> So your logic is: if a part is replaced, the thing isn't actually repaired.
If you have a flat tire and the garage replaces the entire car, both you and I wouldn't call that repair. If you have a problem caused by a $0.01 resistor on the logic board and they replace the entire board I wouldn't call that repair either, and that's exactly what Apple is doing.
> have clearly identified what's at fault, and told me what's being done
So let me guess, the fault was the logic board, which is basically the entire computer, and what would be done is to replace it (which again is equivalent to replacing the entire computer, and costs about the same)?
This is the main problem with Apple's repair. Outside of physical, visible damage to the computer, everything else will basically be a logic board fault, regardless of whether the entire board is burnt or broken in half (in which case a replacement is justified) or a 1c passive component being defective (in which case a replacement is overkill, but Apple's monopoly allows them to do it and extract a generous profit out of it).
> If the genuine parts cost the same, why are you surprised the labour costs the same?
2 problems here:
1) I have a problem with paying for whole new mainboard (=entire computer) when the problem is a single resistor or broken trace on the existing board.
2) The retail price of an Apple computer includes a significant margin to account for R&D and software development. The actual cost of the hardware is probably 30% and the rest is essentially a "license". When repairing an existing device, I expect the parts to be sold at-cost (as I've already paid the "license" when originally buying the machine) instead of costing basically the same as buying a new machine.
> Based on what?
Common sense. Between repairing the device on-site by replacing a 1c faulty part and returning it to the customer immediately, or shipping parts across the globe back and forth, what's the most efficient, both in terms of time, money and carbon footprint?