Leaked Apple Training Videos Show How It Undermines Third-Party Repair | Hacker News Reader

Leaked Apple Training Videos Show How It Undermines Third-Party Repair

vice.com

75 pointspier2526 comments

If I am going to an Apple certified repair center, I would expect they are using genuine parts. I think of it like a car dealership, you're going to pay a lot but get genuine parts. Usually it's a much better idea to go to an independent mechanic and save a ton of money (there's a reason dealerships are referred to as the "stealership" by many people).

Independent mechanic has close to zero problem (except for brands copying Apple like Tesla) going to Oreilly /AutoZone /Advance /one of Euro distributors and ordering brand new OEM original part.

Example https://www.znmperformance.com/bmw-electric-water-pump-vdo-1... you get exact brand new part as mounted in the factory. Funnily enough I first found that pump when replying to someone on one of previous Right to Repair threads after OP claimed dealer charged him $1.2K for water pump https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27823860

Third party Apple repairman cant do that. 'Apple certified repair center' is a fancy name for a remailer - the program actually prohibits you from doing any repair beyond replacing battery and screen, and those are supplied to you _after mailing in original ones_ and at close to _fully working second hand device_ prices.

How does this not fall under the "abusing one's dominant market position" section of antitrust laws?

Because according to Apple vs Epic, Apple doesn't have a monopoly. We're shit out of luck.

You do not need to be a monopoly to be get punished by anti-trust fines.

Louis Rossmann covered this on his channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B18NhlBSjQc

I found his opinion on this to be both informative and interesting, seeing how he's a right to repair advocate and activist, yet he doesn't shy away from correcting points that turn into propaganda.

Everybody knows that 3rd party parts, whether for your car, iphone, or dishwasher, may not be manufactured to the same standards of quality than a genuine part. I have no problem with Apple ensuring that an AASP uses only genuine parts. If I don't want to do that and pay less, I can always go to U Break I Fix

Yeah a lot of times they're manufactured to be better.

Do you have a source for this for Apple parts? I find that hard to believe.

I just meant for the aftermarket parts market in general since the top level comment was referring to them generally. I guess my point was just in many markets OEM parts are not the best available parts, and if that's the case for electronics it's probably because they make it hard for legit companies to legally make the parts leaving only the shady ones.

At this point, Apple tries to ensure you can't even use authentic parts if you're not "authorized".

>I have no problem with Apple ensuring that an AASP uses only genuine parts. If I don't want to do that and pay less, I can always go to U Break I Fix

Yeah, I'm not sure what the story is here. 3rd party repair shops exist. I like that Apple keeps a close eye on what AASP is putting in people's phones -- it prevents AASP from baiting-and-switching the customers by using Apple's logo but putting in inferior, cheaper 3P parts.

What if we mixed in the possibility that a non-genuine apple screen is actually also a keyboard aaaand could be cheaper because it includes software that in some way is able to phone home. I realize there are many layers of tinfoil here but it was fun to imagine nonetheless.

Another common pattern is for non-genuine parts to contain components which return falsified data -- for instance, batteries with controllers which report an inaccurate capacity, or screens which report bogus touch screen calibration parameters. (These are both real scenarios which have been observed in grey-market iPhone parts.)

You already cannot use true tone if your screen is not genuine, idk anyone who uses it and if that is really much of a deal breaker, I assume the new iP13 will probably lose refresh rates above 60 when detected as non genuine, only time will tell.

Reminds me of same stuff you hear at a car dealership.

“Video” is a stretch. There was like one frame a second.

> Factories will often overproduce Apple parts like screens then sell the excess to independent vendors.

In fairness to Apple, that’s not fair at all.

I hope right to repair keeps gaining traction. If I need to buy a laptop any time soon it’s going to be a Framework. I replaced a DIMM in my current laptop (ThinkPad) and would have been pretty upset if I had to throw it away because of soldered RAM.

