Apple will charge way less to fix cracked back glass on an iPhone 15 Pro | Hacker News Reader

Apple will charge way less to fix cracked back glass on an iPhone 15 Pro

arstechnica.com

30 pointsPaulHoule62 comments

199$ is still quite expensive for many though. I believe common repairs for inexpensive parts (back glass, USB-C port, battery) should be below 100$.

And I can’t imagine they have to pair the back glass to the CPU.

Don't give them any ideas.

"The unique nano-etching pattern on the back glass is stored in the secure enclave of the A16 Bionic, so the replacement glass must be paired to the SoC for the phone to securely boot."

But then what if someone steals the back off the phone?!? Apple needs to fix this immediately to prevent theft!

You joke, but I've seen phones that bonded the wireless charging coil to the back of the phone, selling the combination as a replacement part. Apple could definitely chip that component if they wanted to.

The USB-C port on my iPad was faulty when the product arrived and they wanted £600 to repair it.

You laughed, quoted the law to them and didn’t pay a penny right?

I tried that, didn't work. They said, "Our engineers have told us you damaged the port, maybe an electricity charge or water got in there". Brand new product, never took a charge.

I resolved it by taking it to a genius bar and they replaced it on the spot (outside the post/repair service). I was incredibly annoyed by the whole experience.

You have 14 days to send it back for a full refund and most Apple products come with a 1 year hardware warranty. Something isn't adding up.

3 years in western countries (or at least Australia, New Zealand, UK etc)

Not if they say you "intentionally damaged" the port. Given I only tried the charger once, this was pretty annoying.

$200 to replace glass is pretty absurd, I bet they'd do that for £20 at the second hand phone shop round the corner from me

Sure, and you'll probably end up with 10-year old Gorilla Glass 2 that'll break within a second, and not Ceramic Shield! :)

Honestly it'd probably be better if 3rd party offerings were made of plastic. It's be better than the original.

Glass is such a stupid material for a phone. It makes the device you're supposed to hold slippery AND fragile. But we've somehow ended up in this stupid world where phone reviewers have influenced people into thinking they need "premium" feeling devices rather than practical.

Regardless of everything else Nokia's Windows Phone era had some of the best phone bodies. Fun bright colors, basically indestructible, screen proteting lip, and didn't block RF at all. If plastic was re-invented today (i.e. it was the hip new thing) everyone would be using it rather than glass and aluminum shells, which feels "premium" between the time you remove it from the box and put it into a phone case (e.g. 10-minutes of ownership).

You could source a new part yourself and get it installed there. It will set you back much less than $200

If you pay >1000$ for a phone, you deserve to pay 200$ for a cracked back. They should make it 500$ just for the LULz.

I use my phone more than anything else I own. Why would I balk at a few hundred dollars extra?

So you're in agreement right?

I paid the higher of these two sums to replace a curved screen in my phone.

$199 for just glass is truly a lot.

Depending on the car you can replace your curved windshield for the same price.

To be fair windshields don't have built-in OLED panels but yes, years ago I replaced the windshield in my old Corolla for less.

Were they expecting lots of cracked backs perhaps?

https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/23/iphone-15-pro-max-back-glass-...

I wouldn't be shocked. JerryRigEverything shattered the back glass on the larger model with almost no effort https://youtu.be/IS0SItAzEXg?t=432

I'd love to see something more scientific with a pressure gauge. I think 'bendgate' was the iPhone 6+, so flexing large phones and causing cracked glass and screens is nothing new.

As would I, but watching the clip makes it pretty clear that the 15 is easier to damage (in this way) than previous models.

His surprise and comment that it was unexpected and done on the first try without much force says a lot more than exact science numbers to me.

Maybe they’re just trying to make the phone easier to repair? Why does everything have to be a scheme or some kind of cover-up for a flaw?

Im noticing quite a bit lately - having again cracked my own phone recently - that people seem to have just stopped replacing their still functional yet cracked phones. My rationale is simple, I cracked the last one and the one before that and I'll crack the replacement too. This one works fine and Im just not going to worry about it. It seems I may not be the only one thinking like this. iPhones break too easily, thats all there is to it.

A crack is like a scar, it gives your phone character ;)

Just got a 15 Pro but still have all of my prior (most anyhow) iPhones - 12 Mini, XS, SE - all with cracks!

I've finally replaced my iPhone X with a 15 Pro.

The X had a cracked screen for a couple years now. It's still waterproof (at least under the sink, I haven't submerged it for longer than that) and the crack didn't really bother me much so I never replaced it.

The back of our phones look like it stopped Heavy’s Bullet and we rode them all the way to the iPhone 15.

Especially if you already use a case, a shattered back is just a non issue (mine left glass shards around for a bit).

Why is the back made of glass? Is there a functional reason for it?

(I'm still using an original iphone SE, so I'm not very up-to-date on newer iphone technology)

Their only other real option is plastic (because of the wireless charging, and to a lesser extent blocking cellular/wifi signals) since metal can't really be used. Glass feels better, feels more premium, and so that's what they use.

You can easily use magnetically soft steel.

How exactly would that work? Aren't the wireless chargers designed to work around an air core, and changing the core type would make them non functional?

I believe it's for faster wireless charging? I tried searching for confirmation but every article was about the glass breaking.

I'm on the SE2 so I'm a little ahead of you.

Metal is not an option due to wireless charging.

Compared to plastic, glass feels better in your hand. You can feel the stiffness and thermal conductivity of glass.

The surface is more durable against minor wear, scratches and dirt. After a year it still will feel new, whereas a plastic one will be worn and scuffed.

Hilarious, Space grade titanium and the thing cracks like an egg.

