Apple expands parts access to more independent repair businesses(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple expands parts access to more independent repair businesses
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/08/apple-offers-customers-even-more-options-for-safe-reliable-repairs/
252 comments
Well, just to provide my anecdotal experience with aftermarket repairs, I got my cracked iphone screen replaced at a local shop. They offer a "lifetime warranty" which in practice just means they have thus far installed four replacement parts, each of which has been faulty in a different fun way that doesn't become apparent until after I leave the shop. There is good reason for "certified replacement part" programs, especially in this industry, and customers will seek them out.
I had an iPhone 5s that I took to a local repair shop four times for a screen that was separating from the chassis. Four times they replaced the screen and within a week it started happening again.
I fully support independent repair shops but I am willing to pay more for a quality job. Right now since Apple doesn’t certify third party repair shops, there’s just no way of knowing.
I fully support independent repair shops but I am willing to pay more for a quality job. Right now since Apple doesn’t certify third party repair shops, there’s just no way of knowing.
>Apple doesn’t certify third party repair shops
That's exactly what the AASP program is.
That's exactly what the AASP program is.
> Apple doesn’t certify third party repair shops, there’s just no way of knowing.
Isnt that like a car mechanic, there are good ones and there are bad ones, you need to find the good one or you can go to Apple if you dont want the hassle.
Isnt that like a car mechanic, there are good ones and there are bad ones, you need to find the good one or you can go to Apple if you dont want the hassle.
Sure, the point is that - like with mechanics - you are not really-really assured that the official dealer personnel is actually "good", meaning that they follow an "official" book where there is written something like "if there is defect A, change whole sub-assembly B" (and they BTW know perefectly the procedure needed to replace sub-assembly B with a new one).
The issue is when "sub-assembly B" costs hundreds or thousands and the actual "defect A" is due to a loose connector or a cold solder (or whatever else easily repairable), the dealer will go by the book, an independent mechanic (if he/she is actually "good") will fix it for a few bucks.
Compare with the re-known cases of motherboards replaced because a connector pin was bent or similar, there are quite a few related videos by Louis Rossmann.
The issue is when "sub-assembly B" costs hundreds or thousands and the actual "defect A" is due to a loose connector or a cold solder (or whatever else easily repairable), the dealer will go by the book, an independent mechanic (if he/she is actually "good") will fix it for a few bucks.
Compare with the re-known cases of motherboards replaced because a connector pin was bent or similar, there are quite a few related videos by Louis Rossmann.
I'm also willing to pay more for quality parts. I had one of those guys that drops by wherever you are and replaces your screen. The 3rd party screen he used was crap compared to the OEM screen. White balance was wrong and I couldn't view the phone with polarized sunglasses on.
> I couldn't view the phone with polarized sunglasses on.
Same experience with $2 tempered glass screen protector I've got on yesterday. Also typing accuracy massively decreased.
Same experience with $2 tempered glass screen protector I've got on yesterday. Also typing accuracy massively decreased.
Odd, I bought the absolute cheapest one I could off eBay an didn’t have any issues.
Perhaps one or the other has other (dis)advantages. Difficult to say or compare.
This is exactly why I think it's disingenuous for people to say that Apple doesn't support "Right to Repair" laws. Apple doesn't support the current, proposed laws because they don't actually protect consumers and they aren't fair for Apple. The current laws being proposed require Apple to provide access to parts and manuals/repair guides to third parties at no cost. That means Apple has to provide the means to do this without having any say in the quality of the repairs or without being able to guarantee some kind of standard of repair.
You've pretty succinctly summarized why I'm on Apple's side for this. It's also why I hate when people bring up Louis Rossman as some kind of argument against Apple's position. The exact problem is that not everyone is as talented or capable as Louis. I'd be find if Louis was fixing my MacBook because he's shown time and again that he has the knowledge and talent. Other repair shops, though, don't necessarily have those talents or standards.
You've pretty succinctly summarized why I'm on Apple's side for this. It's also why I hate when people bring up Louis Rossman as some kind of argument against Apple's position. The exact problem is that not everyone is as talented or capable as Louis. I'd be find if Louis was fixing my MacBook because he's shown time and again that he has the knowledge and talent. Other repair shops, though, don't necessarily have those talents or standards.
Apple has a right to sell hermetic, unmaintainable boxes. They should have no say on their customers using alternative means to fix these boxes unless it wants to bind them in a contract.
And they don't. Apple does not, in any way, try to prevent people from using alternative means to fix those boxes. Please give any single example of them doing that. You can't because they don't.
DHS Seizes Aftermarket iPhone Screens From Prominent Right-to-Repair Advocate [1]
Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost [2]
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-inde...
Edit: One more - Apple & Customs STOLE my batteries, that they won't even provide to AASPs https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw
Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost [2]
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-inde...
Edit: One more - Apple & Customs STOLE my batteries, that they won't even provide to AASPs https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw
Do you know anything about any of those cases you just linked? None of them show that Apple prevented someone from trying to get their device repaired. All 3 of them are copyright issues, not having anything to do with the repair of devices.
1. DHS seized the screens from Jessa because they came from China and beared Apple logos. Apple doesn't sell any display parts so their copyright extends to the parts that bear their logo. Apple wasn't involved in seizure in any way except for holding legal protections for their products and logo. The article linked even says that she bought them from "grey market" shops in China.
2. Apple did not lose the case. That's misrepresenting what happened. The lawsuit alleged that the repair shop owner was advertising using genuine OEM Apple parts. According to the archive.org archive of their site, this is true and the archive is still up so you can see it. The court did not rule in favor of the store, it dismissed the case because it determined that the logos that would mistakenly identify the parts as "genuine" Apple parts would be on the insides of the devices and not viewable by consumers once repairs are completed. They made this ruling under the directive that the shop owner had to stop advertising as using genuine OEM Apple parts and he has since removed that language from his site. Apple is appealing the dismissal because they believe that someone seeing the Apple logo may be convinced that the parts are genuine Apple parts when they have, in fact, been replaced with inferior parts including digitizers, glass, and displays.
3. This is the same situation as the first one and, of course, you're only proving my point by linking to a Louis Rossman video. Apple didn't steal his batteries. Customs seized them because they bear Apple's logo on them but aren't actually sourced from Apple. It's a copyright and trademark issue, not a RTR issue.
The fact that you can't argue against what Apple's doing without wildly misrepresenting each of these cases is telling. If you actually read the bills being proposed, it should be obvious why they're not pro-consumer nor are they fair to companies like Apple. The main exception is John Deere who software locks all repairs and prevents machines that have been repaired by third parties from starting or being usable. Apple not only doesn't do that but they warn you when third-party components force them to disable components like Touch ID and Face ID which, in my mind, is very pro-consumer. I don't ever want there to be a chance where Touch ID or Face ID are considered genuine when there's no mechanism in place to verify that the hardware chain is still secure.
1. DHS seized the screens from Jessa because they came from China and beared Apple logos. Apple doesn't sell any display parts so their copyright extends to the parts that bear their logo. Apple wasn't involved in seizure in any way except for holding legal protections for their products and logo. The article linked even says that she bought them from "grey market" shops in China.
2. Apple did not lose the case. That's misrepresenting what happened. The lawsuit alleged that the repair shop owner was advertising using genuine OEM Apple parts. According to the archive.org archive of their site, this is true and the archive is still up so you can see it. The court did not rule in favor of the store, it dismissed the case because it determined that the logos that would mistakenly identify the parts as "genuine" Apple parts would be on the insides of the devices and not viewable by consumers once repairs are completed. They made this ruling under the directive that the shop owner had to stop advertising as using genuine OEM Apple parts and he has since removed that language from his site. Apple is appealing the dismissal because they believe that someone seeing the Apple logo may be convinced that the parts are genuine Apple parts when they have, in fact, been replaced with inferior parts including digitizers, glass, and displays.
3. This is the same situation as the first one and, of course, you're only proving my point by linking to a Louis Rossman video. Apple didn't steal his batteries. Customs seized them because they bear Apple's logo on them but aren't actually sourced from Apple. It's a copyright and trademark issue, not a RTR issue.
The fact that you can't argue against what Apple's doing without wildly misrepresenting each of these cases is telling. If you actually read the bills being proposed, it should be obvious why they're not pro-consumer nor are they fair to companies like Apple. The main exception is John Deere who software locks all repairs and prevents machines that have been repaired by third parties from starting or being usable. Apple not only doesn't do that but they warn you when third-party components force them to disable components like Touch ID and Face ID which, in my mind, is very pro-consumer. I don't ever want there to be a chance where Touch ID or Face ID are considered genuine when there's no mechanism in place to verify that the hardware chain is still secure.
Neither copyright nor trademark laws should apply if the parts are genuine Apple products. They seize without verifying.
That's not true. DHS maintains a listing of what sources Apple's genuine products come from. If they don't match upon inspection, the items are seized. Please provide a source that shows that DHS seizes items without verifying.
If they have Apple's logo on them and they're not Apple's, then they're counterfeit.
If they have Apple's logo on them and they're not Apple's, then they're counterfeit.
If I yank a bunch of Apple batteries from Apple phones, those batteries are genuine. They have Apple part numbers, Apple design, Apple-approved manufacturing. The only thing different is that Apple didn't actually sell them. The entity selling the parts cannot be the sole determinant of their authenticity.
That's not what happened, though, and I have to assume that you know that if you've even taken a casual look at any of these situations. If you take those batteries and replace a few of their cells with an inferior third party product and package them up and sell them as "Apple batteries" with the logo and everything, you'd be lying and potentially harming Apple's brand.
Apple's entire case against PCKompaniet stems from the fact that the company was refurbishing Apple displays with third-party glass and digitizers (that did not meet the original specs of their OEM parts) but was not removing the Apple logo and was advertising as using genuine Apple parts. The only reason the case was dismissed by the court was that the shop agreed to remove that language from their website and advertising and the court decided that the logo was a non-issue because, if a repair was completed with the part, the logos were on the inside of the device and the consumer never sees them. There's nothing on the outside of the part that identifies it as a genuine Apple product so, if there's no advertising suggesting that, there's nothing that would give the consumer the impression that it was a genuine Apple part.
There's a huge difference between selling a part from a phone, batteries included, without modifying it. It's a whole different animal to make changes and then claim it's the same part.
Apple's entire case against PCKompaniet stems from the fact that the company was refurbishing Apple displays with third-party glass and digitizers (that did not meet the original specs of their OEM parts) but was not removing the Apple logo and was advertising as using genuine Apple parts. The only reason the case was dismissed by the court was that the shop agreed to remove that language from their website and advertising and the court decided that the logo was a non-issue because, if a repair was completed with the part, the logos were on the inside of the device and the consumer never sees them. There's nothing on the outside of the part that identifies it as a genuine Apple product so, if there's no advertising suggesting that, there's nothing that would give the consumer the impression that it was a genuine Apple part.
There's a huge difference between selling a part from a phone, batteries included, without modifying it. It's a whole different animal to make changes and then claim it's the same part.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9bfa5834-b8dc...
This is the ruling that says that "genuine" Apple parts that have had parts replaced with inferior replacements need to scrub the Apple logo off of them or risk infringing on copyright.
This is the ruling that says that "genuine" Apple parts that have had parts replaced with inferior replacements need to scrub the Apple logo off of them or risk infringing on copyright.
Recently, your iPhone would tell you that your perfect battery that was repaired independently has "bad health."
This was because the third party batteries didn't reset the calibration. They're literally missing a sensor that sends back the all-ok to the phone. Since Apple never intended on third-party batteries, they didn't program in that scenario. It was added in an update shortly after.
You're acting like an oversight for a situation that shouldn't have happened was malicious. If third-party manufacturers had just put that sensor in the battery, it would've behaved the same way as an Apple battery.
You're acting like an oversight for a situation that shouldn't have happened was malicious. If third-party manufacturers had just put that sensor in the battery, it would've behaved the same way as an Apple battery.
> third party batteries
it happens with original batteries taken from another iphone
> literally missing a sensor
no such thing, its missing a cryptographic handshake blessing. This is a repeat of class-action lawsuit 'Error 53'
it happens with original batteries taken from another iphone
> literally missing a sensor
no such thing, its missing a cryptographic handshake blessing. This is a repeat of class-action lawsuit 'Error 53'
>its missing a cryptographic handshake blessing
No it is not. Where the heck did you pull that out of? It's a micro-controller on the battery that's tied to the phone. The micro-controller only provides the sensor on the phone that measures battery health a connection on first power. If that's what you mean by cryptographic handshake blessing then fine. It doesn't matter if the battery is original or not. The point is that the phone can't verify the health of the battery if it's not the first time the battery has been connected to something. To provide information on the battery's health that is inaccurate could be dangerous.
No it is not. Where the heck did you pull that out of? It's a micro-controller on the battery that's tied to the phone. The micro-controller only provides the sensor on the phone that measures battery health a connection on first power. If that's what you mean by cryptographic handshake blessing then fine. It doesn't matter if the battery is original or not. The point is that the phone can't verify the health of the battery if it's not the first time the battery has been connected to something. To provide information on the battery's health that is inaccurate could be dangerous.
> It doesn't matter if the battery is original or not
but in your previous post "third party batteries ... literally missing a sensor".
>The point is that the phone can't verify the health of the battery if it's not the first time the battery has been connected to something
because its not crypto paired with Gas Gauge, yet somehow every laptop one the planet has zero problem reading cycle count on multiple batteries despite battery swaps.
Do you have a family member working at Apple by any chance? :)
but in your previous post "third party batteries ... literally missing a sensor".
