Example with a context (The Object-Oriented Thought Process by Matt Weisfeld, 3rd Edition):
We see this all the time when using a cell phone.To make a call, the interface is simple—we dial a number. Yet, if the provider changes equipment, they don’t change the way you make a call. The interface stays the same regardless of how the implementation changes. Actually, I can think of one situation when the provider did change the interface—when my area code changed. Fundamental interface changes, like an area code change, do require the users to change behavior. Businesses try to keep these types of changes to a minimum, for some customers will not like the change or perhaps not put up with the hassle.
As far as I know, for is a very old-fashioned way to say because (this type of for is often found in the King James Bible) which is what most English-speaking people nowadays use to mean that something happened for a certain reason and then they explain what that reason was. I have really never heard in real conversation anyone say for to mean because. And it actually makes perfect sense. For one thing, for has been firmly established as a function word that indicates purpose whereas because means for the reason that. Mixing the two up in daily language can make people give you strange looks. You don't say:
I didn't go to school today for I felt ill.
That would probably sound weird. You say instead:
I didn't go to school today because I felt ill.
So, my question is why do some authors tend to use for when they could simply use because which nobody would have a problem understanding? To me, it sounds like this kind of usage of for in place of because is absolutely unwarranted, although I can imagine somebody using for like that if they were writing a play where the scene took place in medieval England and they wanted to give their language a certain archaic feel.