You know, I can't think of a concrete example of that, when pressed, so it is possible this was just something repeated to me by coworkers and friends doing Apple apologia, and I just treated it as a truth. A quick Google doesn't appear to show Apple or any other corporation saying it, so I'll take the L on it.

I think my overall point still stands. I still find it irritating that, until very recently, the only way to get a nice, slim laptop was to accept that everything is hard-wired in. Framework proved that that's not correct.

Your experience matches my own. I haven't heard it from a company but there are definitely Apple zealots/shills who would say that in threads about right to repair.

Yeah, sort of this strange Mandela effect thing I guess; I have a distinct memory of reading an official statement with Apple or Samsung claiming that that was the reason, but that statement does not appear to exist, and it seems like the most likely reason is because my brain just incorrectly extrapolated that memory from stuff non-Apple-non-Samsung folks were saying.

FWIW, I also remember this claim being made, but yes, it may have just been Apple apologists in comments, or perhaps Apple wrt the iPhone battery, ages ago.

You don't need a direct quote proving it. They just do it.

I can't find a quote from Apple, but here's a 2012 article by Kyle Weins (iFixit CEO) basically claiming that's the reason

https://www.wired.com/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa/

> Kyle Weins (iFixit CEO) basically claiming that's the reason

I.e. The last person who can be trusted to report on Apple’s motivations.

It’s an absurd explanation. Some obvious other factors are:

1. The idea that a modular chassis is less robust over time. Not that it can’t be made, but that if you make millions of them, vastly more of them will have problems because of all the connectors etc.

We don’t have any data on the framework. Perhaps they’ll prove this to be a misplaced fear, but it’s also possible that framework laptops in aggregate will need more repairs because of the extra complexity.

2. Limited hardware profiles are easier to support with software. If users can create limitless combinations, it becomes much harder to test. This isn’t an issue for the typical Linux user who can do their own homework and fix their own issues, but it’s a deal breaker for someone who just wants to buy a computer and get work done.

iFixit has repairability scores for products. Eg this Surface gets a 1 out of 10 because MS used adhesives among other problems. They traded off repairability for thermal, rigidity, and mechanical concerns.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Microsoft+Surface+Go+Teardow...

Many companies do heavily promote the thinness of their device on launch. How many of them also say that it is thin and customizable? (And customisable doesn't mean choosing between 8 gb of soldered ram vs 16 gb of soldered ram). There's your answer.

Do you have an example of a corporation that makes laptops that says it’s possible?