Hacker News Reader

Comment by Not15CharsLong | Hacker News Reader

I would really like to believe this is not some sort of cynical attempt to circumvent current-and-future "right to repair" laws.

On the one hand: yes, this does allow third parties to carry out repairs on Apple equipment. On the other hand: no, this is so costly and inconvenient that it effectively locks out everyone but Apple anyway.

So, what would it take to enable cost-effective repair of Apple equipment? A relaxation of "parts DRM", even if it weakens overall ecosystem security? A mandate to enable side-loaded OSes to extend hardware lifetime and perhaps enable certain kinds of (security-sensitive) repairs?

I truly don't know...

View on HN

> So, what would it take to enable cost-effective repair of Apple equipment?

Forcing them to make a larger, more modular device that a few loud people want and most regular users couldn't care less about. I don't buy the argument that Apple is forcing people to choose their devices. They're in business to make what customers want, and their broad success suggests they've got that nailed.

No one is arguing that Apple is forcing people to choose their devices. That is a straw man. Consumers overwhelmingly support right to repair:

https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-...

https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/23/right-to-repair-electr...

> Forcing them to make a larger, more modular device that a few loud people want and most regular users couldn't care less about.

Even worse than that, those few loud people who say they want it can easily turn out to be just that - loud, but not actually wanting it once their demands are satisfied.

Case in point - iPhone Mini. Some people were loudly demanding a smaller iPhone for years. Apple introduces iPhone 12 Mini in Q4 2020 with great specs in a small form-factor. Builds on top of it with iPhone 13 Mini a year later. Then in 2022, Apple announces discontinuing iPhone Mini line due to very weak sales.

Why would your takeaway from that be that even the loud people didn't want it? It's perfectly plausible that all the loud people bought the Mini, but it still wasn't enough to make it a viable product.

Also, Apple gave it less then two years. I could easily imagine plenty of people wanting the Mini, but being unable to justify the purchase because their existing (larger) iPhone was only a few years old. Not everyone has the resources to buy a new iPhone every year or two.

New product is a major investment, nobody competent would just discontinue it because it doesn’t sales well early on. I suppose Apple has the number to show future sales of the Mini would be weak.

I think the mini failed because most of those customers bought the second-generation SE.

I don't know if that's actually the case, given that SE is noticeably larger than Mini.

The only people I know who pick SE are those who either still want the physical home button or just want the cheapest new iPhone. In all other metrics, including smaller physical size, Mini wins hands down.

So I find your claim about people who loudly demanded a smaller iPhone cannibalizing Mini sales by picking a larger SE instead a bit difficult to believe.

That would be true when purchasing a phone now, but not at the time the SE launched. At that time, the Mini had not launched, and it was not clear that any such device would launch. Since most of the people in the market for a small phone would have been using relatively old devices, most of them purchased the SE. Already having the SE would mean that few of them would want to upgrade to the Mini.

Also, it is worth noting the desire for small phones is mostly due to a desire for easier one-handed use, and the SE is as easy to use as the Mini in that regard, since the user does not need to reach the top of the device and the home button is centrally located, and thus easier to reach.

I agree, right to repair is a difficult thing. Technically I can repair my own car, but realistically I will take it to a shop because owning or renting all the tools required to even replace a tire from a rim is way too high.

> I will take it to a shop

The question is if you can take your car to an independent repair shop and do they have access to tools, repair manuals and original parts? Today, independent shops often don't have access to genuine parts and the manufacturers don't make them available on purpose so that only they can do the repair at much higher prices.

Right to repair isn't necessarily about doing the work yourself.

Replace the whole wheel. You don't need any tools (except those that supplied with the car itself).

There're plenty of perfectly serviceable cars. You might be too rich to care about it, but I live in a third-world country and there're lots of people who do self-service for some repairs and procedures. It's not hard and it doesn't require costly tools. Especially with modern resources when you can download service manuals and watch youtube videos its easier than ever. You only need a will (or necessity).

Replace the whole wheel. You don't need any tools (except those that supplied with the car itself).

Note that many new cars these days don't come with any tools at all. And spare tires are an expensive optional extra that don't always come with the tools anymore.

It's very different being able to take your car/laptop to any old shop than there only being a single shop that's licensed (enforced by lawyers+DRM+tool/part availability) to do repairs on your particular brand.

Two tire irons and a static balancer are about $100 at harbor freight, which is the same price my dealership charges to mount and balance 4 tires.

I’ve tried it. It’s a lot of work, but it can be done without expensive tools.

I used to be a professional auto mechanic. I know how to swap tires on a rim. I know how to do it without scratching the fuck out of your nice alloys (which you, dear inexperienced reader, are guaranteed to do the first few times you try it). I know why you need to get the bead into the recess of the rim lest you struggle mightily to get the new tire on. I've changed motorcycle tires by the side of the road with nothing but a couple of tire irons.