>The point is that the phone can't verify the health of the battery if it's not the first time the battery has been connected to something
because its not crypto paired with Gas Gauge, yet somehow every laptop one the planet has zero problem reading cycle count on multiple batteries despite battery swaps.
Do you have a family member working at Apple by any chance? :)
Are you seriously arguing that my simplification of the process somehow invalidates the point I'm making? We can go into the entire process and it wouldn't change the point at all.
It has nothing to do with crypto-pairing. And every laptop on the planet reading cycle counts means nothing when the battery health being displayed is more than just cycle counts. It's cycle counts, discharge rates, and power consumption. In order to have an accurate reading, you need history for all 3 of those things. If you start with a used battery, that history will be inaccurate.
No, I don't have any family members working at Apple and, no, I do not work at Apple either. I just absolutely hate disinformation because it's literally everywhere. People jump on the anti-Apple train with so many bits of misinformation and ignorance that it boggles my mind. Out of all the companies out there, Apple seems to be the only one that cares (or at least that pretends they care) about things like privacy, security, and sustainability and they're the only ones that take active measures around those things. I want to support companies like that so I do.
It has nothing to do with crypto-pairing. And every laptop on the planet reading cycle counts means nothing when the battery health being displayed is more than just cycle counts. It's cycle counts, discharge rates, and power consumption. In order to have an accurate reading, you need history for all 3 of those things. If you start with a used battery, that history will be inaccurate.
No, I don't have any family members working at Apple and, no, I do not work at Apple either. I just absolutely hate disinformation because it's literally everywhere. People jump on the anti-Apple train with so many bits of misinformation and ignorance that it boggles my mind. Out of all the companies out there, Apple seems to be the only one that cares (or at least that pretends they care) about things like privacy, security, and sustainability and they're the only ones that take active measures around those things. I want to support companies like that so I do.
I know this will sound like it's coming straight from 1600, but could you refer to an authority of some sorts that explains this. an expert or independent body or NPO. this could very well be similar to the net neutrality debate.
That's actually a lie. The exact wording in the Battery Health section of the iPhone Settings is:
Important Battery Message Unable to verify this iPhone has a genuine Apple battery. Health information not available for this battery.
Does that say, "Bad health?" It does not. It states the facts. And, it's true that batteries can be a risk -- for fire, for expansion, for low quality/life. If you buy a used iPhone, it isn't really a genuine iPhone if it has been repaired with bargain bin crap batteries. By informing users -- they're actually giving consumers more information so they aren't scammed by the numerous "repair" shops that do things like replacing iPhone batteries with inferior crap, then try to resell the phone as if it were completely genuine (and with the battery longevity one would expect from a new Apple battery.)
Important Battery Message Unable to verify this iPhone has a genuine Apple battery. Health information not available for this battery.
Does that say, "Bad health?" It does not. It states the facts. And, it's true that batteries can be a risk -- for fire, for expansion, for low quality/life. If you buy a used iPhone, it isn't really a genuine iPhone if it has been repaired with bargain bin crap batteries. By informing users -- they're actually giving consumers more information so they aren't scammed by the numerous "repair" shops that do things like replacing iPhone batteries with inferior crap, then try to resell the phone as if it were completely genuine (and with the battery longevity one would expect from a new Apple battery.)
Until Apple has to foot the bill when someone brings one of the broken(repaired) phones into the apple store.
Apple doesn't foot the bill.. they just refuse to support, or charge full price for the repair, they aren't losing money on this.
Umm, how does Apple foot the bill in such case? They charge exorbitant amounts to replace (not repair) parts and it was shown time and time again that they try to overcharge by replacing more than just the undamaged parts...
Auto dealers can't void a warranty due to functional third party parts. Apple can do the same. Anything broken will just be charged as a cost of repair.
Apple does do the same. You're misrepresenting what Apple is doing and what their policy is for devices with third-party repairs present.
>beginning the process today of getting at least 1-2 people at all of our locations to be certified.
so useful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6f_GUM1REg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1piWR4ZR7gE
>We now stock iPhone batteries that have larger capacity than the original. (Yes, truly a larger capacity. We do 30,000+ repairs a year...we are not messing around with batteries that just say they have a larger capacity.)
have you verified it by actually measuring? Can you show a discharge plot of such a battery new/~after a year next to Apple one? and the equipment used (constant load brand/model)? Its easy to say 'we send 30K units into the world and they seem fine'.
so useful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6f_GUM1REg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1piWR4ZR7gE
>We now stock iPhone batteries that have larger capacity than the original. (Yes, truly a larger capacity. We do 30,000+ repairs a year...we are not messing around with batteries that just say they have a larger capacity.)
have you verified it by actually measuring? Can you show a discharge plot of such a battery new/~after a year next to Apple one? and the equipment used (constant load brand/model)? Its easy to say 'we send 30K units into the world and they seem fine'.
Can't you just charge different prices for Official Apple Certified parts vs aftermarket. Should keep your profit margins the same.
Personally I’d be shocked if Apple allows an independent repair provider to provide both OEM and third party parts. Their terms are pretty broad on their application page but they explicitly state they reserve the right to cancel your access for any reason. I can’t seem to find more detailed terms, but I’m willing to bet there’s something in their terms that would prevent this.
No one knows for sure. However, Reuters says: "The program will allow independent stores to set their own prices for repairs and also offer cheaper aftermarket parts."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-repair/apple-to-sup...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-repair/apple-to-sup...
> Personally I’d be shocked if Apple allows an independent repair provider to provide both OEM and third party parts.
How exactly would they know? Just run two corporate entities out of one shop, with the grey-market one registered to a nearby PO box.
How exactly would they know? Just run two corporate entities out of one shop, with the grey-market one registered to a nearby PO box.
“Hello, how much to replace the screen on an iPhone X?”
Just because it's not easily enforceable doesn't mean shops will accept knowingly breaking their terms with Apple.
And, as mentioned in a sibling comment, there are ways to do it, like an auditor posing as a customer, or simply compelling them to say under oath if they are doing this or not (in which case the situation goes from breach of contract to lying under oath).
And, as mentioned in a sibling comment, there are ways to do it, like an auditor posing as a customer, or simply compelling them to say under oath if they are doing this or not (in which case the situation goes from breach of contract to lying under oath).
People will just continue to use non-Apple parts then no? If Apple expects customers to buy a new phone every 2 years, why would they spend a significant more amount of money for a few extra months of usage? If there is a $150 difference between an Apple screen and non-Apple screen, Im going non-Apple
> Apple expects customers to buy a new phone every 2 years
Sorry what? My iPhones last 3-4 years, but software support is for around 5 years.
Sorry what? My iPhones last 3-4 years, but software support is for around 5 years.
Yes, but what is the warranty period? I.e. how soon are you expected to pay large amounts for simple fixes.
It’s funny how people will complain specifically on Apple just because they don’t have longer than industry standard warranties.
Do you complain to your car maker of the same issue?
Or maybe do you dump your car whenever warranty wears out?
Yeah if you want to keep products longer you’ll have to deal with maintenance. Yeah it could improve but that should be an industry wide regulation not something Apple specific.
As far as I now Apple guarantee genuine parts availability for ~6 years after last sell of a product. This is way better than most. My wife once tried and failed to buy a genuine HP laptop removable battery for a 2y old product.
Do you complain to your car maker of the same issue?
Or maybe do you dump your car whenever warranty wears out?
Yeah if you want to keep products longer you’ll have to deal with maintenance. Yeah it could improve but that should be an industry wide regulation not something Apple specific.
As far as I now Apple guarantee genuine parts availability for ~6 years after last sell of a product. This is way better than most. My wife once tried and failed to buy a genuine HP laptop removable battery for a 2y old product.
> Do you complain to your car maker of the same issue?
No, because when my car fails, I've got:
- producer's repair place
- other producers' repair places (you can ask Ford too look at your Mazda, as long as no specific parts are needed)
- unaffiliated repair places which can obtain replacement parts when needed
- many people who know basic car repairs and can use common tools, because many internal car systems are designed to be taken apart and reassembled
If those are removed and the only authorised car service in 100km will tell me that to fix a trivial thing I'd have to leave the car with them for 3 weeks while the parts ship and they need to replace half the car to do it and it will cost me close to the value of the car, so maybe I want to buy a new one instead - yes! I'm definitely going to complain about "the same issue" then.
The way they count on you not repairing the device after the warranty period makes me question their short warranty as inadequate.
No, because when my car fails, I've got:
- producer's repair place
- other producers' repair places (you can ask Ford too look at your Mazda, as long as no specific parts are needed)
- unaffiliated repair places which can obtain replacement parts when needed
- many people who know basic car repairs and can use common tools, because many internal car systems are designed to be taken apart and reassembled
If those are removed and the only authorised car service in 100km will tell me that to fix a trivial thing I'd have to leave the car with them for 3 weeks while the parts ship and they need to replace half the car to do it and it will cost me close to the value of the car, so maybe I want to buy a new one instead - yes! I'm definitely going to complain about "the same issue" then.
The way they count on you not repairing the device after the warranty period makes me question their short warranty as inadequate.
its a little over two years for most but its slowly creeping up due to excessive pricing [1] [2]
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43ejej/study-smartphone-i...
[2] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/15/how-often-...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43ejej/study-smartphone-i...
[2] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/15/how-often-...
Each person might replace their phone every two years but that's not very often the end of the devices life. Some people pay a premium to have the newest device every year or every other year but then someone else uses that phone for the next 2-3 years until it actually wears out.
Slowly creeping up due to improved long term OS support?
My wife and brother are still completely happy with their iPhone 6 devices.
My wife and brother are still completely happy with their iPhone 6 devices.
No one knows for sure at this point...by reading this press release, you have as much information as we do. It's our hope that we can do that, but if people come in and pick the Apple screen, we'd like to make as much margin as we currently do on the aftermarket screens.
That sounds like a non-issue that can be solved with separate corperate entities. Bubba's phone repair and Jimbo's phone repair can both operate out of the same location owned by a third party and enter into a contract that lets them suitibly share resources. Small businesses do this kind of thing all the time. You can imagine if you have a company that does landscaping and takes down trees would want the landscaping under a different LLC to reduce costs (insurance, regulatory compliance, etc) and limit liability from the tree cutting side of the business.
> If you pay $149 to get your iPhone 8 screen replaced, but Apple charges us $135 for the screen, we can't realistically make any money off of that.
I mean, ok. Doesn't that just mean you aren't charging enough? Is apple charging you a percent of what you charge?
I mean, ok. Doesn't that just mean you aren't charging enough? Is apple charging you a percent of what you charge?
No, I'm guessing the author is referring to official Apple stores.
So in this example, an official Apple store offers a screen replacement for $149. Apple then announces they will sell official parts to independent shops. Apple will then offer an official screen for $135, leaving no room for the independent shop to make money unless the repair shop charges $170 (made-up number for example).
The benefit for Apple may be two-fold. Apple will go from having the most ridiculously overpriced repairs to being the cheapest for official parts. Apple may also then justify making it extremely difficult to use non-official parts (as they're already doing).
If you're optimistic, you can say Apple is doing this to make the customer experience better to help improve their stagnant phone sales. If you're cynical you can say it's a clever plot to eliminate independent repairs and force people to go to Apple stores.
So in this example, an official Apple store offers a screen replacement for $149. Apple then announces they will sell official parts to independent shops. Apple will then offer an official screen for $135, leaving no room for the independent shop to make money unless the repair shop charges $170 (made-up number for example).
The benefit for Apple may be two-fold. Apple will go from having the most ridiculously overpriced repairs to being the cheapest for official parts. Apple may also then justify making it extremely difficult to use non-official parts (as they're already doing).
If you're optimistic, you can say Apple is doing this to make the customer experience better to help improve their stagnant phone sales. If you're cynical you can say it's a clever plot to eliminate independent repairs and force people to go to Apple stores.
This seems weird to me because the official parts are better. If Apple was skimping out on their parts and selling them to shops at a huge premium then independent shops would have the advantage because they could repair your phone with higher quality 3rd-party parts for less.
I might just not understand the market here but why would I assume that my local repair shop would be able to offer me labor at a cheaper rate than Apple's huge repair system?
I might just not understand the market here but why would I assume that my local repair shop would be able to offer me labor at a cheaper rate than Apple's huge repair system?
Customers will prefer Apple-branded parts even if the third party parts are equally high quality. That's the ordinary value of branding -- the well known brand can command a premium for the same quality merchandise.
The issue here is that they aren't just charging the normal brand premium for the part, they're also tacking on the same premium again to account for the value of the repair service itself (even though the third party is providing that), and then a little more so that a third party repair service that wants to use Apple-branded parts would have to charge higher prices than Apple's own repair service in order to turn a profit.
The intent of the pricing isn't to maximize profits from sales to third party repair shops, it's to make them uncompetitive and push those customers to Apple's own repair services instead. It's basically a way of claiming they're making parts officially available while in practice not doing so, because they're only available at uncompetitive prices.
The issue here is that they aren't just charging the normal brand premium for the part, they're also tacking on the same premium again to account for the value of the repair service itself (even though the third party is providing that), and then a little more so that a third party repair service that wants to use Apple-branded parts would have to charge higher prices than Apple's own repair service in order to turn a profit.
The intent of the pricing isn't to maximize profits from sales to third party repair shops, it's to make them uncompetitive and push those customers to Apple's own repair services instead. It's basically a way of claiming they're making parts officially available while in practice not doing so, because they're only available at uncompetitive prices.
