diverse, enforcement regimes and multiple, diverse taxation regimes. They also want their customers' money to be going to taxation, duty and red tape so that they can't spend it on banking services. Because bankers are famously altruistic like that.
To paraphrase Pauli, the idea that the finance sector, esp in the UK, wanted Brexit is not even wrong.
Brexit was a democratic vote. Maybe some banks invested some money to push Brexit. But its pretty clear that overwhelmingly immigration was what the Brexit voting base actually cared about.
Overwhelming most people in banking are conventional liberals. They live in big cities and are internationalists.
Maybe the very elite of the richest banks thought that way, but not bankers broadly.
Even before the EU existed, certain American states ended up as de-facto national standard setters for certain products.
If that phenomenon was destined to become a popular term with broad awareness and acceptance, I think it would have happened already.
I'll expand, then. The EU demands USB charging for mobile devices, Apple didn't suddenly become good. The EU demands longer software updates for mobile devices, Samsung nor Google didn't become angels all of a sudden. Similar situation here.
Everything needs to be dragged away from them, one painful law at a time.
And then corporations turn it around as their "largesse".
But the anarcho-capitalists told me that market will fix it all on its own if only we let corporations do whatever they want and not burden them with regulations!
It's honestly shocking to me how many anarcho-capitalists there are, especially here on HN. I get the aversion to taxation on a primal level, but surely nobody with any work and life experience can believe in that, right?
Because HN is full of 'temporarily embarrassed billionaires'[1]. A lot of people here are either vested in big tech or see themselves creating the next big-tech in the future hoping to become the next Steve Jobs.
They saw how the likes of Meta, Apple, Google and Microsoft got super rich through exploiting various legal and market loopholes, so they see these upcoming regulations as a threat to their own enrichment. Kind of like technological NIMBYism.
It's difficult to have unbiased discussions on big-tech regulations when many here have built their wealth or careers on big-tech being deregulated and exploiting every trick in the book, and now suddenly get to watch as the ladder is pulled from under them shuddering at the though that SW engineering will be paid like other professions (like in Europe) instead of being a professional get-rich quick ticket it was/still is for now.
[1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/temporarily_embarrassed_mil...
All that anarcho-capitalism hubris faltered when SVB went under, and suddenly libertarians were begging daddy government to make them whole.
"Free market"? You can find it in the dictionary, somewhere in between "Bullshit" and "Hypocrisy".
A tiny amount of people who claim to have some libertarian conservative leanings maybe changed their minds, but overwhelmingly those were just politicians who talked libertarianism to get some gun fans to vote for them.
All I can say is that in most online forums that I saw, the overwhelming majority libertarians are against such bank rescue operations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Arab_Emi...
All good, just burning the planet, nothing to see here, move along.
https://condenaststore.com/featured/the-planet-got-destroyed...
Also, LOL:
> As of 2020, foreigners represent 88.1% of the population.
+
> UAE law does not allow trade unions to exist. The right to collective bargaining and the right to strike are not recognised, and the Ministry of Labour has the power to force workers to go back to work. Migrant workers who participate in a strike can have their work permits cancelled and be deported. Consequently, there are very few anti-discrimination laws in relation to labour issues, with Emiratis – and other GCC Arabs – getting preference in public sector jobs despite lesser credentials than competitors and lower motivation. In fact, just over eighty per cent of Emirati workers hold government posts, with many of the rest taking part in state-owned enterprises such as Emirates airlines and Dubai Properties. Western states, including the United Kingdom, were also warned by the Emirati Trade Minister, Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi to keep politics separate from trade and the economy, as it dilutes the agreements' main objectives. In 2023, Al Zeyoudi indicated that these countries should "tone down" the human and workers' rights provisions in the trade deals, in order to gain greater market access and business opportunities.
So, yeah...
When your workforce is disposable and cash squirts out of the ground, yeah, yay capitalism!!! if you're the right category of person, I guess.
Is the government giving extremely generous allowances to its citizens based on profits from finite natural resources "capitalism" now?
https://u.ae/en/information-and-services/social-affairs/soci...
