Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost (vice.com)
476 points by dsr12 8 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 285 comments



"Apple does not ‘own’ the product after they have sold it"

I think this is the crux of the issue. The guy was importing refurbished parts with the logos covered even. They weren't counterfeits. How does a manufacturer have the right to sue for copyright infringement when it's just end users reselling authentic parts? The owner even states he in no way markets them as OEM parts.

Frankly I think it's pretty obvious apple is just trying to squeeze every cent out of these phones and it's a really bad hat to wear.


I don't think they want to squeeze every cent. I think they just care about the brand. They want people who bought iphone to have the best experience they prepared for them. Even if you buy some used iphone. If somebody buys some used iphone and it acts weird or the build quality seems imperfect because some parts were replaced, then this person may spread opinion that iphones suck.

I'd guess that's their reasoning. But I'm not on their side here. I think they should be allowed to design products to make repairs as hard as possible if they want to, but once I buy it I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Plus there's not that much great experience to protect lately..


At Ford™ we care about our brand. We want people who bought a Ford™ car to have the best experience we prepared for them.

Other fuels may contain additives which make your Ford™ engine seem imperfect. A few misguided people are tempted by the siren call of the independent fuel suppliers to use something other than the Ford™ fuel specially made for your needs. When things go wrong, they spread rumors that Ford™ vehicles suck, when it was simply their misguided fault.

And that's why, as the proud owner of a Ford™ vehicle, you must go to a Ford™ gasoline station to buy Ford™ fuel. That's Ford™ fuel, available from a Ford™ station somewhere in your state.


Wouldn't car parts be a much more accurate analogy, though? Apple isn't suing anyone for not using Apple-branded electricity to power their phone.


>Wouldn't car parts be a much more accurate analogy, though?

Yes. The FCC actually sent out reminders to phone companies two days ago reminding them that use of aftermarket parts cannot void a warranty. This also applies to things like "warranty void if seal removed" stickers etc.

https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/04/10/ftc-reminds-phone-m...


It doesn't change your point, but that was the FTC, not the FCC.


It does a little bit. The FCC has teeth when it comes to maintaining their regulations. There's little else you can do to bring suits to your door faster than to operate an unlicensed transmitter. The FTC is not so potent, as indicated by the behavior of all these cell phone manufacturers for the past decade.


Don't give them ideas.


I don't understand why the geniuses at Apple haven't seen the obvious flaws in our American/European/Asian/etc wall plugs and sockets and created Apple branded proprietary wall plugs and sockets that are totally incompatible with all current American/European/Asian/etc. plugs and sockets. Apple products would all use the proprietary plugs, while 'obsolete' devices with standard plugs would require a $40-100 Apple adapter. The Apple home isn't truly going to be an Apple Home until you can't plug a non-Apple device into a wall socket without forking over money to Apple for an unnecessary adapter.


It's easier to just change the plug on the other end of the power cables every release.


This criticism rings extremely hollow.

The 30-pin connector lasted from the third-gen iPod (2003) through the iPhone 5 (2012), or around nine years. Lightning has remained the connector of choice since then for the past six years.

MagSafe debuted in 2006, was improved to MagSafe 2 in 2012, and is being phased out for USB-C (which is terrible, but I digress) in 2018.

One change in fifteen years for their handheld product lineup and two changes in twelve years for their laptop lineup seems pretty reasonable.


Asian outlets are amazingly versatile: they happily take both European and US plugs. It's a real pleasure not having to bring converter plugs with you. I am still wondering why airports all over the world have not adopted them.


That sounds great. Though, how is the voltage difference handled?


Most power adapters for electronic devices will take any AC input from 100-240v and transform accordingly to the device (which cares more about DC), but definitely check before plugging it in. The Americas and Japan are 100-127v, and the rest of the world is 220-240v with a few discrepancies here and there. They also range from 50hz-60hz AC, so some devices that rely on the frequency for time may slow or speed up depending on what region they were made and where they are used.


No, but they are making it very difficult for anyone to use, for example, non-Apple-branded cloud storage. And they are making it nearly impossible for anyone to use non-Apple-approved apps.


> they are making it very difficult for anyone to use, for example, non-Apple-branded cloud storage

Which is why they added support for arbitrary file providers to integrate with iOS 11's Files app, and why they announced that iWork will support collaborating through Box last month?


I still can’t use whatever SMS app that I want to. I still can’t replace Safari as the browser that opens links from apps. I can’t replace contacts or the phone dialer and I can’t open contact address links in anything but Apple Maps.

Heck, they don’t even let me organize my home screen the way that I want to.


At this point, you are just complaining that iOS is not open source.


Those are pretty basic functions that Apple just locks you into. iOS would not have to be open source for those things to change… At all.


That wasn't my point. My point was that all those requests are feature requests, as opposed to lifting some artificial restrictions. Because iOS is not open source, they would need to be coded by Apple, so it's a perfectly valid business decision on their sise not to invest in them.


Macos is not open source. You can use Firefox as your default browser.


I don't know. Those all seem like valid complaints to me. The os is separate from the applications and everything he listed has its own industry.

Microsoft was reamed over installing IE as the default browser on their OS, so how is not letting you change safari as the default on iOS any different?


Microsoft had a monopoly. Apple doesn't. If you don't like it, go buy an Android phone.


Coulda said the same thing with Microsoft, go buy a Mac. Monoply power isn't a binary stat, it's a sliding scale and eventually these companies get enough power to start affecting other industries


A court judgment that a company has abused its monopoly power is a binary stat.


Yes, and Apple might have one of those binary stats coming their way soon. Let's hope, right?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-court/u-s-appeals-c...


I mean, that's exactly what many of us are doing.


I know. That's my point. People are complaining about decisions made by the company as if they're civil rights violations.

"I can't change the default SMS app on my phone!" This has always been the case with the iPhone since the beginning. Until Apple says that this is now a new part of the OS, pretending like that was some kind of bait and switch or deceptive business practice is completely silly.


> People are complaining about decisions made by the company as if they're civil rights violations.

No they aren't - not here at least. Scanning this thread, it looks like they're just complaining.

> pretending like that was some kind of bait and switch or deceptive business practice is completely silly.

Who did that? Can you point out a specific comment? I certainly didn't and I don't see any other comments that did. I simply pointed out how Apple makes their product difficult to use by being so stingy with the level of access that they allow me to have.

Anyway, there is an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple right now. Since their iPhone does have somewhere around 50% marketshare in the USA I think there's a chance for it to succeed and I hope it does.


>Anyway, there is an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple right now.

And what are the damages claimed against them? Even if they have 50% marketshare, they still have competition with a larger marketshare both domestic and worldwide. There's nothing that can be brought against them because they're not doing anything illegal or immoral.



Heck even apple approved charging cables sometimes give me the "this accessory might not work correctly on this device". Gives me pause, but it goes away once I retry...


Isn't it nearly impossible to so much as download a file from the Internet on an Apple device, or have they changed that?


No, you can totally do this even on iOS.


Ah but isn’t it true that iPhones have no right click?


Uh, yes. Why is this relevant, though?


I was actually thinking that plain old bolts, also available at the hardware store, imagine if Ford could ban all 8mm bolt import and sales just because they had one in one of their cars


Well, automakers don't literally do that, but they might suggest you use the specific oil, coolant, or brake fluid that the dealer has. Sometimes much cheaper products are perfectly good and sometimes not. I have an old car that requires a particular type of automatic transmission fluid for the power steering system. People who don't research it and use generic "power steering fluid" say it can lead to leaking seals. The wrong type of radiator coolant is said to lead to all sorts of problems too.

The fact that there is a conflict of interest and the manufacturer will charge more doesn't mean that there aren't real issues.


This is literally that with many tractor brands. Mahindra will void your warranty if you don't use THEIR oil in a new tractor.


And I as the owner of said car am within my rights to use/do whatever I want to maintain it. I wouldn't expect the manufacturer to fix anything, I screwed up, but if I want to pour sand into the gas tank, I can.


The real world problem is that it can be difficult or well-nigh impossible to trace back the causes of mechanical problems. If we had a foolproof way to do that, it would transform the used car business, as well as warranty claims and other stuff.


> available from a Ford™ station somewhere in your state

... and at 3x the usual price.


Any reason why you used the ford brand as an example? I don’t like or hate them - just curious why them over others, if there’s any reason at all.


No deep reason. Once upon a time Ford dominated the car industry, and Henry Ford cared deeply about the engineering of Ford cars ("the brand"). I also wanted an industry where people spent a lot of money on an end-user product, such that they would not want to do something which might break a warranty.


It's really more like getting a Ford vs third-party part for your car, which yes, every car manufacturer will recommend. It's not like Apple is trying to sell you Apple electricity.

Regardless, this is a pretty low-effort attempt to make a point.


Car manufacturers may recommend against custom parts, but they probably don't (yet) detect you're using one and work to make your experience worse.

Safety is one thing. Working against your customer another.


My Dell laptop constantly used to tell me I was using a non-Dell battery (falsely). So I think there are probably quite a few instances of electronics having ways of detecting aftermarket parts, and there might well be automotive examples. I suspect printers that detect authentic ink cartridges exist. Wouldn't bet that it hasn't been done in the automotive realm.



Yup. Relatedly, devices on a CAN bus don't authenticate each other, and we're seeing real security & safety problems as a result. Ford—or Tesla and Volvo—will start locking those down this decade, or start seeing more incidents.


Third party parts in car are protected by law.


If only Apple™ users were limited to a special Apple™ version of the internet! :)


That's actually not a bad idea at all. A sanitized, curated version of the Internet would be a great idea for kids, elderly, the developmentally challenged, etc. Something like the web-equivalent of what Disney World is to the Real World.


AOL?


> They want people who bought iphone to have the best experience they prepared for them.

It's quite obvious that, to put it mildly, that's wishful thinking inspired by a heavily rose-tainted view of Apple.

Meanwhile, Apple is known for their extreme price gouging complemented with extreme actions to stop even their very own customers from even repairing their broken products, let alone upgrade them to a usable state.


> complemented with extreme actions to stop even their very own customers from even repairing their broken products

Like what kind of actions? I can go to ifixit.com right now, order parts for my iPhone, order tools to work on my iPhone, and watch detailed instructions about how to repair my iPhone. (or Mac, or iPad, etc.)

The products are NOT easy to work on, but I am not aware of any action that Apple has taken against individual customers who want to repair their own products.