I generally find third party repair is less in all sorts of cases. I'd sooner take my car to a mechanic I trust than an actual Hyundai shop where they'll tell me every expensive thing needs to be replaced. Just like a car manufacturer, Apple has incentive to inflate the prices, direct and third party, to their benefit and consumer detriment.
Small repair shops are generally cheaper. They can be much more hit and miss too. Also, The aftermarket parts market is competitive.
Knowing nothing about your business, I would humbly suggest not fighting on price but on other areas like speed, quality, customer service etc. The nearest apple store to me is 20 miles away. I would rather pay more money to have it fixed in a durable way closer to home. Just my 2 cents. Take them with a big grain of salt.
I would say you are in the minority of consumers, most will just chase the lowest price.
Additionally, most people will look at third-party repair shops as a way to get a discount from Apple's prices, not to pay more.
Additionally, most people will look at third-party repair shops as a way to get a discount from Apple's prices, not to pay more.
Speed is an important factor. AASP are really really slow around here. 7 days or more to replace a battery is ridiculous when 3rd party shops can do it in 20 minutes.
If those shops would have access to the same tools and instructions as Apple, that would be great!
If those shops would have access to the same tools and instructions as Apple, that would be great!
I dropped my 7+ last week, called the local AASP to see if they had parts in stock to replace the shattered screen. It was repaired 90 minutes later. I wonder if older phones like mine are easier/faster to repair than the newer models?
More expensive screen, I suppose.
iPhone 6 and 7 (including Plus) have a repairability of 7/10. iPhone 8 (including Plus), X, XR, XS have repairability of 6/10.
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_6
[2] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_7
[3] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_8
[4] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_X
[5] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_XR
[6] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_XS
iPhone 6 and 7 (including Plus) have a repairability of 7/10. iPhone 8 (including Plus), X, XR, XS have repairability of 6/10.
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_6
[2] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_7
[3] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_8
[4] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_X
[5] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_XR
[6] https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_XS
What AASP is taking 7 days to replace a battery? We do them all day long as a premiere partner and we always set the expectation at around an hour and a half to be on the safe side.
That's the time I was told it would take at Computerwerkstatt in Linz. I think it takes so long because they mail phones to a different country for repair.
In any case, it's pretty ridiculous, and I went to a different repair shop instead.
In any case, it's pretty ridiculous, and I went to a different repair shop instead.
> If those shops would have access to the same tools and instructions as Apple, that would be great!
Why don't those shops become AASPs? There has to be a reason why they don't want to or are ineligible..
Why don't those shops become AASPs? There has to be a reason why they don't want to or are ineligible..
because AASP are not allowed to repair anything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR5ZUl0Q-NI
Your role is to send stuff to Texas to get another refurbished unit in return https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/CSAT-Solutions-Houston-Rev... and up-sell people to a bran new device by citing ridiculous cost of 'repair' (which you contractually arent allowed to do anyway, you are only allowed to replace whole units).
Your role is to send stuff to Texas to get another refurbished unit in return https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/CSAT-Solutions-Houston-Rev... and up-sell people to a bran new device by citing ridiculous cost of 'repair' (which you contractually arent allowed to do anyway, you are only allowed to replace whole units).
I've no doubt that it describes a good part of the market but we're talking about people's primary phone and computer. Having turnaround on the order to days rather than weeks because of shipping at least to me would be super valuable. Hell one of the reasons I bought my last iPhone was because the official repair process for Pixel devices was so miserable.
I'd say there are customers on both side.. I personally once had my macbook's battery replaced at a 3rd party repair shop while it is under warranty because I needed it immediately. The Apple shop required me to leave the laptop with them for close to a week while I can wait for my battery to be replaced in front of me at the 3rd party shop..
Someone just chasing the lowest price wouldn't have bought an Apple device to begin with ...
That is most certainly not a true assumption. There are quite a few people who stretch their funds to just buy an iPhone and need to penny pinch when something in it breaks. They're still a valuable market.
Normally I'd agree but having some familiarity in this area, my observation is that there is a subset of Apple users who buy Apple products who don't think about any post-purchase costs (as with many other products associated with the "higher end / luxury" image in the mind of the customer, I'd imagine).
A customer doesn't expect to be quoted >$1000 to replace a damaged screen on an iMac machine, nor do they expect to be told that their SSD can't be replaced because Apple uses their own proprietary connector [1]. Tons of legitimate things to not like about Apple particularly if you care about the right to repair your own machine. [2]
> When Apple released their first “blade” solid state drive in the Late 2010 release of the MacBook Air, they still used established mSATA interface technology, but ditched the traditional SATA and mSATA form factors found in most laptops at that time, instead opting for a custom connector that’s never been used by another manufacturer before or since. With the 2010 MacBook Air, Apple began a new trend of developing proprietary connectors and form factors that eventually pervaded the entire Apple lineup and ushered in an era of drives that, while easily replaceable, were not so easy to find.
Many people incorrectly assume the connectors are one of the M.2 variants found in many PCs, but to date, Apple has still never used a standard M.2 connector. And unlike M.2 pin arrangements, Apple’s connectors were never given distinguishing names, so from this point on I’ll just refer to the connectors by their pin arrangements as described in the image below.
[1] https://beetstech.com/blog/apple-proprietary-ssd-ultimate-gu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair
A customer doesn't expect to be quoted >$1000 to replace a damaged screen on an iMac machine, nor do they expect to be told that their SSD can't be replaced because Apple uses their own proprietary connector [1]. Tons of legitimate things to not like about Apple particularly if you care about the right to repair your own machine. [2]
> When Apple released their first “blade” solid state drive in the Late 2010 release of the MacBook Air, they still used established mSATA interface technology, but ditched the traditional SATA and mSATA form factors found in most laptops at that time, instead opting for a custom connector that’s never been used by another manufacturer before or since. With the 2010 MacBook Air, Apple began a new trend of developing proprietary connectors and form factors that eventually pervaded the entire Apple lineup and ushered in an era of drives that, while easily replaceable, were not so easy to find.
Many people incorrectly assume the connectors are one of the M.2 variants found in many PCs, but to date, Apple has still never used a standard M.2 connector. And unlike M.2 pin arrangements, Apple’s connectors were never given distinguishing names, so from this point on I’ll just refer to the connectors by their pin arrangements as described in the image below.
[1] https://beetstech.com/blog/apple-proprietary-ssd-ultimate-gu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair
> We now stock iPhone batteries that have larger capacity than the original. (Yes, truly a larger capacity. We do 30,000+ repairs a year...we are not messing around with batteries that just say they have a larger capacity.)
In light of this, you should check an absolutely bizarre legal case of Rolex vs Agarwal, where American judiciary basically said that trademark law trumps the first sale doctrine, and you have to remove all and every trademark from refurbished goods, on which any alteration is made.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9bfa5834-b8dc...
In light of this, you should check an absolutely bizarre legal case of Rolex vs Agarwal, where American judiciary basically said that trademark law trumps the first sale doctrine, and you have to remove all and every trademark from refurbished goods, on which any alteration is made.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9bfa5834-b8dc...
I feel like this is an end-run attempt to avoid right-to-repair legislation.
While I hope for the best from this program, it seems to little to late and in direct opposition of prior arguments they’ve made concerning third-party repairs and parts distribution.
I feel like this will just end up being used in court to support their side of the right-to-repair debate.
While I hope for the best from this program, it seems to little to late and in direct opposition of prior arguments they’ve made concerning third-party repairs and parts distribution.
I feel like this will just end up being used in court to support their side of the right-to-repair debate.
It could be, but it also seems to be a satisfactory compromise from all sides. Customers get independent repair services with genuine parts, repair services don't need to jump through as many hoops to be considered first-class, and Apple avoids getting attacked as much over right-to-repair laws.
Yet to be proven, and right-to-repair isn't only concerned with Apple. I'm sure farmers with John Deere tractors are also on board for these laws. They should continue demanding these laws despite any attempts at compromise.
Except it is being done at the discretion of Apple, which means they can unilaterally end it or change the terms once the pressure goes down. It also means that there is still no obligation for any other company to do likewise.
If Apple was geniune, they would do this while lobbying for right to repair legislation.
If Apple was geniune, they would do this while lobbying for right to repair legislation.
They are...
Genuine question, do you honestly not know that Apple has provided their own recommendations for RTR laws and modifications to the current proposals or are you making some other point by saying that?
Genuine question, do you honestly not know that Apple has provided their own recommendations for RTR laws and modifications to the current proposals or are you making some other point by saying that?
Link? Every time I see "Apple" and "right to repair law" in the same sentence, Apple is opposing the legislation.
This is the best I can provide, at the moment: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/19/03/28/1810247/internal-d...
Apple and its lobbyists aren't opposed to "Right to Repair" legislation, they're opposed to the currently proposed legislation because it requires them to make concessions to the process without any kind of guidance or oversight of the repairs made using the parts that they would be forced to provide. The link shows that, even prior to the Right to Repair bills proposed in most states, Apple was already developing a framework, internally, to find a way to allow third-party repair centers to repair their products while also maintaining some level of quality control. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the announcement that was made today.
Unfortunately, I can't find the link that I was actually looking for because any search for the info I'm looking for is immediately drowned out by the Vice article mentioned in the post I just linked or some blogspam that just links to it. Suffice it to say, if they were opposed to third parties repairing their products, they wouldn't have allowed the repairs previously and they wouldn't have planned something out like this for over a year and a half.
Apple and its lobbyists aren't opposed to "Right to Repair" legislation, they're opposed to the currently proposed legislation because it requires them to make concessions to the process without any kind of guidance or oversight of the repairs made using the parts that they would be forced to provide. The link shows that, even prior to the Right to Repair bills proposed in most states, Apple was already developing a framework, internally, to find a way to allow third-party repair centers to repair their products while also maintaining some level of quality control. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the announcement that was made today.
Unfortunately, I can't find the link that I was actually looking for because any search for the info I'm looking for is immediately drowned out by the Vice article mentioned in the post I just linked or some blogspam that just links to it. Suffice it to say, if they were opposed to third parties repairing their products, they wouldn't have allowed the repairs previously and they wouldn't have planned something out like this for over a year and a half.
> without any kind of guidance or oversight of the repairs made using the parts that they would be forced to provide
I may have missed calls to force Apple to sell parts. Is that actually happening? In any case, aftermarket parts exist, but Apple is intentionally annoying users with persistent messaging in their product and intentionally making their devices difficult to repair. Further, Apple often replaces devices instead of repairing. Difficult repair in not incidental to their design; they're doing it on purpose. And I wouldn't expect Apple to have oversight of an unaffiliated company. It's not their business to play regulator.
I may have missed calls to force Apple to sell parts. Is that actually happening? In any case, aftermarket parts exist, but Apple is intentionally annoying users with persistent messaging in their product and intentionally making their devices difficult to repair. Further, Apple often replaces devices instead of repairing. Difficult repair in not incidental to their design; they're doing it on purpose. And I wouldn't expect Apple to have oversight of an unaffiliated company. It's not their business to play regulator.
Apple replaces devices and then takes the old devices, disassembles them, and checks each component for issues individually. They take each phone about and literally have buckets of these components that they test. Those that pass inspection get turned back into the remanufactured assembly line where older out of warranty phones go. It's not like they're just dumping these devices that they're replacing. It's just easier to replace an entire device and then have trained pros deal with testing and repairing the components than it does to have customers wait for someone at the Genius Bar, who probably couldn't do it anyways. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, most people aren't Louis Rossman. Most people don't know how to do those kinds of repairs.
And yes, part of the bills that are being considered for a lot of these Right to Repair laws include regulations that would require Apple to sell OEM parts to third-party repair centers and that they would have to provide service manuals to them, free of cost. Apple is ok with doing that as long as they get to certify the people who get the manual to their repair standards. They're not intentionally making the devices difficult to repair. Most of the complaints that people have about their reparability have to do with their small size or software locks that, in reality, are meant to protect people's data from unauthorized access. Error 53 that everyone loves to point out as an evil Apple move was actually a software lock to prevent someone from putting a false Touch ID sensor on the device that was collecting biometric data but still relaying the lock command to the phone. Apple's security chain in that regard worked exactly as intended. They didn't expect to ever see a legitimate use for a fake Touch ID sensor but it happened when people decided that losing Touch ID was worth getting their screen repaired cheaper.
And yes, part of the bills that are being considered for a lot of these Right to Repair laws include regulations that would require Apple to sell OEM parts to third-party repair centers and that they would have to provide service manuals to them, free of cost. Apple is ok with doing that as long as they get to certify the people who get the manual to their repair standards. They're not intentionally making the devices difficult to repair. Most of the complaints that people have about their reparability have to do with their small size or software locks that, in reality, are meant to protect people's data from unauthorized access. Error 53 that everyone loves to point out as an evil Apple move was actually a software lock to prevent someone from putting a false Touch ID sensor on the device that was collecting biometric data but still relaying the lock command to the phone. Apple's security chain in that regard worked exactly as intended. They didn't expect to ever see a legitimate use for a fake Touch ID sensor but it happened when people decided that losing Touch ID was worth getting their screen repaired cheaper.
Nice fairy tale, in reality Apple sends stuff to CSAT Solutions, and they glue shoe rubber to BGA chips because its cheaper than reballing.
It is plausible Error 53 check is to prevent tampering with Touch ID, it may even be a design good for security, but AFAIK it tripped even if the sensor was replaced by another genuine sensor, hence the outrage.
It's not the sensor. A security chain (any security chain) relies on the fact that each step of the chain is verified and trusted. Moving, removing, or replacing any part of that chain requires that the whole chain is re-verified for trust.
