This strategy applies beyond this particular example, and is probably one of the strong business motivations for Apple’s vertical integration.
Business-wise, this is yet another way to boost the “lifetime value” of a customer and ensure it is far more than the price of a single product, which I’m sure is a significant factor in the high valuations (and revenues) of Apple. The fact that they invest so much into marketing/advertising the Apple ecosystem as a lifestyle brand also means that they are pushed towards a business model where their customers need to have a large lifetime value to offset the customer acquisition/retention costs.
Also note how Apple pretends to care about their environmental impact, while being actively hostile towards repair efforts, that would reduce the amount of e-waste generated. Absolute hypocrites.
Of course Apple is a company that likes to keep a tight control of their market and their image, and you could maybe say they go to the point of control freakiness in that regard. Any potential loss in image regarding the quality of their products is a significant cost to them; being able to charge a premium for replacement parts probably doesn't hurt either. If independent repair shops and consumers lose something in repair costs and freedom, that probably doesn't tip Apple's scale in any way. For the rest of the society it could, and if needed, Apple (or any company) needs to be able to be criticized for that, and legislation needs to cater to that and not to the needs of any single corporation.
Edit: It might be worth pointing out that while yes, Apple would probably like you to buy a new phone within five years, e.g. many Android devices aren't supported for more than a couple of years. I agree you shouldn't necessarily be forced to buy a new device even every five years, but most other vendors aren't any better in that regard.
The situation is exactly the opposite when it comes to computers/laptops. I can still have latest version of Windows on my father's 2011 laptop.
Secondly, this whole 'loss is image' is a giant smoke screen. Consider that you can repair a BMW in a random garage with unauthorised parts and incompetent repairmen - and you might even die as a result. Does BMW's image suffer? Is their brand worth nothing?
The consumer can comprehend the consequences of repairing his device where he chooses, this is not medical equipment. Using copyright to restrict repairs is a bastardisation of copyright law - it's intended purpose is wholly different.
I was merely speculating on why it might make sense for Apple to want that kind of control even if it isn't in the best interests of anybody else. The costs to everybody else just have no weight to them, as long as their customers keep paying, and thus even a small potential matter of image could weigh more to them. That doesn't mean you, me or anybody else should support that line of though.
BMW might not mind having that kind of control either if their customers and the legislation were to put up with it.
Your point about computers is valid.
Btw. If I by a car from, say, Toyota and go to a shop to have it repaired. Of course the dealer may use off brand parts to repair it.
In the mobile space Apple is transitioning to a services and ecosystem business as the space commodifies. You buy an iPhone and then get Apple Music, TV+, News+, AirPod, Watch, Glass etc.
If you look at the Android OEMs they don't even support phones after 2 years. And Apple would likely increase upgrade support for more than 5 years if those phones weren't massively underpowered.
If you've ever looked at buying a used or refurbished phone, it's a total wild west out there with people claiming (or being purposefully deceiving) that the phones are refurbed to the quality of Apple or similar. Or you find out after buying that you end up getting a poor quality uneven brightness display from prior-generation China factories, microphones that don't work right, etc. The guy in the story was importing counterfeit parts.
Apple (and other manufacturers) have a big interest to not have people feel that their hardware is shitty.
And if Apple were really trying to make people's technology obsolete, why would they support the OS of legacy phones for multiple (4-5) years longer than most other phone manufacturers? I guess they're so evil they're trying to confuse us with good cop/bad cop.
Inject some reality into your thinking.
I haven't heard anyone claim Apple does this because they have indigestion or really like the smell of landfills. Of course they have interests.
They are not, however necessarily legitimate interests, or ones that outweigh the interests of those who purchase their devices.
We, as a species, have a lot of history with artifacts we make and trade with one another. And by and large, we've come to the conclusion that if I sell you something, I cease having a legitimate interest in what you do with it.
This notion has been blurred by the need for operating system updates (hammers didn't need those) and the proliferation of "cloud"/OPC services. And now we are trying to find the right balance.
But there's a pretty good bet that abusing trademark law to control a secondary market with what amounts to literally an engineered legal argument is a pretty good indication that Apple is... getting creative, and I think the fact of the matter is that "we" won't put up with that shit long-term. Most humans value their property rights over HugeCo's reputational concerns.
> Inject some reality into your thinking.
Physician, heal thyself.
They created the environment where counterfeits and shady dealers are required by prohibiting any official ways to repair things
So I do not have any sympathy for your argument. The day I can go to apple.com to buy a capacitor and order a schematic is the day I will agree with you
Do they have to sell you a replacement secure enclave chip, enable you to solder it in, provide the certificates to match it up to the rest of the phone? Sell you their source code so you can make your own patches and mix and match parts as you like? What if they only sell the main board as a whole component? What if their pricing for it is 2/3 the cost of the new phone? Do you mandate that they sell it to you for a certain cost too?
