Apple’s independent repair program is invasive to shops and their customers
vice.com
vice.com
Some of the testimonies make no sense
https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup
Edit: someone already posted below, sorry for the double posting.
Repair shops cannot stock a bunch of batteries.
To replace a battery, you must provide information to apple about the phone, then wait for a few days for a replacement battery from apple, then install it.
Who wants to leave their phone for a few days, or visit twice?
They or their vendor should just sell real batteries to anyone who wants one.
This is what happens when a short-term profit-exploitation bean-counter is put in charge to wreck a brand. Tim Cook must go.. he won the battle of valuation but lost the war of goodwill towards the brand; snatching defeat from the jaws of success.
If I buy a Gucci handbag, I want a Gucci handbag.
If the army buys an 8.8 grade high tensile bolt, it wants that exact bolt.
As a customer and DIYer, I want authentic Apple parts, or equivalent.
Both Apple and us customers have a trust problem. Apple's current solution is to try to lockdown the supply chain. They, and every other manufacturer, needs to do better. Apple has huge challenges with fraud and counterfeits. Whatever.
I fix a lot of my own stuff. Nerd pride (before the fall). Not so long ago, I could get parts from directly Sears. I just rebuilt my washing machine. This time, it was a total pain in the ass.
Trying to end my rant: Just sell Louis Russman the parts he needs. At cost. Figure out how to make it right. So that both Apple and us customers are confident it's all legit.
PS- My first "real" job at age 16 was fixing Apple computers at a local dealership. This is an old problem, totally solvable.
Apple's problem with independent repair seems to be more of a "squeeze all the dollars out" issue rather than anything else.
You're ignoring the rampant fraud. Just one example:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/09/rampant-chinese-i...
So one consequence is Russman has to buy a $100 battery pack to cannibalize it for a $1 chip which cannot be sourced any other way.
To reiterate:
Authenticity is a ubiquitous problem. For decades. For everyone.
Military, Amazon & eBay, fashion, chemicals, pharmalogics, etc.
Everyone.
You may disagree with Apple's strategy. But they are doing a far better job than pretty much anyone else, absent government government oversight (eg FDA).
To expand:
Fraud and counterfeiting is a drag on the economy. Efficient open markets require trust.
I'm disappointed that between the right to repair and trade wars (eg IP theft), this very basic root cause isn't acknowledged.
If you (we) don't properly understand the disease, the intended cure will surely be worse.
Same thing in the end but everyone is happier.
With 2 billion iPhones sold and 750 million in use, anything that can be done wrong, will be done wrong, somewhere — and the easiest proximate party to blame gets blamed.
Changes the risk reward calculus.
If Apple is really concerned about batteries exploding, all it needs to do is to make it easy to buy original or compatible batteries for its iDevices and provide removable batteries (like millions of other phones today still do). The user won't even have to go to an engineer to replace the battery ... oh, but then how would planned obsolescence work and poor Apple make more money!
Not always. See Brown v. Quick Mix Co.
Under the doctrine of joint and several liability a plaintiff may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable. That means that if Apple were found even 0.05% responsible for a third party battery explosion (i.e. the metal out of which they made the phones is conducive to fragmenting in an explosion, or some other such legal gymnastics,) then The defendant could collect 100% of the damages from Apple — even though Apple. This means that the plaintiff could recover all of their damages even if Apple’s share of the liability were near zero.
It’s pretty clear that those that claim “it’s always the person that repaired who was blamed” — has never spent any time in a courtroom. That’s just outright false.
And it is pretty clear that there will be always be some outlier, especially in civil cases.
It is certainly possible that companies make specific design decisions purely to limit third party repairability, but it does not seem correct to force all devices to be repairable. There are many domains, cell phones being one of them, where a lot of normal fit and finish decisions that are made in order to ship competitive products end up having the side-effect of limiting repairability. Do phones need to be so thin and rigid? Maybe not, but the competing phones are so yours must be too. There seems to be lots of sales pressure on looks and feel and almost no sales pressure on repairability, can you blame these companies for giving people what they are actually paying for instead of what some say they would pay for?