That'd be like me and you being in a secret club with a secret handshake. We've been meeting at the same bar every week for years. All of sudden, your twin brother shows up one day and, as always, I go to do our secret handshake and he can't do it. He looks like you. He comes from the same parents. I have no reason to suspect that it's not you because "you" showed up just like you do every week. But I know something's not right because he doesn't know the handshake.
It's the same thing with an iPhone. That's exactly how you know that it's not third-parties that Apple cares about and that they're not trying to actively prevent anything done by third parties. If that's all it was, an OEM Apple sensor would be fine. It's not, though, because it has nothing to do with third-party vs. first-party and everything to do with security.
That'd be like me and you being in a secret club with a secret handshake. We've been meeting at the same bar every week for years. All of sudden, your twin brother shows up one day and, as always, I go to do our secret handshake and he can't do it. He looks like you. He comes from the same parents. I have no reason to suspect that it's not you because "you" showed up just like you do every week. But I know something's not right because he doesn't know the handshake.
It's the same thing with an iPhone. That's exactly how you know that it's not third-parties that Apple cares about and that they're not trying to actively prevent anything done by third parties. If that's all it was, an OEM Apple sensor would be fine. It's not, though, because it has nothing to do with third-party vs. first-party and everything to do with security.
But it was tripped due to the loss of contact/difference with the touchid sensor (attached to screen) and motherboard (attached to battery).
An interruption in connection, or a change in device identifier on either end is cause to require an “apple-authorized” reset, or discarding/ignoring any sensitive personally identifiable information (PII), of which fingerprints are definitely PII.
An interruption in connection, or a change in device identifier on either end is cause to require an “apple-authorized” reset, or discarding/ignoring any sensitive personally identifiable information (PII), of which fingerprints are definitely PII.
I don't think that helps your case. It seems to be saying that Apple is already planning on doing voluntarily, what the legislation they are opposing would require. That is exactly the type of cynical behavior my original post was accusing Apple of.
If Apple wants good right to repair laws, then this is the perfect time for them to be lobbying for good right to repair laws. As a proponent of right to repair laws, I would love to have Apple at the table when the laws are being drafted. Everything that I have seen suggests this is not what is happening. Instead of lobbying for improvements to the right to repair laws, they are lobbying against them. The fact that the laws are similar to Apple's internal plan suggests that they are being well drafted despite that (perhaps because of behind the scenes lobbying, or other stakeholders with a similar position to Apple, or the drafters just have a good understanding of the industry).
If Apple wants good right to repair laws, then this is the perfect time for them to be lobbying for good right to repair laws. As a proponent of right to repair laws, I would love to have Apple at the table when the laws are being drafted. Everything that I have seen suggests this is not what is happening. Instead of lobbying for improvements to the right to repair laws, they are lobbying against them. The fact that the laws are similar to Apple's internal plan suggests that they are being well drafted despite that (perhaps because of behind the scenes lobbying, or other stakeholders with a similar position to Apple, or the drafters just have a good understanding of the industry).
I guess I see it differently and I wish I could find the post I was referring to. I think that the current versions of the laws, which are different than many of the original laws that hit the first few states, are a direct result of Apple's lobbying. I don't think it's an accident that the proposed laws have sections that almost mirror the document in that link as far as what's required. If the date on that article is accurate too, then that plan from Apple actually pre-dates a lot of the right to repair legislation.
Do you remember anything more about Apple’s involvements? Which states were involved in their suggested changes? I have only been successful in finding info on how they have opposed the right to repair legislatively via lobbying and PR. I haven’t found any info about laws or changes to existing/proposed laws Apple has supported in the right to repair. Here’s what I could find with Apple against right to repair:
Apple Tells Lawmaker that Right to Repair iPhones Will Turn Nebraska Into a ‘Mecca’ for Hackers [1]
Apple Is Lobbying Against Your Right to Repair iPhones, New York State Records Confirm [2]
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pgxgpg/apple-tells-lawmak...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nz85y7/apple-is-lobbying-...
Apple Tells Lawmaker that Right to Repair iPhones Will Turn Nebraska Into a ‘Mecca’ for Hackers [1]
Apple Is Lobbying Against Your Right to Repair iPhones, New York State Records Confirm [2]
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pgxgpg/apple-tells-lawmak...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nz85y7/apple-is-lobbying-...
That's the problem, though. Everything is coming from vice.com and all the search results are flooded with those same links and blogs linking to those links. It's nearly impossible to find any relevant information now outside of something published by vice.com and they, unfortunately, are not unbiased in the slightest. Motherboard, who is cited in all those articles, is the parent company of vice.com.
This doesn't seem like a good compromise at all. Right-to-repair is about anyone having the right to repair a device in their possession--not just the few "authorized businesses" that the manufacturer blesses with the power.
For most cars, I can repair it myself, or I can take it to Joe down the street for him to repair it, or I can take it to a professional repair business, or I can take it to the dealership. I have the choice. Same goes for appliances, furniture, and many electronic devices. This is not a radical idea. Why does there need to be compromise on it?
For most cars, I can repair it myself, or I can take it to Joe down the street for him to repair it, or I can take it to a professional repair business, or I can take it to the dealership. I have the choice. Same goes for appliances, furniture, and many electronic devices. This is not a radical idea. Why does there need to be compromise on it?
But you are allowed to do this right now. There is nothing stopping you from attempting to repair your own device. Why should Apple be required to make replacement parts available and manuals available to you at no cost, though? That doesn't seem pro-consumer or fair to Apple.
If the public wants it, “Manuals at no cost” could be made into law, I think. Certainly if restricted to something like “products with at least $x in revenue” for large enough x, it wouldn’t be that burdensome on manufacturers.
And unfair to Apple? Only if only Apple or a few companies would have to do that.
Also, for replacement parts, in some markets there already are regulations. See for example https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-04-215_en.htm for a discussion on finding the right balance between the protection of a car manufacturer’s designs and consumer’s rights to buy replacement parts made by third parties (I don’t know the end result of this discussion)
And unfair to Apple? Only if only Apple or a few companies would have to do that.
Also, for replacement parts, in some markets there already are regulations. See for example https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-04-215_en.htm for a discussion on finding the right balance between the protection of a car manufacturer’s designs and consumer’s rights to buy replacement parts made by third parties (I don’t know the end result of this discussion)
I'm quite happy to pay for a BMW shop manual.
I can buy genuine BMW parts with no problem, but I can't buy a genuine Apple iPhone battery, even from iFixit.
I can buy genuine BMW parts with no problem, but I can't buy a genuine Apple iPhone battery, even from iFixit.
That's only because Apple wants to be the one to install its parts so that it can verify that the repair is done correctly. You can absolutely buy a third-party battery and install it yourself and Apple will do nothing to stop you.
Apple does limit functionality if you do that: https://www.gsmarena.com/ios_124_partially_blocks_nonofficia...
This argument is pointless; Tech companies claim that their hardware is changed the world and their selling point is that these devices are essential. They then turn around and create artificial scarcity, by disabling features for old devices and inflating the prices for repair, to make maintaining these devices more expensive than buying a new one.
I don't see, how as a consumer, am I supposed to support this position?
This argument is pointless; Tech companies claim that their hardware is changed the world and their selling point is that these devices are essential. They then turn around and create artificial scarcity, by disabling features for old devices and inflating the prices for repair, to make maintaining these devices more expensive than buying a new one.
I don't see, how as a consumer, am I supposed to support this position?
No they don't limit it! There's a difference between "We won't give you this information because you didn't get the battery from us" vs. "We can't give you this information because we can't verify that this is a brand new battery". Battery health information is gained from usage patterns in the battery and from a connection that starts when the battery if first hooked up to the coprocessor in the iPhone's hardware. If you take an old battery from an authentic iPhone and put it in, you'd get the exact same message because it's not about third-parties or limiting what you can do. It's about giving accurate battery health information which cannot be done if the age and usage of the battery can't be verified.
And please... tell me which features have been disabled for old devices. If anything, Apple is known in the industry for supporting their devices far longer than any other phone/device manufacturer. I think you're either being disingenuous with these arguments or you just really haven't done any kind of work to validate what you're saying.
And please... tell me which features have been disabled for old devices. If anything, Apple is known in the industry for supporting their devices far longer than any other phone/device manufacturer. I think you're either being disingenuous with these arguments or you just really haven't done any kind of work to validate what you're saying.
>There's a difference between "We won't give you this information because you didn't get the battery from us" vs. "We can't give you this information because we can't verify that this is a brand new battery"
This requires a leap of trust that I am not willing to make. I do not believe Apple is being truthful here.
>And please... tell me which features have been disabled for old devices.
There was this huge scandal regarding Apple slowing down phones with older batteries without notifying the customers: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-slows-down-older-iphone-batt...
They made it right by offering cheaper battery replacements for a year and battery monitoring software in iOS. The battery monitoring software still claims my 4 year old iphone 6 is running at peak performance, and that is not true. The same battery monitoring software that would stop working if I install third-party battery. Which is also why I believe the company is not being truthful; their software clearly is lying to me right now.
>If anything, Apple is known in the industry for supporting their devices far longer than any other phone/device manufacturer.
We would need to have a semantic discussion on what 'support' is; for example, why are some older devices running iOS9+ not support ad-blocking? If there is a genuine software-design reason, that it is bad software, since I can do it on desktop computers that are two decades old, and on a raspberry pi that has a fraction of the CPU power. There are plenty of examples, but my definition of support would extend far beyond the version number on the Settings > About going up. Yours might differ.
>I think you're either being disingenuous with these arguments or you just really haven't done any kind of work to validate what you're saying.
Why would you think that I am being disingenuous at all? Do you think I have some sort of agenda? what would the agenda be?
My original comment targeted all hardware tech companies. Most want to make repair impossible or extremely difficult. Apple has been leading the charge, all the way back with Macs using the then obscure torx screws, but they are the norm now. As far as I know, Lenovo is the only company that has repairability as a design factor, even then only for their business lines.
As for not doing the work, well as you can see I have. I am disappointed, however, that you would not extend me the courtesy of assuming I am not a complete idiot. I did so for you.
This requires a leap of trust that I am not willing to make. I do not believe Apple is being truthful here.
>And please... tell me which features have been disabled for old devices.
There was this huge scandal regarding Apple slowing down phones with older batteries without notifying the customers: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-slows-down-older-iphone-batt...
They made it right by offering cheaper battery replacements for a year and battery monitoring software in iOS. The battery monitoring software still claims my 4 year old iphone 6 is running at peak performance, and that is not true. The same battery monitoring software that would stop working if I install third-party battery. Which is also why I believe the company is not being truthful; their software clearly is lying to me right now.
>If anything, Apple is known in the industry for supporting their devices far longer than any other phone/device manufacturer.
We would need to have a semantic discussion on what 'support' is; for example, why are some older devices running iOS9+ not support ad-blocking? If there is a genuine software-design reason, that it is bad software, since I can do it on desktop computers that are two decades old, and on a raspberry pi that has a fraction of the CPU power. There are plenty of examples, but my definition of support would extend far beyond the version number on the Settings > About going up. Yours might differ.
>I think you're either being disingenuous with these arguments or you just really haven't done any kind of work to validate what you're saying.
Why would you think that I am being disingenuous at all? Do you think I have some sort of agenda? what would the agenda be?
My original comment targeted all hardware tech companies. Most want to make repair impossible or extremely difficult. Apple has been leading the charge, all the way back with Macs using the then obscure torx screws, but they are the norm now. As far as I know, Lenovo is the only company that has repairability as a design factor, even then only for their business lines.
As for not doing the work, well as you can see I have. I am disappointed, however, that you would not extend me the courtesy of assuming I am not a complete idiot. I did so for you.
And I’ve changed several iPhone and Mac Air batteries myself, no problem. But, the replacement batteries are operationally inferior to the OEM batteries, even from iFixit.
IMO, having iPhones in the wild that were repaired with non-OEM parts is worse for Apple’s reputation. Right to repair includes access to OEM parts, repair documentation, and test programs.
IMO, having iPhones in the wild that were repaired with non-OEM parts is worse for Apple’s reputation. Right to repair includes access to OEM parts, repair documentation, and test programs.
Again, why should Apple have a monopoly on doing or permitting repairs with genuine components on devices sold in millions.
No one is saying they should have a monopoly. If their logo is going to be on it, though, they should have a say in the quality of the repair. Millions of shitty repairs could do irreparable damage to their brand and business and they should at least have some ability to fight that.
It'd be like me going around telling people that I'm doing things on your behalf and you having no way to keep me from doing that. Individuals have legal protections against that kind of thing. Right now, that hasn't been addressed yet legally in terms of companies.
It'd be like me going around telling people that I'm doing things on your behalf and you having no way to keep me from doing that. Individuals have legal protections against that kind of thing. Right now, that hasn't been addressed yet legally in terms of companies.
Somehow the repair market for cars doesn’t have this problem - Honda and Ford have no say in the quality of my repairs if I don’t get it done at a dealership, even if OEM parts are used.
The same and been historically true of almost every other company and consumer product, to the great benefit of consumers. Why should apple be different?
Repairs are not being done on Apple’s behalf. They are being done on the consumers behalf. I don’t think your analogy makes sense. If Apple wants, they can create a certification process and emphasize that they strongly recommend going to certified repair shops, the same way car manufacturers want you go to go the dealer, but I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be forced to allow uncertified repair shops and sell them parts too.
The same and been historically true of almost every other company and consumer product, to the great benefit of consumers. Why should apple be different?