> let alone upgrade them to a usable state.

Personally speaking, I'm still using a 2008 Macbook Pro today because I was able to order and install more RAM (even above the recommended limit), a new SSD, and a new cooling fan.


Actions like fighting right-to-repair bills in many states.

While you may have the right to do that yourself, they don't want you to have the right to hire someone else to do it for you.

They also don't want you to have the right to get those parts for your iPhone.

Apple goes after producers and technicians, and not so much end-users. For one, I think end-users have rights, like the first-sale doctrine, which makes it harder for Apple to do anything to you other than terminate your warranty coverage.

Though I think they really would have preferred if they could sue you for jailbreaking an iPhone - they lost that court case.


I agree with all that. I wonder though... how is it that I can buy parts from IFixIt? I'm honestly asking--I read the linked story about Norway and I don't see how what iFixIt does is different... except that they don't do the repairs themselves. But it was the parts shipment that Apple objected to.

I think the legality of jailbreaking was actually decided by the Library of Congress DMCA exception process.


You are right, it was not a court case but a LoC exemption. Thanks for correcting my error!

iFixit was part of that effort. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q89wb/how-to-fix... describes more about the company's history. I found it interesting.

https://es.ifixit.com/Answers/View/121003/The+replacement+ba... says (concerning a battery)

> The iPhone 4 Battery we sell is made to the same specifications as an Apple OEM part, but cannot be classified as 'OEM' because they are not made by Apple. Apple doesn't like to sell their OEM parts to anyone, so they are extremely hard to find. Our parts are brand new, fully tested, and made to the same quality as Apple OEM parts. They also come with a 6-month warranty."


I'm just hearing about this "right to repair" thing. It sounds from this article that the "right to repair" also includes forcing Apple to sell their parts to be used by anyone for repair. If that is the case, I think it is going to far. I don't think Apple should be forced to sell their parts to anyone. But I do believe that anyone should be able to repair any item they own or pay anyone else to do it.


When you buy something, you do have pretty broad rights to repair it.

The problem is, they are becoming less and less effective.

If you have no documentation or repair manuals, then it's harder to fix. An authorized repair site might know what error code 59276 means, but do you?

Apple famously started using a pentalobe screw, seemingly for the goal of making it harder for people who aren't at authorized service centers to carry out repairs. If a company uses non-standard parts when standard parts would work, this makes it harder for you to repair your own items.

In the pentalobe case, third-party vendors sprang up to sell the specialized screwdrivers, so it became less of a barrier. But imagine if the new screw were covered under patent that prevented substitutions .. and only authorized repair centers could buy the correct screwdriver.

Companies are using their rights under other laws to make it harder for you do to your own repairs. For example, farmers are turning to foreign hackers because farm equipment companies use the DMCA to prevent farmers from using anything other than authorized repair technicians from fixing the equipment. This equipment is increasingly reliant on DMCA-protectable software.

As you saw in this case in Norway, Apple wants to use its trademark power to prevent people from buying parts which would otherwise be legal

Are there any requirements would you force upon Apple in order to ensure that people have a reasonable ability "to repair any item they own or pay anyone else to do it?"

Make not mistake - it's also well-established law that the government can force companies to sell to people they might not otherwise want to sell to.


You can't do that with a 2015 MacBook. Everything is soldered on.

Are the iFixit parts genuine? I have no idea.


This is actually much better than their previous designs which had 'replaceable parts' that by design would generally destroy the motherboard when replaced by technically-inclined users or non-Apple repair people. Now there isn't an illusion of repairability bundled with a false sense of defeat upon encountering failure.


I'm not sure it's better that GP wouldn't have been able to do what he did successfully, because other people might have failed thinking they could succeed.

Just because some people might fail at certain tasks thinking they could perform aftermarket changes (so long my Palm IIIx and iPhone 3G) doesn't mean all people will fail at these things (wayhey hello new screen on my Thinkpad and significantly improved wifi on my XPS).

Meanwhile my MacBook Air now gathers dust and I was forced to fork out significantly more money for a MacBook Pro just to double the RAM from 4GB to 8GB. There's only one winner there (well, arguably two, as I still got a new laptop out of it...)


It's tragic to see RAM moving in the opposite direction of other positive technologies like USB. Going from being difficult to reuse between devices to fixed and impossible to reuse, making entire devices disposable.


Just part out your MacBook Air. I just parted out a mid-2011 and got about US$600 for it, excluding the useless battery and frayed power cord.


Being forced to sell a product in perfectly good computer just because the manufacturer goes to extreme lengths to stop you from even performing the most trivial upgrade ever is not a solution. In fact, that caters to a single party's interests, which is the manufacturer itself. You're being forced by the manufacturer to waste a bigger chunk of your hard-earned money by giving it away to him.


> Like what kind of actions?

Well.... You can start by reading the news piece that's the source of this discussion. You know, the article on how Apple went to extreme actions to stop even their very own customers from even repairing their broken products or even upgrade them to a usable state.


Apples 'price gouging' is just smart business. How do you get people in the low end to buy your product. But get the best margin on the high end?

The base model of their products are perfectly servicable and price competitive for the quality. They just know what the wealthier consumers are willing to shell out for.


> Apples 'price gouging' is just smart business.

Hooray Apple and its stockholders, but the consumer keeps on getting thoroughly screwed over and over again.


"dont hate the player, hate the game"

Capitalistic tendencies in capitalist companies is not shocking.


It's perfectly reasonable to hate the player for playing the game.

Otherwise that's merely another form of 'just following orders'.


Apple basically doesn't compete on the low end for phones. The space is overwhelmingly dominated by Android devices. This also happens to be the largest segment by volume, which is a big factor in how Android devices sell in much greater numbers than iPhones.


The margins are much better on a $1000 dollar phone than a $200 one


[flagged]


The "greater than" or right bracket is used as a standard inline quote symbol and has been since before image boorus or chans existed.


Yeah, I was seeing them used in text-based email and Usenet clients in the 1980s, and they're probably even older than that.


This has happened multiple times:

1. Users swap parts in a way Apple didn't account for in software

2. Something goes wrong, users blame Apple for intentionally breaking third party repairs

3. Apple deals with it

Touch ID mismatch: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/error-53-...

Third party screens: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208067#1103

Third party screens, again: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/10/iphone-8-...


Of course the screens are non-genuine

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/23.24


Updated


Possibly, but there's an obvious planned obsolescence angle here for Apple too. Perhaps people wouldn't so readily buy new iPhones if they could replace their old phone's battery, screen, buttons, etc for a more reasonable price from a "non-authorised" repairer. Perhaps they wouldn't get a new one like clockwork every 1-3 years.


If any manufacturer of phones has planned obsolescence built in, it’s Android manufacturers. iOS devices receive updates for over 3 years, while you’re lucky to get updates to your Android phone after a year.


While the android update-situation is a real issue, not having the latest version of android installed on your phone does not make it obsolete.

There’s almost no software that actually depends on you having the latest version.

Bad battery life or flash storage used to beyond it’s reasonable lifetime is a much bigger problem, a problem that can be solved by replacement parts, or even better: user replaceable batteries or SD-cards.


Or perhaps a robust second hand market for refurbished phones allows more people to afford to stay on the upgrade treadmill, increasing Apple's sales and bringing more people into the app-store system.


Battery replacements are $29 at Apple stores


This year only.


HAHAHA NO.

The first thing you are being told when becoming Apple Authorized Service provider is UP-SELL. Your main function and profit source is telling people "cant be repaired/repair will cost as much as new one, would you like this new model?"


> The first thing you are being told when becoming Apple Authorized Service provider is UP-SELL. Your main function and profit source is telling people "cant be repaired/repair will cost as much as new one, would you like this new model?"

I had water damage to a 2013 MBP, minor but nonetheless.

It passed all diagnostics. Ran fine on AC power. Battery diagnostics were fine too. But it wouldn't charge. "Charge circuit error".

No problem, I think. That's where the water damage was, no doubt. So I take it to Apple (in 2014, probably 18 months after purchase). I set my expectations, hmm, maybe $200-300? Let's go with $300, after labor, etc.

Haha.

"Sir, the charge circuitry is damaged and we need to replace that. You're looking at $899. Perhaps we should talk about you buying a new MacBook? Have you seen the latest?"

So, there's labor, etc. But you're going to tell me that to repair something, that by your own diagnostics, is fine except for this one part costs 70% of the new purchase price? I paid $1300, if I recall for the MBP. Take away something for labor, etc, and apparently the charging circuit is worth more than the CPU, the memory, the SSD, the screen?

No, now it serves as a driver for my step daughter's Garage Brand / Logic Pro setup with MIDI drums, keyboard, etc., remains on AC and has worked fine for several more years.


> So, there's labor, etc. But you're going to tell me that to repair something, that by your own diagnostics, is fine except for this one part costs 70% of the new purchase price?

That's what a highly integrated machine gets you. Charge circuit defective => replace entire main board, including CPU, probably memory and storage too nowadays.

No one is doing component-level repairs any more.


> No one is doing component-level repairs any more.

Not entirely accurate, its just a highly skilled bit of work that you have to work to find people that can do it. This guy does it: https://www.rossmanngroup.com

Watch his youtube channel here and you can learn how to do it yourself: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w

That said, in general you're right. Component level repair on multi layer pcb's with BGA or reflow soldering is... not all that economical in the amount of labor and skill and equipment involved.


That's a valid counterpoint and one I'd be open to discussing. However, my own experiences support the owner you're replying to.

I also possess a 2013 MBP with a Retina screen, proudly running well all these years later after many AAA games, overclocking, and innumerable HD repartionings. However, I broke my MBP's screen twice, and both times I called the closest Apple repair shop, and once the main "independent" repair ship in my city, and all three times the price came back as a nice, round $1000: nearly half of the original price!

So I looked around online (always had been vaguely aware of Right-to-Repair, and ifixit.org). After reading the excellent repair guide online and ordering what seemed a high-quality screen online, the repairs, which cost me no major headache or extreme difficulty, materially ended up costing around $300. Also, I want to mention that the aforementioned ifixit guide listed the highest difficulty grade to this type of repair.

So you are telling me, someone that had never engaged in computer or mechanical repairs before in his life, performed $700 of labor in just under an hour? No, the likelier answer is that Apple is simply rent-seeking in the sector of product repairs.


