Apple expands parts access to more independent repair businesses
apple.com
apple.com
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.
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.
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).
Sorry what? My iPhones last 3-4 years, but software support is for around 5 years.
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43ejej/study-smartphone-i...
[2] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/15/how-often-...
My wife and brother are still completely happy with their iPhone 6 devices.
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.
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.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-repair/apple-to-sup...
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.
That's exactly what the AASP program is.
Same experience with $2 tempered glass screen protector I've got on yesterday. Also typing accuracy massively decreased.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
If they have Apple's logo on them and they're not Apple's, then they're counterfeit.
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.
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.
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.
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'
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.
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? :)
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.
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.)
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'.
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.
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
If those shops would have access to the same tools and instructions as Apple, that would be great!
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
Why don't those shops become AASPs? There has to be a reason why they don't want to or are ineligible..
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).
In any case, it's pretty ridiculous, and I went to a different repair shop instead.
I mean, ok. Doesn't that just mean you aren't charging enough? Is apple charging you a percent of what you charge?
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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...
If Apple was geniune, they would do this while lobbying for right to repair legislation.
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?
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.
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).
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-...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 can buy genuine BMW parts with no problem, but I can't buy a genuine Apple iPhone battery, even from iFixit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...
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")?
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.
- Sent from my iPhone SE
I expect you are going to cite something that shows an artificial benchmark run for 3 seconds.
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 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.
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.
While I don't disagree with your point, we should realize both iPhone and MBP do throttling.
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.
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.
Surely that is what being responsible means.
Unless you are an authoritarian who wants to legislate for the sake of it.
If companies wish to avoid legislation, I believe they should respond to public opinion before the pressure becomes so strong legislation is imminent.
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.
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.
Personally I always root for the underdog, they have less resources so it's harder for them to fabricate information.
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.
And he actually praises Apple quite a bit as well, in areas where he thinks they do well, such as their trackpads.
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.
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.
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 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.
One might be inspired to copy and paste themselves a bonus.
Note this pertains to the geek squad so far as we presently know.
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.
He'd also need the same software they have access to though to provision a new T2 chip ...
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).
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.
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...
> 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.
Keeping an eye out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w
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.
Whether or not you or I believe those are good tradeoffs to make, they are also reasons Apple would oppose such legislation.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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 have a Jailbroken iPhone. I want a place that can replace my battery but will not under any circumstances update my phone.
Will Apple exclude stores that do this type of repair from this program?
“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.”
[1] https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/building-a-more-priv...
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.
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.
Apple supports devices for 5+ years, you’re throwing up strawmen.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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....
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.
Have you ever had a repaired phone with a faulty touch screen?
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.
Where can I buy an off the shelf Apple designed Ax chip?
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?
As an end user you will not have to care. It just (rightfully) takes a chunk off the resell value.
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.
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...