Repairs are not being done on Apple’s behalf. They are being done on the consumers behalf. I don’t think your analogy makes sense. If Apple wants, they can create a certification process and emphasize that they strongly recommend going to certified repair shops, the same way car manufacturers want you go to go the dealer, but I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be forced to allow uncertified repair shops and sell them parts too.
>Somehow the repair market for cars doesn’t have this problem
They absolutely do have this problem. There's a reason that there's a stereotype around the "shady" mechanic. That example is the perfect reason why these "Right to Repair" laws aren't always pro-consumer. In fact, the auto-repair industry is one of the top 3 industries regularly cited as having strong consumer distrust and the highest number of customer complaints.
Customers have to be able to trust that the repair they're getting done is being done correctly. Apple asking for some kind of certification requirement or authorized training is absolutely pro-consumer.
They absolutely do have this problem. There's a reason that there's a stereotype around the "shady" mechanic. That example is the perfect reason why these "Right to Repair" laws aren't always pro-consumer. In fact, the auto-repair industry is one of the top 3 industries regularly cited as having strong consumer distrust and the highest number of customer complaints.
Customers have to be able to trust that the repair they're getting done is being done correctly. Apple asking for some kind of certification requirement or authorized training is absolutely pro-consumer.
> There's a reason that there's a stereotype around the "shady" mechanic.
And why are people going to 'shady' mechanics? It's because they can't afford the repair at a dealership or a better known mechanic. They are knowingly making the tradeoff. I don't see how removing their ability to do so is pro-consumer.
Not only that, I as a regular joe can buy OEM auto parts and fix my own car. This is also true for tons of other manufacturers in almost every product line imaginable. Apple apparently doesn't even want me to do that. I definitely don't want to live in the world where, when my dryer timer breaks, I have to call an Authorized Repairman instead of buying a $5 OEM part, or where a $1 plastic piece on my mower breaks requires me to bring it to the nearest Troy-Bilt dealer or authorized repair person. There's absolutely no reason I can see why phones should be any different.
Apple is free to have an Certified Apple(tm) Repair program and shill it left and right. I fail to see how it's pro-consumer to do everything possible to strangle everyone else out of business. Nobody thinks random repair jobs are working on 'behalf' of Apple, any more than they think your shady mechanic is working on 'behalf' of General Motors, and that when he screws up its GM's fault. Even if there are a few loons who do, that doesn't justify savaging the repair market for everyone else. Apple is just a company, and nations should regulate companies to ultimately be for the benefit of their citizens. I don't care if Apple's brand is damaged in some way by the existence of independent repair shops if consumers have better access to cheaper quality repairs, which an OEM part market provides.
And why are people going to 'shady' mechanics? It's because they can't afford the repair at a dealership or a better known mechanic. They are knowingly making the tradeoff. I don't see how removing their ability to do so is pro-consumer.
Not only that, I as a regular joe can buy OEM auto parts and fix my own car. This is also true for tons of other manufacturers in almost every product line imaginable. Apple apparently doesn't even want me to do that. I definitely don't want to live in the world where, when my dryer timer breaks, I have to call an Authorized Repairman instead of buying a $5 OEM part, or where a $1 plastic piece on my mower breaks requires me to bring it to the nearest Troy-Bilt dealer or authorized repair person. There's absolutely no reason I can see why phones should be any different.
Apple is free to have an Certified Apple(tm) Repair program and shill it left and right. I fail to see how it's pro-consumer to do everything possible to strangle everyone else out of business. Nobody thinks random repair jobs are working on 'behalf' of Apple, any more than they think your shady mechanic is working on 'behalf' of General Motors, and that when he screws up its GM's fault. Even if there are a few loons who do, that doesn't justify savaging the repair market for everyone else. Apple is just a company, and nations should regulate companies to ultimately be for the benefit of their citizens. I don't care if Apple's brand is damaged in some way by the existence of independent repair shops if consumers have better access to cheaper quality repairs, which an OEM part market provides.
Should then the resale of iphones/macs be banned if Apple wishes? They have Apple's logo and could be subpar in many ways. Maybe it should only be possible with Apples verification/blessing?
If Apple wishes, they can create a network of authorized repair shops with their logo and approval, and they have a right to stop anyone from fraudulently claiming they are an approved repair shop.
They should also be required to sell genuine components of mass market items to independent shops, which will suffer their own irreparable damage to their brands with their millions of shitty repairs, if branded Apple repair services are in fact better.
If Apple wishes, they can create a network of authorized repair shops with their logo and approval, and they have a right to stop anyone from fraudulently claiming they are an approved repair shop.
They should also be required to sell genuine components of mass market items to independent shops, which will suffer their own irreparable damage to their brands with their millions of shitty repairs, if branded Apple repair services are in fact better.
Making replacement parts and (free) manuals available is not pro-consumer?
On its face, it sounds like it would be. It definitely gives more choices. It also opens up an entire world for consumers to get fleeced by shitty, shady third-party repair shops that have no accountability for a device/devices that most people are unequipped to deal with.
Providing parts and manuals for car repairs seems like a very pro-consumer move until you look at the reality of the situation and see that people get fleeced by shady mechanics and repair shops so often that there's a stereotype around it. I'm all for accessibility but I think there needs to be some kind of accountability that goes along with it.
Providing parts and manuals for car repairs seems like a very pro-consumer move until you look at the reality of the situation and see that people get fleeced by shady mechanics and repair shops so often that there's a stereotype around it. I'm all for accessibility but I think there needs to be some kind of accountability that goes along with it.
What is the basis of judging this program as satisfactory?
"apple stops getting complaints"
Assuming this move is actually genuine, and not for show, ie parts aren't nearly impossible to obtain, or use in actuality.
Of course this needs to be verified. At least they're making a move this direction.
And if I am capable enough to service my own device, how would I get the parts? At least I'm assuming Apple will not allow those independent repair shops to sell parts to individuals.
It's hard to see how they'd enforce that. You get a bill with $0 for labor and $x for materials, you just bought parts.
The parts alone are probably not enough. A lot of repairs require expensive tools (there was a video circling the net of an iPhone display calibration device -- if you want a proper repair, you need to calibrate the display after replacing it)
Also, increasingly there's authentication chips on parts like batteries and you need to somehow match them to make your phone not complain about 3rd party parts. So I assume you need some way to authorize each repair...
Also, increasingly there's authentication chips on parts like batteries and you need to somehow match them to make your phone not complain about 3rd party parts. So I assume you need some way to authorize each repair...
They may not benefit much from bothering to do so. It's unlikely to be high volume.
Although this program is initially lunching in the US, according to the statement, it is quickly expanding to other countries so I suspect this is really about making repairs to existing units outside the US. Many places have huge iPhone install bases but not a single official apple store anywhere (Moscow is an example).
Has Apple made any official statements or prior arguments on third party repair? I’ve seen a lot of speculation and inference online but I don’t recall ever seeing an official statement from Apple on third party repair.
Has Apple made any official statements or prior arguments on third party repair? I’ve seen a lot of speculation and inference online but I don’t recall ever seeing an official statement from Apple on third party repair.
It may also create additional arbitrage in the second-hand market to compel people to opt for Apple Care more often.
If they want to juice the numbers with some more extended warranty sales they can create (or rather, return to...) a two-tier repair model where you can verify if a device has been serviced direct by them or a third party and then use that as an incentive to offer the end user that they'll get more for selling it down the line (like cars are more valuable second hand with "main dealer service history")?
If they want to juice the numbers with some more extended warranty sales they can create (or rather, return to...) a two-tier repair model where you can verify if a device has been serviced direct by them or a third party and then use that as an incentive to offer the end user that they'll get more for selling it down the line (like cars are more valuable second hand with "main dealer service history")?
If they respond to pressure without the need for legislation isn’t that a good thing?
Surely that is what being responsible means.
Unless you are an authoritarian who wants to legislate for the sake of it.
Surely that is what being responsible means.
Unless you are an authoritarian who wants to legislate for the sake of it.
Or it is partial and a temporary ploy to sway away the legislation while its support is active and strong.
By your logic, no company should respond to public opinion because people like you will call for legislation anyway.
Do you require examples of companies making concessions, promises and proclaim 'self-regulation' in the face of imminent legislation, only to slowly claw it all back as public pressure fades?
If companies wish to avoid legislation, I believe they should respond to public opinion before the pressure becomes so strong legislation is imminent.
If companies wish to avoid legislation, I believe they should respond to public opinion before the pressure becomes so strong legislation is imminent.
It’s not really pressure then, is it?
Does right to repair extend to right to install any app? I really believe it does and this is a major reason they are fighting so hard against it.
If you read up on the program it's more geared towards allowing customers to fix their own issues, and less of "lets go back to reliance on independent repair stores".
It also tells me Apple is comfortable enough with their services revenue to stop desperately pushing for increasing device sales every quarter.
I have a 3 year old phone (iPhone7+) but barring some really new awesome features I'd be happy to continue spending on the Apple ecosystem (music, apps, subscriptions, etc) and service the old phone - though if the new offering is nice, I would probably upgrade too.
It also tells me Apple is comfortable enough with their services revenue to stop desperately pushing for increasing device sales every quarter.
I have a 3 year old phone (iPhone7+) but barring some really new awesome features I'd be happy to continue spending on the Apple ecosystem (music, apps, subscriptions, etc) and service the old phone - though if the new offering is nice, I would probably upgrade too.
> If you read up on the program it's more geared towards allowing customers to fix their own issues, and less of "lets go back to reliance on independent repair stores".
Where do you see this? The requirements of the program directly contradict what you're saying as you need to be a registered business, have an address in a commercially zoned area, and have an apple repair certification.
https://support.apple.com/irp-program
Where do you see this? The requirements of the program directly contradict what you're saying as you need to be a registered business, have an address in a commercially zoned area, and have an apple repair certification.
https://support.apple.com/irp-program
Same phone, unfortunately missed out on the $69 battery replacement from Apple. I've not once experienced an issue with performance and the physical construction of the device is great (all aluminum body, no glass back-plate). Battery life is fine, still get all-day battery life with moderate usage. I hope Apple continues to develop products with a reasonable lifespan, but judging by their current gen Laptops, I'm not holding my breath.
The performance boost you will see from an upgrade will blow your mind.
iPhone 7+ is a pretty capable phone.
- Sent from my iPhone SE
- Sent from my iPhone SE
Current iPhones are on par with 2018 MacBooks and shreds quad-core i7 2017 MacBooks. It's mind blowing.
Citation needed. Laptops can have faster storage and much higher thermal and battery budgets especially when plugged in.
I expect you are going to cite something that shows an artificial benchmark run for 3 seconds.
I expect you are going to cite something that shows an artificial benchmark run for 3 seconds.
https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/56
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=macbo...
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=macbo...
It's an artificial benchmark running for a short duration. The fact that it boils a complex topic down to a singular number should be your first indication that its nonsense.
I think Geekbench is what Tiobe is to programming language rankings or Fox news is to objective news coverage.
If you can't run the same tasks on the same OS you probably can't objectively compare them in a meaningful way. Lack of good data however doesn't excuse using bad data. After absorbing bad data you actually know less than when you started because you think you have objective analysis.
I think Geekbench is what Tiobe is to programming language rankings or Fox news is to objective news coverage.
If you can't run the same tasks on the same OS you probably can't objectively compare them in a meaningful way. Lack of good data however doesn't excuse using bad data. After absorbing bad data you actually know less than when you started because you think you have objective analysis.
I've witnessed that myself by running Octane JS benchmark. I think that's pretty good indicator for most smartphone applications.
I agree, storage speed is probably appalling - you still can't sync your iPhone over USB 3.0 - takes half a day to do so after a vacation...
Even after that you can't deny transistor count and numbers we have. If you have better ones - do present them.
I agree, storage speed is probably appalling - you still can't sync your iPhone over USB 3.0 - takes half a day to do so after a vacation...
Even after that you can't deny transistor count and numbers we have. If you have better ones - do present them.
Not having good numbers doesn't suggest we ought to accept bad ones. If you have nothing to eat you don't eat right then you don't eat dirt.
We aren't discussing smartphone applications. The topic of discussion was whether current generation iphones are on par with 2018 Macbooks. I think the practical answer is that the cpu on the phone is inherently limited by battery/heat/storage speed in actual usage. If the poster had simply said "felt as snappy as" it would be hard to disagree with a subjective feeling. I don't think their objective analysis is as defensible.
We aren't discussing smartphone applications. The topic of discussion was whether current generation iphones are on par with 2018 Macbooks. I think the practical answer is that the cpu on the phone is inherently limited by battery/heat/storage speed in actual usage. If the poster had simply said "felt as snappy as" it would be hard to disagree with a subjective feeling. I don't think their objective analysis is as defensible.
> It's an artificial benchmark running for a short duration.
While I don't disagree with your point, we should realize both iPhone and MBP do throttling.
While I don't disagree with your point, we should realize both iPhone and MBP do throttling.
in what operations? I'm not compiling code or rendering 4K on my phone.
Apple will be the only supplier of parts, so if they fail to make repairing the devices illegal [1] they will at least be able to control who is repairing them. This allows them to squash any dissenting voices, like when their iOS developer guidelines officially warned developers not to tell news outlets about stupid things Apple was doing to them [2].
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...
If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...
So embrace, extend, extinguish then?
After reading all the griping on HN about Apple's supposedly draconian independent repair policies, I was very surprised with my recent experience.
I phoned Apple last week to get the battery replaced in my 2011 MacBook Air, and the nice lady said that Apple won't fix it because it's classified as obsolete. I wasn't mad or anything; I kind of figured that would happen since the computer is eight years old.