I also know that "a lot of work" doesn't even begin to describe it if I'm doing it on my garage floor with tire irons. If you're low on money and without other options, by all means, give it a go. But if $100 isn't the difference between your kids eating or not, save yourself a fuck-ton of grief (as well as half a Saturday) and just go get those new skins put on at a shop where they have big air-driven machines that will spoon those things on in mere seconds. Back in my pro days, myself and a helper timed ourselves from the time the car pulled into the bay until it hit the ground with four new tires: nine minutes. I probably can't get a single wheel off my car from a cold start in nine minutes.

So, yeah, it can be done. But you don't want to do it.

I just think of it as getting paid $100 to go to the gym. And I get to exercise the more colorful parts of my vocabulary. :)

Those days are probably behind me though.

Well, you nailed the two primary reasons I don't do it anymore. :-) It is a workout for sure, and I would curse a blue streak the whole time.

OTOH, it's a handy skill to have when you're in the Yukon by the side of the road with an unpluggable tire, and 100 miles from civilization.

Yeah wheels are one of those things that the big machine helps a ton. I’ll gladly pay to have that done, even if I’ll replace the starter myself.

The problem with 'a lot of work' is that people price that as $0 while it actually isn't "free", unless you are prohibited from doing meaningful work for others or yourself, which most people aren't. So if the cost for some low-quality tools is the same as having it done with high-quality tools but saving you time and effort, it doesn't make sense to try to mass-market the low quality option.

This is also what is probably at the core of all this right to repair stuff: there are definitely some anti-consumer practises but in reality people might be too busy with other things to fiddle around with their products when someone else could be doing it instead (or they might simply prefer it and shift any blame and quality control to a third party while they are at it).

Even for really simplistic things like changing a light bulb in a car people just can't seem to be bothered.

These aren't the same beast, though.

A lot of car tools are specialty tools than can only be used on other cars. And they are big because cars are big. It is hard for a library to stock some of these tools, too. People often have a few car tools, though: A jack, wrenches, and things like that. You know, the ones that are easier to store in an apartment closet and can be used for other things. Some libraries rent these.

Phone tools are closer to the car tools that people have. Even small libraries can rent them and you can store them in your desk. You'll probably be able to use some on other electronics or at least other phones. You'll probably let family borrow them. Some of the tools are already affordable, too. The things you can't do, you can pay someone for. And they can probably work out of a kiosk.

I'd actually argue that right to repair is hard, though - just not for the reasons stated. It is easier to unscrew something than to unglue it. We don't design for ease repairs. Ease of manufacturing has been winning out.

It's not ease of manufacturing. Looking closely, following for years, one notices it's never been "ease of making" above all else for Apple, it's been how the device feels and lasts.

They've demonstrably gone to insane lengths to figure out how to manufacture things better for use but impossible to make at scale before they figured it out. Then they teach suppliers those methods.

Eventually others benefit too.

This actually really upset me when Apple first released their Self Service Repair program.

Apple said it was the exact same tools their repair technicians use, and offered all the tools for a $49 rental (which, honestly, probably doesn't even cover shipping for 77 lbs. of equipment). The Verge, iFixit, Ars Technica, and others claimed Apple deliberately designed and priced their repair program to make self-service repair not worth it, even if there wasn't the part serialization.

Which... what malarkey. Of course repairs are cheaper when you don't need to rent the toolkit every time and can reuse tools. According to Apple, the parts are the same cost the Apple Stores and their repair partners get, and according to congressional testimony this is not a profitable program, so what do you expect? Apple to sell parts publicly for cheaper than they get themselves? Do you want Apple to send you the repair tools for free and have cheaper parts? That's what they were saying - the parts should be cheaper and the tools should be less complicated even though that is what Apple literally uses. You think Apple repairs screens with guitar picks and are upset Apple doesn't ship those instead? It was really disappointing.

Imagine if Apple was a car company. They wanted the ability to repair their cars, so Apple agreed to loan them for $249 hundreds of pounds of equipment for repairing just about anything on their cars. Then imagine if people cried this made car repair too complicated by design. Right to Repair does not encompass right to simple, idiot-proof, no-tools repair.

The problem is the Verge's arguments do hold some water. Its not just a 49 dollar rental - its 49 dollars with a mandatory hold on a credit card of the full replacement value.

Many iPhone owners will not have a credit card (especially in Europe), let alone a credit card with a credit limit capable of holding thousands of dollars even if it's temporary. It's also a risk some people on lower incomes simply will not want to take. The tools Apple send are so over-engineered for the task at hand, the replacement value is enormous relative to the task.