> No one is doing component-level repairs any more.

There is a vendor on eBay who does this, cannot recall his name.

But they will definitely desolder and replace any component wherever this is possible.


If you go to any of the electronics mega-malls in Asian cities like KL or Singapore the top floor is full of little shops of guys armed with soldering irons and loupes that will repair anything for a hundred dollars or two.


Sure they do, you just have to go out of your way to find someone.

I've sent my laptop to this guy in NYC, and had a pleasant experience, even if he couldn't find my problem. (intermittent shutdowns)

https://www.rossmanngroup.com/


If you look at The current situation with ThinkPads it's obvious why no OEM would want to end up where Lenovo is now. ThinkPads built a decade ago are so durable and well-built with readily available replacement parts that they will most likely never go away entirely. CPUs haven't improved enough to make them a compelling argument for upgrading, and the end result is that modern day Lenovo is stuck competing with its own product.


Those Thinkpads were built by IBM. Lenovo took a stallion of a brand and drove it face down into the ground.

I tried to stay with Lenovo, but after the endless waves of shitware, spyware and low quality hardware (!) I had to give up. Thinkpad’s great name is thanks to IBM, and perhaps, maybe, a bit of early Lenovo. Maybe.

If Lenovo is competing with anything, it’s with IBM.


> Those Thinkpads were built by IBM. Lenovo took a stallion of a brand and drove it face down into the ground.

I don't think this is particularly true, 2009-2012 era hardware designed/built by Lenovo/Quanta is also around in plentiful numbers.


The Thinkpad T440 and newer are easier to work on than the T400 thru T430. You can do a heck of a lot more while removing fewer screws. than in older Thinkpads.


The expensive / business models (T, X) are still proper Thinkpads and extremely durable. Only the cheaper models suck in various ways.


As a consumer, I gladly pay a premium (in respect to regular laptop prices) and buy ThinkPads because of their reliability and ease of upgrade/repair.

This way I can upgrade to a new model when I feel it's time to.


I would like to take this moment to thank the numerous repliers to my comment for proving my point.


Same

My daughters new macbook pro dropped in to some very wet grass and the authorised repair shop wanted $1400 (in New Zealand) for a new motherboard to repair the water damage, the insurance company said to get a new one which we did.

The shop made it difficult to to get the old one back as it was being replaced with a new one and they said the deal price for the new one included a discount for the old which by pointing out on the apple web site it obviously did not.

Once it was returned about 5 weeks after going in I switched it on and nothing, five minutes of googling found a blown fuse and its been fine ever since, that was 2015 and I have since fixed two others with similar easy to fix problems.

It saddens me because the hardware is well designed in these computers and as an electronics engineer I hate to think how many good computers go to landfill for the sake of a $5 repair.

A Lot of my favourite companies are in on the act not just Apple (And Tesla Most Annoyingly) and it proves to me that the engineers in these firms have lost the high ground and now have a large controlling input from their legal departments. Personally I would keep quiet and take the money too but wouldn't be a happy engineer.


My car had a service done previously for about $800, maybe half labor. I got a quote recently from the dealer for about $3K for what I think was the same thing. However, the problem is, I don't trust the independent mechanic to do it right. So for now, I rationalized not doing it at all, much like your approach to your MBP.

I think the thing is, even on a site where people brag about making $300K a year, everybody has way unrealistic ideas of what skilled labor costs. In my world, $55K is a good living for a programmer analyst, but that exact person gets billed out at over $120 an hour. An independent car mechanic might be $100/hr where I am; a dealer rate might be $160-$170. In the context of other types of skilled labor, that seems reasonable to me. Surely an auto technician and an electronics repair person are roughly comparable in skill, so should be in the same ballpark of costs.

But first world labor costs mean fixing things is frequently infeasible compared to replacing them. This is practically a cliche, but it seems like people will not or cannot come to terms with it.

Oh yes, one other thing I wanted to fix on my car was to replace the busted antenna. I bought one online for about $90. However, I was quoted something like $600 to install it. Well, I replaced the antenna on my car once, and I know it's a hassle when you try to thread it through and then it sticks or breaks, but the estimate was stunning.

All in all, I don't think Apple is as malicious as they seem - the problem is that expectations are set by robotic factories and third world labor costs.


You trust the stealership? I'd rather take my car to the worst independent mechanic than the average stealership here in Seattle, as all I've ever seen is botch jobs at the stealerships I've been to in the area. Botched seal replacement jobs (resulted in a wrecked engine), transmission fluid flushes needlessly (early failure of the transmission) along with a bevy of smaller botches have lead me to believe that the least trained are working at the stealership's around here. Its all about parting the customer from their money it seems!

A good mechanic will do a better job and usually be cheaper than what your local stealership will try and charge you for. Replacing a battery clamp will run you $60 at most Honda stealerships, versus a $5 part cost or $20 at the shop down the road.


If I had an out of warranty Honda, I would probably stick to an independent mechanic. I have an in-warranty Honda though. My dealer is so-so. By which I mean, they have fixed the (significant) problems that came up, and not destroyed the engine/car in the process, although there were some glitches. They don't overcharge for oil changes, nor did they weasel out of the warranty when I needed it.

On the other hand, I also have a 30 year old German sports car and limited ability to work on it myself (not having a house/garage) and I felt an independent European car specialist was taking advantage of me, so I tried a dealer of the marque. Keeping in mind they only want to replace things and charge incredible rates, it still seems like the best option for some repairs, to get it done right. When I had a fuel leak, I was happy to have the dealer replace the fuel pump and filter. Maybe somebody intrepid who charges half as much per hour could have just disassembled it and changed some seals, but how much labor is that and do I trust it not to result in setting my car on fire? I certainly wouldn't trust myself to do it.

Sometimes you want OEM parts and sometimes it doesn't matter so much. I'm going to continue to choose what to do on a case-by-case basis.

If you have an unusual old car, a lot of independent mechanics may be horrified at the prospect of working on it, plus the factory manual is out of print plus there's a very limited number of specialist mechanics. So, I'm not saying the cliched advice about avoiding the dealer and going to a good mechanic is completely unfounded, but it's of limited use if you haven't found a good independent. The good mechanics only survive because they're cheap and attract cheap customers, and don't specialize too much, so I say to myself - how can I expect them to be better than the dealer? If I was an employee and I was any good, why wouldn't I work at the dealer? Lots of dealers are terrible, but I infer that independents operate under really harsh constraints. The fact that their labor rates are so much less makes me paranoid both they are padding their hours and that they can't retain good mechanics.

As far as a battery clamp, I can order anything I need mail order, and I can compare mail order prices to the dealership and see if the markup is less than shipping costs. I can choose an OEM part or not. This really is just a separate choice, not a factor in deciding to go to the dealer. My Honda dealer will charge you a ridiculous price to put in a new cabin air filter, which costs almost nothing and is trivial to replace. But that doesn't mean I don't trust them to work on my car at all. Just that I'm careful to double check whether any given thing is reasonable.

But also, a major metro area may be different. I live in a three-city area that has about a million people combined, so it isn't in the middle of nowhere, but it's not like Seattle.


Interesting that after such an experience you'd still get your step daughter hooked into that same eco system after buying yet another MBP. It looks as if Apple got exactly what it wanted.


Yeah, I was just about to say. "They told me to buy another MacBook, but joke's on them! I did!"

Presumably, anyway.


The $300+ I had to pay to repair a phone because of a problem in their design leaves me extremely doubtful of this. I think it is all about money to them, and when they think they can win more money than it costs them in image, they will go after cases like this.


> The $300+ I had to pay to repair a phone because of a problem in their design leaves me extremely doubtful of this.

What problem in their design are you referring to?


Likely touch disease or similar, Apple has had more than a few issues with bad solder joints in their products causing an untimely failure. The customer consistently gets blamed for these types of defects until it becomes a media issue for Apple.


Well you have the right to do what you want with it. That's the thing about "Right To Repair", you already have the right to do it now. It's not illegal to open up your iPhone and replace a broken screen, Apple just doesn't support it by selling you genuine parts.


>That's the thing about "Right To Repair", you already have the right to do it now.

Except that a lot of the times, you don't. The issue arises when the manufacturer adds some encryption to validate that a part is genuine (e.g. printer manufacturers using code signing to validate a printer cartridge is theirs) then suing people under the DMCA when they have to reverse-engineer the encryption just to repair their item.

Take the John Deere case for example (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/nebraska...) - farmers bought tractors. The tractors needed to be repaired. To do this, the farmers needed to either break John Deere's copy protection mechanisms or use John Deere's own expensive repair services. Deere sued the farmers for trying to repair their own tractors.


And they'll sue you if you try to buy genuine parts that they rejected in QA that are not being advertised as genuine.


If they cared about their brand, they would have considered what to do when you need to repair their product. If a good is faulty and get repaired, then it's not Apple who looks bad if the repair is bad.

No, it's very clear they make their money by pushing new product.


"They want people who bought iphone to have the best experience they prepared for them". If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it...


> I think they just care about the brand. They want people who bought iphone to have the best experience they prepared for them.

Ford motorcars just cares about the brand, that is why you're only allowed to run them on officially licensed Ford fuel.

Philips lighting just cares about the brand, that is why you're only allowed to use Philips batteries.

Keurig just cares about the brand, that is why you're only allowed to use officially licensed coffee cups.

Miele just cares about the brand, that is why you're only allowed to use Miele dishwasher detergents.

...

What a horrible world that would be, don't you agree? Sometimes regulation of business really is for the benefit of all, as Apple so vividly reminds us of time and time again. Designing their products to be basically irreparable should be allowed but it would be good if they were made to fess up to this before people forked over their earnings to buy one of those discard-a-phones. In Europe manufacturers of white goods have to put an energy label on their products to give prospective customers some idea of how much energy the device uses in comparison to other current devices in a scale from A to D (up to 2010: A-G [1]). This concept could be adapted to device maintenance as well, covering both repair as well as replacement of consumables. Apple products would score 'D' on availability of spare parts and 'D' on third-party service access. Such a scheme might help in convincing manufacturers that serviceability can be a selling point if done right.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label


That's true. My friend bought "new" iPhone for half of price. It broke after few monthes of use. He know thinks that iPhone is just overpriced bad phone. Unfortunately it's a very big market here to sell phones which are built from old parts in China but very unreliable. People want iPhone but can't afford its price.