What I didn't expect is that she had a list of independent, authorized Apple repair places at her fingertips, and e-mailed me the information for a few. Even in the craptastic low-end town I live in, there were three options. I was very surprised.
Brought my computer in, and the price is $180 — $130 for the battery, and $50 for the labor. Seems about right. When I priced the battery replacement last year (before it was "obsolete"), it was $130. I guess Apple doesn't charge for labor.
There was an interesting sign in the store. It was an Apple sign, and it asked to be sure to provide the store with an e-mail address, because Apple may follow up to find out if the store's service was up to Apple standards. I thought that was very interesting.
I haven't picked up my computer yet (the store had to order the battery). But I'm curious to find out if I'll get picked for my feedback.
I phoned Apple last week to get the battery replaced in my 2011 MacBook Air, and the nice lady said that Apple won't fix it because it's classified as obsolete. I wasn't mad or anything; I kind of figured that would happen since the computer is eight years old.
What I didn't expect is that she had a list of independent, authorized Apple repair places at her fingertips, and e-mailed me the information for a few. Even in the craptastic low-end town I live in, there were three options. I was very surprised.
Brought my computer in, and the price is $180 — $130 for the battery, and $50 for the labor. Seems about right. When I priced the battery replacement last year (before it was "obsolete"), it was $130. I guess Apple doesn't charge for labor.
There was an interesting sign in the store. It was an Apple sign, and it asked to be sure to provide the store with an e-mail address, because Apple may follow up to find out if the store's service was up to Apple standards. I thought that was very interesting.
I haven't picked up my computer yet (the store had to order the battery). But I'm curious to find out if I'll get picked for my feedback.
Last year I wanted to replace the battery on my 2014 13'' MBP.
I live in Mexico so Apple doesn't do repairs. There are only official third party repair shops but they still get their parts from Apple though.
So I got a quote that was about $350 USD + labor, but with a discount it went down to about $200 USD + labor IIRC because Apple would buy the used part. Still excessive IMO. The excuse was that the battery is glued to the keyboard and they had to replace the complete top panel too.
I just bought a third party battery and replaced it myself. I unglued it with a solvent and a syringe. In total I paid less than $50 USD... The MBP is still doing great a year later.
I live in Mexico so Apple doesn't do repairs. There are only official third party repair shops but they still get their parts from Apple though.
So I got a quote that was about $350 USD + labor, but with a discount it went down to about $200 USD + labor IIRC because Apple would buy the used part. Still excessive IMO. The excuse was that the battery is glued to the keyboard and they had to replace the complete top panel too.
I just bought a third party battery and replaced it myself. I unglued it with a solvent and a syringe. In total I paid less than $50 USD... The MBP is still doing great a year later.
Yet, based on the comments in this very thread, you'd think that Apple had someone stopped you from repairing your own device...
They do to a certain extent. Home buttons on phones that are married to the motherboard and can only be reset by apple or an AASP is just one example, but the most obvious one.
That's so dishonest, though. They're married to the logic board on the phone because it's an integral part of the security chain for the phone to verify that your fingerprint matches the key that's in the Secure Enclave. If they didn't do that, there would be no way to verify that a third-party repair wasn't surreptitiously stealing your biometric data every time you used it. It's not done to prevent third parties from repairing it. It's done to prevent nefarious parties from compromising the security of the device.
I suggest you watch some videos by Louis Rossmann on youtube to understand the problems with Apple's repair policies. The problem isn't with Apple certified repair shops, but with independent repair shops
Louis is not a good example, though. He is a very rare exception to the issue that Apple is fighting against.
Louis definitely knows his stuff and has the technical knowledge to repair devices and probably doesn't need to be certified in any way. The number of people that have the skills Louis does, though, is vanishingly small.
So, in his case, Apple is asking him to pay money every year to be certified in something that he likely already knows how to do and is not willing to send him parts to do the repairs he knows how to do. That's a reasonable position.
From Apple's perspective, though, Louis is the exception and they want everyone certified. To them, Louis can easily get certified and join their program and there's no need for them to not enforce the same policies for all repair shops.
The issue lies in the repair shops that don't have the skills that Louis does. Apple wants to make sure that repairs done by those people, who are in the vast majority, are done to a certain level of quality. It's the same reason why they replace full components instead of opting for board repairs like Louis is also able and skilled enough to do. For Louis's customers, they'd get a great repair and a reasonable cost. For everyone else, they'd get a subpar repair for the same cost.
Louis definitely knows his stuff and has the technical knowledge to repair devices and probably doesn't need to be certified in any way. The number of people that have the skills Louis does, though, is vanishingly small.
So, in his case, Apple is asking him to pay money every year to be certified in something that he likely already knows how to do and is not willing to send him parts to do the repairs he knows how to do. That's a reasonable position.
From Apple's perspective, though, Louis is the exception and they want everyone certified. To them, Louis can easily get certified and join their program and there's no need for them to not enforce the same policies for all repair shops.
The issue lies in the repair shops that don't have the skills that Louis does. Apple wants to make sure that repairs done by those people, who are in the vast majority, are done to a certain level of quality. It's the same reason why they replace full components instead of opting for board repairs like Louis is also able and skilled enough to do. For Louis's customers, they'd get a great repair and a reasonable cost. For everyone else, they'd get a subpar repair for the same cost.
Rossmann is great when he's going over some of the practicalities of running an independent repair business, but to get to those you have to go through a lot of videos slagging on Apple.
He does try to justify his vitriol, and it's obviously one-sided and he makes no bones about it. Apple, being a big corporation, won't provide a candid response to any of it.
So, agreed to the extent you'll definitely understand that repair shops are feeling the pinch and have a clear idea of why that's happening from their perspective. But you'll still be missing an understanding of the challenges a large manufacturer faces trying to run an authorized service provider program.
He does try to justify his vitriol, and it's obviously one-sided and he makes no bones about it. Apple, being a big corporation, won't provide a candid response to any of it.
So, agreed to the extent you'll definitely understand that repair shops are feeling the pinch and have a clear idea of why that's happening from their perspective. But you'll still be missing an understanding of the challenges a large manufacturer faces trying to run an authorized service provider program.
Every time Apple's repair policies come up on HN, someone mentions Louis Rossmann, and every time they do, someone replies (and it seems like a different person each time) pointing out that he has a significant bias against Apple, and to take what he says about them with a grain of salt.
All I personally know about it is what I've seen on here, but it does seem like it's worth being a little skeptical about what Rossmann has to say about Apple.
All I personally know about it is what I've seen on here, but it does seem like it's worth being a little skeptical about what Rossmann has to say about Apple.
Internet logic: 1. Escape from North Korea. 2. Start YouTube channel documenting abuses of NK. 3. Get accused of bias for being "anti North Korea". 4. Anti-NK-escapee campaign gains steam 4. Get banned from all platforms for hate speech.
Personally I always root for the underdog, they have less resources so it's harder for them to fabricate information.
Personally I always root for the underdog, they have less resources so it's harder for them to fabricate information.
I mean, he makes a living out of repairing Apple products even though he's not certified. He might have an innate bias against them for whatever reason, but as someone who is interested in tech but not an Apple user the stuff he says about Apple makes sense to me and doesn't seem biased in order to make them look bad.
> it's worth being a little skeptical about what Rossmann has to say about Apple
Sure, just like it's good to be a little skeptical about what anyone say.
Rossmann isn't a liar though, what he say about Apple is right. You may thing he avoid saying positive things about them (but I did hear him say plenty of positive things about them) but that doesn't make what he say about Apple false.
Sure, just like it's good to be a little skeptical about what anyone say.
Rossmann isn't a liar though, what he say about Apple is right. You may thing he avoid saying positive things about them (but I did hear him say plenty of positive things about them) but that doesn't make what he say about Apple false.
Rossmann admits when he is wrong (the best example was recently on the legal case about some other independent repairer, where he changed his stance to Apple's side, when he learnt more details).
And he actually praises Apple quite a bit as well, in areas where he thinks they do well, such as their trackpads.
And he actually praises Apple quite a bit as well, in areas where he thinks they do well, such as their trackpads.
I disagree. Louis still hasn't admitted or updated several videos where he flat out says something wrong or misdiagnoses an issue. Case in point, people still cite his video "proving" that the new MacBook Pros have broken WiFi adapters as "evidence" that Apple has started using cheaper adapters to squeeze more money out of people. The reality is that they're still using the same adapters but that Louis was using an unshielded USB-A to USB-C adapter during that test which interfered with the WiFi signal. He's never issued a follow-up or clarification video even after he discovered that everything worked as intended with a normal, shielded USB adaptor. Reddit users even called him out on it because all Dell laptops with USB-C ports had the same issues when using these cheaper, unshielded cables.
One shouldnt take repetition to be more valuable than reputation let alone analysis.
I would hope that your device is encrypted given that the US government is now directly bribing repair techs who find certain illegal materials.
One might be inspired to copy and paste themselves a bonus.
Note this pertains to the geek squad so far as we presently know.
One might be inspired to copy and paste themselves a bonus.
Note this pertains to the geek squad so far as we presently know.
FYI - You can buy 2011 MBA battery replacement kits on Amazon for $50. I replaced my own (same model/year) in 2017, the shop in my area (Los Angeles) was going to charge me $250!
My hands are no longer capable of such delicate work.
I replaced the battery on an iPhone 4 on my own. By the time I was time to do it to a 6Plus, I ruined the thing. My devices are better off in the hands of (hopefully) insured professionals.
I replaced the battery on an iPhone 4 on my own. By the time I was time to do it to a 6Plus, I ruined the thing. My devices are better off in the hands of (hopefully) insured professionals.
$50 for labor makes sense from a shop but you could do it yourself with a $5 screwdriver with the right bit and less than 5 minutes of your time, given you could find a part and weren't worried about warranty on the repair process itself. For peace of mind, worth it but this is much more like replacing your own car battery or air filter than an oil change even.
One of my favorite youtubers is a channel named STS telecom[1]. He uses various tools to repair logic boards on iPhones. It’s incredibly satisfying to watch him hunt down a shorted capacitor the size of the end of a toothpick. Then like magic the phone works perfectly.
What it also taught me is that even the the phones are becoming more complicated, they’re also still repairable. Apples move is laudable here, and important at reducing e-waste.
1. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC39yMXOL0ubFxLWwF1RwelA
What it also taught me is that even the the phones are becoming more complicated, they’re also still repairable. Apples move is laudable here, and important at reducing e-waste.
1. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC39yMXOL0ubFxLWwF1RwelA
Also Louis Rossmann channel where he repairs Macbooks while ranting about Apple.
No one can turn a three minute video into an hour long rant quite like Louis can.
Louis has done so much to keep the fire hot under Apple when it comes to Right To Repair. He's even gone to state legislatures to demonstrate why RtR is required in the modern world. "Mad Props" to Louis.
And getting his videos up on the front page of one of the biggest sites in the world, reddit, probably helped too!
Thanks to the YouTube policies of a couple of years, there's a lot more than there used to be.
Pity this is for iPhones only ... Louis would be a happier man if he could get access to genuine Apple parts instead of having to scavenge for them from other dead machines.
He'd also need the same software they have access to though to provision a new T2 chip ...
He'd also need the same software they have access to though to provision a new T2 chip ...
Donors boards can be very inexpensive. There’s a very small market for broken boards that are otherwise only good for scrap.
The only problem is when a particular component is really prone to failure and becomes rate limiting, while having no 3rd party supply.
(Ie: a burned out resistor is easier to swap than carry a full part count of every combination. While a custom chip that fails is really bad news).
The only problem is when a particular component is really prone to failure and becomes rate limiting, while having no 3rd party supply.
(Ie: a burned out resistor is easier to swap than carry a full part count of every combination. While a custom chip that fails is really bad news).
The big problem Rossman has is that if the T2 chip goes the entire logic board is dead UNLESS you have the internal Apple tool to pair a new T2 chip to it.
That's not what they're doing though.
Apple is in deep trouble sales wise. They're not moving nearly as many phones and their margins are shrinking due to the Chinese/American political climate. Almost every day I hear ads on the radio for "brand new Iphone 7's" from mobile carriers. That's 3 generations behind and they're still moving new-old stock.
People are losing faith in Apple. The iteration of their progress has slowed and people aren't willing or able to spend $1,000 on a phone anymore. Especially one that doesn't offer significant improvements over the one they currently have.
On top of it all, the Right to Repair movement is growing beyond a point where they can fight it. RTR is snowballing people from all over the country from farmers to techies to mechanics to factories. People don't want to spend absurd amounts of money just to be held hostage by some ineffectual customer support team anymore, and the organization and consolidation of RTR movement is finally taking a toll on the lobbyists.
Don't laud them for this. They wouldn't be doing it if their old business model of telling broken phone owners to fuck off if was still turning a profit.
Apple is in deep trouble sales wise. They're not moving nearly as many phones and their margins are shrinking due to the Chinese/American political climate. Almost every day I hear ads on the radio for "brand new Iphone 7's" from mobile carriers. That's 3 generations behind and they're still moving new-old stock.
People are losing faith in Apple. The iteration of their progress has slowed and people aren't willing or able to spend $1,000 on a phone anymore. Especially one that doesn't offer significant improvements over the one they currently have.
On top of it all, the Right to Repair movement is growing beyond a point where they can fight it. RTR is snowballing people from all over the country from farmers to techies to mechanics to factories. People don't want to spend absurd amounts of money just to be held hostage by some ineffectual customer support team anymore, and the organization and consolidation of RTR movement is finally taking a toll on the lobbyists.