> https://www.selfservicerepair.com/tool-kit-rental

When NYT tried, 49 dollar rental fee, 1210 dollar hold. 1210 dollar CC hold just to replace a battery is crazy when independent stores across the USA do it with third party tools costing a fraction of this just fine every day. Apple's right to repair efforts arguably verges on a parody of a right to repair at times - cellphones should not need a holding deposit significantly larger than renting a car for the same period of time to replace a $79 battery. If Apple's motivations are genuine, the full replacement hold could arguably become a lower insurance hold fee just like a car rental often does.

If you want to look to a company renting for 7 days expensive, heavy, complex technical equipment - I think lensrentals.com does a great job renting equipment costing tens of thousands of dollars and Apple's repair program could learn a lot.

> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/technology/personaltech/a....

> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/faq/

The underlying idea of the right to repair program is for companies to start designing their stuff with self-repair in mind. It's not only about making spare parts available. So that you don't need hundreds of dollars of equipment to open up your phone. Then the whole buying/rental thing is a non-issue because all you'll need is a Philips #0. Or torx even (I love torx because it doesn't skip and damage the screw head)

Fairphone for example does a great job showing us what what would look like.

But this is the criticism I have with Apple's program. Technically they comply here but not in spirit. It's clear to me they don't actually want this to happen. They didn't invent pentalobe because it looks cool like a little flower. But to keep people out.

Of course existing products can't be improved but upcoming products should take be easier to repair.

This is a different definition of Right to Repair entirely. iFixit and others fall into this definition, while people like Louis Rossmann believe R2R simply means Right to Repair, and not Right to a Repairable Design. This is another issue with R2R - some define it as just getting parts and tools; others as mandatory design guidelines and requirements.

Pay attention carefully and watch different videos about what R2R means. There's a significant schism in the R2R movement over whether R2R means repairable design or not. The most successful branch legislatively (New York, Rossmann, EU proposals) says that it does not include repairable design; and that Right to Repair only encompasses the right to have manuals and parts, not that the manufacturer has to make specific design choices (other than, like, USB-C but that's not repair-related).

Edit: Another issue that comes up is how granular is a "part". Louis Rossmann sees a part as being on the level of a specific microchip and is upset he can't order parts at that level of granularity. Apple, and other R2R activists, view a part as a much larger finished item, such as a PCB or a Battery (rather than, say, the specific resistor on the inside of a Battery). Legislators for R2R in EU currently are trying to define R2R as being "if the manufacturer sells a part, they must sell it to everyone," not "the manufacturer must individually sell all pieces of a product until they are no longer divisible" - but the Louis Rossmann crowd views as being insufficient R2R. So... another loose R2R schism.

It's a problem with politics in general: that of some slogan going around which gains traction among a wide range of people, but different people have different interpretations of what the slogan actually means. They support their chosen definition, not that of others.

In fact, I would propose this kind of ambiguous slogan has, as a memetic advantage over more well -defined ideas, precisely because of this "broad appeal" which is actually the broad appeal of a slogan, not a policy.

>Legislators for R2R in EU currently are trying to define R2R as being "if the manufacturer sells a part, they must sell it to everyone," not "the manufacturer must individually sell all pieces of a product until they are no longer divisible" - but the Louis Rossmann crowd views as being insufficient R2R. So... another loose R2R schism.

Rossman appears to want the same as you say the EU want, the actual manufacturer to sell parts freely rather than being locked up by that manufacturer's downstream buyers (eg Apple) preventing repairers like Rossman from going to the chip factory to get the supplies to do repairs, in the same way that Apple go to the factory to get supplies when manufacturing boards, etc.

For everyone who says "it's too hard" to repair tiny parts, it's not. It requires special tools and surgical hand precision, but the tooling is affordable. You can outfit a lab for less than $1000 non-recurring cost. We should have schematics and boardviews available because they _are_ in effect the product repair manual. We should have ability to order individual chips. Limiting repair to field-replaceable units is IBM's business model.

When I don't have schematics and boardviews, I have to spend time generating them in my head.

> Pay attention carefully and watch different videos about what R2R means.

I don't do videos. If someone actually takes the time to write it down I'll read it :)

But for me right to repair simply doesn't work when the design itself is repair-hostile like Apple's.

Please do not legislate to screw up my devices' durability and reliability so some wing nuts can, well, disassemble them with wing nuts.

I prefer indestructible and long lasting devices-as-tools. I want more appliances, fewer janky assemblies of parts more likely to fall apart or fail me when I need them most.

Put another way, the goal is not "easier to repair", the goal is net fewer devices requiring repair, net fewer repairs.

One of those is actually better for the environment than the other, and it's not the one that churns through parts for people who want to repair or tosses more devices in the trash for people who prefer to just buy a new one.