> They want people who bought iphone to have the best experience they prepared for them.

Adding further to this, Apple also wants 100% control over that experience and how that experience is deployed, including how and what can be repaired.


> Apple also wants 100% control over that experience and how that experience is deployed, including how and what can be repaired.

They can want it all they like, they just have no implicit right to it.


They altruistically try to shut down a business that provides a legitimate service to customers who want that service, out of the goodness of their hearts?


The "clean" solution would be a legal requirement that people buying used iPhones should have the knowledge that it contains unoriginal parts.


"I think they should be allowed to design products to make repairs as hard as possible if they want to"

Not the 1st time they did that apparently. https://web.archive.org/web/20170103102649/blog.irepairnatio...


Considering Apple intentionally slows older phones with firmware updates post new phone release, I think your argument that they're trying to protect the experience doesn't hold much weight.


Please provide documentation for this. The only one I know if where they detected degrading batteries that would cause sudden shutdowns, and (without telling people) throttled the CPU to prevent the sudden spike of power draw that was causing the shutdowns. Certainly not a perfect reaction, but very far from your assertion.


> Considering Apple intentionally slows older phones with firmware updates post new phone release

Source, please?


Here you go: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/28/16827248/apple-iphone-ba...

I’m sure they do it all the time, but this one incident actually caused worldwide news-coverage, even in tabloids read by normal people (that is, not just techies).


That isn’t “intentionally slowing phones with new firmware releases”.

That’s the phone slowing the CPU when the battery gets old to prevent unexpected shutdowns. If you think this is “planned obselence” you misunderstand the issue.

iOS 11.3 now lets you disable this, so you can have full performance at the cost of unexpected shutdowns. Or you can just get an official battery replacement for $29 and your phone will be like new.


If you pay attention to software and tech news, at all, you'd know this, or at least try to google it.


It's also my experience, upgrading iPhone 3G from iOS 3 to iOS 4. That thing was unusable afterwards.

I'm sure there are examples with newer devices and iOS versions, but I wouldn't tell, because I didn't get any other afterwards.


> They want people who bought iPhone to have the best experience they prepared for them.

Since when is buying a deliberately un-maintainable device 'the best experience'?

I would call that anti-user.


That problem only comes up when you need to repair the phone. The out of box experience is more important to Apple.


It's the choice some people make. I think user experience is very subjective. I love the user experience that Gentoo provides me, but others will feel better with Windows 10. I didn't mean to say that it's objectively the best experience.


As a user, there is zero benefit to me when an Apple software update bricks my device because I replaced its screen at a third-party shop.

This is not subjective, this is not an argument over whether or not their laptops should have a replaceable battery. This is a blatant cash grab by them, at my expense. I gain nothing from this decision.

This practice may also be illegal in Europe.


Because corporations are trying to erode the concept of ownership itself for the common human. Copyright and trademark are the vehicles they're use to attempt to deny you the fundamental notion of ownership. The corporations are getting quite close to it in the US.


Nice to see someone else shares that view. Though, it's not just the corporations. Our Government is in on the action as well. I'd love to see that eminent domain Supreme Court ruling overturned...


>How does a manufacturer have the right to sue for copyright infringement when it's just end users reselling authentic parts?

I'm not sure this is an accurate representation of Apple's case. First, it seems like they are suing for trademark infringement, not for copyright infringement. Second, the repair shop owner is by no stretch of the imagination the end user of this product. Wikipedia gives this definition of end user:

"In product development, an end user (sometimes end-user)[a] is a person who ultimately uses or is intended to ultimately use a product.[1][2][3] The end user stands in contrast to users who support or maintain the product,[4] such as sysops, system administrators, database administrators,[5] information technology experts, software professionals and computer technicians."

As for "no way markets them as OEM parts," this is not a very consumer-focussed answer. I think a reasonable step that this guy should have to take is to explicitly state, "I am not an authorized Apple repair technician and these parts are not guaranteed to be genuine Apple parts. They do not bear an Apple warranty and are not eligible for support by Authorized Apple Technicians."

Otherwise, from Apple's perspective, this repair shop owner is just taking advantage of Apple's reputation for quality and using it to make cut-rate repairs.


First two points - semantics.

The point is that once the physical product was sold, consumers have the right to do whatever the hell they like with it, including sell it.

As to your latter statements, opinions will vary on this, but I believe it is well known that this guy's shop is not official / authorized by apple. People coming to this guy's shop are doing so to specifically avoid the drastically higher costs of seeking an authorized repair / replacement from apple. It'd be much easier to just mail it to apple, so I think there is an implied cognizance in seeking his services as an alternative. So I personally think as long as he is honest about not being an official apple repair shop, doesn't brandish their logos or in any way affirmatively hijack their brand, he should be safe from penalty of law.


> I think a reasonable step that this guy should have to take is to explicitly state, "I am not an authorized Apple repair technician and these parts are not guaranteed to be genuine Apple parts. They do not bear an Apple warranty and are not eligible for support by Authorized Apple Technicians."

Okay. So my mechanic needs to state that for every single manufacturer of every single component that he may potentially use to fix my car, right down to the level of individual capacitors on individual circuitboards, he is not an authorized technician for that item? That seems unduly onerous.


I certainly expect my mechanic to tell me he’s going to install non stock/genuine parts beforehand if some happen to need replacement. "Hey, your brake discs/tranny/whatevs is dead, let me swap that for some (possibly non spec-compliant) third-party part! You'll save xx bucks! (and hopefully it won't break down in YY000km at the most critical moment, nor fuck up the whole thing because they're not properly balanced or whatever! but shhhh I'd rather not tell you that)"


I can't think of a single time a mechanic or shop has given any details about the manufacturer of a part, just "do you want the expensive shit or the cheap shit". Of course in the auto parts world virtually everything is aftermarket not OEM and there isn't a monopolistic manufacturer trying to enforce their bullshit on repair shops.


>The owner even states he in no way markets them as OEM parts.

Except that the archive.org page for his site clearly shows that his site was marketing the replacements as genuine Apple parts and that it was changed after the court case began.


Yes, this certainly isn't good optics. I would think Apple would be smarter than have something like this in the paper.


I think they are just testing the waters in a small suit to see which strategy will work better for them to enforce rendering fixing their products illegal.

Apple now is a full on evil corporation.


I worry they're going to come after us programmers next. Only "authorized" programmers will get the access code required to change anything. Microsoft, Apple, Dell, etc will control the access codes. "Programming is hard, and these untrained self-taught programmers can mess up your machine, they might install malware, or they might be hackers, or they might overclock your CPU and damage it, or they might use the system for terrorism. Really, they should only be allowed to access the machine if they were appropriately trained by us."


Isn't this exactly how iOS works currently? You literally cannot develop for it without signing an Apple contract (even non-App store apps require a user account/agreement).


And with rumours of Apple moving to ARM chips for their laptops, they could well try to take the opportunity to lock out unsigned code entirely...

Before long they could even choose to make you buy an expensive Mac Pro or iMac Pro, or even require an 'iOS dev kit' if you want to develop for their platform.

And if Microsoft had succeeded in the mobile/tablet space, they'd be doing exactly the same...


>Before long they could even choose to make you buy an expensive Mac Pro or iMac Pro, or even require an 'iOS dev kit' if you want to develop for their platform.

Hopefully this was sarcasm, since this is literally what is required right now to develop for iOS - you need a Mac (windows is not allowed) and a $99 developer account.


FWIW, this has gotten better. It used to be that you could only use the Xcode simulator when developing iOS apps and had to have the $99 developer account to put apps on real provisioned devices. Now you only need to pay to put the app on the store.


> And with rumours of Apple moving to ARM chips for their laptops, they could well try to take the opportunity to lock out unsigned code entirely...

Why do these two things have any relationship to each other? They can and do lock down x86-64 machines, you're just able to "opt-out" right now[1].

[1] https://it.nmu.edu/docs/allowing-third-party-applications-in...


My MB Pro cost 2.5k, and I use it primarily to develop for iOS, so there you have your expensive dev kit.


Another 1k for the iPhone X for debugging.


Isn't that counter-productive though? I'll just take my business elsewhere and develop for competing environments.


Not if the majority of your customers are in that environment. You want to sell an app to 50 or 5,000 people? Just look at Linux games (which is WAY better nowadays, its incredible what you can play).

I'm an android/*nix user. I'd love it if more devs had your mindset but they typically don't.


Technically that's just them locking you out of their distribution platform, I don't think they'd have a legal case against you though. People sell apps outside of the app store and haven't suffered any recourse from apple, at least not that I know of.

EDIT: I guess you do have to technically agree to their terms to use the SDK and such, but if one were to get a hacked copy or whatever I think it'd be legal. They can definitely make it very hard to dodge their terms though.


How would a hacked copy make it more legal. Wouldn't using their software without a license also be illegal?


I mostly just meant you wouldn't be breaking laws technically to go around them via reverse engineering. To your second statement that's actually a good point, it could be. I mean in general overall it's going to be pretty outrageous to try and legitimately develop going around apple entirely, so the OP's point is valid de facto, just saying in principle they can't lock people out in the absolute sense under current law.


> I mostly just meant you wouldn't be breaking laws technically to go around them via reverse engineering.

Considering that their terms of service explicitly prohibits this, I'd say that it's illegal. Will Apple go after you if you do it? Probably not.


First, violating terms of service isn't illegal - ToS isn't the law, it's a contract; breaching contract terms isn't illegal but may expose you to some liabilities depending on the contract.

Second, terms of service don't always apply, you may refuse them, and then you're not even in breach of contract. Things like shrink-wrap/click-through EULAs aren't binding contracts in Norway; so the default provisions of copyright law apply, which allows reverse engineering without the permission of the copyright holder.


> Wouldn't using their software without a license also be illegal?

Which law?

Copying software without permission might be illegal - loading it from disk into memory isn't counted as copying btw - but running the software?


If there's any copy-protection, you'd need to circumvent it, so plausibly the DMCA.


No. You can build a web application, and people are free to navigate to it using Safari.


> I worry they're going to come after us programmers next.

That ship sailed decades ago.

> Only "authorized" programmers will get the access code required to change anything.

Stallman. Laser printer firmware. `nuff said.

Speaking of Stallman and Apple: have you heard of this? It was formed in reaction to Apple's actions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_Programming_Freedom


For the time being, at least in the US, reverse engineering is fully protected by well established precedent. Some nations have laws designed to stop "hackers" that outlaw some of the methodologies used in reverse engineering, which I heavily oppose for this reasoning.


