Hacker News Reader

Comment by beeboobaa3 | Hacker News Reader

Both impact accessibility.

If the device can only be repaired by having extremely specialist tools, skills, etc. then it's still repairable, you just need to invest in those things which costs $$$. But it's hardly worth doing, because by the time you've done so the next iphone rolls around and the skills/tools lose most of their value.

If the device can easily be repaired but the replacement components cost so much it's hardly worth doing the end result is the same: Devices won't be repaired because it's not financially attractive. Which is exactly what Apple wants, they're only doing this because the EU is practically forcing them to.

View on HN

If the physical part itself just costs a lot of money, it will have a high cost. And if it doesn’t, then the third party markets will thrive and solve this issue if the OEM is charging “too much” for it. Neither impacts a repairability score unless you want repairability to just be corresponding to how cheap something is, which would be nonsense.

This isn’t Apple being evil, it’s just basic cost of goods. It’s like complaining that a 10 yr old car is too expensive to repair cause the parts cost too much. Yeah… at some point they do, relative to the value of the car.

It's not about the OEM charging "too much". It's about the OEM sandbagging the market.

If that 10 year old car was designed with a non-standard shape battery, it would get a lower repairablity score. If additionally the OEM sued anyone who made batteries in that shape it would get an even lower repairability score. If on top of that the car was designed to turn on the check engine light if its battery was made by anyone other than the OEM then it would get an even lower score.

>> If that 10 year old car was designed with a non-standard shape battery, it would get a lower repairablity score.

Almost every battery in a phone is a 'non-standard' shape, even including when you could pull the back cover off and swap batteries. Companies have been making custom batteries since the dawn of the cell phone, pretty much.

>> If additionally the OEM sued anyone who made batteries in that shape it would get an even lower repairability score.

I'm not aware of this. Source? Making knockoff components using Apple's logo and such is not the same thing.

>> If on top of that the car was designed to turn on the check engine light if its battery was made by anyone other than the OEM then it would get an even lower score.

Where, exactly, is this message on an iPhone? You mean the single pop-up window, and the notice in the settings menu (that you can easily ignore)? Yeah, not the same thing. It's unobstrusive, yet visible enough so a person who buys one knows if they have 3rd party parts in their phone.

> Almost every battery in a phone is a 'non-standard' shape

The metaphor is not literal.

> Making knockoff components using Apple's logo and such is not the same thing

I think I was misremembering the lawsuit you are probably thinking of.

> Where, exactly, is this message on an iPhone

Again, the metaphor comparing iphones to cars is not literal.

Whoops! I guess you got me!

After all it really is actually super easy to buy new parts for Apple products either from Apple themselves or the thriving third-party market!

And on top of that, once your local repair shop has the parts, they are super easy to install.

Surely my damaged iphone mini 12 will be easily repaired at a reasonable price by the skilled technicians at the Genius Bar who have parts in stock and tools ready to go. It would be absolutely wild if their price for that service was based on the price of the latest iphone rather than the cost of parts and labor for the actual service. But certainly they wouldn't be able to get away with that due to, as we agreed earlier, the thriving market for third party parts and repair.

> Surely my damaged iphone mini 12 will be easily repaired at a reasonable price by the skilled technicians at the Genius Bar who have parts in stock and tool ready to go. It would be absolutely wild if their price for that service was based on the price of the latest iphone rather than the cost of parts and labor for the actual service. But certainly they wouldn;t be able to get away with that due to, as we agreed earlier, the thriving market for third party parts and repair.

Surely my damaged 4 year old car will be easily repaired at a reasonable price by a skilled mechanic at the car dealership who have parts in stock and tools ready to go. It would be absolutely wild if their price for that service was based on the price of the latest model year car. But certainly they wouldn’t be able to get away with that, thanks to the thriving third party mechanics.

Oh, except… yeah, these are the exact same thing pretty much. The only difference is cars have many more components and individually they cost less, whereas phones only have a handful of components and each cost a considerable portion of the phone cost.