Isn't that arguing in favor of laws requiring repairability? Then your competitors would have to do the same and you eliminate the race to the bottom.
Apple's worst case is that they'll have to push back on bad news reporting. That's not a huge burden.
The reason Apple does this is solely because they make a ton of money doing this. Apple stance here is harmful to literally everyone else, whether they use Apple products or not.
Apple is being a straight-up villain on this issue.
This scenario is quite different from design or manufacturing defects, where is is reasonable to expect the manufacturer (or a competent technician) to handle the repair. It is also quite different from abuse, where the user may inflict damage to virtually any component.
And they would be justified in doing so!
How much experience do you have with plaintiff law? In a product liability lawsuit, everyone gets sued all the way up and down the supply chain. And these aren’t cheap lawsuits, powerful and dee pocketed plaintiffs attorneys take these cases on contingency, especially against an ultra deep pocketed Apple.
Third party liability would absolutely ensnare Apple if a repair shop caused an exploding battery injury.
Everyone gets named initially, yes -- I've been named as a defendant in a lawsuit myself because I was in the supply chain involved with a product liability suit.
But very early on, the defendants make the case to the judge about why they shouldn't be part of the lawsuit. That's what happened with me. It took about a month and cost me a couple of grand in attorney's fees.
In a case such as what is being posited here, that's precisely what Apple would do, too.
This is a bad excuse, first of all Apple batteries will sometimes "explode" and you did not see Apple suffer for it(maybe some fanboys pride was hurt).
We even have real data to do a scientific test, keyboards were failing, in the first months the users got the blame, they were using it wrong, they were eating at the keyboard... it took 1 year for Apple to acknowledge a fault and it got praised for the fact it will offer some limited free keyboard replacement. Analyzing this you can conclude that even if Apple is at fault the users get the blame so I don't see how if the user replaces a battery and it explodes Apple would get any amount of blame.
In most countries warranty is not invalidated because you open a device, so Apple TOS are illegal, you can change your mirror on your car and you won't void your engine warranty, I am not forced to use a particular brand of oil in the car or a particular mechanic.
I also dont think that issues caused by third party repairs will:
- cause consumers/media to point their fingers at apple first and foremost
- become widespread enough to actually be influencing apples image.
Even if they do, I imagine that such issues will likely be caused indirectly by apple anyway, be it bad design decisions or abysmal availability of parts&schematics
This doesn't change anything nor does it make it any less sinister. You're just making excuses for Apple's horrific behavior.
>latest iPhone used a 3D circuit board! Who has knowledge and skill to work on that?
2. a 40 year old stay ah home mum? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81whx_7wKHQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjZMWzXyzjU
A circuit board is a circuit board. The difficulty of repairing it has more to do with access to it. Apple makes non destructive disassembly quite difficult.
Silicon Valley has turned us into software subscribers. Now, they are essentially trying to turn us into hardware subscribers.
=============
Bless you Louis; you're doing important work. I think you need to widen the scope of your argument.
I've been working in Silicon Valley for Fortune 10 corporations for 30 years and I've been privy to "business model" conversations for decades there.
Here's my take (pardon the length): If you take a step back the essential reality behind what Silicon Valley corporations are trying to do, is disenfranchise consumers and abolish private property; more specifically and more importantly, the means of labor. They've already managed to pull it off for software; now they're essentially all subscribers. The current attitude as it pertains to hardware reeks of this being the intent for hardware too. Everything in software is SaaS today and the next step is to do SaaS for hardware.
They also see that this is a prevalent model in the auto industry : Most people don't really own their cars, they lease them and under the leasing contract all maintenance is done by the dealership. In general, the whole "sharing economy" (Uber and the like) is also going down that business model — you no longer own your means of labor; they're owned by the corporation.
They don't want consumers — and especially workers, to own anything — they want you on a leash, forever in debt, a brick in a huge Ponzi scheme where the entire life of the worker/consumer belongs to business model and you are nothing else than a credit line.