My fear with authorized repair programs as the only option is the risk of changing what’s considered fact. After a (people) generation where all training and education says “this is impossible,” people will believe it. The manufacturers get to dictate the new reality with no pushback from knowledgeable opponents because those opponents won’t exist anymore.

I’ve personally fixed many vehicle problems, a hot tub, a stove, a dishwasher, a fridge, a furnace, etc.. I’m 100% positive the manufacturers are lying about the complexity of everything and confident in saying that a lot of the complexity is intentionally engineered to be complex.

People want to fix their own stuff and they’ll try no matter what. The manufacturers like to tout the risks of DIY repair, but the biggest risk, by far IMO, is a lack of official schematics and docs. The manufacturers are literally creating the risk by withholding repair resources and forcing everyone to trust random internet strangers.

Learn how to discharge capacitors if you’re going to DIY fix anything :-)

> In fairness to Apple, that’s not fair at all.

Does Apple hold patents that those factories are infringing by making those parts? Companies are not in general entitled to forbid manufacture of compatible (or identical!) parts.

And when it comes to fairness, profiting off of repairing your own broken products is dubious to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, removing that source of revenue is perfectly fair, and reduces the perverse incentives companies have to make their products prone to break (isn't it strange how manufacturers choose to make phones 0.5mm thinner instead of more impact resistant?).

_If_ Apple sends a design they made to a factory to have it mass-produced, and that factory makes more of the exact same parts and then sells them at lower price, that isn’t fair to Apple, just as it wouldn’t be fair if that manufacturer did the same for some Kickstarter campaign.

Similarly, _if_ third parties make lower quality products that intentionally look so much like Apple’s ones that it deceives customers, I think Apple has a point that that dilutes the value of their brand.

Suppose Audi has a cog wheel mass produced in some factory in China. The cog wheel has to be made with very specific dimensions, or it won't fit into the Audi. Now that cog wheel in my Audi breaks, and I need a new one. What makes Audi the only one with the right to make a cog wheel that will fit my car? What you're trying to do is expand the patent system even further, without calling it a patent system.

If on the other hand those factories are infringing patents, then Apple may have a legitimate case ("may" because the quality of many patents is questionable at best, even if they're legally valid).

> that intentionally look so much like Apple’s ones that it deceives customers

But this is literally the opposite of what the training videos are about. They're about persuading customers that knowingly want to buy non-Apple parts, to buy Apple instead.

> I replaced a DIMM in my current laptop (ThinkPad) and would have been pretty upset if I had to throw it away because of soldered RAM.

Right to repair wouldn't change that. It isn't a mandate for manufacturers to change product designs to appease hobbyists.

> Learn how to discharge capacitors if you’re going to DIY fix anything :-)

Honestly, this advice has passed its "use-by" date. With CRTs and linear power supplies both rare, not many products have large, high-voltage capacitors, and most of the ones that do will include bleeder resistors.

> In fairness to Apple, that’s not fair at all.

Why? Apple really pressures manufacturers to squeeze out its profit margin as much as possible. If the consequence of that is that factories make up the difference on their profit needs by overproducing & reselling those components, that seems like a natural penalty for Apple in the way it conducts business.

> Why? Apple really pressures manufacturers to squeeze out its profit margin as much as possible.

When they say "overproduce Apple parts" that's implying they're overproducing genuine Apple parts. The factory doing that isn't going to have any of the expenses associated with designing and testing that part, because Apple is paying for that, and they'll be able to sell the "extra" parts for less money or with a larger margin than what Apple could.

It's like selling photocopies of a book and claiming it's ok.

If the factories want to use their tooling to manufacture competing parts that have been reverse engineered from Apple's parts, I'm fine with that. If they're actually manufacturing and selling genuine Apple parts to third parties that's not ok IMO.

At best that’s a naive interpretation, Chinese manufacturing firms don’t do this to “make up the difference” they do it because they can. They don’t just do it to apple, it’s standard practice, in spite of international ip protections.

Then go manufacture where this isn’t an issue? It’s hard to feel bad for Apple here, especially since they don’t offer an official way to buy their parts that’s not also serviced by them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com