GrapheneOS

John Ternus, Apple's SVP of Hardware Engineering, explains why Apple deliberately made the iPhone harder to repair, and why the math says it was worth it: In a conversation with MKBHD, John frames the design challenge by asking you to imagine two extremes: "Sometimes for me I find it helpful to kind of think about the book ends. Like if you imagine a product that never fails, right? That just doesn't fail. And on the other end, a product that maybe isn't very reliable but is super easy to repair." His position is clear: "Product that never fails is obviously better for the customer. It's better for the environment." When pushed on whether infinite repairability and infinite durability have to be mutually exclusive, John acknowledges they aren't always, but explains why the tension is real, using the iPhone battery as an example. Batteries wear out. If you want to extend the life of the product, they need to be replaced. But in the early days of iPhone, one of the most common failures wasn't the battery, it was water: "Where you drop it in the pool or you, you know, spill your drink on it and the unit fails. And so, we've been making strides over all those years to get better and better and better in terms of minimizing those failures." That work led Apple to an IP68 rating, the point where customers fish their phones out of lakes after two weeks and find them still working. But there was a cost to achieving that level of durability: "To get the product there, you've got to design a lot of seals, adhesives, other things to make it perform that way, which makes it a little harder to do that battery repair." That's the deliberate tradeoff. Apple chose tighter seals and stronger adhesives, knowing it would make battery replacement more difficult, because the reliability gains were worth it. John argues the math backs this decision: "It's objectively better for the customer to have that reliability and it's ultimately better for the planet because the failure rates since we got to that point have just dropped. It's plummeted, right? The number of repairs that need to happen and every time you're doing a repair, you're bringing in new materials to replace whatever broke." His conclusion reframes the entire repairability debate: "You can actually do the math and figure out there's a threshold at which if I can make it this durable, then it's better to have it a little bit harder to repair because it's going to net out."

Gaël Duval is the founder and president of the /e/ foundation along with the CEO of Murena. Duval and his organizations have consistently taken a stance against protecting users from exploits. In this video, he once again claims protecting against exploits is for only useful pedophiles and spies. Translation to English: > There's the attack surface, on that front we're not security specialists here, so I couldn't answer you precisely, but from the discussions I've had, it seems that everything we do reduces attack surface. However, we don't have a "hardened security" approach, we aren't developing a phone for pedo(censored) so they can evade justice. So there aren't difficult things to check if the memory is corrupted, really hardened security stuff that could clearly be useful for executives, in the secret service, or whatever. That's not our goal, our goal is to start from an observation: today our personal data is constantly being plundered and that wouldn't be legal in real life with the mail or the telephone, we want to change that. So we are making you a product that changes that by default for anyone. Transcription in French: > Il y a la surface d'attaque, là pour le coup on est pas des spécialistes de la sécurité, donc je ne pourrais pas te répondre avec précision, mais des discussions que j'ai eu, il semblerait que tout ce qu'on fait, ça réduit la surface d'attaque. Donc oui, probablement ça aide. Par contre, on a pas une approche "sécurité durcie", on développe pas un téléphone pour les pédo(bip) pour qu'ils puissent échapper à la justice. Donc il y a pas des trucs pas possibles pour voir si la mémoire est pas corrompue, des trucs de sécu vraiment durcis qui pourraient être utiles clairement pour des dirigeants, dans les services secrets ou que sais-je. C'est pas notre but, notre but c'est de partir d'un constat, aujourd'hui nos données personnelles sont pillées en permanence et ça serait pas légal dans la vraie vie avec le courrier ou le téléphone, on veut changer ça. Donc on vous fait un produit qui change ça par défaut pour n'importe quelle personne.