Keep this in mind when you argue the Right to Repair: It goes well beyond "repair"; it goes into the very fabric of what it is to be a citizen, a worker and consumer in a market society. Companies don't want you to repair what you purchased from them because they don't really consider you've ever acquired the goods; you're a hardware subscriber and they want you to be tethered to them as a dependent; a predictable source of revenue for a publicly traded industry that needs to predict revenue and growth each quarter.
How do you ensure predictable revenue when you're Apple ? You lock consumers in. What does "locking-in" mean ? Alienation, subservience, dependence. I'm not even a libertarian, nor a marxist, and there's no hidden anarchist agenda in my arguments — I simply believe in private property as an essential pillar of civil liberty.
If what this industry does is not "abuse of dominant position" and wilful distortion of market forces to benefit nobody else but tech industry shareholders, what is it ? If you've studied the past, you'll recall the economic model of plantation owners relied on the slaves/workers not owning the tools of their labor. You were strictly forced (or allowed) to work under the monopoly of the plantation owners. Ironically the same model was instated by the Soviets, although they pretended to make it legitimate by claiming nothing belonged to any individual. Both the Bolcheviks and the plantation owners abused their lucrative monopolies.
The foundation upon which the republic and civil liberties are built, is private property. If many in the tech industry have their way, the US will become one large plantation where a class of owners can shut you off your job, your communications and your access to education and culture, simply by remotely turning your devices into bricks. The hour is grave.
=============
There are advantages to the subscription model for businesses and there are situations where the subscription model is advantageous for consumers. The problem for consumers arises when they have a long term interest in a product. That is the case where they are forever in debt.
Since the article is about Apple, consider the iPhone verses the Macintosh.
For the past decade, the subscription model has (arguably) be advantageous to both parties in the case of the iPhone. The improvements in performance and features means that any given device is a short-term investment rather than a long one. While it probably costs more using a subscription model, the difference is not going to be large unless you are an outlier.
Apple's computers are a different issue. Features and performance have been relatively stable for a long time, while being sufficient for most everyday tasks. The initial cost is also somewhat higher in most cases. It is reasonable to expect the consumer to see a Macintosh as a long term investment. In spite of this, Apple has taken clear actions to move the Macintosh towards a subscription model by following the same approach as the iPhone.
Given the two scenarios, one of which can be seen in favor of consumers and one of which a detriment, I am hesitant to suggest legislating away the subscription model.
The problem comes down to ensuring choice. A consistent revenue stream is a huge incentive for businesses. Concealing long-term costs also works to their advantage. Once the practice becomes established in an industry, it is going to be difficult to compete against it.
https://www.inc.com/anne-gherini/the-rise-of-rundle-a-new-tr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_%28novel%29
Goldratt's theory of constraints gets all the attention, but the logical conclusion of "rundles" hasn't been openly acknowledged. We've long talked about "service economy" and "XYZ as a service" and "subscriptions", but everyone kinda misses the central point.
Very weird.
Any way. These "rundles" are a long time coming. As a tree hugger, I think they're long overdue.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
You are a Nazi. Plain and simple. I know it's not nice to hear such a thing, but it's true. Someone should have mentioned this to you long ago. There could have been much pain and hurt and suffering avoided, had you only known that your actions are destroying people's lives. I assume many posters are too intimidated and are afraid of being banned, to speak truth to your power. That's not me. I simply don't care, and will speak the truth to your face regardless.
Here it goes:
Are you the one who shadow banned my last account?
This is my second HN account. Honestly. The first one was a few months ago (account name 'shiftless'), when in my extraordinary 36-year-old graybeard naivete, I thought it might be a good idea to join this forum, to participate in discussions with fellow computer enthusiasts.
There are many intelligent and wise people here, and many great discussions. Being that I have been living as a hermit for the better part of a decade, it would be nice to have for the first time in a long while people to talk and discuss with, to learn from and to teach.