What are you talking about Apple and Microsoft already control those gateways, and for good reason. It’s trivial to write a mail client thAt just so happens to steal you passwords if it’s running while you browse. The balance now is if they abuse their role you have a billion dollar lawsuit and can leverage that against them.


Every time someone purchases an Apple product, they are endorsing their practices, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

Time and time again, we have observed that patents are a tool of the haves to prevent competition from the have-nots.

While this case may have been about 'trademark' infringement, it's clear that if patents didn't exist one could procure genuine replacement parts that don't 'infringe' on Apple's trademarks (which in this case is obviously a dubious assertion).

Every time a 'tech person' buys and espouses Apple products (and other patent encumbered products), others less educated in technology suffer.

Reach for free and open source alternatives whenever viable, and try to educate others on the important compromises they have to make when it comes to freedom. We could lose free software and any resemblance to right to repair or open hardware in a generation if we're not careful.


I agree with you completely, but sadly I think time has proven that generally speaking (there's exceptions, you and I for example) people will choose the path of least resistance regardless of principles. This is true in other aspects of life, such as politics (who voted for, in their words "the lesser of two evils" instead of 3rd party last election?)


Wherever she or he is, the next 'Steve Jobs/Steve Wozniak' is not an Apple fan and has zero interest in ever working at Apple.


>Every time someone purchases an Apple product, they are endorsing their practices, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

Well, it's either that or Android... so yes I think I'll stick with Apple. I am also sad that there's no alternative, but what can I do? I already bought a WP when I had some hope they could succeed but they never did. :(


After watching things like this (Louis Rossmann), https://youtu.be/FeUBdMU2qA0 , if I ever buy an Apple product I'll basically treat it as unrepairable.


Yeah, but still their laptops are much more durable than the competitors'; https://i.imgur.com/eKq8ZCG.png

Someone who repairs a single brand of products will have a skewed image of the big picture. He'll basically only receive items too damaged to be repairable by others, but he has no data on whether he receives 1/million or 1/2 whatever and makes the assumption every single one of them are like the ones he receive. I've watched Rossmann's every video for a couple of years on my youtube subscriptions until he started with his political opinion and investment recommendation talks. It's a guy who thinks his opinion is the infallible fact and that there are no other possible explanations, and it undermines his professional opinions as well.

I've done repairs on my own Apple products once they've been out of warranty and it's not as bad as he makes it sound. Parts are easily accessible either as China-clones or working spare parts from dismantled products, because almost every model of anything Apple makes are made for a very long time and in large volumes. You'll have a much harder time finding something like a spare motherboard for a 5 year old random Acer laptop and such. Apple does carry service parts for a long time for their products as well and they're accessible to the authorized service providers, but the pricing is very steep and not really worth it unless it's the only option you have, or if it's paid by insurance.


> https://i.imgur.com/eKq8ZCG.png

> "microsoft" has the highest breakage rate

is microsoft really bad at making hardware or something? or is it all the technically inept people thinking their windows laptop is made by microsoft?


Apple sells as a luxury product to a pampered demographic which will have a very different work life and span than a $200 Netbook.

I suspect that graph is misleading and says nothing about brand durability, only about damage incurred to products at specific price brackets, demographic and use cases. It would much more revealing to break down by those segments.

It also excludes breakages within service contracts so we can't tell if the difference is simply that Apple is selling a higher percentage of AppleCare contracts (potentially because of their high repair costs) than their competitors.


This is a little biased because Apple has a much smaller product line, just professional and ultraportable, no affordable models. If you are comparing professional type laptops, Dell and Lenovo and HP are more comparable for durability and often have better parts availability and repair ability.


> working spare parts from dismantled products

I encourage everyone to sell their spare Apple products for parts. The recoveries are surprising. And because all the parts are designed to one spec, you don't have a bazillion screws to deal with like non-Apple laptops.


His comments about the keyboard in the current MacBook Pros are particularly apt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KuVvb9DTaU

So, even a person holding 1 (2, 3!) genuine Apple keyboard(s) in their hands likely still couldn't do the repair -- they'd have to get a new top case. Out of warranty, I've heard it is a $500 repair. That seems to be a direct consequence of ignoring repairability (the maintainability ship sailed long ago).


I watch Louis Rossman too. There's something about his straightforward and self-made-man attitude that strongly resonates with me. Plus it's usually very informative.


In an ideal world Louis Rossman would have a weekly show on PBS.


in case you never saw them, Louis Rossman has many videos about apple products. I can accept a bit of excentric design when you're pushing the boundaries of style and thinness but some things are just mindblowingly flabbergasting (fragile keyboard and rivetted to chassis; as repairable as a renaissance painting)


That guy is freaking awesome. Smart, to the point, insightful, and with lots of integrity. Definitely worth hearing what he has to say.


I personally find him annoying after some time but he does have lots of knowledge.


This will get canned on the appeal, guaranteed. The article is a bit misleading because they're not going after him because he's doing aftermarket repairs. They're going after him because he's claiming that the repaired devices are using genuine parts from Apple, which even have the Apple logo on them, yet they weren't purchased from Apple.

This is my biggest complaint with the "Right to Repair" movement. They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices. Apple has never been against that and isn't fighting that. They're fighting the fact that these bills, every single one of them, wants to force Apple to provide instructions and parts for repair shops that aren't Apple authorized for which they can't verify or guarantee the quality fo the repair. That's a completely understandable position and yet people keep falsely claiming that it's simply about Apple wanting to keep people from repairing their own stuff. That's not it at all and it's doing a disservice to the "Right to Repair" movement to continue to do so.


It's not that simple. Until literally 3 days ago I held exactly your same view "why don't they just become Apple authorized repair shops?"

Well, apparently Apple actually restricts the repairs you can do. For example, if you have water damage, you aren't allowed to just fix the actual components (capacitors, etc) that blew, you have to replace the whole board, resulting in much higher costs and eWaste for customers. (This is from Louis Rossmann, a well known YouTuber who fixes MacBooks). You are basically restricted to mostly replacing boards and things like that, not fixing individual chips.

For a company that toots their horn about being Green, their policies sure generate a ton more waste than necessary.

And I say this as someone who almost exclusively owns Apple stuff. I am holding out with my 2015 MBP dearly for the next iteration of their laptop keyboards that don't require a $500 repair because of a spec of dust.

All this has made me a STRONG proponent of the right-to-repair movement. If Apple actually cared more about less flashy and sexy parts about being green, they'd make these parts readily available.


It would be like when the capacitor blew on my A/C condenser if I would be forced to replace the whole unit instead of the $10 part.

It’s important that people know if they are getting 3rd party or refurbished parts, but it’s equally important for people to have the right to use 3rd party and refurbished parts if they so choose — with the only restriction of having the necessary safety/compliance markings.


That's not analogous at all. Apple is not stopping people from repairing their devices with 3rd party or refurbished parts. The parts in the OP article were branded as Apple parts (logo and everything) but were not actual Apple parts. That's why Apple is asking for receipts and purchase orders. They want the guy to prove that he's buying the parts from them if he's telling customers that they're genuine Apple parts.

The amount of misinformation around here is staggering...


That wasn't my understanding from reading the article... I read it to mean that they were refurbished Apple parts, but not refurbished by Apple. A screen assembled by a third party consisting of some parts made by Apple with the Apple logo, but the assembly of the completed part was not done by Apple. But TFA is really not clear at all on this point.

My capacitor analogy was more to the point of Apple being against microsoldering repairs where individual components are replaced instead of the entire board.


Yeah... I understood the analogy but I just think it's inaccurate because Apple doesn't have that policy out of some kind of nefarious reasons. They do it that way because micro soldering repairs in-store would take far long and are probably not worth the effort. A customer would much rather get their phone or computer swapped out or repaired in 20 minutes than have to leave it for days on end while it's re-soldered and individual components are on order. Since Apple can do that all off-site, there's not really a benefit. The comment about waste isn't correct either since Apple recycles most of that stuff.


I have another not-very-green issue: my iPhone lightning port is wearing out. Apple will not repair it in their own shops. At least they don’t seem to try to prevent third parties from doing it.

This is especially surprising given the unusual design of the Lightning port. Most ports (e.g. all USB variants) put the parts that are likely to wear out in the cable. Lightning has them in the jack, which is why the cable is so pretty. But for some reason Apple thinks it’s reasonable for the jack to be officially non-replaceable.


So, I thought my port was wearing out as well, and got very upset. What I found, however, was just that pocket lint had gotten jammed in there and compacted down over and over through the years, such that the cable didn't fit snugly any more.

I fixed this just by using a plastic flosser to pick the lint out (you could use a paper clip, but I opted for the somewhat-softer plastic), then some canned air to get rid of the remaining bits.

Went from "oh god, I gotta go to the Apple store" to connecting with a SNAP again, with a seal tight enough to support the phone's entire weight.

I hope that this is just your issue, because it's very easy to fix, even if diagnosing it is a bit tricky.


This only works for a couple of years; eventually, the pocket lint permanently reduces the springiness of the contacts, such that the cable is "loose" in the socket, and the connection can therefore be lost by shifting the position of the phone.

Fortunately, it's a simple (if tedious) fix with a $15 part.


Yep. The Apple store even kindly cleaned my port for me, and it helped a bit. But they still flat-out refuse to do the repair.


Actually the mini-USB put the parts that were likely to wear in the plug...


That’s why mini USB is now almost extinct, replaced with micro USB (and now Type C?) which doesn’t make that mistake.


IIRC type C is even rated for 10k cycles. Other than some serious charging screwups and a generally overcomplicated design, it’s quite well engineered.


I think you are misrepresenting dpkonofa's position. I believe his position is that Apple shouldn't be forced to assist with your repairs by producing manuals and parts. That isn't the same as "why don't they just become Apple authorized repair shops?"


Thank you. I'm being downvoted left and right here because people are arguing a straw man of what I'm actually saying.


>resulting in much higher costs and eWaste for customers.

This isn't true or accurate. The costs of this service are lower, overall because the rate of repairs are faster which means more customers can have working devices faster which means that Apple can (and does) take time on the backend to remanufacture and certify parts. They don't throw out these components. They're taken apart, tested, and, if they pass, they're used to remanufacture devices for warranty and insurance purposes that are then sold to phone insurance carriers and given to warranty customers.