It starts to get a little ridiculous and out of sync with how electronics are built and operate, if you take this to where some people would insist that it go.
When I BUY a device I should have access to all the schematics, all of the components, etc. otherwise I do not OWN it, I am simply borrowing it
I fail to see why electronics should hold a special place that other manufactured goods do not, for example we disallowed car manufactures from locking down the cars we own and they used the EXACT same excuses that modern electronics manufacturers do
Now we are starting to see modern car companies, like Tesla, want to bring back those Anti-Consumer policies to the automotive world
I am sadden that soo many people want to BUY a product but still have the manufacture get complete control over it. That is not ownership, that is serfdom
Your insistence that folks buy trash phones that get thrown away (and are totally unsupported software side almost from date of mfg) is ridiculous and actively harms the environment.
By increasing confidence in their products, including used products, apple does a LOT to enhance the perceived long term value of their product. There is a very active apple refurb market, and you can take your phone and get new batteries etc from apple.
They have a huge retail presence with walk in repairs. They have authorized third party repairs. And they have mail in repairs.
Possibly in mobile space, but not in PC/desktop space. My desktop has 2x the lifespan of any macbook/iMac/whatever, will be on the latest of Windows/Linux for 20 years and every nut and bolt is replaceable. Even a single component, like graphics card, can be repaired on a chip-by-chip if need be.
Gaming rigs enjoy high resale value, it roughly tracks their performance compared to whatever is currently available on the market + 10% discount for being used.
as to their retail stores and "authorized repair" centers, I urge you to look at any of investigative reports on these place, or any of Louis Rossmann's video's, or read any of the 1000's of reports from consumer who have been denied repair or quoted repair costs that exceed the replacement cost of the device, or have been told that repair can not include data recovery, or about 100 other things
Apple stores and apple "Authorized repair" shops are not Repair centers, they are board replacement houses. It is akin to having a fouled plug in my engine and the dealership telling me the only way to fix that is to replace the engine then they walk me over to the showroom to sell me a shiny new car... That is what the apple store is
Unreliable devices damage Apple's hard-earned reputation. An end user won't know why the Apple device they're holding is unreliable - they may not even know it has been repaired if they acquired it from someone else. They'll just know it's an Apple device, and thus it must be Apple's fault. When that person talks to someone a day or a month down the line about their experience, they will not have as good things to say. In sum, this reputation will depress sales and customer satisfaction, which are the two key metrics for how Apple measures success.
Building reliable tech that just works is hard enough. Non-OEM components and third party repair shops add additional business risk, which is why Apple takes a pretty restrictive stance.
This is hilarious as the only Apple related Videos I know of are those of this repair guy who cheaply fixes parts that were obviously made to break and be repaired at ridiculous costs pushing the customer to buy a new device.
Nobody who goes to a private fix it shop would blame Apple. But they might hear about those strange parts that were build to break and this is where they may indeed lose reputation. Reputation they do not deserve in the first place.
If the end consumer winds up confused, it still hurts Apple. That is the matter of this case. The repair shop didn’t make it clear enough that these are not genuine parts.
In the car business, a large part of the profit that a manufacturer makes is actually made after the car is sold, in the form of replacement parts. Basically, by buying a car you enter into a relationship with the manufacturer to buy replacement parts for your car. Some are being manufactured independently, but many aren't available. I guess it's similar in the case of phones.
This question is in the same vein as hypothetical questions like 'what prevents Apple from violating people's privacy to sell/use their data'. The answer is always the same: pick a business model that aligns customer and company interests, and these things won't happen.
Apple thinks in long term customer relationships measured in customer lifetime value, which can be 10s of thousands of dollars over decades of customer relationship. To sacrifice that for a few extra bucks on screen repair would be really dumb.
Have we never seen management prioritise short term gains and next quarterly report over long term profits? Think of 2008 and the Boeing disasters. Almost everyone involved knew that this will blow up one day, and yet they kept going.
It's always possible to conjure up the hundreds of ways businesses can fail, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue at hand.
They appear to be well into doing that, and making solid efforts into ensuring it continues.
Or they could cut the breaks and get me killed.
In fact, even a car wash could do that when I leave the car keys with them and pick up a clean car the next day.
You assume that nothing on my phone could result in my death. That privilege is not available to me. Personal beliefs, medical history, and other aspects of my self that are stored in digital form on my device could kill me if viewed by the wrong people.
Essential to the concept of ownership, is the idea that I don't give a rat's ass what Apple or anyone else prefers. Do I own my phone, or does Apple?