What cracks is the glass on top... though indeed it's hilarious to have "space grade titanium" and then add some fragile layer for the gloss

The previous iPhone used a steel frame. The titanium makes it lighter, not stronger.

Is that the case? Because from what I read:

"Given its strength, titanium is remarkably light. When compared to steel in a strength-to-weight ratio, titanium is far superior. The metal is as strong as steel but remains 45% lighter. In fact, titanium has the highest strength-to-weight ratio of all known metals".

And if you see the test, the titanium skeleton doesn't break at all on the bending test, it's the glass part that breaks only.

If you read avalys’ comment more carefully, you’ll notice that it says exactly the same:

> The previous iPhone used a steel frame. The titanium makes it lighter, not stronger.

The content you quoted:

> “The metal [Titanium] is as strong as steel but remains 45% lighter.”

Yes, not stronger but AS strong for less weight.

So, if the steel frame wasn't a problem stength wise, the titanium should be one either is my point.

Because I felt like the parent's comment "The previous iPhone used a steel frame. The titanium makes it lighter, not stronger" was about how titanium is at fault here (implied: weaker, not just "not stronger").

Think about it for a sec. Steel or aluminium is going to yield a hell of a lot quicker than titanium. If you try to bend a phone those materials are going to yield before the glass. All the energy is going to break the frame then the adhesive of the glass from the frame.

Titanium frame? Glass will yield before the frame. There's no strain relief that the frame provides by sacrificing itself. It'll withstand more force but the glass now has the lowest strength.

So apple did not "think about it for a sec." and shot themselves in the foot?

Not really. If the frame did yield you'd get "bendgate". You can't really win here.

You're right, and it's exactly what happened here:

https://youtu.be/IS0SItAzEXg?t=437

This whole thread is full of software engineers incorrectly mansplaining mechanical engineering.

Titanium is not stronger or stiffer than steel.

The division between “glass fans” and “glass foes” is very interesting though. If you read the comments on HN it would look like glass is one of the worst choices for such a device because it cracks easily. But the comments on the original Ars article on a cursory read are leaning very heavily towards glass being the best choice because it doesn’t scratch easily.

When even ostensibly tech inclined people can’t agree what’s more important under the inevitable phone case, unscratched glass or uncracked glass, I can understand why Apple goes for the option that might provide a notable revenue source - repairs.

How many people actually use a 'naked' iPhone, I wonder?

A case of some kind is almost mandatory, not just for scratch/drop protection, but to add some grip, and so it can lie flat and not rest on the sticky-out cameras.

Been running caseless for the past 4-5 years and it’s not been an issue, even with the larger models in my decidedly average sized hands.

In my case at least it’s been a matter of making a habit of paying attention to grip so it happens subconsciously (no mental effort) and favoring pockets where risk of falling out is nearly nonexistent (e.g. front jeans pocket instead of hoodie front pocket).

It’s been nice to not have to deal with the bulk added by even thin and light cases.

Glass is a pretty solid building material for phones. You have to pick a good hardness for your use case, though. The harder the glass, the easier it cracks, but the harder it is to scratch the phone.

In my opinion, cracks are worse than scratches, because scratches don't compromise any water resistant properties on your phone. On the other hand, customers the super expensive poser versions of the iPhone probably care more about the looks than I do.

A scratch is at most an eyesore. A crack is at least an eyesore. Most people I know have their phones permanently in a case and half also have a glass screen protector. Together they’re guaranteed to protect from scratches but still not from cracks.

Thinking of the impact and likelihood of either, in the real life usage as described above, I would have imagined people focused more on impact resistance rather than hardness. Was still surprised to read the comments on the original Ars article. If people who understand tech better than the average put that much wight into aesthetics, why would any of the majority of regular buyers think past “glass must be premium and good”?

I don't think this has much to do with tech at all. This is a combination of design and materials science, with a bit of product development sprinkled in.

You can design CPUs all you want, or write kernels for Mars rovers in your spare time, your opinions on what should be on the back of a phone are no more or less valid than the average consumer.

In the end, someone with more experience in this field weighed different options, and came to the decision to use this type of glass for this phone. My phone has a glass back as well and honestly I don't really care either way. I haven't cracked it by accident, but perhaps my phone is less hard than the new iPhone?

I do prefer the feel of glass or ceramic over the feel of most phone plastics, though. The Oneplus One did something special with their plastic back which I appreciated, but the bendable plastic of previous phones felt a lot more like cheap, disposable devices. Other people swear by their plastics and power to them, it's just a matter of opinion anyway. Plastics have the same crack-versus-scratch problem when it comes to design, most plastics are just optimised to scratch much quicker so they don't crack.

FTA: “In addition to lowering Apple's official repair prices, the repairability improvements should also lower cost […] for people who buy their own parts through Apple's Self Service Repair Store”

If (and that seems likely) the price drop for repairs is because of easier access (= fewer hours billed, higher success rate of repairs), I don’t see how that would make parts cheaper.

Presumably they pay their internal price to fix phones with AppleCare, so folks without it are seeing that too.

Sounds like you are better off completely destroying the phone to get a replacement through apple care.

this guy tore one down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbRKQ0OjQeE

That's a worthless video. He's replacing a perfectly fine undamaged glass, not a broken one.

Check out JerryrigEverything's video where he tries to replace a cracked back glass and it goes horribly wrong[1] with the thing shattering and needed to be yanked out in tiny sticky pieces.

IMHO, having the back of your phone made of glass shards is insanely stupid repair cash-grab design, when we have so many durable plastic polymers to choose from. They even make the Glock handgun out of bloody plastic.

https://youtu.be/S_W73ouKtjU?si=V06NCNiGzMKmr1_l&t=375

Reply on news.ycombinator.com