Don't laud them for this. They wouldn't be doing it if their old business model of telling broken phone owners to fuck off if was still turning a profit.
> They're not moving nearly as many phones
Actually, they're still moving about the same average number of phones each quarter that they have since 2015: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-ipho...
Actually, they're still moving about the same average number of phones each quarter that they have since 2015: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-ipho...
Given the fact they're a trillion dollar company that's almost just as bad to them.
That's moving the goalposts.
This comment from the article should tell you a little bit about our problem:
> renewables are approaching their limit in California. The state’s electricity grid manager increasingly has to pay neighboring states to take California’s excess solar
It’s not about simply producing energy, it’s about producing the right load at the right time. For that, you have exactly one carbon-free choice.
> renewables are approaching their limit in California. The state’s electricity grid manager increasingly has to pay neighboring states to take California’s excess solar
It’s not about simply producing energy, it’s about producing the right load at the right time. For that, you have exactly one carbon-free choice.
Look forward to Louis Rossmann's response to this news
Keeping an eye out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w
Keeping an eye out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w
Your wish has been granted: https://youtu.be/3tRq5niOM7Q
At the end he talks about being able to source some parts from Apple and continue ordering aftermarket parts otherwise, but that wouldn't make sense for Apple. Chances are they will require you follow the same procedures as AASPs in terms of not using any aftermarket parts if you can't get them from Apple and having to send some repairs in if Apple tells you to.
Didn't he say that he'll be most likely not eligible for this program precisely because he doesn't want to give up on alternative sources where no officially supplied items are available (individual ICs were cited as an example)?
Looking forward to Clinton the cat's responce
By logical extension they should have no objection to right to repair now, correct?
Since this undermines the very arguments they've been making for years ("batteries are too dangerous for small repair shops," "they will perform sub-optimal repairs even with the manuals/correct tools!").
I'm glad this is here, legitimately. It is good for users and repair vendors alike. The questions I have is: What next? Have they "seen the light" and fully support R2R, will remain silent/stay out, or still oppose and this is meant to placate.
Since this undermines the very arguments they've been making for years ("batteries are too dangerous for small repair shops," "they will perform sub-optimal repairs even with the manuals/correct tools!").
I'm glad this is here, legitimately. It is good for users and repair vendors alike. The questions I have is: What next? Have they "seen the light" and fully support R2R, will remain silent/stay out, or still oppose and this is meant to placate.
As I understand it, another important part of (at least some proposed) right-to-repair laws involves changing the manufacture of items to be more easily accessible to repair, in ways that make them thicker, more expensive to manufacture, or both.
Whether or not you or I believe those are good tradeoffs to make, they are also reasons Apple would oppose such legislation.
Whether or not you or I believe those are good tradeoffs to make, they are also reasons Apple would oppose such legislation.
>"they will perform sub-optimal repairs even with the manuals/correct tools!"
This is exactly what the required certification aims to address. It's exactly what they've always said with regard to their authorized repair programs. The only difference is that the program is now more accessible because the certification is free. Businesses that want to run the full authorized repair program still have to pay for the rest of the certifications.
This is exactly what the required certification aims to address. It's exactly what they've always said with regard to their authorized repair programs. The only difference is that the program is now more accessible because the certification is free. Businesses that want to run the full authorized repair program still have to pay for the rest of the certifications.
I believe it (should be) my right to have my neighbor Joe do a shoddy repair/replacement with genuine parts on a mass-market device, in exchange for parts cost and a piece of pie.
And I believe that it should be your right also but I also believe that it's Apple's right to not sell you parts, if they don't want to. I also believe that if they're willing to sell your neighbor Joe the parts to do the repair under the condition that he does the repair according to their standards, then that's fair for all parties involved.
Your option is unfair to Apple because their brand is damaged by Joe's shitty repair. I don't think it's unfair to Joe for Apple to refuse to sell him a part without certification.
Your option is unfair to Apple because their brand is damaged by Joe's shitty repair. I don't think it's unfair to Joe for Apple to refuse to sell him a part without certification.
I'm curious if this move is impacted by the tariff situation at all. Could Apple be thinking that selling authorized components for repair could be a decent backstop for declining iPhone sales to their most price-sensitive customers?
I could see how someone with reduced means would pay to have their iPhone repaired instead of buying a new one, if tariffs spiked the new iPhone prices up by, I dunno, say 20% for the sake of discussion.
I hear the Right to Repair end run argument, but that doesn't seem like it's necessarily the whole explanation to me.
I could see how someone with reduced means would pay to have their iPhone repaired instead of buying a new one, if tariffs spiked the new iPhone prices up by, I dunno, say 20% for the sake of discussion.
I hear the Right to Repair end run argument, but that doesn't seem like it's necessarily the whole explanation to me.
Totally. Apple even says that their services make more money than their hardware. But without the hardware, the services will also go down.
Apple need to keep people in their wall garden. There's a threshold they need to keep at or else their influence will wane considerably like the Mac vs PC fight.
Apple need to keep people in their wall garden. There's a threshold they need to keep at or else their influence will wane considerably like the Mac vs PC fight.
I don't see any mention of how long they are willing to keep the program up an running. If they are just using this to keep Right to Repair laws from passing this program might not be around all that long.
Tim Cook realized to grow revenue, services is the future for Apple. More working devices in the market should mean better market share which would mean a larger audience to sell services.
Seems like an indirect response to right to repair, which is gaining some momentum as of late:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/proposed-laws-could-change-how-...
FTC is even asking for comments on right to repair until September 16th 2019
https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FTC-2019-0013-0001
Whether you're for or against, you should comment if this issue is meaningful to you!
https://repair.org/policy https://money.howstuffworks.com/right-to-repair.htm
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/proposed-laws-could-change-how-...
FTC is even asking for comments on right to repair until September 16th 2019
https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FTC-2019-0013-0001
Whether you're for or against, you should comment if this issue is meaningful to you!
https://repair.org/policy https://money.howstuffworks.com/right-to-repair.htm
Title should be updated to say what is happening: Apple launches Independent Repair Provider program
I don't think your description is accurate. There must be other nuances.
Once upon a time (2011-2013) I was an Apple Certified Macintosh technician. We were technically considered a third party Apple-certified repair shop. I was even able to service machines under Apple Care and had access to the same parts the Apple Geniuses received through Apple GSX (Global Service Exchange).
My main job was actually software support and custom integrations / deployments of our software. The owner of the company wanted to service our Macs in-house and so I volunteered to learn.
Once upon a time (2011-2013) I was an Apple Certified Macintosh technician. We were technically considered a third party Apple-certified repair shop. I was even able to service machines under Apple Care and had access to the same parts the Apple Geniuses received through Apple GSX (Global Service Exchange).
My main job was actually software support and custom integrations / deployments of our software. The owner of the company wanted to service our Macs in-house and so I volunteered to learn.
But that's exactly what Apple is calling it [1]. Maybe we just say they're "rebooting" the program.
[1] https://support.apple.com/irp-program
[1] https://support.apple.com/irp-program
Seeing that this is coming just on the heels of increased costs of by-mail shipping from China, I wonder if Apple has been waiting to supply parts until they could be sure that paying for their authentic parts is the only economical option for these shops.
Apple wouldn't want to get into a situation where they're supplying parts to these shops and deigning them an "Apple-Authorized Repair Center", but the shops are also buying grey-market parts and certifying those as being under Apply warranty as well.
But if it's too expensive to buy the grey-market parts...
Apple wouldn't want to get into a situation where they're supplying parts to these shops and deigning them an "Apple-Authorized Repair Center", but the shops are also buying grey-market parts and certifying those as being under Apply warranty as well.
But if it's too expensive to buy the grey-market parts...
Pretty straightforward attempt to stave off right-to-repair laws... and coming after years of attempts to destroy independent repair businesses. Very hard to see this as a good faith effort by Apple.
This and the Uber 'proposal' coming on the same day! Does the 2019 corporate playbook say cover your ass because regulations are coming or something like that?
Apple != entire electronics industry, one would hope the right to repair debate was larger than just Apple. Frankly, I hope it extends past consumer electronics as well.
It's amazing how the threat of attention from antitrust authorities can focus the mind of a corporation on customer service.
Glad to see this, being that my 2018 MBP unit has been serviced 6x cumulatively (3x keyboard, 2x logic board, 1x display) and replaced entirely 1x.
I am not a fan of the time it takes to drive to the store 2x, talk with several levels of tech support, and ultimately spend $4.5k on a “loaner” since Apple doesn’t have a loaner laptop program.
I am not a fan of the time it takes to drive to the store 2x, talk with several levels of tech support, and ultimately spend $4.5k on a “loaner” since Apple doesn’t have a loaner laptop program.
Unfortunately, this particular program only includes iPhone parts.
What? Are people so fucking nuts they spend that kind of money vs. just buying a cheap laptop running Windows or ChromeOS?
It takes 1 hour to transfer everything from one mac to another.
[deleted]
My conspiracy theory hunch is that with the upgradeability (read modest modularization of a few internal components) of the forthcoming Mac Pro more independent repair businesses are going to be necessary to handle the longer service life and component swaps.
But end users could be able to replace/upgrade components in a tower, no?
Wise move. If I were them, I'd do this on my own terms before regulation comes down the pipe.
Not entirely on topic, but if anyone can suggest a really good, non-Apple iPhone repair place in NYC, I'd appreciate it.
I have a Jailbroken iPhone. I want a place that can replace my battery but will not under any circumstances update my phone.
I have a Jailbroken iPhone. I want a place that can replace my battery but will not under any circumstances update my phone.
I’ve had great luck getting screen repairs at iPhone Repair Cafe, above H-Mart on 32nd St. - but I would still categorize it as luck. Nothing beats the scratch/crack resistance of an official Apple part.
Doesn't this just extend the ability to purchase $700 motherboards to independent repair shops? Even if just replacing a cap would do?
Will Apple exclude stores that do this type of repair from this program?
Will Apple exclude stores that do this type of repair from this program?
I hope they design for devices to be repairable as well. I've learnt that apple watch just aren't repairable, smashed screen is 85% of the original cost.
Right-to-repair is working!
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/08/apple-offers-customer...
“There is no cost to join Apple’s independent repair program. To qualify for the new program, businesses need to have an Apple-certified technician who can perform the repairs. The process for certification is simple and free of charge. To learn more and apply, visit support.apple.com/irp-program.”
https://support.apple.com/irp-progra
“Becoming certified to repair Apple products requires passing exams through an online Authorized Testing Center. Certifications are updated on a per product basis annually. The certification exam fees are waived for businesses that have been approved to be an Independent Repair Provider.
Detailed information about Apple Certifications preparatory courses and exams can be found here.”
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205332
“To pass these exams, you need to have access to the training in ATLAS.”
“How do I pay for the exams? When you register for the certification exams, you can pay with Visa, MasterCard, or American Express.”
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT206048
“To access ATLAS, you need to have an active Global Service Exchange (GSX) account or buy AppleCare Technician Training.”
“There is no cost to join Apple’s independent repair program. To qualify for the new program, businesses need to have an Apple-certified technician who can perform the repairs. The process for certification is simple and free of charge. To learn more and apply, visit support.apple.com/irp-program.”
https://support.apple.com/irp-progra
“Becoming certified to repair Apple products requires passing exams through an online Authorized Testing Center. Certifications are updated on a per product basis annually. The certification exam fees are waived for businesses that have been approved to be an Independent Repair Provider.
Detailed information about Apple Certifications preparatory courses and exams can be found here.”
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205332
“To pass these exams, you need to have access to the training in ATLAS.”
“How do I pay for the exams? When you register for the certification exams, you can pay with Visa, MasterCard, or American Express.”
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT206048
“To access ATLAS, you need to have an active Global Service Exchange (GSX) account or buy AppleCare Technician Training.”
>Apple’s repair tools, training, service guides, and diagnostics must be kept confidential.
Wow, this is up there with that hilariously tone-deaf Google blog post about cookies and privacy [1]. People want full control over their devices, both software and hardware. This thinly veiled propaganda isn't fooling anyone.
[1] https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-priv...
[1] https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-priv...
> People want full control over their devices, both software and hardware.
Do they though? While I think it's sad how much computing devices have become locked down, I'm also noticing (as the family "IT helpdesk") that non-technical people I know are getting themselves into a lot less trouble with malware and scams on locked-down, secure mobile devices than they did a decade ago on Windows PCs.
My teenage nephew is pretty interested in computers and programming, and he's running Linux on an old laptop. He has full control over that but is happy to concede some control over his smartphone because he doesn't think he'll be doing any programming or anything that requires "full control" on it anyway. On Android having complete control over the software is pretty much required to avoid the privacy-invading junk that comes with it by default; Apple seems to have done a good job of creating a satisfactory experience for technical and non-technical people alike.
Do they though? While I think it's sad how much computing devices have become locked down, I'm also noticing (as the family "IT helpdesk") that non-technical people I know are getting themselves into a lot less trouble with malware and scams on locked-down, secure mobile devices than they did a decade ago on Windows PCs.
My teenage nephew is pretty interested in computers and programming, and he's running Linux on an old laptop. He has full control over that but is happy to concede some control over his smartphone because he doesn't think he'll be doing any programming or anything that requires "full control" on it anyway. On Android having complete control over the software is pretty much required to avoid the privacy-invading junk that comes with it by default; Apple seems to have done a good job of creating a satisfactory experience for technical and non-technical people alike.
> People want full control over their devices, both software and hardware.
I ain’t got Time for that shit no more. I grew up and realized there’s only so much productive time in the day and maintaining my own stuff eats into that.
