It's possible that Apple could whitelist the CPU in the BIOS so that the system does not boot if you replace the CPU with one that isn't "approved."
- OSX is only available on relatively expensive Apple hardware because Apple sets (high) minimum standards on quality and "official" OSX on shitty hardware would pollute the brand.
- iOS apps are sandboxed and the App Store is curated to protect users from scammy/spammy/malicious apps.
- OSX enforces code signing, again, to protect users from malware. It can be switched off by users who demonstrate clear intent and understanding of the consequences.
- Parts that are non-user-serviceable are usually that way to achieve smaller form factor and higher capacities. The reason for non-user-serviceable batteries, for example, is that batteries are bags of dangerous chemicals inside of heavy and thick protective cases. Making the entire laptop the "case" for the battery lets them get larger batteries in less space and weight. That it cannot be safely removed by a nontechnical user is a side-effect.
Your comment attributes a sort of "inverse FSF" religious sentiment to Apple, as if they make things closed and locked down just for the hell of it, because they believe in closedness the way Stallman believes in freedom.
Reality indicates that most of their restrictions are about protecting users who don't know better.... you're not going to "accidentally" replace your CPU. There's no legitimate problem that would be solved by whitelisting processors. Could they do it? Yes, but only if they exhibited some sort of fanatic obsession with preventing users from achieving what they want even when it serves no other purpose. Which would be stupid. Hence, it's as likely as Microsoft being run by lizard people :).
Apple segment their product range just like any sensible company. There's a range of products that increase in power, and in profit margin. People who can afford to buy the highest end products end up paying over the odds, because they're usually the least sensitive to price.
This doesn't mean that Apple is about user experience. Frankly, that's hogwash. They're about corporate profit, in the medium term. And if people end up buying lower end devices and upgrading it themselves, I can easily see them seeing this as a lost profit opportunity, and doing something like whitelisting. It's little different than Intel eventually getting around to locking down frequency multipliers, and selling unlocked chips at a premium.
FWIW, it wasn't the tiniest slimmest computer available, and I already had a lighter PC laptop that also had a DVD drive (Toshiba Portege). It was one of the lighter options that ran OS X, but only a handful do by design. If I could have gotten something slightly bigger, lighter and with more upgradeable components, I would have. But Apple didn't sell it.
In any case, this is missing the point. You're reacting to what you perceive as my griping. But I'm not actually griping. My point is that Apple is motivated by profit, and divides the hardware they produce with market segmentation. If they get the segmentation wrong, or if there is a bunch more profit that can be extracted by segmenting it differently, they'll extract it, like any company should. Limited hardware expandability is a part of that segmentation, as it reduces the bleed of low-margin parts into high-margin segments.
Of course Apple doesn't have a big incentive to add such ports, but the fact that they've left them on the desktop Macs and the non-retina (and bulkier) MacBooks are an indication that it's not primarily a business decision, but more likely a design decision.
There's barely enough room on there for an upgradeable SSD.
Until they make a standard DDR3 socket that's smaller, there's simply no way to fit removable memory into a computer that thin.
Remember, Macbooks used to have user serviceable memory and replaceable batteries. They also used to be 5 pounds for the 13.3". You think an appreciable percentage of people upgraded their memory back then? If not, how could Apple increase their service revenue by getting rid of a feature very few people used to begin with?
Perhaps Apple drive away buyers like me? Hell, even the mac mini I bought was next to impossible to upgrade. AFAICT, Apple make user-hostile hardware. It's no small part of the reason why I try to avoid Apple products unless the market, or my job, forces me not to.
You might not accidentally replace your CPU, but you might take up an offer from an unauthorized computer repair shop to upgrade the CPU in your Mac. Obviously they wouldn't care so much about you replacing the CPU yourself, but if you're paying money to a third party, Apple would be losing business, because Apple makes money on support and service plans. Apple would also make more money when users purchase a whole brand new Mac with a better processor, as opposed to simply purchasing a CPU upgrade for their existing Mac. Would it not therefore be in Apple's interest to consider some means of disabling unauthorized CPU upgrades? That would not be "making things closed and locked down just for the hell of it" - making things closed and locked down just happens to be a very effective business strategy.
Dell certainly don't use whitelisting, I've changed innumerable wifi and 3G cards in Dell Latitude and Vostro laptops over the years without problems. And few of them were Dell-branded versions.
So how come only two vendors have problems with the FCC?