Your specific complaint about the iPhone 12 mini seems extremely unfounded, as well. Their repair cost (which is totally turnkey) is $89. Seems extremely reasonable for a turnkey repair from a first party vendor. Surely, maybe you can buy a “new” 12 mini for $200… but this is just like cars. At some point it’s “mechanically totaled” and the repair cost doesn’t make sense. And that point changes for a car too, depending on if you use a dealership service department or a third party mechanic.

> Surely my damaged 4 year old car will be easily repaired at a reasonable price by a skilled mechanic at the car dealership who have parts in stock and tools ready to go. It would be absolutely wild if their price for that service was based on the price of the latest model year car. But certainly they wouldn’t be able to get away with that, thanks to the thriving third party mechanics.

Obviously the dealerships are typically more expensive but that is from marking up parts and labor not from trying to pressure you into buying a new car. If Ford had it the way Apple does brakes would be built in to the transmission, last for 60,000 miles, and be priced at $25,000 to repair.

My specific complaint about my 12 mini is that it needs a new frame, back glass, camera, and battery. $89 dollars is obviously unrealistic for those parts. And, like you say, phones have fewer parts that make up a larger portion of the total cost for the product. Unlike with a car, you can actually swap everything into a new frame pretty easily.

You need a new frame, a new back, a new camera, and a new battery, and you're confused why it would be outrageously priced to replace it? Basically the only things you aren't replacing are the mainboard, the speakers, and the display.

To continue stretching the car analogy, that's like saying you bring in a car to the dealership that only needs a new gas tank, new infotainment system, new bodywork and frame, and then you're outraged that they want to charge you $25k! Most of the car is damaged, you scrap it and some third party can salvage what's valuable and repair some other car.

You are wildly out of touch here.

The labor cost for replacing parts on a car isn't just another ballpark. It's another planet.

Obviously if you want to replace every part of the phone it is going to cost more altogether than a new phone. No reasonable person would argue that. And of course there are limits. The screen and mainboard are by far the most complex parts. The frame is trivial by comparison.

The problem is that there is effectively no real aftermarket for parts and repairs. Apple all but refuses to sell parts and makes using third party parts as onerous as possible.

They have been able to get away with it so far by riding the wave of quickly advancing mobile technology. But as next year's phone starts to look less and less different from last years phone, people are going to start to get serious about repairability and Apple is going to be forced to make some changes.

> The labor cost for replacing parts on a car isn't just another ballpark. It's another planet.

Then what’s your point? Labor costs on phones aren’t insignificant, and unless you want this done by people that make minimum wage (with minimum wage results, likely), it’s going to add substantially to the cost of a repair. Proportionally it will add a lot, too, since phones cost so little compared to cars.

> The problem is that there is effectively no real aftermarket for parts and repairs. Apple all but refuses to sell parts and makes using third party parts as onerous as possible.

Three points here:

1. Apple sells pretty much all of their own parts for phones up to 5 years old at this point. I don’t know how this is “refusing to sell parts”.

2. Many vendors (Samsung being notorious for this) don’t sell parts at all. Or if they do, it’s not many generations, and only specific models.

3. Third party parts for reasonable valuable (to the company making them) components do exist for most Apple devices. It might take a bit (a couple years) … but they definitely exist. Just check aliexpress some time. This is pretty much the same as cars; third party parts take awhile to come. Quality is variable, but that’s the case with any 3rd party part.

Do you really think that nearly half of the price of an iphone is the screen? How come competitors are able to offer screens at 1/3rd the price?

Keep in mind that apple is intentionally killing the third party market. You cannot make a third party screen for an iphone that behaves the same as a regular screen, the iphone firmware will detect this and prevent it.

https://youtu.be/8s7NmMl_-yg?t=803

Directly from Apple the screens are closer to 25-30%, depending on the phone. And what competitor? You can’t even buy a screen directly from Samsung. Closest I see is the pixel series via ifixit, which truly do seem to cost about the same as the apple parts. Maybe a bit cheaper, but also the pixel displays are not quite as nice as iPhone ones.

Most competitors are repaired with screens scavenged from other devices. Which is not possible with Apple devices, because of the hardware lock.

Except, it is? iOS 18 allows this natively now. And even before that, you could still use scavenged screens, it just would give you the “unable to validate” pop up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com