I ain’t got Time for that shit no more. I grew up and realized there’s only so much productive time in the day and maintaining my own stuff eats into that.
I had all the time in world for customization when I was in middle school. Now I just want something that works.
Luckily, you can pay other people to do that. Apple prevents a customer from getting their own device repaired at a reputable repair shop of their choice.
Isn’t that the entire point of the article is that Apple is allowing repairs at “reputable shops”. And how do you “choose” a reputable shop without knowing where the parts come from?
The 'article', if we are to be charitable here, is simply a press release. There is no substance to it, and we'll have to wait to see what parts they actually provide.
>And how do you “choose” a reputable shop without knowing where the parts come from?
You do it either based on brand, word-of-mouth, recommendations, online reviews, or a number of other ways people have been using to find reputable service centers for decades. People who came before us fought hard and we have established a precedent for repair in many many industries so that companies like Apple are not able to rip us off by denying right to repair, and denying legitimate repair shops the ability to purchase legitimate parts.
>And how do you “choose” a reputable shop without knowing where the parts come from?
You do it either based on brand, word-of-mouth, recommendations, online reviews, or a number of other ways people have been using to find reputable service centers for decades. People who came before us fought hard and we have established a precedent for repair in many many industries so that companies like Apple are not able to rip us off by denying right to repair, and denying legitimate repair shops the ability to purchase legitimate parts.
Online reviews are never fraudulent and people actually re disassemble the phone to know whether the parts are quality.
People who came before us fought hard and we have established a precedent for repair in many many industries
It’s a phone where you might save $20. It’s not like it’s the right to vote....
so that companies like Apple are not able to rip us off by denying right to repair, and denying legitimate repair shops the ability to purchase legitimate parts.
And when Apple doesn’t approve a repair shop there will be another uproar about Apple “gatekeeping” repair shops....
People who came before us fought hard and we have established a precedent for repair in many many industries
It’s a phone where you might save $20. It’s not like it’s the right to vote....
so that companies like Apple are not able to rip us off by denying right to repair, and denying legitimate repair shops the ability to purchase legitimate parts.
And when Apple doesn’t approve a repair shop there will be another uproar about Apple “gatekeeping” repair shops....
>It’s a phone where you might save $20. It’s not like it’s the right to vote....
You can thank them the next time you get your car fixed without buying a new car.
>And when Apple doesn’t approve a repair shop there will be another uproar about Apple “gatekeeping” repair shops....
We don't want them to approve anything. The iPhone isn't some magical unicorn. Its a box that contains components purchased from suppliers around the world. Apple forces the suppliers to not provide parts to repair shops. They use DRM in random components that have nothing to do with security so that repair shops doing basic repair have to beg Apple to "activate" the new components.
You can thank them the next time you get your car fixed without buying a new car.
>And when Apple doesn’t approve a repair shop there will be another uproar about Apple “gatekeeping” repair shops....
We don't want them to approve anything. The iPhone isn't some magical unicorn. Its a box that contains components purchased from suppliers around the world. Apple forces the suppliers to not provide parts to repair shops. They use DRM in random components that have nothing to do with security so that repair shops doing basic repair have to beg Apple to "activate" the new components.
So do you really want a random supplier installing the Secure Enclave that verifies your biometric Data and ensures a secure wipe and encrypts your user data?
Have you ever had a repaired phone with a faulty touch screen?
Have you ever had a repaired phone with a faulty touch screen?
Err.. even on my PC with a TPM chip that has biometric data, I can replace the RAM, GPU, CPU or any other component without a problem. People need to think critically with a technical mind, instead of simply accepting Apples fairytales.
But all that aside, people are free to repurchase a new phone or get the entire motherboard replaced when a $0.50 component fails on their phone. I and many others prefer to repair it and save money. And not to mention .. reduce the e-waste burden on our planet as a bonus.
But all that aside, people are free to repurchase a new phone or get the entire motherboard replaced when a $0.50 component fails on their phone. I and many others prefer to repair it and save money. And not to mention .. reduce the e-waste burden on our planet as a bonus.
So now you want Apple to design their system on a chip where the gpu and cpu can be replaced separately?
Where can I buy an off the shelf Apple designed Ax chip?
Where can I buy an off the shelf Apple designed Ax chip?
That is ridiculous. Nobody said that. Sorry, this conversation is no longer productive for either of us. I prefer to have more rights, and not less, for the consumer. You can make up your own mind. Good bye and have a nice day.
That’s the entire point. As Apple integrates more stuff, by its nature it’s harder to replace. Ifixit was even bemoaning when it was harder to replace the screen when the pixels were fused to the glass around 2010. Soon, the cellular radio will probably be a part of the SOC along with the processor and GPU when Apple’s acquisition of Intel’s modem division starts to see results.
We are already seeing third party suppliers with shoddy screens that don’t work as well and battery replacements that lie about their lifecycle.
If you really want to use the car analogy as others have, how easy is it to get third party repairs for high end cars or Tesla’s?
We are already seeing third party suppliers with shoddy screens that don’t work as well and battery replacements that lie about their lifecycle.
If you really want to use the car analogy as others have, how easy is it to get third party repairs for high end cars or Tesla’s?
>People want full control over their devices, both software and hardware.
Maybe HN readers, but not most of the population. How does allowing sideloaded apps or unlocked bootloaders help the average soccer mom? If I'm a lawyer/politician/activist, I want a locked down device so someone can't install a backdoor if I lose sight of it for a few minutes.
Maybe HN readers, but not most of the population. How does allowing sideloaded apps or unlocked bootloaders help the average soccer mom? If I'm a lawyer/politician/activist, I want a locked down device so someone can't install a backdoor if I lose sight of it for a few minutes.
> How does allowing sideloaded apps or unlocked bootloaders help the average soccer mom?
Millions of people installed Fortnite mobile without an appstore, you should ask them.
This kind of industry-wide myopia indicates that there's an opportunity for disruption, and I'm glad EA recognized it.
> If I'm a lawyer/politician/activist, I want a locked down device so someone can't install a backdoor if I lose sight of it for a few minutes.
But you get a device that records your life intimately and is one subpoena to Google or Apple away from making your life very, very difficult.
Millions of people installed Fortnite mobile without an appstore, you should ask them.
This kind of industry-wide myopia indicates that there's an opportunity for disruption, and I'm glad EA recognized it.
> If I'm a lawyer/politician/activist, I want a locked down device so someone can't install a backdoor if I lose sight of it for a few minutes.
But you get a device that records your life intimately and is one subpoena to Google or Apple away from making your life very, very difficult.
>> How does allowing sideloaded apps or unlocked bootloaders help the average soccer mom?
>Millions of people installed Fortnite mobile without an appstore, you should ask them.
That's a mischaracterization of my argument. I never claimed they couldn't sideload an app or that it was difficult. After all, all they had to do was follow the on-screen instructions. Furthermore, sideloading wasn't helping them. The user went through more steps to install a game just so epic could skip the 30% play store tax. Maybe epic passed the savings on the consumer instead of lining their profits (ha!), but the only entity that sideloading clearly helped was epic.
>But you get a device that records your life intimately and is one subpoena to Google or Apple away from making your life very, very difficult.
* you can opt out of the tracking/uploading to google/apple
* even if you opted into tracking/uploading, there's things that aren't but local malware can get (eg. emails, phone recordings)
* requiring a subpoena requires judicial approval and leaves a paper trail. it's also not an option for some groups (eg. foreign governments). there's a reason why mercenary hacking firms (hacking team, NSO group, DarkMatter) are a thing.
>Millions of people installed Fortnite mobile without an appstore, you should ask them.
That's a mischaracterization of my argument. I never claimed they couldn't sideload an app or that it was difficult. After all, all they had to do was follow the on-screen instructions. Furthermore, sideloading wasn't helping them. The user went through more steps to install a game just so epic could skip the 30% play store tax. Maybe epic passed the savings on the consumer instead of lining their profits (ha!), but the only entity that sideloading clearly helped was epic.
>But you get a device that records your life intimately and is one subpoena to Google or Apple away from making your life very, very difficult.
* you can opt out of the tracking/uploading to google/apple
* even if you opted into tracking/uploading, there's things that aren't but local malware can get (eg. emails, phone recordings)
* requiring a subpoena requires judicial approval and leaves a paper trail. it's also not an option for some groups (eg. foreign governments). there's a reason why mercenary hacking firms (hacking team, NSO group, DarkMatter) are a thing.
> If I'm a lawyer/politician/activist, I want a locked down device so someone can't install a backdoor if I lose sight of it for a few minutes.
Open devices which you have full control over can be made more secure. With a locked down device, you rely on the manufacturers' implementations, which may not get audited or regularly patched.
Open devices which you have full control over can be made more secure. With a locked down device, you rely on the manufacturers' implementations, which may not get audited or regularly patched.
Nobody is doing hardware and software security better than Apple right now. Certainly not the open source community.
Apple supports devices for 5+ years, you’re throwing up strawmen.
Apple supports devices for 5+ years, you’re throwing up strawmen.
Given that argument, Microsoft, Apple and other OS makers will pretty soon ship you operating systems without admin privileges, because those sneaky hackerZ might install backdoors...
>Microsoft, Apple and other OS makers will pretty soon ship you operating systems without admin privileges
That's actually how all mobile operating systems work right now. You don't get root (admin). The only way to get it is to jailbreak/root, which essentially involves running a privilege escalation exploit or patching the operating system. In any case it's definitely not as simple as "sudo" or "run as administrator". However, even without root, most users manage just fine. They can browse the web, edit documents, play games, and install whatever apps they want. There's no reason why this model can't be extended to desktop operating systems. You can't do it on mac/windows yet because of legacy reasons (eg. needing to install legacy drivers or apps).
That's actually how all mobile operating systems work right now. You don't get root (admin). The only way to get it is to jailbreak/root, which essentially involves running a privilege escalation exploit or patching the operating system. In any case it's definitely not as simple as "sudo" or "run as administrator". However, even without root, most users manage just fine. They can browse the web, edit documents, play games, and install whatever apps they want. There's no reason why this model can't be extended to desktop operating systems. You can't do it on mac/windows yet because of legacy reasons (eg. needing to install legacy drivers or apps).
Just another gimmick bullshit to show when opposing right the repair. Few weeks ago Apple started blocking battery replacements in iPhones, even original ones swapped from another original iphone.
No they didn't. The batteries still work. They just wouldn't show health percentages. Because, you know, at that point the gauge could be lying to the user, which is a problem with buying used phones.
As an end user you will not have to care. It just (rightfully) takes a chunk off the resell value.
As an end user you will not have to care. It just (rightfully) takes a chunk off the resell value.
They took an original, new, battery from an Apple phone and put it in the same model phone. Why would the gauge suddenly become unreliable?
Because the device has been tampered with, period.
Nothing prevents you from using it as usual. It's essentially just Apple writing "battery has been replaced by not-us, please don't blame us if this doesn't perform as expected or like, explode" in more obscure wording in their system settings.
It doesn't work with the original battery because... the company selling that IC to Apple didn't design PKI into them? The critique video literally proves this. This authentication scheme is designed by TI.
Nothing prevents you from using it as usual. It's essentially just Apple writing "battery has been replaced by not-us, please don't blame us if this doesn't perform as expected or like, explode" in more obscure wording in their system settings.
It doesn't work with the original battery because... the company selling that IC to Apple didn't design PKI into them? The critique video literally proves this. This authentication scheme is designed by TI.
[deleted]
[deleted]
So... they were expecting to end up on the wrong side of congress.
And yet somehow I doubt that these repairs will be covered by Apple Care. Even though most probably people don't care all that much.
Apple Care isn't cheap. It's getting more accessible, with the ability to pay monthly instead of up front, but I think there's a significant number of consumers who never buy Apple Care.
its not Machiavellian, no, we as an economic age are past mere psychology .. Producing the kinds of non-repairable consumer electronics that are produced for the last thirty years is ruthlessly usury of people, materials inputs, trade law, credit, investment vehicles, tax shelters, the list is endless .. A "right to repair" in 2019 is a pathetic joke. A product designed to be repaired is a completely different physical device, a different business ecosystem, a different mental model on the part of the consumer, and of course the architects of the buying, the providing corporation.
Make no mistake, this world is choking on hundreds of billions of tons of non-degradable, poisonous remnants of consumer goods, with much more in the pipeline every day.
Putting lipstick on these tiny moves should be called out for what it is...
Make no mistake, this world is choking on hundreds of billions of tons of non-degradable, poisonous remnants of consumer goods, with much more in the pipeline every day.
Putting lipstick on these tiny moves should be called out for what it is...
There is lots of good news here for us; the biggest being that we can get official parts...finally! Although aftermarket parts have come a long way. We now stock iPhone batteries that have larger capacity than the original. (Yes, truly a larger capacity. We do 30,000+ repairs a year...we are not messing around with batteries that just say they have a larger capacity.)
The biggest problem I potentially see is profit margins. AASP's have long struggled because Apple wants to squeeze all of the profit out of their business. If you pay $149 to get your iPhone 8 screen replaced, but Apple charges us $135 for the screen, we can't realistically make any money off of that.
We charge $69 to replace an iPhone 8 screen currently, so there's also a potential negative on the consumer side of having to pay more to get screens replaced. It does, however, appear that Apple will let providers in this program also offer third-party screens, which is a big change from the current AASP program.
All in all, as someone whose business is directly affected by this, I'm mildly optimistic. As long as Apple understands that repair shops need to be profitable too, this can be a really good thing for both sides.