Allow me to be surprised by your surprise - take a look at this site's domain name!
This is a web site that originated from (and which still has deep roots in) the American tech startup scene - so of course many users are of the "move fast and break things" mindset. Regulation is anathema to this culture as it slows down tech progress / profits.
I read a lot of these discussion and I almost never come across any anarcho-capitalists. Are maybe mixing this up with people who like markets in general? In terms of this debate about charging points and software updates it hardly makes a difference.
Also, its totally disingenuous to only talk about one side of this from an actual market perspective. These big companies make massive use of the legal system to protect themselves, protection that they wouldn't have.
ARM couldn't protect its ISA, any company could make chips. You could reverse engineer the specific Apple chip and build it exactly the same. You could make the device and sell it with Apple software on it. Apple couldn't project its proprietary charger with patent and copyright law for example.
Apple depends on a global system of agree on laws and enforced copy right and patent protection along with many other such aspects legal systems and the modern world. Apple would require and extremely complex arrangement of trade secrets to get even close to what they have now.
Look at how much the Soviets simply took over and copied, or China during its rise. Its a fundamentally different game if you are not required to follow the law of the place where the cooperation is from.
You would but 100% of the burden on the devices protecting themselves, something that is only recently becoming routine and still isn't a thing for chargers for example.
You can't just look at the current world, imagine it as fundamentally the same and then change one thing. The whole way modern cooperation's are design simply wouldn't be possible in the same way.
Such system are therefore fundamentally theoretical, so arguing about such system is quite difficult. Legal and economic systems can't just be pulled from nothing, there needs to be some historical and institutional development that backs it up. Different visions of how such a system would work and would be structured have been considered.
A more interesting question is in the current system we actually have. The government should get involved in these things. You can just make that argument for that specifically instead of saying 'checkmate anarcho-capitalists and patting yourself on the back'. Just like its idiotic for people to say 'checkmate communist' anytime any publicly owned train company makes some insanely idiotic decision.
> I get the aversion to taxation on a primal level, but surely nobody with any work and life experience can believe in that, right?
The US government in the last 25 years got involved in many wars killing millions of people. Its also using a lot of its power to prevent housing construction that leads a massive housing shortage. And uses its power to systematically deprive the people of Iran from basic goods.
I think its unfair to paint anybody who thinks about these ideas as 'simply doesn't like taxes' as if that is the only reason why anybody would consider forms of anarchism.
But I grant you that most people are less interested in a fundamental argument and its intellectual underpinnings, if you try to have broad libertarian movement just screaming 'no guns laws, legal weed and no taxes' seems more effective. And why such movements end up not being intellectually 'pure'. Communist history know a thing or to about easy slogans and trying to build a 'pure' political base.
Why not use one of the many EU mastodon instances, with Maemo and exclusively open source and EU tech?
Huge access to two oceans (basically can't ever be blockaded - not reproducible by say, Germany), massive amount of raw resources (probably only outdone by Russia - not reproducible by, for example, Japan), huge population (#3 in the world - not reproducible by, for example, Switzerland).
The US has a large well educated middle class, which is probably it's greatest independent achievement, but let's not forget that other countries just couldn't do what the US did, due to factors outside their control.
Germany could become hyper capitalistic tomorrow and it still couldn't frack its way to oil and gas independence. Or produce food for 300 million people if it integrated that many immigrants.
I wouldn't just pat myself on the back as an American. Not everything is a factor of what Americans themselves did.
On top of that, to put it in neutral terms, not everything given by the US is a net plus. The US invented the transistor but it also invented spam and selling private data.
> huge population (#3 in the world - not reproducible by, for example, Switzerland)
We are getting immigration, just give us time, we will catch up anytime now.
> Germany could become hyper capitalistic tomorrow and it still couldn't frack its way to oil and gas independence. Or produce food for 300 million people if it integrated that many immigrants.
Actually they could. Because there is plenty of Thorium. And if you have good nuclear and chemical engineering in Thorium there is absolutely no reason why you couldn't be 100% energy independent. Its not even that difficult I would argue, all the necessary technology has existed for 40+ years. It just requires long term sustained investment.