The thing that's good for the planet is devices that last. That's the goal.

TL;DR:

If you want to legislate something, legislate lifetime warranties.

So, I've to iPhones, one with a broken camera and one with a donor camera (for whatever reason, battery problem, mainboard, whatever). I can swap the camera module, or take up a repair shop. But Some make sure the repaired device won't work fully even though all of the parts are Apple originals.

Tell me how Apple not doing that shit would make the slightest iota of difference to their ability to make devices that last?

How would them not attacking 3rd party repairers make a difference.

Why not mandated warranties and repairability?

> Please do not legislate to screw up my devices' durability and reliability so some wing nuts can, well, disassemble them with wing nuts.

But rugged devices are generally much more easily disassembled and often even have replaceable batteries. Like Xcovers. We use them in work and they can be easily taken apart with torx screws, battery replaced etc, all while being much more rugged than normal phones and waterproof.

The only reason I don't really use them is that Samsung keeps putting midrange CPUs and mediocre LCD screens in them. I really wish the S-active range was still around. The last one was the S8 active sadly.

But these things don't have to be mutually exclusive at all.

> The thing that's good for the planet is devices that last. That's the goal.

That's your goal. Not mine. Upgradability for example makes devices last longer. Having the user decide what is repairable instead of a company also.

> If you want to legislate something, legislate lifetime warranties.

Lifetime limited warranties is what this will turn out to be.

There's no point in a lifetime warranty if a supplier can simply refuse it because there's an unrelated scratch on the side so they can claim it to be user damage.

I don't think trusting corporations is ever the answer.

> Having a user decide what is repairable instead of a company

Users do not know better.

As soon as you have aftermarket repairs, next thing you know, users are suing makers because some aftermarket nonsense burned a hole in their leg, or more recently, because their entire multi-family dwelling burned down.

It's been interesting how fast the same places passing laws giving right to repair pass jump to pass laws that you can't use repaired things so people don't die.

> As soon as you have aftermarket repairs, next thing you know, users are suing makers because some aftermarket nonsense burned a hole in their leg, or more recently, because their entire multi-family dwelling burned down.

Those poor companies. Give them a few wrongful lawsuits and they fall over. /s

If only it were so simple to bring companies down. I think the odds are heavily against something like this being a big issue. Companies have more money to prove you wrong and also pay better lawyers to present proof. Sure, there could be a few of such cases. But they probably happen anyways.

That said, you sure can "fix" your John Deere easier to increase the horsepower while also unlawfully increasing exhaust fumes. But this is an individual issue then, not the problem of the company (John Deere). Right to repair does make some things more tricky. But the payoff is worth it imho.

> Fairphone for example does a great job showing us what what would look like.

Which is to say that it makes a trade off of improved repairability by sacrificing water resistance and battery life compared to Apple’s phones. TANSTAAFL

Fairphone is only one example. There are many repairable designs that are waterproof.

For example Samsung's XCover series can be opened, have removable batteries and are waterproof. It's a matter of priorities, waterproofing just wasn't one for Fairphone.

I know XCover isn't meant to be repairable as such but it's obviously a lot more repairable than a glued up phone.

iPhone 13 lasted me this whole year without any major damage with 2 small children - multiple times in water, countless drops on tiles all without a case.

Would FairPhone would even remotely be so robust?

Replacing a tire is one thing that requires specialized equipment built for the task, but something like regular maintenance - changing oil, replacing filters, battery etc is relatively easy and can be done with basic tools that almost every "handy" person will have: wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.

Years ago I decided I should know how to change the oil in my car, and do it myself regularly. I bought the required equipment, did it once, and then never did it again. It took me longer than it took someone with expertise (and expensive, professional equipment), and it actually cost more, when considering I couldn't buy motor oil in bulk, and had to pay to dispose of one-off quantities of used oil properly.

I would certainly replace the battery on my own, though. Well, maybe: getting a new battery home without the use of my car might be so annoying that it would probably be easier to just get a tow to a mechanic (or get someone to jump it and then drive to the mechanic). And again I'd have to deal with disposing of the old battery on my own: again, annoying and costly.

The main reason I do my own oil changes is that all the cheap places are notoriously bad at it.

> So, what would it take to enable cost-effective repair of Apple equipment?

It would take people to stop stealing iPhones and selling the parts to unscrupulous repair shops.

"People stopping stealing iPhones" is not going to happen. And the current Apple policy of "well, enter your AppleID credentials to unlock this phone" deals with that pretty effectively.

What we're talking about here, is disabling that possibility once the fingerprint sensor (OK), screen (huh) or battery (double huh) has been replaced.

In other words: after which "repairs" exactly does Apple get to disable a device? Some of these would enable fencing, others definitely not... TL;DR: yeah, difficult!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com