The idea that they are restricting repairs for any reason other than the fact that it's a better experience for the end-user is complete FUD.


I would take anything Rossman says with a grain of salt, he clearly has a personal vendetta against Apple. Further, Apple products are almost entirely recyclable, up to and including the packaging. As long as they are properly disposed of, you wouldn't be producing additional waste.

And you are assuming that "flash" and "sexy" serve a single, vapid purpose. The designs of their products are as compact and space efficient as possible because weight, battery size, and thermals all play a factor in the quality of a product.

You can shit on them all you want but no company comes close to Apple in quality, and I don't see anyone complaining about the right to repair ultrabooks, or pixelbooks.


Louis Rossmann, Jessa Jones, these are all people I'm aware of at least on YouTube that are people who truly care about teaching the public how to do a lot of their own repairs.

I can tell you, I'm a software guy. And I was absolutely intimidated by circuit boards, until I found the world of electronics repairs on Youtube (EEVBlog too). Now I have fixed two power supplies and a pair of headphones. In all those cases, I was able to get parts easily from third parties (and for my headphones, I got cheap replacement parts from AudioTechnica themselves).

I am delighted to have rediscovered this part of my skills that I lost in my teens when I fell in love with software development.

Yet I still can't get a genuine apple battery to replace on my phone. I've successfully replaced batteries on about 5 iPhones now, but they were all shady battery replacements on Amazon. Frankly I'm just annoyed that Apple doesn't make these parts available.

Look at the backlog for battery replacements now. If you get it from Apple, there is now a monthslong wait-list at the genius bar because they've created their own bottleneck.


>are people who truly care about teaching the public how to do a lot of their own repairs

Rossmann makes money off of his businesses that repair computer products, Apple or otherwise. He stands to gain a lot based on the popularity of his channel whether he's telling people the truth or not. He's not in it to help people, he's in it to drum up business. If he helps people along the way, then that's great.

Case in point - he made a whole video about how shitty the new MacBooks are and claimed that plugging a USB device into the USB-C port disabled WiFi. He pushed that point and tweeted about it and posted it everywhere. When it was discovered that it wasn't the computer but the cheap $5 USB-C to USB-A converter that he was using that was unshielded (which is required by the USB spec), he never issued a retraction or an apology. All he wanted was to get in on the fervor surrounding the newly released laptops. He doesn't give 2 shits about whether or not he's teaching people factual information. What really sucks about it, much like the whole "Right to Repair" movement, is that it takes away substantially from the issues and points he brings up that are completely valid.


>As long as they are properly disposed of, you wouldn't be producing additional waste.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. You'd have to take into account the cost of sourcing raw materials for a replacement machine, right? I've heard anecdotes about how buying a used gas-burning car is actually less detrimental to the environment than buying a new EV; this strikes me as a similar situation.


buying a used gas-burning car is actually less detrimental to the environment than buying a new EV

I think that's only true if that gas burning car was going to be destroyed if you didn't buy it. Someone will buy it, maybe someone that's replacing their older less efficient car. And by buying the more expensive EV, your demand is helping to increase volume and lower costs of EV's.


No, even driving 200miles a day, for 15 years in a 1978 suburban with bad rings is less poluting than producing a single eCar.


Source?

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life...

Manufacturing a mid-sized EV with an 84-mile range results in about 15 percent more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68 percent higher.

These differences change as soon as the cars are driven. EVs are powered by electricity, which is generally a cleaner energy source than gasoline. Battery electric cars make up for their higher manufacturing emissions within eighteen months of driving—shorter range models can offset the extra emissions within 6 months—and continue to outperform gasoline cars until the end of their lives.


The air quality in the 70s would disagree with you. Sunsets are not supposed to be orange, and the sky is not supposed to be brown.


Louis Rossmann, who openly admitted to using illegally obtained schematics and internal documents from Apple? I wouldn't be throwing that name around as a talking point at all in this discussion.

The reason why Apple doesn't want any Joe-schmoe just yanking and replacing caps and other components is simple: quality control. I can barely count on two hands people I would be comfortable working on the innards of a PC, let alone my phone and even then let alone desoldering and soldering new components onboard.

Apple isn't doing this because they don't want people to repair their stuff, but because for most consumers it isn't feasible without ruining the rest of the product. These are small, compact, and complicated devices. It's not like swapping out some RAM or a GPU on a desktop rig at all.

So yes, replace the whole board and recycle the old (as Apple does with most of their parts).


> Louis Rossmann, who openly admitted to using illegally obtained schematics and internal documents from Apple? I wouldn't be throwing that name around as a talking point at all in this discussion.

So you're discounting someone's opinion because they were forced to use unauthorized repair manuals since the manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for? That's the whole crux of the issue, that people have lost the "right to repair" their own devices due to suppressing information, suppressing reverse engineering efforts, and suppressing compatible replacement components (and software).

Effectively you're saying that if someone supports and tries to uphold the "right to repair" their opinions should be ignored because they did something a large corporation told them not to.

> Apple isn't doing this because they don't want people to repair their stuff

See, I thought it was financially motivated.

> but because for most consumers it isn't feasible without ruining the rest of the product.

Someone has a broken device, they shouldn't be allowed to try and repair it themselves because they could make it worse? In either case they have a broken device. And Apple is well within their rights to refuse a repair after someone has tried a DIY repair, but often that isn't a financial possibility which is why a DIY repair was tried to begin with.

You don't have to go far to find an anecdote of someone who took an older Macbook into an Apple store and the repair cost was nearly as high as a replacement cost.


>manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for

Why is a manufacturer in any way obligated to provide this information for customers (and for free, no less)? Apple is not stopping him from taking apart these devices and figuring out how to repair them but I don't see why they should shoulder any obligation to provide that information to people that refuse to become an authorized repair center (which is exactly what that authorization and certification gets them).

>Someone has a broken device, they shouldn't be allowed to try and repair it themselves

This is not at all the point of contention nor in any way what Apple is doing here. Stop spreading FUD.

urda 8 months ago [flagged]

> So you're discounting someone's opinion because they were forced to use unauthorized repair manuals because the manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for?

Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". Failing to understand that means I cannot discuss this article with you at all since a really important common understanding has been missed on your part.


Please don't cross into personal swipes. If you can't discuss something, it suffices not to discuss it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


> Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law".

It is an issue for society at large, fair use should include repair materials, and if you look at judgements from vehicles and farm equipment cases you'll see that the legal side isn't clear cut anyway.

Not least of all because you're conflating OWNING stolen materials and REDISTRIBUTING them. Copyright largely covers the latter and not the former. In this case they're simply owning a "stolen" document and using the knowledge from it, which isn't within itself a copyright infringement or illegal.

Unless you can explain how simply owning a stolen document is "breaking the law." Which law?

> Failing to understand that means I cannot discuss this article with you at all since a really important common understanding has been missed on your part.

You don't wish to discuss it because it challenges your whole viewpoint. Which is in essence that Apple's rights extend into a device they sold to a user, and that a user shouldn't be legally allowed to "tamper" with their own property.


> that's called "breaking the law"

Right, which is why people are advocating getting the law changed, because they believe the practical outcome of law as it current exists is not just (nor economically efficient, for that matter).


> Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law".

Even if this is true, the law isn’t some divine fiat. Some laws are dumb and it is proper and patriotic to point it out and criticize. Just because something might be against the law doesn’t make it wrong. Your argument is the shallowest sort of moral argument, that things should be done a certain way just because that’s how they’re done.


If his facts are correct, it's irrelevant that he also broke the law. Facts are facts.


> Louis Rossmann, who openly admitted to using illegally obtained schematics and internal documents from Apple?

Are you seriously trying to discredit a man for doing exactly what he's fighting for?

It's like trying to discredit a politician that's pushing for the abolition of jaywalking by saying that he jay walks himself. No shit - that's the whole point.

urda 8 months ago [flagged]

I'll repost the same thing here, since apparently this is confusing to some HN users this morning:

> So you're discounting someone's opinion because they were forced to use unauthorized repair manuals because the manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for?

Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". Failing to understand that means I cannot discuss this article with you at all since a really important common understanding has been missed on your part.


"I'm sorry, I can't discuss this case with you because you won't sit at the back of the bus, like the law says" --You 60 years ago


>The reason why Apple doesn't want any Joe-schmoe just yanking and replacing caps and other components is simple: quality control. I can barely count on two hands people I would be comfortable working on the innards of a PC, let alone my phone and even then let alone desoldering and soldering new components onboard.

And yet people are perfectly OK with a greasy mechanic fixing their metal cage hurtling down the freeway at 65 miles per hour. Your attempt to demean skilled repair workers is rather telling of your own bias.


Quality control only happens on premises you control. Once the product reaches the point-of-sale terminal, the consumer own it, and the QC job is done. You send your product out onto the free market and have to hope you raised it well enough to uphold your brand.

It isn't about QC; it's about money. It's the same reason every car dealership has an in-house repair department. Branded repairs mean that people can still buy the brand after they already own the product. Counterfeits cut into that revenue stream.


[flagged]


>Woah I didn't know you could read my mind!

Oh, but you certainly are able to determine the skill level of people you don't know. Nice.

Quoting you:

>The reason why Apple doesn't want any Joe-schmoe just yanking and replacing caps and other components is simple: quality control.

You called them joe-schmoe, and questioned the quality of their work. Yeah, maybe in your alternate universe that considered praise. Normal people read that as an insult.

Let me suggest some alternate wording "a competent technician will use their extensive knowledge, and repair your device"

>Drop the attacks and focus on the article, this is HN not reddit.

I would invite you to take your own advice first.

>I didn't mention anything about skilled repair workers, nor is that demeaning to point out the abilities to repair small electronic devices like phones is not just a "walk in the park".

Please point to the text arguing that repairing devices is a "walk in the park".


[flagged]


Please don't engage in petty spats here, regardless of how wrong or annoying you find other comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Sorry. I lost my head there for a sec, most of my posts are more constructive/on-topic than that (I'd like to think). I'll try to be better going to forward.


> The reason why Apple doesn't want any Joe-schmoe just yanking and replacing caps and other components is simple: quality control

Right, and the entire discussion is that Apple's right to quality control has overreached to the point that it is now impinging upon the common sense right of someone to be able try to fix something that they own when it breaks.