France made itself independent of carbon based energy in its electricity sector within less then 20 years. And if they had just continued to push on that, 20 more years could have replaced all other uses of carbon power. They just didn't.
Replace heat production with electric heaters and heat pumps.
Electric cars wouldn't have been ready, but using high-temperature nuclear reactors to create chemical fuel is totally possible and pretty efficient when operating on large scale. Regulation to require cars to be able to operate with 80% methanol isn't that hard and most engines can handle that.
Like not as cheap as Saudi oil. But with lots of follow on benefits from local investment. Being the most advanced country terms of nuclear engineering and green fuel production. Like well position for other chemical and nuclear advances.
Fracking isn't the only way to energy independence.
> Or produce food for 300 million people if it integrated that many immigrants.
Food is something you can import, and Germany can import if from many different areas. Its hard to blockade Germany. It basically needs two other Great powers to be against them, and that only happens if they are trying to be expansionist.
> also invented spam and selling private data.
That is certainty not true.
You mean the colonies? That wasn't really sustainable, notice how everyone decolonized regardless of their status after WW2, except for Russia, whose colonies were adjacent to the heartland and much more sparsely populated.
The German heartland was much smaller than the continental US is: 540k sqm versus 8 million sqkm for the continental US.
Population wise, similar situation: 70 million people Imperial Germany versus 100 million for the US. And due to their much smaller size, Imperial Germany for sure couldn't have scaled to 350 million people, which is where the US is in 2024.
For the rest of the comment, you're focusing just on energy. Oil and gas are used for everything. Materials, medicine, etc.
Also, relying on food imports for potentially hundreds of millions of people is stupid. That's how you end up with people starving at the first major catastrophe.
Germany didn't have colonies worth mentioning.
Germany had a population going on 68 million while the US had a population of 92 million. That is pretty close. Much, much, much closer then the US is to current China.
Germany didn't have as much growth opportunity as the US but they would be one of the most densely populated most urban countries in the world.
> The German heartland was much smaller than the continental US is: 540k sqm versus 8 million sqkm for the continental US.
Lets be real here, this doesn't matter. The waste amount of economic power does not come from the empty land in the middle.
Yes producing a lot of corn is nice, but its not actually that important.
Germany had a much more important thing, developed trade power near by. I rather have Nordics close then Iowa.
And being denser actually helps in many way, better for trains and transportation. Its much easier to turn the country into a tightly integrated economic unit, specially before mass air travel.
> Imperial Germany for sure couldn't have scaled to 350 million people, which is where the US is in 2024.
Population isn't the end all be all of global power projection. It matters of course. But Germany with say 150-200 million people and non of the world wars would be a very powerful.
Additionally it was already pretty clear around 1914 that Germany would start to lead some sort of European block. Austria-Hungary was basically a German satellite already, this would have just become tighter. Together they have more population then the US.
Sweden and Denmark were strongly in the German economic orbit to. Forming some sort of economic central European block would have been inevitable.
> For the rest of the comment, you're focusing just on energy. Oil and gas are used for everything. Materials, medicine, etc.
As I pointed out, energy can be converted to chemical energy and with high temperature nuclear the process could be quite efficient and cheap as well. Nuclear becomes quite efficient when you mass produce reactors, as the fuel cost is basically zero. You have higher investment cost for a reactor and chemical plant then for a derrick and a refinery to be sure. But that is an investment worth making.
Germany today has a powerful chemical industry even without having their own supply. Doing this would give you very powerful chemical processing industry. And it would make you the globally best power in nuclear innovations (things like medical isotopes, nuclear batteries, nuclear satellites and so on).
Not to mention going the nuclear and electric route would be a major benefit for the health of the population. Going away from oil and coal quite would be a major economic benefit.
The initial investment is bigger, but the long term payoff is way better. And Germany certainty would have had the ability to do that level of investment (again, even Post-WW2 France managed about 1/3 of it and they stopped for political reasons).
> Also, relying on food imports for potentially hundreds of millions of people is stupid. That's how you end up with people starving at the first major catastrophe.
