> And driving up the cost of repairs.

Yes, but Apple provides low-cost replacement parts. Like the cost of an iphone battery via apple store or apple self-service is objectively reasonable, so yeah, you can't use amazon batteries and who cares?

> If I want to turn off the thing that bricks the identification features, there's no technical reason why I shouldn't be able to do that

The reason is because it encourages the resale of stolen goods, which encourages the theft of goods.

"Why shouldn't my dollars do what I tell them to, they're paper in MY wallet" well if what you're telling them to do is buy a hot stereo out of the back of a truck, that's illegal and society is going to discourage that because we don't want our stereo to be stolen next. And stereos are going to be built with things (like serial numbers) that help prevent that. Even if you feel that infringes your privacy (serials are the root of all this tracking after all!) tough shit.

That's always the problem, the people complaining pick out specific elements and whine about that one thing being unfair and ignore that they're specific elements of an overall system that includes elements to compensate the unfair parts.

Yes, iphones will only accept signed parts because that discourages theft, because the phone can't be stripped and sold as parts. And then Apple provides subsidized services (their service division runs at a loss) for people who want repair service, and at-cost OEM parts to anyone who wants to service their own phone. That's also why you have to buy parts individually - because they have to be paired to the phone. Yes, this is inconvenient for third-party service vendors who can't just keep a backroom of parts, but it's not infeasible, they just have to have users order their own parts. This is not John Deere where nobody but techs can even order parts, everyone can, they just don't want to have to.

The big-picture e-waste and service picture of iphones is completely fair overall for consumers. It's less fair for servicemen who have to deal with subsidized services and OEM parts being sold at-cost and losing revenue on selling those parts (rossman is not selling you a screen at-cost), but, that's what auto service centers had to learn to live with when RockAuto showed up in the picture too. And none of that is bad for consumers.

If you're just making a moral stand that you have a god-given right to put a $20 battery in your phone every 6 months instead of a $40 battery every 2 years, and you think that justifies unwinding anti-theft provisions and increasing e-waste to do it... just use the repair/service chains from the vendor like a normal human being, buddy. In the meantime we can all enjoy not having our phones stolen and stripped.

Or maybe a better analogy is removing immobilizers from cars. I have a god-given right to just have a normal metal key without needing to take it into the dealer to get it programmed, right? It's my car, why should I have to pay the manufacturer just to replace a $2 metal key? But in aggregate we're all better off not having well-developed criminal networks built around stealing and stripping cars... so people have just learned that they need to keep at least 2 spare keys at all times to program the immobilizer if they lose one, or else you'll have to take it in to a dealer and have the key programmed. It's just not that big a deal to most people, and actually the opposite is true - not having your car stolen is actually a huge deal to them.

Could you build a car without an immobilizer? Sure. Would it be more expensive to insure? Yes. Does anybody actually want that, apart from a few weirdos? No.