How so? Apple isn't stopping anyone from being able to try and fix something that they own. The only action they've taken is against companies claiming that they're an Apple authorized repair center when they're not.


About counting people thing: your frame of reference is probably too narrow?

Come to thing of it, I personally don't know ten people capable of doing state of the art SMD repairs but I'm sure there are many more than that in _my town_.


Where do you see any indication that this man was claiming to use genuine Apple components? I see nothing of the sort on his website[1]. The article specifically says that he made no claims of being authorized by Apple or using genuine Apple components and the court agreed with him. There was an Apple logo, on an internal component, which was covered up, because (at least according to the seller) they actually are Apple parts that had been refurbished. Now maybe they actually are counterfeit parts and the seller was lying, but there is zero evidence of this and the repairman certainly wasn't intentionally selling counterfeits or lying about anything.

[1] https://www.pckompaniet.no/reparasjon-iphone/


I feel like I see this on the internet more and more lately. Paragraph one starts with some shoddy, made up evidence where they mock some idea and then you look for the start of paragraph 2 to figure out what they're really getting themselves upset about:

"This is my biggest complaint with the "Right to Repair" movement."

So yeah, have a problem with some group, reorganize information to make that group look bad and pretend like this thing you made up is a great illustration of the grudge you had against some people.

But my question is, why?


> Why?

Because he’s a former Apple employee: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dpkonofa


Why does that have any affect on my point? The article has been changed since it was originally posted. The original article had the guy claiming he was using genuine Apple parts which was stated right on the company's website (they've changed it since the case went to court):

https://web.archive.org/web/20160327050030/http://www.pckomp...


I appreciate you trying to discredit me instead of the argument I was making but the article has been modified since its posting. The original had a claim where the guy said he was using original, authorized Apple parts:

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160327050030/http://www.pckomp...


"I appreciate you trying to discredit me instead of the argument I was making"

I'll just go ahead and roll my eyes at this trash.


You don't see that on his website because he's changed it since the case went to court: https://web.archive.org/web/20160327050030/http://www.pckomp...


But the article states quite clearly that he is NOT claiming to use genuine parts.

“PCKompaniet has never removed the coverup of the Apple logo on the screens that have been imported and has no interest in doing so. PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”

Unless you have evidence of the contrary, your argument is not applicable to this case.


> But the article states quite clearly that he is NOT claiming to use genuine parts.

Not trying to pick side in this argument, but a quick search on webarchive[1] shows that this page (https://www.pckompaniet.no/reparasjon-iphone/) used to have this blurb:

'Kun orginale deler blir brukt her hos oss!'

That google translates as 'Only original parts are used here!'

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160327050030/http://www.pckomp...


The problem for Apple is if you sell badly repaired phone, the buyer has no way of knowing it was badly repaired and will blame Apple for any failures.


This is exactly it. Note that Apple has yet to go after or sue someone simply for repairing an Apple device. That's never been the case yet. They've only sued people who claim to use genuine parts that don't, people who have used stolen service manuals, or companies that claim to do authorized repairs but don't.


How can you or other 3rd parties repair devices if Apple won't sell parts or provide manuals and it sues people who claim to be able to do such things on your behalf? I think it is fair that apple withhold an "apple certified" designation but everything else beyond that is them trying to squash 3rd party repairs so that they can maintain a monopoly on that work, prevent you from upgrading memory, etc and ultimately keep you on the upgrade treadmill. You really don't think that is the case?


>Apple won't sell parts or provide manuals and it sues people who claim to be able to do such things on your behalf

This is objectively not true. Apple is not against selling parts or manuals. That's the entire point of an Apple Authorized Repair center. Anyone can get certified by Apple if they can demonstrate that the repairs are done to the level that Apple specifies. What the "Right to Repair" bills are asking for is that Apple provides the manuals for free. Why is that justifiable, fair, or right in any sense if doing so could (and materially would) harm their business?

As for the second claim, Apple has never, ever sued someone simply for repairing their devices as a third-party. They've only sued people who claimed to use genuine Apple parts that weren't or people who stole manuals and schematics that are reserved for authorized repair centers.


> the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices. Apple has never been against that and isn't fighting that.

Hmm, what? Apple is actively fighting that by making devices incredibly difficult to tear appart, not selling replacement parts, and, yes, suing every mom-and-pop repair shop.


The “difficult to tear apart” thing I would give incredible leeway to. It’s very hard to demand a device is physically constructed a certain way without unintentionally harming innovation.

Besides, people have differing opinions on what constitutes “ difficult to tear apart”. I’ve replaced batteries on all my iPhones and while it’s a delicate procedure it’s not particularly difficult, takes just a few minutes, and I’ve never damaged a phone in the process. I remember how much vitriol there was against Apple for not having hot swappable batteries, but I’m sure glad they went that route, and that they were able to lead the market in that choice.

But for the rest of it, they should definitely have to provide parts, manuals, and attacking the independent repair shops is wrong unless the shop is actually misleading their customers.


>suing every mom-and-pop repair shop.

This is blatantly false. Please link 1 instance where Apple sued a mom-and-pop repair shop for anything other than they were claiming they were an authorized repair center or used genuine parts and didn't.


Well, heres hoping it doesn't get canned.

>This is my biggest complaint with the "Right to Repair" movement. They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices

Your complaint seems rather imagined to me. Where are they "constantly conflating"? I don't see that here.

https://repair.org/


>Your complaint seems rather imagined to me.

Please show me a source where Apple sued someone (either an individual or a third-party repair center) simply for repairing their own device or a user's device on behalf of that user. You won't find it because that's not what Apple's complaint is here. People are conflating Apple's refusal to provide manuals and replacement parts without cost (and outside of their certification program) with the idea that Apple is trying to prevent people from repairing their own devices. That's not true in the slightest and it's straight-up misinformation.


>Please show me a source where Apple sued someone (either an individual or a third-party repair center) simply for repairing their own device or a user's device on behalf of that user. You won't find it because that's not what Apple's complaint is here.

That would be inefficient and a waste of their money in most cases.

>People are conflating Apple's refusal to provide manuals and replacement parts without cost (and outside of their certification program) with the idea that Apple is trying to prevent people from repairing their own devices.

Apple uses various methods - Updates that brick repaired phones, and copyright/patent law to block others from supplying parts. Here they can choke the repair shops much more easily. I don't want to be forced to go to Subaru to repair my car either. I prefer to have an option of which tires to buy, which oil to use, which stereo I use, etc. I also don't want the car to be welded together to the point where nobody can repair it. YMMV.

Sometimes the good guys win.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/06/technology/apple-australia-l...

>the idea that Apple is trying to prevent people from repairing their own devices.

People don't want to repair the phones themselves. They want to use services available in almost every other consumer industry to service their phones. Apple insists that they should be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to do that. People are trying to fight Apple on that. And thats what its all about.

Apple does produce some very high quality products and I have enjoyed many of them over the years. That doesn't make them a saint on all fronts. Fairs fair, Praise where praise is due, and criticism when they do something purely out of greed/control.


Your problem is that Apple is not Microsoft.

Microsoft effectively has to support literally any combination of things someone might try to do to their Windows PC, because they know nobody will blame the author of the crappy driver or the manufacturer of the peripheral. They'll blame Microsoft.

Apple, by tightly controlling its hardware ecosystem, avoids a lot of that. But also gets to build software that's tested for far fewer configurations, meaning that if you do step outside that configuration, you have to accept that they're not testing for it and aren't guaranteeing the next version of their software will continue to work for you.

But rather than understand this, you attribute it to Tim Cook twirling his mustache and cackling over how he's going to deliberately brick all those phones that people repaired themselves! Soon, he will rule the world! BWAHAHAHA!

Except you know as soon as you think about it that you have no evidence of this and that the kind of "Apple bricks your phone to punish you for repairing it" narrative you're pushing here is completely false. Apple might not like losing out on some more of your money, but figuring out ways to push updates that will break your phone while not breaking someone else's is just not worth the time and money for them. So the simplest explanation -- that they don't have staff thoroughly test every type of repair you might do to your phone with every update they push -- is the likeliest, and you know that too.

This, for the record, is my problem with the "right to repair" people. You ignore real problems to peddle conspiracies.


What in the world are you on about? Sorry dude, I can make no sense of anything in your rambling comment.


You appear to be claiming that Apple deliberately develops software updates to break user- or third-party-repaired devices.

This requires Apple to have a team studying how third parties repair their devices, and working on ways to modify their software to break such devices while leaving all others unaffected. That's a not-insignificant challenge.

The likelier explanation is that Apple does not invest in developing updates that will deliberately break your phone as retaliation for you repairing it in ways they don't like. The likelier explanation is that Apple simply doesn't test the interaction between their updates and your repairs, and doesn't much care if your phone breaks as a result. They test for the interaction with their stock devices, and devices repaired through their advocated channels, and don't seem to want the "absolutely everything everybody might do must be supported" approach Microsoft historically took (with good reason -- one of the advantages of tight ecosystem control is getting to avoid Microsoft's nightmare).



If you mean "can I provide you the exact reason why it happened", no. But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs.

I believe this because I've worked on software teams that developed things that would only be used in-house in controlled ways, and I've seen how fragile those usually end up being and how poorly tested they usually are.

But I also see that there's no possible evidence someone could present, or argument someone could make, that would change your mind, because as the quote says: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into.


We're clearly operating on seperate planes here. Your reasoning as far as I can tell, is your own belief, and not based on evidence that anyone can verify. My reasoning is based on Apples actions, their own comments, experiences of third party repair shops who are being threatened by Apple, and my own experience with third party repair shops.

I can never understand why people want to stop others from choosing where they repair their products. If you (not you specifically) think third party repairs are shady, well great ! you already have a choice and you can get yours serviced at Apple. We should be free to make decisions about things we own. Apple fighting to block our right is disspointing.

>But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs.

There is no "testing for repair". When you replace a component on a logic board, it either works or if its sabotaged (like inkjet cartriges, kurig kcups, iphone screens), it doesn't. And thats if you're doing a component level repair. For parts replacement, it should be way easier. I get the feeling you're not very familiar with how electronics repair works. It is really nothing like software.