I invite you to read through the history of my comments, on this profile and the last, and honestly tell me with a straight face that I am a worthless person, that my comments are useless, that I need to be lectured, talked down to, etc like you're doing to this guy, or that I deserve to be shadow banned--my comments silently consigned to oblivion with no notification--simply for speaking my mind.
Yes, my opinions are strongly held, but they are never ignorantly so; everything I know and believe is thoroughly researched and I can argue my position on any subject. Rarely have I been given a chance to do so on this forum. Actually, the posters here are quick to downvote, to flag, to run screaming to the Nazi mods to please hurt this mean evil person who posted a comment I didn't like. You created that culture. The fish rots from the head down.
The harm you are doing to the community with your Nazi Germany style "moderation" is incalculable. The word "moderate" used to mean "moderation", but there is nothing moderate about your actions. There's no telling how many great people you've driven away from this site through this bullshit. It needs to stop, immediately.
Are you planning to shadowban this account as well? If that's the case then I will never, ever post here or read this site again.
This is especially important as there are secure elements that are critical to iPhone security that have to be handled correctly. I trust Apple to get it right.
Which secure elements are you concerned about, and please be specific? Is replacing the screen putting you at risk? How about the charging chip?
This is really infuriating, but maybe we get what we deserve - you can literally take away people's essentials rights to do with their property as they see fit, and they will cheer for it! This, I find, is a good overview:
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...
Apple is free to have the repair policies they like, and I am free to buy or not buy Apple with their repair policies forming one of the inputs for my decision.
Apple will always exist as the primary place people go to get their products fixed... regardless if other people have the right to repair them or not.
Apple aside, we need to be able to fix and repair the things we own. That vastly outweighs any oh-so-shady non-Apple vendors.
Otherwise how do you feel about the regular person selling you a device that might have internal usage damage not apparent yet on the surface ? I feel a button that is about to fail, a screen that has been beaten enough to be near its end of life are as much of more probable as a repair shop setting defective parts on its customers devices.
This is not about whether you are allowed to find out whether a phone was repaired by Apple and then potentially refuse to buy it, this is about whether other people are allowed to have their phone repaired by parties other than Apple if that is what they would like to do.
Do you always, without exception, study every single line of terms and conditions of every purchase you make and every service you use until you have completely understood the legal implications of all of them before you actually enter into a contract? Or have you ever agreed to a contract without that level of investigation?
Anyway; do I always? Hell no. Have I ever? To the best of my ability, many times, yes.
EDIT: Oops, misread the second question. Yes, of course I have agreed to contracts without that level of investigation.
What about it isn't simple?
> At best it is loaded
What about it is loaded?
> and unnecessarily complex.
What about it is unnecessarily complex?
> Yes, of course I have agreed to contracts without that level of investigation.
OK.
So, suppose in one of those contracts there was a clause that you weren't aware of that said that you would be required to hand over all or any of your property to the other party on request.
Do you think that that should be enforceable? If you think it shouldn't, why not? Especially so considering that you were free to not enter into that contract, therefore you, arguably, would not be forced to hand over your property when this clause is being enforced.
The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot.
If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing.
That's ... not what a loaded question is? A loaded question is a question that presupposes as fact that for which no agreement exists, which is why it is fallacious. Setting up a scenario to support one's own position is exactly the opposite of that: It's the honest thing to do.
Also, what exactly is wrong with a reductio ad absurdum? It's certainly not a fallacy!?
> The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot.
When someone asks you "do you think that X should/should not be legal", answering "X is/is not legal" is a fallacy known as dodging the question. Ironic given how much you seem to dislike fallacies that aren't even fallacies!?
> If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing.
"maturely" as in I may only make arguments that agree with your position (because you seem to object to logically valid arguments simply because they contradict your position), while you are free to use fallacies as it suits you (which is what you have done)? I think that's the kind of approach that I would generally use the label "immature" for, but I guess labelling that as "mature" fits right in with you being the one to use all the fallacious arguments?!
Anyway; do I always? Hell no. Have I ever? To the best of my ability, many times, yes.