Imperial Germany had a lot of further potential in terms of food production if they really wanted to push it. But in my opinion its not actually that big a deal. The claim that people will starve the first major catastrophe simply doesn't line up with reality.
Unless you are in a war, with multiple super powers at the same time (really only Russia and Britain/US), there is essentially 0 scenarios where a rich developed country can run out of food. Specially one like Germany that has excellent access to Atlanic and Eurasian trade networks.
Germany in the absence of being an really dumb political actor would have been a major global power. Maybe not quite on the US level but certainty the US could never have influenced Europe in the same way they did after WW2. And Germany would have been strong enough to continually counter balance Russia. Imperial Russia had a much, much worse long term growth perspective.
You cannot be a long term world power without abundant natural resources of almost every type. Having lots of smart and rich people obviously puts you in a good position, but we're arguing about being #1-2 in the world, not #20.
The US has been playing on easy mode since 1820.
> I rather have Nordics close then Iowa.
Iowa GDP per capita: 78k.
Nordics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries) combined and averaged: 66k.
Also for the hypothetical German-led union, the EU, after 70 years of efforts, is still a weak confederation. It's weaker than even the original US based on the Articles of Confederation.
[1]
Based on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_mineral_...
Coal: US #4, Germany #8.
Gas: US #1, Germany #50.
Oil: US #1, Germany, #54.
Uranium: US #15, Germany N/A.
Thorium: US #5, Germany N/A.
Aluminium: US #9, Germany #17.
Copper: US #5, Germany N/A.
Gold: US #5, Germany N/A.
Iron ore: US #9, Germany N/A.
Nickel: US #9, Germany N/A.
Lithium: US #5, Germany N/A.
Palladium: US #4, Germany N/A.
Platinum: US #4, Germany N/A.
Rinse and repeat for most resources out there: US usually top 5-10, Germany nowhere to be found.
Claiming that natural resources are fundamental limiter to growth just isn't accurate. Market access and innovation is far more important.
Thorium is unlimited in both countries so energy isn't a resource problem.
The reality is, housing policy is far more important for success then aluminum deposits.
> You cannot be a long term world power without abundant natural resources of almost every type.
That is just false. The growth of most of the western world is not based on its own mining. Japan also wasn't very mining heavy. China growth hasn't come from its own energy resources.
That a completely regressive idea. Having access to a broad reliable supply is what actually matters matters.
Modern Germany doesn't need to mine its own stuff to be rich and have reliable inputs. Having reliable access to Sweden is more important then having Iron ore deposits.
The reality is when world power were replaced, it was almost always by countries with larger populations. Germany overtook Britain because Germany had more population. US overtook Germany because of population. China is gone overtake the US because of population.
If Britain wasn't replaced by Germany because Germany had more resources. Arguably Germany had less then the British Empire.
Having a large population economically integrated as close to the peak of technological progress with reliable market access has always been how great power replaced each other. By that metric Imperial Germany would be smaller then the US (depending on its immigration policy) but not by a huge margin.
> Coal: US #4, Germany #8.
That's not a good thing. Coal is literally bad for your society by any objective matter. At least in the last 60 years.
> Gas: US #1, Germany #50.
Focusing on gas over nuclear is making your society worse, its basically the coal of the last 50 years.
> Uranium: US #15, Germany N/A.
> Thorium: US #5, Germany N/A.
Plenty is available.
Don't even get me started how they started using one individual incident about privacy to instantly say "well you know Apple with their garbage excuses might be right since this one individual incident showed the EU is evil!"
It's really ridiculous, imagine being Apple and knowing that all it takes is to pay off one politician to propose a really dumb and intrusive law to discourage an entire movement pro user control and choice.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0303...
It's more likely a sign that whatever OEM they decided to use this time just went in a slightly different direction because it made things easier for them, or they are aiming for the enterprise market that Dell and Lenovo occupy (and where things like "FRU replacement" manuals and labeled screws are still the norm.) MS has lobbied heavily against RtR in the past and I don't think that's changed.
Even Lenovo is improving repairability, https://www.androidauthority.com/easily-upgradeable-laptops-...
Either way, past Surface may not predict future Surface.
I’m guessing that part of staying on top of EU enterprise in general is being EU compliant, it’s a lesson AWS quickly learned from Microsoft as their support area went from Google to Microsoft in like half a year as they realized it was the only way to get in on all those billions.
Google's Workspace or whatever they call it this week. It's not really better than Microsoft in any aspect, but covers enough features and is familiar enough (most people probably had a Gmail at some point) to everyone.
With Google, that's just Tuesday.
With Google there is no difference if you’re spending $100 or a hundred million a year. You still get to talk to the same chatbot. Except for Google education which is ok.
Not that it really matters that much as Google likely wouldn’t be a realistic choice for anything because of how tough the EU legislation is on keeping data within the EU. I think AWS is still the only giant US tech company which is compliant with only having EU citizens work support on the infrastructure of EU customers. Well, Microsoft has probably caught up, but if they have it’s taken them a long time to do so.
Personally I think it’s a little sad Google can’t seem to get it right for EU enterprise because their education suite is actually very affordable and easy to use for EU schools. But despite it being the one area of Google where they seemed to understand how to actually sell it to EU enterprise, it’s still having major issues over privacy concerns as the advertisement part of their company just can’t stay away.
I’ll have to adopt my comments in the future. It only took them like 5 years, but they got there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Surface/comments/1dkxtb8/wsl2_and_d...
Sure it’s not the exact same thing but it’s also not “not at all the same thing” if your goal is to run Linux tools on your computer.
It is.
4/10 for MacBook Pro 14" Late 2023 (M3 Pro and M3 Max):
https://www.ifixit.com/Device/MacBook_Pro_14%22_Late_2023_%2...
I'm honestly surprised. Expected lower score for M3.
I'd argue that this was a cheap business decision to make. Keep the price gouging on parts, while satisfying regulators on "right to repair", and even get some free marketing from iFixit.
It only takes one part to break for you to have to buy an entire new device.
https://www.ifixit.com/News/96162/were-ending-our-samsung-co...
How much does a new keyboard cost?
What altenative would you like to see?
Is there a single laptop on the market that's different in that sense? Even Framework only supports swapping entire mainboard. Even then -- we have yet to see for how long they'll be releasing updates for the current form factor.
Being able to repair is up there with recall/copilot being off-by-default as a cool feature though.
NPUs are able to do more than Recall and Bing search. Don't fall for Microsoft marketing.
It's even worse since the mindset of describing and writing in such a way is not within the same headspace as the technical portion, so by the end I'm only more tired from having to switch gears too much.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/microsoft-removes-do...
I'm mostly a linux user, but the idea of having to sync with a stupid cloud account to use a commercial OS is kinda how things work these days. Don't you even have to do that dumb stuff for things like Photoshop now?
If so, singling out MSFT as some egregious malcontent for this sounds more like salacious headlines
Tech is either leaders or followers. Everyone is doing touchscreen cars or laptops without ports or phones with a bunch of things I didn't want. It's a problem, sure, but saying HTC, Hyundai, or Microsoft, in this instance, is particularly uniquely evil for following a trend sounds pretty hyperbolic
And this is MS changing the behaviour of their product over time.
They didn't use to be this evil. Now they are. That's comment worthy.
Nope. On macOS, iOS and Android I can opt out and stay opted out. Microsoft is being by far the worst of the lot by silently opting people in.
Even in cases where other OSes do commonly misbehave, Microsoft puts them to shame. I think I had one popup about storing things on iCloud when I set up this MacBook. My Pixel phone rarely sends notifications about features I might have missed, but it's possible to shut those off with a single switch. But on my Windows laptop, Teams insists on launching in the foreground on every boot and OneDrive slides into my notification drawer on a daily basis.
> Windows does not force you to use the online account to access all the features of your computer
With current Windows (11 23h2) you have to know the correct incantation to be able to create a local-only account. Is it technically possible to not have a cloud account? I suppose it still is, just the same as you can technically install it on an older CPU with no TPM. Is it something Joe RandomUser will be able to figure out on his own? I doubt it. So in Windows-land, the situation is much closer to "you can't use your pc at all without a cloud account".
Windows is far more lenient there, it's a flag in Rufus and you're good. Meanwhile your iPhone becomes a dumb phone if you don't want to make an iCloud account.
Android of course also just let's you install apks.
Fair enough. I wonder if this has changed with the new EU regulations, at least inside the EU.
That's because we have a duopoly in phone operating systems.
> minimally technically savvy users can still create local-only accounts
On Windows 11? Can they still? I tried setting up a windows 11 arm VM recently and I couldn't find a working way to use a local account. Yes there are tutorials, but i think everyone at Microsoft is working overtime to invalidate them all.
Last time I checked, AOSP based phones as well as Samsung's and Google's lineup as well as iPhones can be installed without an online account just fine and everything works, the only thing that doesn't work is the Find My stuff, it obviously requires an account on either platforms.
You do need an Internet connection of some sorts during setup though, because iCloud Lock/Samsung Knox was the only way to get theft and robberies under control.
> Windows does not force you to use the online account to access all the features of your computer
Unless you know about the OOBE\BYPASSNRO trick, you literally cannot proceed in setting up Windows 11 at all.
Just what on earth are the beancounters smoking over there in Redmond?
However, on Windows, Microsoft is removing every workaround they can find to create a local-only account. It used to be a skip button. Then it used to be unplugging the network cord. For a while it was a magic email address. I believe that trick no longer works, although it did for me the last time I set up a new Windows install. But now, as far as I know, there is no way to create a local account during setup, you have to create an account, then convert it to a local account later.
And that still leaves dark pattern upgrades, OS-level third party ads, privacy nightmares, and unmatched first party ads. MSFT is not the good guy in the ecosystem. Never has been. They're not illegally curbstomping their competition anymore, sure, they've redirected their energy at enshittifying their OS.
Your second comment: OK, M$ is evil but look at those other evils...
They pillaged and burned the competition in the 80s and 90s, legendary stuff.
Now what? They have a cloud login like everyone else?
Well ok!
MS is undeniably the bad one of the 3 currently.
Not just for new ones.
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9nblggh2j19w?rtc=1&hl=en-u...
Those who don't like their direction should just switch to a different OS.
Cloud integration brings features which customers want. Customers still can't even be trusted to back up their own data. Customers don't want to upgrade their OS because they don't fully value the huge number of advancements that come with major revisions.
I got something like 7-10 licenses for windows 7 via a student program when I was in undergrad. Literally haven't paid for a single windows license in over a decade because the upgrades are free and transferable to new hardware in many cases.
This is not the outcome one would expect if msft was anti-user. Think about it.
More spyware? Reduced hardware support for no good reason in case of Windows 11?
Not anymore. Now that you will have to pay for the OS, maybe you will think your consumer rights more. It wasn't a charity.
They may not be strong arming OEMs any more, so they spy on their users and force upgrade them now.
I get a full screen ad for windows 11 on my windows 10 pc at least once per week when i boot. With the mouse conveniently positioned on 'upgrade now'.
And say, is anyone sure they stopped strong arming OEMs?
She's got back and other physical problems, so she wanted something very light. A lot of the decisions I understood to make it a tiny laptop. But putting the battery connector on the back of the motherboard rather than the front, or having a connector in the cable, that was just mean.
also iirc their scores are determined by committee rather than a single individual
Got a surface pro last year, shipped with Windows 11 pro. Worked for one week, then an upgrade broke the graphics. Uninstall of the update made thing worse. Factory reset failed too. Eventually had to clean wipe and install Windows 10. Then I had to try all my keyboards/thumb drives etc as it's either this or that did not work with it and there were not enough port to plug in all the things I need at the same time. The only thing worse than that was over 10 years ago when I was playing with different Linux distributions.
Enough is enough. I guess my next device will be shipped with Linux.
For that matter, how could they possibly push an update that breaks said repairability? It's not like a software upgrade can fuse the battery door to the bottom of the laptop.