>My reasoning is based on Apples actions, their own comments, experiences of third party repair shops who are being threatened by Apple, and my own experience with third party repair shops

No... your reasoning is based on your interpretation of all parties' intentions of which you have no basis for combined with flat-out misinformation about what the third-party repair shops are doing/claiming. Apple is not stopping anyone from choosing where they repair their products nor are they stopping third-party repair shops from repairing their products. The fact that you continue to spread this objectively false information is all anyone needs to know to validate that your position is unfounded. If it was, you wouldn't have to lie and rely on already discredited information to make your point. Your point would stand on its own. As it is, though, it falls apart immediately under any kind of basic scrutiny.


I can never understand why people want to stop others from choosing where they repair their products.

The fact that you keep saying things like this, when I've said nothing indicating that I believe such a thing, is a clear indicator of willful dishonesty on your part. You get no more of my time.


>Apple insists that they should be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to do that

This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service.

To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here. They're not preventing anyone from doing anything but there sure as hell do want to know that the people they've authorized for repairs are doing them to their standards. If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company.


>This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service.

False. This is getting tiring.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Appl...

https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repa...

https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s...

Apple is using or was using (for above links) various ways to make it seem like third party services are illegitmate. Its one of the several tactics to maintain a monopoly. Consumers are getting wiser. Thousands of people have gotten a screen fixed or a battery replaced without paying Apple's tax. Apple sure as hell doesn't like that. But tough cookies. Its no different than the inkjet situation where they blocked third party cartriges and made it nearly impossible for you to refill ink.

>To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. A

Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo.

>Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here.

And anyone who has gotten gouged by Apple knows that a monopoly of service and parts is never going to bring about competition.

>If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company.

So your argument, as best as I can unpack it, since it was very confusing to me, is - Its justified because someone somewhere at somepoint in time in some cases might face some issues with their third party repair and some people might possibly sometimes mistake that as an Apple problem. Wow.

Anyway, we're going around in circles. There is no point in arguing you have your opinion and I have mine. I am happy to support a positive movement that promotes less e-waste and more local jobs.


>Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo.

If Subaru offered an alarm system in your vehicle that disabled the ignition if the system was tampered with, you'd be saying that the system worked exactly as intended. Apple didn't brick people's devices to prevent third-party repairs. The devices were bricked because the chain of trust between Touch ID and the secure enclave was broken. Users had Touch ID enabled and their phones were bricked because Touch ID couldn't verify and there's no way around Touch ID. It's exactly why the update that "fixed" the issue was an update that simply turned off Touch ID for devices that didn't pass verification.


> They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices. Apple has never been against that and isn't fighting that.

Apple is setting up an environment where counterfeiting is practically necessary by hindering legitimate repairs using non counterfeit non genuine parts.

Apple doesn't allow those who aren't Authorized Repair Centers to purchase genuine replacement parts or to have access to service manuals. I'm not aware of another OEM that does this. I can go to HP, Dell, Samsung, MSI, Acer, or LG and purchase genuine parts or download service manuals. Apple posts service manuals online but they go out of their way to lock them behind a login so that only Authorized users can see them.

Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if those devices weren't using genuine Apple displays.

Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if you replaced the touch ID, regardless of whether it was a genuine part or not.

The iPhone X camera module is a separate part form the display yet if you replace the display genuine or not while keeping the original camera module, it stops working for facial authentication.

Apple disabled the ability to adjust the brightness of your Macbook's display if it wasn't genuine. Hey maybe it doesn't want to damage non genuine displays... so what's the difference between a genuine and non genuine part? The EEID that Apple programs into them. A counterfeit display in this case is simply one that was purchase from Apple's supplier, LG, and programmed with Apple's EEID not by Apple.


>Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if those devices weren't using genuine Apple displays. >Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if you replaced the touch ID, regardless of whether it was a genuine part or not. >The iPhone X camera module is a separate part form the display yet if you replace the display genuine or not while keeping the original camera module, it stops working for facial authentication.

This is incorrect and a complete oversimplification of what actually happened. In every single one of the cases you mention, the device was bricked because having the part displayed broke the chain of encryption from the secure enclave to the device in question - Touch ID or Face ID. If you can't verify the chain of trust, there's no way for the device to accurately tell that the security measures that are in place are working correctly with any kind of certainty.

In fact, Apple reversed the Touch ID issue by simply notifying the user that a third-party display had disabled Touch ID (because the Touch ID module key no longer matched the key in the secure enclave). The software simply wasn't designed to allow insecure use of the device and it was fixed within less than a week.

You're either simply ignorant of how these situations came to be or you're being disingenuous because the inaccurate click-bait headline is easy to use to confirm and support your suspicions.


> This is incorrect and a complete oversimplification of what actually happened. In every single one of the cases you mention, the device was bricked because having the part displayed broke the chain of encryption from the secure enclave to the device in question - Touch ID or Face ID. If you can't verify the chain of trust, there's no way for the device to accurately tell that the security measures that are in place are working correctly with any kind of certainty.

It's not incorrect just incomplete because even genuine parts would fail validation and result in a bricked device.

> In fact, Apple reversed the Touch ID issue by simply notifying the user that a third-party display had disabled Touch ID

> You're either simply ignorant of how these situations came to be or you're being disingenuous

Now who is being disingenuous and/or ignorant?

Only Apple could replace or repair your screen/button and have Touch ID work. When users had their screens repaired using non genuine parts they were fulled aware that Touch ID wasn't going to work.

The devices didn't brick themselves on first boot. They disabled Touch ID and access to the secure enclave but continued to work. Then Apple released an iOS update that bricked their phones for their safety. Then they back pedaled and released a patch so that instead of bricking devices it just notified the user of what they already knew.


>It's not incorrect just incomplete because even genuine parts would fail validation and result in a bricked device.

Genuine parts would only fail if they were installed without rekeying Touch ID. It didn't matter that the parts were genuine Apple parts or not. It mattered that Touch ID and the secure enclave were no longer paired after the hardware keys no longer matched between the 2.


Right, why does that warrant bricking the phone?

Or in the case of the iPhone 7, disabling the home button?


“Bricking the phone” was a bug and was fixed.

Disabling Touch ID is necessary to support the security of the phone. I don’t want a state actor installing a crocked module and use it to break the phone’s security.


> "Bricking the phone” was a bug and was fixed.

It wasn't a bug according to Apple. First they said it was deliberate then after the story blew up they said it was a test feature never intended to leave the factory.

They never said it was a bug, the behavior was intentional.

> Disabling Touch ID is necessary to support the security of the phone. I don’t want a state actor installing a crocked module and use it to break the phone’s security.

No one is disputing that, why do you keep bringing it up?

Are you trying to downplay the fact that they are intentionally screwing over people who don't get repairs through them?

Why does swapping the Touch ID module necessitate disabling the home button as well as Touch ID in the iPhone 7?


>Apple doesn't allow those who aren't Authorized Repair Centers to purchase genuine replacement parts or to have access to service manuals

And why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? They're not stopping anyone from reverse engineering the parts. They're not stopping anyone from doing the repairs and documenting them otherwise. I don't understand why anyone thinks that Apple should be compelled to willfully aid people that could harm their business model and their brand and to do it for free, no less.


> And why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

They are perfectly in their right to do that, it's just shitty.

> They're not stopping anyone from doing the repairs

Actually they are by bricking devices later for having non genuine parts or unauthorized repairs.

> I don't understand why anyone thinks that Apple should be compelled...

Who said anything about compelling them to do anything? I just said they were dicks.

And how would allowing people to service their own machine hurt Apple's brand anymore than people currently making unauthorized repairs?

Giving them access to genuine parts would just increase the likelihood that the repairs work.


>Actually they are by bricking devices later for having non genuine parts or unauthorized repairs.

The only time devices have ever been bricked for unauthorized repairs is for screen repairs where the chain of trust for Touch ID couldn't be verified. It wasn't intentional and they reverted with a patch within weeks.


> It wasn't intentional

Actually when it first came out Apple said it was intentional enhanced security checks that disabled the phone for the user's safety.[1] Why brick the phone? The enclave is secure and the Touch ID doesn't work, it hasn't worked since it was repaired. Why suddenly decide the phone needs to stop working during an update? Why not just wipe the secure enclave?

When user's contact Apple for support, they were turned away and Apple recommended they replace the phones.

Apple later changed their story and said that it was intended for validation at the factory and mistakenly affected customers.[2] Bricking a device at the factory seems like an odd way to validate it. Wouldn't a JTAG or SPI bus be a better way to query the phone to perform validations?

> they reverted with a patch within weeks.

Weeks. Turn your phone off and don't use it for weeks then come back here and tell me how it was no big deal.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updat...


> the court decision states. “PCKompaniet has never removed the coverup of the Apple logo on the screens that have been imported and has no interest in doing so. PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”

You are incorrect. The Apple logos were covered up and the court findings state that they were never uncovered. I didn't see anywhere in this article where they say the owner was making claims about using genuine Apple parts.

But I do agree, it seems the right to repair stuff is not great. Repair whatever you want but don't force Apple to help you.


Where do you get the idea that Apple or anyone else for that matter can dictate the after market service level?

The appropriate move is that everybody on the market to deliver the schematics of the device to the purchaser, not to the service shops. And while we're at it (since as you said, Apple is not fighting the right to repair) provide also the complete source code with all the private keys they use to brick repaired devices into oblivion.

You might want to reconsider your position on defending idiotic corporate behavior against individuals.


>The appropriate move is that everybody on the market to deliver the schematics of the device to the purchaser

Why? Why is that appropriate when that's not the case for any other product or service that you can own?

There's nothing to reconsider if I don't find their behavior idiotic.


That's a simple one: because they already deliver manuals to the service shops of their choice.

With regard to your circular reasoning: it goes nowhere. You should know that all devices used to come with service manuals and some still do today.


They used to come with service manuals because they were a collection of simple mechanical parts. Devices nowadays are far more complicated and intricate than the types of things you're referring to.


There is the part where service manuals exist today. Apple just don't give them to you.

I sense a fairy tale infinite complexity in todays devices from your post. You know that people built them


The article flatly contradicts your claims.


The website of the company that the article is about does not. They state (and it's archived since they've changed it since the court case) that they use genuine Apple parts for their repairs.

Edit - https://web.archive.org/web/20160327050030/http://www.pckomp...


From the article (which I wrote, happy to answer questions) ... this is quoted in the court decision i.e., was written by a judge not by the defendant:

"PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”"


The PCKompaniet web site states that they use genuine Apple parts.

Edit: https://web.archive.org/web/20160327050030/http://www.pckomp...

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: