Based on all the dumbfounded and cynical replies, I don't think people understand why this is happening.
Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in the works for YEARS.
My guess, this is all part of Apple's slow shift towards a recurring revenue services model, and a better integration of customer & business incentives.
It used to be, the worst thing that could happen to Apple was the customer stops upgrading their phone.
But now, when the revenue growth is coming from services instead of hardware, it doesn't pay to piss off customers by making them buy a new phone a year early because the battery died.
The worst thing that can happen now under this new business model is the customer leaves the ecosystem or buys less services because they aren't happy with the hardware.
Hence why you're seeing Apple do things they never would have before. Capitulating on the MacBook Pro and rolling back on the Touch Bar, opening up to more repairability, etc. etc.
> Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in the works for YEARS.
I know how companies of this size work. When they have regulatory/pr/legal risk, they can move really fast for their size. Don’t know if that’s the case here, but given it only covers subset of parts of few latest models, limited to USA initially, and will likely take a few years to properly expand, it could totally be rushed in timeline of under a year.
The legend going around, is that the iPhone's screen was changed from plastic to glass a week before the announcement (6 months before launch). Nowadays, things like the cameras get finalized 2-3 years before the phone comes out (according to John Gruber) because of how complex finding suppliers, etc. is, but obviously if they find big issues 6 months before release, they can adapt and make late changes. But that's hardware.
There's zero reason they would need years to come out with this self-repair announcement, when all it is right now, is a blog post, announcing something that'll come out "in 2022".
> "The legend going around, is that the iPhone's screen was changed from plastic to glass a week before the announcement"
It's not a legend. Apple even mentioned the switch to glass in a press release at the time [1]. The original prototype iPhone shown at the announcement event had a plastic screen, but the version that shipped 6 months later had glass:
A plastic screen would have been a complete disaster. Apparently none of you owned an iPod pre-iPhone days. The screens got scratched if you looked at them funny.
I once wanted to try using the backs of iPods as part of a keyless entry system. We all carried iPods anyway, and everyone's iPod had a different scratch pattern on back, so have a system where you hold your iPod back up to a camera and enter a PIN. The scratch pattern tells the system who is requesting entry. If they enter the PIN for that person let 'em in.
Apple is not known for good web services. The App Store being a fork of iTunes Store and the Mac App Store building on the same unstable foundation. Sure they are getting better and better, but still...
Apple will want to scale this from the web or from on-device apps. Previously we've seen that Apple is detecting each part by serial number, so even mixing genuine parts disable a lot of features [1]. So, now it becomes clear part of their reason: If they can detect all the genuine parts, they can ship for self repair and it will work for the intended customer and not for other devices. This reduces chances of cloning, theft and scams, while guaranteeing quality (and guaranteeing their revenue on replaced parts too).
IMO, yes, it would require years for them to announce this. There is all the checkout part, they would need to issue the right part with the correct serial number to the exact customer and charge taxes accordingly. All this logistics is centered on software Apple has a bad reputation at best, and very slow process of development from what is seems from the outside.
>according to John Gruber.... because of how complex finding suppliers
The same John Gruber claims $159 AirPod were sold at near cost. Which leads to a whole world of misinformation passed along as fact in all AirPod discussions.
He may get a few things right in terms of design and software. But seriously his creditability in terms of hardware and supply chain is practically zero.
And no, camera or lens dont get get finalized 2-3 years before the phone comes out.
But I agree it absolutely does not need years. And if anyone has been following Apple for a long period of time should know this PR means it wasn't prepared for YEARS. Not to mention they are basically opening up their repair programme from 3rd party to end users. The only thing that take time rather than a flip of a switch is user instruction and legal clearing.
Win-win-win for Apple with this move. New revenue stream of expensive parts. Those iphone repair shops scattered all over the country that are getting pissed at you - just made them your customers. Keeps people with broke phones in the ecosystem. Puts down calls for legislation about right to repair. Takes a shot at the third-party parts market. Preserves the ability to have the firmware reject 'non-genuine' parts.
Yeah, unfortunately you are spot on - this move is created to kill the growing criticism against its increasingly hard to repair devices, while also ensuring that they have a ready excuse to reject parts bought from a third-party so that consumers are forced to buy only costly "genuine" parts from Apple. Except for the availability of exorbitantly priced "genuine" parts, nothing will really change - they continue to design more and more hard to repair devices with more soldered parts, with no real ability to customise or upgrade the hardware or software from non-Apple sources.
It's also worth pointing out that they will be ramping up this program over an extended period of time. It's not like this is landing fully formed. This is an early announcement of something that is still having the details worked out.
I don’t think it is related to antitrust, but I do think it is related to the growing “right to repair” advocacy.
The reason I think that, is that Apple devices have always been repairable! By Apple. No one needed to “buy a new phone a year early because the battery died” if they were willing to hand their phone and $99 to Apple. I got the battery repaired in 2 different iPhones and it worked great (and was less expensive and wasteful than a whole new phone). I also got the screen repaired on one of those phones.
So look at what is new here. It’s not “an iPhone can be repaired.” What is new is that Apple will help me do the repair myself.
> I don’t think it is related to antitrust, but I do think it is related to the growing “right to repair” advocacy.
That's my point. The customers shouted, and Apple actually listened this time. And this has been happening more lately. Why?
It's because an exec at "old" Apple would say: "sure, the customers want to be able to repair easily, but won't this hurt our revenue growth and my bonus next year? What if they stop upgrading hardware as often?"
An exec at "new" Apple is now incentivized to think: "well, even if they keep their hardware longer, it doesn't matter. Because the customer will still be in the ecosystem and we can get them to spend more via Apple Pay, iCloud, Apple TV+, News+, Advertising, App Store, etc. etc. and all these new services!"
Thats a good spin by the exec, but it’s more like “the people shouted, governments listened, began legislation, apple protected themselves by getting ahead of it”
I don’t really think that this was a direct reaction to customer demands but a forced hand with good spin.
Independent repair shops: Apple won't sell us parts so you have to pay them $69 for a repair we could do for $49 or you could do yourself for $20 because it's really $20 in parts and $29 in labor.
Apple: Okay, here's the part you wanted, you can have it for $59 or have us do it for $69. No need for any new laws.
Yep, this is entirely "we can give you the right to repair your device. You don't need that silly law." The law is about giving consumers and repair shops the right to repair, but Apple is pretending that "right to repair" is just about giving individuals the ability to repair their stuff.
It's especially safe for Apple because Joe Q Public is not going to even remotely think about DIY'ing this, and they get to charge a price that assures they don't lose money on it. The parts are cheap, the instructions are cheap. It's the labor that is what is expensive.
Apple parts are unnecessarily expensive though. And they've already started rolling out new firmware in place to reject parts from third party sources. This will essentially force you to buy parts from them at high prices - I remember when I bought a Mac Mini, Apple RAM and SSD was nearly double the price of its competitors for similar or better specs. (I naturally chose to buy the non-Apple parts. Ofcourse, they've already made sure that your loyalty to them doesn't go astray by soldering the RAM and SSDs now!). And they will continue to make even more hard to repair devices. Nothing will change on their part here - Apple will not give you the ability to customise your hardware or software from non-Apple sources, as that will give you the freedom to leave their ecosystem.
Jeff Williams, quoted in the press release, joined Apple in 1998. Tim Cook joined about the same time. So old Apple and new Apple are actually the same people.
Also it’s not accurate to say these are things Apple would never do before. I have an Apple MacBook Pro from 2009 and it was quite intentionally designed for users to upgrade and repair. And that was when they were much more purely a hardware company, with little services revenue or goals.
I just don’t see the overarching narrative that you do.
Out of 320 comments only one notice this PR quoted Jeff. And not anyone else.
I read this as Jeff is on the supporting side and pushed for it within Apple. ( Which is inline with Post Steve Jobs PR pattern ) And Despite both Jeff and Tim Cook joining at about the same time and both in operation. Jeff and Tim Cook has a very different personality. At least Jeff has a product mind set.
> and it was quite intentionally designed for users to upgrade and repair
Only for the battery.
Failure rates on the memory and hard drive components were far higher than we have today. And it didn't benefit Apple at that time to be soldering them to the logic board since thinness wasn't a concern i.e. due to the DVD drive dictating size.
> "sure, the customers want to be able to repair easily, but won't this hurt our revenue growth and my bonus next year? What if they stop upgrading hardware as often?"
I honestly think it was closer to "the customers will screw up the repair, burn down their house and then for two weeks the headlines will be about iPhones torching poodles." Between right-to-repair laws and the proliferation of unlicensed repair shops, however, their hand was forced.
At what point was Apple operating like the first quote here? I've never seen them as a revenue growth chasing business. Sure they print cash, but that doesn't say anything about how they go about earning it. I would like to see some actual proof that Apple works/worked that way, rather than concluding the cause from the outcome.
This is the latest example and they have had previous lawsuits before about intentionally throttling devices which leads to people buying the latest devices.
Their earnings reports depend on volume of iPhone sales, so the incentive exists to push for more.
> I've never seen them as a revenue growth chasing business
Apple is always chasing revenue growth. They're notorious for it. Most businesses are..
Apple throttled devices to prevent devices shutting off unexpectedly when an aging battery couldn't sustain the power draw. And they later added a setting to led users control this.
If this was done out of nefarious reasons, don't you think doing nothing (devices switching off when the battery degrades) would have driven more sales of new devices?
> intentionally throttling devices which leads to people buying the latest devices.
As the battery ages, internal resistance goes up, leading to voltage sags under high CPU usage, which is called "brownout." By lowering the maximum CPU frequency when they detect voltage sagging, Apple prevents the device from crashing or randomly rebooting. The iPhone gets slower, but it keeps working, and replacing the battery restores it to full speed.
It allows you to use an iPhone without replacing the battery significantly longer than you would be able to otherwise. It was customer and environmentally friendly.
At the time I bought this computer - now eight years ago - one of the reasons I bought it was because the battery was a new type that was rated to have 80% or better capacity after 1500 cycles. It exceeded that, by the way, handily.
About the only laptop that could manage similar battery durability would be a Thinkpad, with its min/max battery charging controls.
It’s really cheap when you add the risks. Apple replaced the battery in my 6s about three years back and it didn’t work afterwards. If this was an independent phone shop they’d give it back and make an excuse or try and sell you another hooky handset. Apple gave me a brand new untouched 6s handset instead.
Been there done that. Went in for a battery replacement, on pickup they said they could not fix it as is, and gave me a new phone. Probably was a 6/6S for me too.
Of course it is related to "right to repair" advocacy. This is the basic function of a company listening to feedback and making changes. As long as it doesn't conflict with the core values of the company, there is no reason to not add this. I love how this empowers individuals to repair themselves, or develop the skills to do this for friends, family and eventually open a shop in their local community. Apple is using their powerful iPhone economy to create local commerce. Pretty cool.
Just did this with my 10, $74.95 for a new battery, spent ~2 hours down the street curating a newsletter at a bar I like. It was a similar experience when I needed the battery in my MacBook Air replaced but closer to 100.
> When an announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in the works for YEARS.
I don't think so. Repairability is already something they have to consider because their stores conduct repairs. They ship tools and replacement parts to stores and to thousands of Authorized Service Providers already. And they already make manuals, tutorial videos, and repair guides available.
They also provide all the tools and repair resources (including software) to large companies and institutions - which is why universities can repair students' MacBooks on campus, and why companies can have an internal IT help desk that can perform repairs.
Adapting this for self-service is just a question of sorting out the legalities around warranty and liability - but their terms and conditions are so broad that it couldn't have been too difficult. And it's not too time-consuming for them to film a new tutorial video for display, battery, and camera replacements aimed at DIYers - perhaps their existing videos are already sufficient for this.
This is absolutely in response to antitrust and environmental criticism.
It is called a spin? Or you could call that a lie.
If you count the programme started when they were opening up to 3rd party repair it is well over a year.
That is the same as Apple ( or specifically Tim Cook ) spoke on record, under oath, in court, that their 15% App Store Small Business Services discount idea started well before the trial.
And Apple has been caught many times doing this. From Qualcomm trial to IMG PowerVR Trial. Either lying by omission or spinning.
>When an announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in the works for YEARS.
Doesn't mean its wasn't spurred by right-to-repair movement. Its not like Apple was blindsided by it.
> But now, when the revenue growth is coming from services instead of hardware, it doesn't pay to piss off customers by making them buy a new phone a year early because the battery died.
I don't agree. Apples model has always been to produce sleek hardware, with every new release causing lines in front of physical stores. Nothing has changed since then. Furthermore, the repair through Apple services was always somehwhat of a money grab, with occurrences of pricey repairs and not-needed services.
It be interesting to see what the pricing on these kits are. Since Apple has been rolling out hardware with id, that prevents it from working with non authorized hardware, it almost seems like its trying to put the 3d party repair shops out of business, and this is just filling the void while fulfilling right-to-repair requirements.
No clearly this is Apple responding to Louis Rossmann complaining on Youtube and nothing more. Gigantic companies almost always make policy decisions based on influencers on Youtube.
Just to be clear, Louis Rossmann has raised millions of dollars in funding for his Right to Repair efforts and has hired lobbyists to push forward repair legislation in something like 15 states. He is not just some YouTube guy he is a hard working advocate with 1.7 million followers and a legal campaign with teeth.
And to the point Apple ( or representative of Apple ) has to one way or another threaten the state along with other measures. Louis has documented many of these tactics in his video. I think Apple stopped ( or changed their tone ) sometimes after all the bad press targeting them.
I guess I don't see this as "right to repair". I think this attached to the importance of the enterprise sales channel. They can pilot this with consumers, but the value here is in allowing the fortune 500 to adopt apple devices and staff for same-day repairs. They just announced and MDM, and they have rolled out the ability for iOS apps to run on m1 macs. To me, this makes it look like apple is vying to become the standard app dev environment for new enterprise apps, and have that inertia drag their devices into businesses. These small changes they've announced all seem to be stacking in that direction.
edit to add:
Security focus and end-to-end control are what the Apple ecosystem is built on. If the results of the trial with Epic go poorly for them, they still have all these features that make their ecosystem a good choice for paranoid/security conscious enterprises. If they get enough of those on the platform, then they have lots of companies depending on that security to back them up when Apple highlights their walled garden approach as a feature.
Apple has always had a self-servicing program for medium-sized and up clients. They don't need this program at all for that and it's not how any Fortune 500 will be doing their servicing.
That's not new and the requirements for participation haven't changed. Minimums are 1,000 Apple devices in the org and 25 repairs per year minimum, only service equipment your organization owns, and a line of credit to pay. Next day shipping of parts (subject to availability).
--------
To the extent that this new program fills a gap, it's for small organizations that want to do in-house repairs for their stuff, or at least have the option of doing it (and doing it with legitimate parts).
>Apple has always had a self-servicing program for medium-sized and up clients. They don't need this program at all for that and it's not how any Fortune 500 will be doing their servicing.
This. I dont know how many times this needs to be repeated before we could stamp out that narrative Apple is doing it for Fortune 500.
That was the most frustrating part about reading HN while working at Apple. Changing something like the touch-bar or keyboard are things that take enormous amount of redesign and engineering from both the product and manufacturing standpoint which take time.
Oh, dear, engineering people have to do engineering. The horrors.
The "broken" four years of Apple laptops (2016 to 2019) were quite a bit more frustrating to users.
- The keyboard was prone to failure at entering text - "You Had One Job!" This was an amazingly bad reversion to... I don't even know when, actually. People love and hate various styles of laptop keyboards, but it was exceedingly rare to hear that a keyboard fundamentally didn't function as a keyboard after some time of use. Ive's (I assume, given his known preferences) pursuit of Thin Uber Alles led to a fundamentally broken keyboard. Ok, not a huge issue if the keyboard is a cheap and easy fix, but...
- The keyboard was so integrated into the top case that the whole thing was unrepairable without literally replacing the whole top case, track pad, battery, etc. IIRC it was around $700 out of warranty, and while Apple kept extending out the keyboard repair issue window for a while, it doesn't change the fact that it was both disruptive for users and, apparently, quite expensive to Apple.
When I got a lightly used mid-2015 MBP in 2018 or so (oddly, the base model was still being made quite a while after it had been "replaced" in the consumer lineup), I figured it would be my last Apple laptop, because the replacements were clearly broken, and after three or four years of it, it was clear that the direction was set, and that you were typing on it wrong, or something of the sort.
I'm exceedingly glad to see that with the departure of Ive, some engineering sanity has returned to Apple, and the freshly redesigned M1 {Max,Pro} laptops seem to be a reversion to "That Which Works." A more standard keyboard actuation, and actual ports on the side. Woah...
Unfortunately, that said, I'm no longer using Apple products at the moment because the whole CSAM thing, on top of bowing to China regarding iCloud, and the questionable labor ethics involved have driven me off. I'm glad to see they're addressing repairability and such, but it was painful enough to rip myself free of that ecosystem (I'm currently using a Flip IV phone, a PineBook Pro, and some Kobos as my general use hardware - yes, they all have a lot of sharp edges) that I don't want to really dive back in unless I'm confident I won't have to exit it again in the near future. With the on-device scanning, in particular, "Well... we're delaying it... for a while..." is a very different claim from "Yeah, sorry, that was a bad idea and we're not going to do it." The second would be useful, the first implies that they're waiting until either a few more issues are resolved, or until people simply forget about the objections. Or it could imply that they're planning on the second, but just don't want to say it for some reason. I have no way of knowing.
It's been interesting, though. I so very badly want one of the M1 Max laptops, as it's literally everything I was looking for in a laptop, just... anymore, I'm too hesitant about Apple to actually buy one. And the alternatives for little ARM laptops all mostly suck... oh well. I didn't need to do high performance compute anyway.
I swear my Pinebook Pro has drawn more blood than any other computer device I've ever opened. You'd think I'd learn to be more careful after the third time the bottom shell sliced my finger open.
You can have working deep sleep, or audio that resumes after sleep. I've got a kernel patch that improves the state of that (the audio codec literally has no sleep/wake function in the 5.7/5.8 kernel), but I haven't applied it to the 5.8 kernel I run, so audio is... just broken.
Wifi works. Except when it doesn't. There's an issue with the firmware involving country codes and some 5Ghz frequencies, and I've not had the patience to track it down. Sometimes after sleep, wifi is just gone until a reboot.
The Kobos are fine, other than some random lag and reboots if you ask them to do too much. Large PDFs will choke an Aura badly.
The Flip IV... works, mostly, if you're not too picky, and don't care about things like seeing who all is in a group text. It's not unusable, but neither is it nice.
Etc.
The PBP has some legitimately sharp edges physically, though, too.
Because that's not how these systems work. Did the new keyboard allow for a flatter design to allow for more battery life?
Apple has always tried to improve computing. I've had MacBooks from the nineties and the keyboards on those are large and heavy. Is that where they should have stop with laptop design?
Did the new keyboard allow for a flatter design to allow for more battery life?
All it did was to increase Apple's repair cost because they had to support repairing these keyboards for many years.
> Apple has always tried to improve computing.
Then why go backwards with a bad keyboard, removing the Escape Key etc. Apple is not a scrappy startup where they don't have a team to test and give feedback.
> Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in the works for YEARS.
It's likely they have many pro-consumer and anti-consumer initiatives in the works at any given time. Public opinion can still impact whether those initiatives get accelerated or delayed.
> Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in the works for YEARS.
Apple knows it has been skirting the line and likely has many programs in place to deploy if and when the time is right.
Apple prepared self repair already a long time ago, just in case they would lose money because of legislation ( because it would hurt sales of it becomes law = a business risk)
Upcoming legislation in Europe and UK. On 17th of June it was filed in Congress and voila.
There it is.
Eg similar. Office on Mac/Android was the exact same thing. Released under the current CEO, but created under Ballmer.
This has been in the works for years, it was just only available to apple certified repair people. Tbh, this seems more like a rebrand of their existing program to me.
> But Apple didn’t change its policy out of the goodness of its heart. The announcement follows months of growing pressure from repair activists and regulators — and its timing seems deliberate, considering a shareholder resolution environmental advocates filed with the company in September asking Apple to re-evaluate its stance on independent repair. Wednesday is a key deadline in the fight over the resolution, with advocates poised to bring the issue to the Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve.
> ... Leahy declined to say whether the timing of the announcement was influenced by shareholder pressure." Activist shareholders believe that it was. “The timing is definitely no coincidence,” says Annalisa Tarizzo, an advocate with Green Century, the mutual fund company that filed the right-to-repair resolution with Apple in September. As a result of today’s announcement, Green Century is withdrawing its resolution, which asked Apple to “reverse its anti repair practices” and evaluate the benefits of making parts and tools more available to consumers.
> ... something Apple has long argued is too dangerous for individuals to do.
How can it be more repairability when the hardware itself is unrepairable by an average individual who could repair most other electronics?
This seems more like an attempt to shoot down 'parts whitelist' criticisms while telling 'You aren't technically capable to repair our devices' to anyone asking for more user repairable devices.
This entire program can be created in weeks. You vastly underestimate just how fast these companies can move when necessary.
They don't need to task thousands of people for this, just a small internal team. It's no different than a highly focused startup, except with the resources and connections of the parent company to ensure they don't fail.
And as far as this announcement goes, there's very little tangible changes. It's mostly saying that even more things will eventually be announced in the future.
> Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in the works for YEARS.
They can perfectly build the program and keep it on hold/maintenance internally, and when the threat of legal action/bad brand image arrives, launch it.
it's incredible whether ulterior motives were present or not. devices aren't more secure if you literally repair them with official parts, the guides shouldn't be compiled by 3rd parties
I’m glad to see the most sensible response float to the top. It seems a lot of people having given any thought, or plain don’t understand, how complicated a program like this would be to implement at a company the size of apple. Just think about how complicated this might be from a supply chain perspective. How about a support perspective?
Absolutely - it's different doing this for a small business and doing it at 'Apple Scale'.
Setting up distribution for this alone via an already-established 3PL multiuser facility will take 6-8 months if you include all the contract negotiations (and do them for all regions simultaneously). That's of course assuming you can't squeeze it in your existing facility - and that you go down the 3PL route (if you are setting it up yourself and don't have space in an existing facility it will take longer).
And that's just distribution, it doesn't include all the work that has to go into 'consumerizing' all the parts (i.e. presumably they need to come with proper packaging, instructions, disclaimers etc).
The people claiming that this can be done (well) in a few weeks have clearly never worked in ops or supply chain development.
This is making the assumption a lot of consumer will be doing self repair. Basic Distribution are already done with current programme. Especially in US.
> presumably they need to come with proper packaging, instructions, disclaimers etc.
This will be the same as current Apple Authorized Service Provider. Except for a few parts which has MOQ.
>The people claiming that this can be done (well) in a few weeks
People are only claiming this isn't prepared in years. Not to mention it only begins launching in early 2022. It is basically building on top of what they announced in 2019, and later expanded or updated in 2020. The biggest obstacles for Apple is likely legal clearance.
They're great because you can make them genderless, raceless, and their body shapes are completely ambiguous, being neither overweight nor fit.
My mother worked as a photo-editor for a textbook publishing company many years ago and it was ridiculous how many meetings went into making sure they balanced the distribution of people that appeared in the books.
I'm not a fan of the style, but I don't see how its defining visual characteristics are significantly more geared toward the political correctness safe route that you seem to be portraying it as. At least not when compared with illustration styles that employ a similar degree of abstraction.
In the the 8 years that Adobe employed a similar style, starting in the mid 90s, it clearly managed to do so without even an inkling of diversity: http://splashscreens.sourceforge.net/acrobat.php
Depending on the year you look at, the 90s version is less abstract than the current examples we're discussing here, but some years are actually more abstract. The lack of diversity is fairly clear to me regardless of that variation.
Of course, whenever we analyze abstract visuals, biases come into play. So maybe this read above is rooted in my own bias (either in favor of being able to make a point here, or in regards to how I believe a 90s corporation would portray "the business user"), but I think that's a stretch in most of these examples.
These companies are faceless because all your interactions with them do not go through humans and are usually devoid of any real, personal human interactions.
It's not a literal take on the word faceless, there are faces, they're just not real. The real ones don't face you.
>For most people every interaction with Apple goes through a human.
No they don't. For a lot, sure. Most? No.
These people the interact with are part of the faceless attribute, they're usually pretty robotic interactions. But yes, they're a great part of Apple. To talk to a human.
>All in-store with an Apple employee.
They will usually say: "Okay let us take a look." and "Okay we took a look. You need a new X."
It's not the most faceless, but it is one of them. It's nearly impossible not to be faceless in this market.
THANK YOU for helping me put a name to this. I started seeing it around the 2018 time frame EVERYWHERE. Gusto, Google, etc - you name it, it seemed like every mid-large tech company adopted it overnight. I felt like a crazy person trying to get people to notice!
It's also called Corporate Memphis, a reference to the Memphis Group, an Italian architecture group from the 1980s known for its designs often thought to be garish:
It's popular because 1) it's cheap and easy to produce since it doesn't take much talent 2) it's easily vectorized and resizable 3) its color pallet and disproportionate human forms are supposed to make it feel universal.
Google copied Facebook, then a bunch of companies copied Google. And now finally Apple is onboard too. It's not a good look for Apple, which usually tries to create design trends, not follow them.
> its color pallet and disproportionate human forms makes it feel universal
So we went from having Homer Simpson universal-color emojis, to a pallet of specific-color emojis, to be more inclusive. And then switched from stock photos of diverse people, to Homer Simpson cartoons, to be more universal.
We're just making this all up from year to year, aren't we?
Not exactly – the "Homer Simpson" yellow emoji came after the initial (Apple) emoji font, which just had all the humans looking white, with no other options.
This is untrue. Not that any of them look like Simpsons characters, but the only emoji option on iOS for like five years was the yellow-shaded cartoon face. It's still the default skin tone in most emoji sets.
This is false. The first emojis were Japanese in origin and were the first to use yellow faces. Apple copied the existing style from the Japanese illustrations.
Because independent thought is on life support. I'll be downvoted for that but most people are terrified of thinking for themselves. This is "safe" art.
It's a design trend, and the digital design space is relatively small and strongly-connected. Many companies use the same set of design shops, or employ designers who look up to or learned from those shops.
It's analogous to how engineers across the english-speaking world simultaneously began using Docker or Hadoop or whatever. "Network effects".
I had viscerally negative reactions to those as a child. Nothing ever foreshadowed "this is not going to be fun" quite like those shirts & ties. Nor was it clear why one would need to juggle the world to open a text document. (Maybe it was all just a premonition about the malware that is CC.)
Oh thanks for sharing that link, I thought most people actually liked that kind of illustration. I personally can't stand it and I had no idea it had a name
I don't mind the illustration style, but it's annoying about how overplayed it is among tech companies. If I was a founder I would ask my designers to not have the exact same art style as all the other companies explicitly, so people can tell the difference between our brands beyond color schemes and the size of our sans serif helvetica derivative word logos.
> In 10 years people are going to look back on all this terrible art and wonder what the hell every tech company was thinking.
This is true for all things, which is why art and styles constantly change, and constantly repeat. Whatever they picked, that you would have been happy with, would have meet the same fate, and a younger you would have the same perspective of it as you do now.
Here is another tangent. What the hell is with Reddit's popup on mobile to get you to install their app?! That thing is plain destructive, and you used to be able to dismiss it but not it even redirects you to /r/popular. So I guess your only option to read reddit on mobile is the app despite having a perfectly functional website
Not point of your post, but when I click that link on my phone Reddit won’t let me read it without downloading the app. The two options are download the app or go back to popular.
It’s crazy to me that Reddit would be willing to go to that extreme to get people to download their app.
My kids (<10yo) just saw a commercial for GoogleFi with these characters and were just laughing at the nonsense of these non-human forms doing human things. They laughed so hard you had no idea what Fi was. Can’t tell if that’s a good or bad response to the art style…
I was completely blindsided by this. I do regular laptop and smartphone repairs for friends and family and getting original parts often is difficult or even impossible. There are many scammers around that will sell "original OEM" i.e. cheap knock-off trash.
Ebay is OK-ish for second hand parts but sometimes you are just out of luck.
I am pretty excited about this too, but it (somewhat understandably) targets latest iPhones only for now so any chance of servicing and resurrecting older devices with official parts is not a reality.
Will be interesting to see if they roll support backwards or only provide the ability to fix from current devices onwards.
Hopefully this means they'll either stop intentionally binding parts to its original device (so they can't be swapped) or provide official tools/software to bind them to the replacement device.
They can even still use the mechanism for theft-deterrence by checking whether the original phone is iCloud-locked before allowing you to associate the part with the target device.
> Hopefully this means they'll either stop intentionally binding parts to its original device (so they can't be swapped) or provide official tools/software to bind them to the replacement device.
Each piece will probably come with a unique QR-encoded serial code that will require activation online before it can be paired with the phone. Not really a rocket science.
> provide official tools/software to bind them to the replacement device.
Via iFixIt:
> You’ll be able to buy parts and tools through the ‘Self Service Repair Online Store,’ where you’ll also have access to service manuals and some version of their repair-enabling software.
Why not? There's no technical reason why the touch or face sensor needs to be trusted. The actual security processing happens in the secure element. The sensor is just an input device.
That doesn't prevent a malicious FaceID chip from recording and replaying sensor output, allowing a backdoor to unlock the phone, or a variety of other attacks.
If someone has access to the inside of your phone, where they can micro-solder a custom chip in, they are capable enough that face-id was never going to slow them down.
If you believe that you are the target of such a threat actor, you probably aren't keeping much on your phone. I would assume that if you are under that kind of threat, you don't keep secrets on a device that isn't airgapped.
If someone has physical access to your iPhone, it's game over. The US government holds your decryption keys, and there are third-parties that sell exploit kits that are a lot cheaper than spoofing some encrypted I2C interface (see: Greykey).
Wait until you see the price of parts. I am betting iPhone battery will be $30 to $50. i.e You save ~$20 compared to doing it at Apple Store.
Generally speaking Apple charge their repair parts at cost + their normal margin. Not saying this is bad, but people may have different perspective once they see it.
I dont mind paying a premium for genuine parts. Ive done lots of my own iphone repairs in the past and have been plagued by shitty batteries and screens.
It's a move in the right direction but I can't help but feel that this is an example of a massive corporation getting ahead of regulation with a watered down version of right-to-repair than Apple suddenly having a genuine change of heart...
That said, my sincere hope is that this move doesn't dampen enthusiasm amongst people considering switching from Macbooks to Framework laptops. We desperately need a computer manufacturer that puts repairability at the core of their design process and Framework has made such a high quality start that it even with their first attempt it doesn't feel like a compromise!
If you care about really owning your device and being able to repair it take a close look at the caveats Apple may include in the actual details of this programme versus with Framework.
Yeah, the M1 hardware sounds great -- Apple continuing Jobs' vision of locking down the platform is not so great. n+1 here for leaving the Apple ecosystem.
Is there a scenario where you feel this would have an effect on Framework?
I ask because it seems like those are two different customers.
The issue of hivemind thinking in forums is that it projects a uniform idea of what customers value while ignoring the obvious demographics. Apple gets a lot of scorn on here because their products suit an audience which differs quite a bit from the typical HN commenter.
If using this forum as an example, everyone wants a fully editable device, and wants every vendor to make such devices - but actually not buy from said vendors because they’re evil. I find this idea of people wanting to control the design of devices they’ll never buy to be such an interesting concept - that’s also why I don’t see the Framework buyer ever being allured to Apple’s laptops.
Following on from this I fully expect this move from Apple to be seen here as anything but a good thing: such as tokenism, part of a grand evil scheme, or similar conspiracy-level plan. This is in spite of a high-level view of Apple steadily expanding repair options over the last decade.
Not to get philosophical, but it does have a Friedrich Nietzsche feel to it all: that apple’s actions don’t matter, they’ll always be construed into being a scheme.
My first question was: "Will Louis Rossmann be happy with this or is there some BS in the fine print that he'll find and make another video about?" Either way I'll be watching his YouTube feed for updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup/videos
Given his prior record, he'll wind up giving credit where credit is due, and then having to eat his words a few days later when it turns out the program is far too restrictive to be useful to repair shops.
Cynically, I wonder if what Apple will do here is make it difficult/impossible for independent repair shops to take advantage of this. Thus, Apple gets good press ("See! We support right to repair!"), but in the end, they know most consumers won't feel comfortable effecting these repairs themselves so it won't eat into Apple's bottom line much.
This doesn't target repair shops at all so doesn't improve the situation there. So my reading is it's going to be "this is better for consumers but they still need to do something for those users who aren't technical enough to carry out their own repairs".
Still waiting to see if Louis finds any problems though
I don't see anything on this post about how they will warrant self-repair, so I imagine Louis will be bringing this up.
Years back I replaced the battery on my iPhone (I tried to have Apple replace it ... it's a long, infuriating story). But I took it in for a charge port recall due to the port losing connection to the cable. It was completely unrelated issue but they wouldn't replace it under recall due to prior third party repairs. It's similar to Ford not replacing your recalled alternator because you replaced your radiator with a third party. In any case I haven't bought an iPhone since because of the frustration this experience left me with.
So this is definitely a positive step in the right direction but hopefully it doesn't end without amendments to their warranty and recall policies.
I don’t see how they could possibly warrant self repair. There’s a hundred ways you can mess up your device while attempting a repair, and they’re not going to pay for your mistakes.
Unless, of course, a way to remotely verify no damage occurred to the device while repairing it existed, which isn’t the case.
Ok yeah I can budge on warranty, but recall? If the part is flawed from the get-go, who cares if it was "broken" during a repair? Under recall it was clearly broken or bound to break imminently (assuming Apple can verify that the part was OEM).
And if Apple doesn't want to do the repair themselves under recall due to 3rd party repairs, sure, just send me the part and I'll do it. One part per phone. Just don't tell me to pound sand and eat the full cost of part+repair. Sounds straightforward, though perhaps there's something I'm missing.
100%. Apple is mostly doing this because they saw it coming anyway. Might as well bend now and position your brand in a better light. Right to repair is winning.
Makes me think of the changes they announced to how 3rd party repairs will be handled recently. Given this change, I am still wondering why independent repair shops aren't held to the same standard...
E.g, We'll allow this, but you must (without exception) follow our procedures to the letter. I mean, AASP exists so they already have a framework for the Independent Repair Providers to adhere to as a way of enforcing QC among shops in a uniform way.
Seems like an area where creating a closed system would be advantageous...
The procedure AASPs follow to the letter is "mail this device to repair depot, offer customer refurb or try to upsell them to a new device, here is a list of talking points"
This isn't much of a victory though, it's just a shitty deflection. Sure, you can now buy (probably) overpriced screens and batteries from Apple when you're repairing your own phone, but 99% of people aren't going to repair their own phone.
So where do 99% of people go to get their phone repaired? The same places they were going before: Apple's overpriced and shitty repair shops, or independent repair shops that don't have access to genuine parts because Apple refuses to sell to them (and prevents suppliers from selling parts to anyone but them).
This announcement does nothing in the grand scheme of things, even if it is a marginal improvement over the previous situation. What I think is important to notice about this situation is that the only thing that caused Apple to take this (extremely tiny) pro-consumer and pro-environment step was regulatory pressure. They would not have done this on their own if it wasn't for the pressure put on by people like Louis Rossman.
The logical conclusion of course is that if we want Apple to stop destroying the planet and exploiting consumers while doing it, then we need to apply more pressure. Apple is going to do shit unless we force them to. (this can also be seen with their App store monopoly, where they reduced the fee a while back only after the pressure from lawmakers and Epic's lawsuit).
Likely the most parts will be extremely limited, i.e. to battery and screen for the phones - which is what their current program is.
So you'd be able order a battery or screen and go to some place and they'd swap it. Edit: just noticed Rossmann has released a video suspecting pretty much the same.
He's been working on a right to repair campaign in the US. I'd also discourage you from watching those videos; unless you want to see him complain for 45 minutes that the Genius Bar doesn't have microscopes and schematics and can't replace a tiny microchip on a circuit board. He's fighting for a good thing but the constant complaining, often way off base, just makes him look annoying.
Not in the least. If anything, this will HELP his business with people who purchase parts then discover that they're not actually capable of doing the work themselves and turn to him to do the work with official parts they've already purchased.
The vast majority of people might be able to do the repairs themselves - eventually after hours of frustration and fear ("I just killed my phone!") and after purchasing additional equipment they don't normally have, just as the vast majority of people could eventually learn to do the same technology-related work that many of us here make livings on.
The always-DIYers fraction of a percent are not the customers anyone's looking for. The vast majority that are willing to pay to have someone else do that hard part are the customers everyone's looking for. It's like plumbing - everyone CAN do it, few want to do it themselves (and take on the risks).
Ooof, I am curious to know when he lied. I'm sure he mischaracterizes some things but that can be an understandable mistake and he has in the past followed up to correct himself.
But lying is a pretty big claim, and not that I've seen all his content but I've never had a reason to believe that he has intentionally deceived people on any of his public platforms.
I'd be happy to see an example where you believe he did.
He's lied several times about various things and, while I can try to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe he misspoke or genuinely didn't know he was lying, my biggest issue is that he doesn't offer corrections for these things when he's called out by people and the videos with the lies and misinformation are still up and continue to get views.
A big one that comes to mind is his remarks on the PCKompaniet case where he continued to say that Apple was suing a mom and pop repair shop for doing third-party repairs that weren't authorized. Not only did Apple not sue them for doing repairs (they sued them for copyright infringement and counterfeiting) but people repeatedly showed Rossmann that the store owner had actually advertised the parts as "genuine OEM" parts on his website and had only changed that advertisement after his parts from China were seized (the page was archived by archive.org).
Another one was a story that was similar about parts being seized by Apple in the US (that actually, at one point, dealt with Rossmann directly as it was his order). Apple didn't seize anything, it was U.S. Customs that seized the parts because the import documentation didn't match and the batteries themselves had Apple logos on them and they contacted Apple to verify the authenticity of the parts. Rossmann continued to claim that Apple had seized the parts as retaliation and continued to claim that they were "original parts" despite actually coming from grey markets in China that refurbished and replaced components (which, legally, make them non-original parts).
Overall, the sad thing is that I agree with him on the general right to repair argument but I feel like he purposely misrepresents certain things to garner sympathy from the right to repair "movement" and I feel like that hurts the movement as a whole. I feel the same way about Linus Tech Tips and their mischaracterizations. If your argument is sound and your principle is strong, you shouldn't need to do that in order to make your argument.
What are you saying? Louis Rossmann is basically THE definition of semi-obscure. Marques Brownlee and Linus Tech Tips both have roughly 10 times the subscriber count compared to Louis, and even they could be considered semi-obscure to Apple's core user base (not HN crowd).
Just taking a look at his youtube channel. Why is he so hot on culture war issues now? It seems that right to repair has taken a back seat to his polemics about covid lockdowns, vaccine skepticism, and homeless people.
He is a business owner in New York City so Covid lockdowns, vaccine mandates, local government bureaucracy, and the real estate market are affecting him personally. He seems to view his channel as a platform for his varied interests that often overlap instead of an algorithm-maximizing focus on purely Macbook board repair.
I wish Youtube had a "Culture War" button. It would be wonderful to have an easy way to steer clear of culture war bullshit. Not just for YouTube, the whole internet.
Wait for the next video from Louis. He will expose this as a scam. Yes, they are scared and trying to appease their customers. No, it is NOT in any way actual right-to-repair. They will not let you replace a charge port (for example) and the prices they are asking for parts are ludicrous.
TL;DR His is skeptical. For example he needs to replace just the keyboard (not the whole topcase) to make the repair economical. He needs to replace LCD panel only instead of the whole screen assembly. It may be still beneficial to be able to buy genuine Apple parts but there is high probability that those parts would just be too expensive. And let's see if Apple will at least release tools and instructions to program those recently-introduced chips and make it possible to re-use a genuine screen from another iPhone without disabling faceID or having to desolder and re-solder that tiny BGA chip...
Dont get excited. Article starts with a lie right off the bat:
>Customers join more than 5,000 Apple Authorized Service Providers (AASPs) and 2,800 Independent Repair Providers who have access to these parts, tools, and manuals.
AASPs and IRPs do NOT get access to 'tools, manuals and parts'. They get access to batteries and screens at significant markup and repair manuals that say "mail device to Apple" in case of other defects. Yes, AASPs are Prohibited from component level repair. AASP/IRP can not replace a charging port, its that bad.
But I get to buy original display from Apple so its still good? Well, Apple will sell you display assembly at the cost of Fully working second hand device.
>By designing products for durability, longevity, and increased repairability
They had to set Sarcasm Generator all the way to 11 to write this.
What this is is Apple getting scared. They can smell losing their long battle against Right to Repair and are trying to make smallest steps possible giving appearance of caving in.
Parts are available - yes. Screens, modules, etc. Tools are available - sure. Pentalobe screwdrivers, etc. Manuals are available - yes they are. You call their quality sub-par, but none of that is a lie.
Component-level repair is probably prohibited by AASPs because it'd have very variable quality outcomes compared to module swaps, and they're putting their name to the quality of the repair.
I've argued this in another post recently, but I almost feel that we need a new word that means "so gross a misrepresentation that your average person would have a completely different view of the reality of the situation."
I feel like (especially on the Internet) it's pretty easy to deliberately mislead, and then when people call out a statement as BS, it turns into this game of "But see, screens are parts, a screwdriver is a tool!" Yes, I understand Apple is not technically lying here, but they are deliberately misrepresenting the repairability of their products.
It's almost like that game kids play of "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" when they sit half an inch from their siblings to annoy them.
Exxon’s ad in The Daily used a common climate misinformation technique called “paltering.” No individual sentence was 100 percent false, but together they created a misleading impression of the company and its climate efforts. If the Times’ fact-checks are only legal in nature, paltering would easily and always slip through. Oil companies would always be able to pay the Times to misrepresent themselves.
Apple is not technically lying, but they are being deceitful.
It's about the bigger picture - the purpose of the communication. As much what it leaves out as what it leaves in, instead of it's technical correctness - the press release fits into the definition of propaganda.
>Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.
Agreed, and I think this very thing is happening. I've never heard of the word "paltering", but will be using it going forward. Knowledge of this word has exposed my use of such a wicked practice.
More people are catching on, but we need more still.
Ha, well, define average person in this case. HN is of course a very technical audience who might be interested in replacing a bad memory chip on a board, but it could easily be argued that your average person would consider a dock replacement, microphone replacement, screen replacement to be the first thing which comes to mind when you say "phone parts".
It‘s funny, when I started reading your text I first assumed that “so gross a misrepresentation that your average person would have a completely different view of the reality of the situation“ was actually in reference to people expecting and clamoring for parts enabling component level repair in a move targeted at, well, just anyone who bought an Apple product.
You see, from my point of view your sentence makes sense in the completely different direction.
Can you understand that viewpoint? I can understand yours, I can understand your disappointment, but it also seems quite weird to me to expect Apple to provide component level repair capabilities to consumers.
But the point is that it's not dependent on any particular viewpoint. I'd argue it would have been much easier, shorter, and clearer, for Apple to simply have said "We now let you change your battery and fix a broken screen." (Don't get me started on the fact that changing a dead battery is now considered a "repair", but that's a whole separate issue).
Apple could have easily been very straightforward in what they are doing, in a way that leaves no ambiguity regardless of what your personal viewpoint is. The fact that they expended more effort to make the reality of the situation less clear leads me to conclude they were deliberately misleading.
Sure, that part is straightforward. But it's also tied to the mechanism by which a repair shop would get parts... which gets us back to the business decisions at the heart of the conflict between AASP and Right to Repair.
Therefore bringing up Apple attaching their name to the repair as a justification when someone is criticizing the AASP's design is a deflection.
I guess I am out of touch on the topic. Why would Apple ever want to engage with this unless forced to do so by an external entity? There looks to be zero benefit except for power users who can self repair and repair shops. Would it be fair to say these changes are primarily to get ahead of legal concerns and any tangible gains are vapor?
>Why would Apple ever want to engage with this unless forced to do so by an external entity?
You're right, this gets to the heart of the way manufacturers exert control over goods after sale. Apple is far on the restrictive end of the spectrum regarding consumer electronics. [Insert your own speculation about business reasons behind the obviously deceptive and incomplete public justifications here.]
>Would it be fair to say these changes are primarily to get ahead of legal concerns
Yes, nakedly so.
>any tangible gains are vapor?
Anyone with passing awareness of Apple's previous aftermarket repair stance would have to be blindly optimistic to see this press release as anything but expanding the customer base of a program that let select shops do a limited number of fixes, often at might-as-well-buy-new cost of goods.
I don't mean to be standoffish to people like yourself that don't have the context. But when it's just us chuckleheads talking shop on the internet, I'm no fan of the people who are informed on context kidding themselves that PR statements shouldn't be read as critically as possible.
If it's self-service repair; then Apple's name is not on the quality of the repair, that's 100% clear. Apple's name is, however, on the quality and availability of the parts, instructions, and repairability.
> Component-level repair is probably prohibited by AASPs because it'd have very variable quality outcomes compared to module swaps, and they're putting their name to the quality of the repair.
I'm all for pushing for more right-to-repair, but I'm not sure pushing for facilitating component level repair that require soldering is the right way to go.
Those kinds of repairs are incredibly difficult (I've done some myself). There are very few people I would trust to do it right, and it's hard to know which repair shop to trust. If Apple put out manuals and components for those kinds of repairs, I can imagine the number of botched repairs skyrocketing, and the resale value of the phones diminishing significantly.
I think there's a balance to strike: you want easy repairs to keep phones going for a long time, but you also want people buying used phones to not worry about getting a frankensteined phone that will last 2 weeks before dying. Only by having high trust in the second hand market do you actually get phones that get used for years and years rather than staying in a drawer or getting trashed when people buy new ones.
I would even support having ID-tags on all components and having them bound to the phone, as long as anyone can buy original replaceable components from Apple at a fair price, and that anyone can do the binding procedure themselves.. including moving components from one phone to another. You should be able to see the history of all the components in the phone, so you have some idea if a third party repair shop just moved an ID chip from an old original battery to a new unoriginal one, or used a really old original battery.
I've experienced several times that screens and batteries you get at third party repair shops die/break much faster than the ones that come with the phone. Why is that? Is it really better to use brand new electronics that will be trash in a few months, just to extend the life a bit?
If you're going to replace the battery and screen, you better be damn sure that the phones lasts 2-3 years or more, because you're buying brand new parts, constituting a large fraction of the rare and expensive materials used by the phone.. so it's not that much better than just buying an entirely new phone where all components could easily last 5 years if you treat them well.
>and it's hard to know which repair shop to trust.
Cmon! We've solved much much harder problems as a society. Heck we've solved the same problem when it comes to repairing cars. I know plenty of repair shops who I trust to repair my car. We've solve the same problem when it comes to trusting someone to save our lives - doctors.
And if someone is still unable to find a repair shop they can take their device to Apple as they've always done. Its all about more choice.
Lets focus on the real issues, rather than distractions. We should be pushing for less e-waste, more repair in all industries.
> I know plenty of repair shops who I trust to repair my car.
Then you are extraordinarily lucky or possibly just too ignorant about cars to know when you're getting ripped off. Repair shops frequently rip people off and is not a solved problem.
> We've solve the same problem when it comes to trusting someone to save our lives - doctors.
We also have certifications and laws in place to protect people from entrusting their lives with someone who is saving our lives. No such requirements exist for a phone repairman. The AASP program is one such protection in place but is derided by that industry as being too expensive and not good enough.
I'm not suggesting that we need to elevate the standards here, but to suggest that this is a solved problem is disingenuous. It's not solved because it's not that important in the grand scheme of things.
We don't live in a perfect world, so to me its a solved problem for any reasonable definition. In any case, I don't understand what your comment has to do with right to repair. I am for right to repair and anyone suggesting Apple is correct to be anti-repair because "it's hard to know which repair shop to trust" is the one being disingenuous.
> We don't live in a perfect world, so to me its a solved problem for any reasonable definition.
It's not reasonable, though. Repair shops are notoriously shady because it depends on someone with generally lesser knowledge to trust a stranger to diagnose and fix issues for you. How are you to know that the repair they are suggesting is necessary? For a phone sure, you can clearly see that the screen is cracked and needs replacement, but what about less visible issues? It's a matter of trust with zero oversight or accountability.
> In any case, I don't understand what your comment has to do with right to repair.
I'm pointing out that it's not a solved issue. You're framing it as if it's uncomplicated or lacks nuance when it isn't. I think we need to very clearly define what "right to repair" means if you're going to ask me if I'm for against it. The problem is that you can ask ten different people what it means to them and get ten different answers.
I'd say I'm pro right to repair in my personal definition of what that means, but I know for certain that it's not the same as others. I'm tired of 'movements' that don't concretely define their goals or purpose, particularly when it comes to legislation.
I disagree, I'm not framing it in any way that is special. No system is perfect, and that is a fact that's simultaneously obvious and boring. Everything we have ever done is flawed in some respect or another. There will always be edge cases or things we didn't think of. We can learn from our mistakes (hopefully), but we cannot eliminate them. I don't know what you consider "solved" when you use the term, but I can assure you that if its a man-made system, it will have flaws. Clearly we're not agreeing on the definition, and that is fair. No point arguing over that, so we'll just agree to disagree. We likely have more things we agree on than not anyway.
To me, its actually very good that people have different opinions on 'right to repair'. Why do you wish to homogenize the term? There should be multiple voices at the table, including ones from the industry. I don't know what you mean by "don't concretely define their goals". Its possible you haven't gone out of your way to look but they are clearly defined here:
> Why do you wish to homogenize the term [right to repair]?
I dislike terminology that guides people towards dichotomies that aren't really there. You're either for repairing or you're against it. You're pro-life, or anti-life. You're pro-choice or anti-choice. You're for black lives mattering or you're against it. These aren't real dichotomies but it's still used as a political tool to ostracize and shame people for holding positions that differ from your own, and are sufficiently nebulous enough to avoid real scrutiny, because you can always redefine what it means to suit what is politically convenient.
"I am for right to repair and anyone suggesting Apple is correct to be anti-repair because 'it's hard to know which repair shop to trust' is the one being disingenuous."
The way you structured this sentence already makes presumptions like Apple is definitely anti-repair. This may be your assertion but you've already framed the argument around this being absolutely true, which is disingenuous. You've created a false dichotomy.
Absolute truth doesn't exist in my world. I'm stating my own beliefs. They are beliefs that are justified and thus are true to me. I don't know how else to state them.
Apple has publicly lobbied against right to repair legislation. They purposefully go out of their way so repair shops don't have parts to service customers. Okay, maybe that's your typical hard-nosed Corporate America(TM) business style, but they have very clearly chosen a side. I don't know how much you're following the right to repair movement. Are you deeply involved and following the news around it or are you simply wishing to have a general conversation around it?
The alternative to a difficult component repair is paying fifty to ninety percent of the cost of a new phone altogether for Apple to swap it with a refurbished one. It’s easy to see why your argument holds no water in that case.
The cost of the equipment to do component levels repairs on an iPhone is well over 100% of the cost of a new iPhone. And the skills required are not reasonable to expect of any but a handful of consumers. The repairs are difficult enough that literally Apple doesn't do them.
> The cost of the equipment to do component levels repairs on an iPhone is well over 100% of the cost of a new iPhone.
Nah. If you know what's broken (which is often a cheap multimeter test away given you have the right schematics/boardview files) you can totally get by with a cheap hotair (858D-style clone for $60), a decent soldering iron (even a dinky TS100, $70), and some decent miscellaneous tools and supplies (tweezers, flux, solder). This is equipment anyone that does any sort of electronics should already have. And likely equipment you'll find at a local hackerspace.
For 01005-sized SMD passives you'll most likely also need a cheap binocular microscope (an amscope on a gooseneck for $150 will do), but you can totally do 0201-level stuff without one if you have good eyesight.
It gets a bit more expensive if you're doing BGA swaps from donor boards because you need to reball them, but it's still easily all within a $1k budget for all the tools required. But hey, if Apple just allowed you to buy their BGA components new instead of people having to use donor boards, this wouldn't be needed.
Component level repair is not voodoo magic, you just need practice and a steady hand. Equipment is cheaper than ever. Pretending it's out of the hands of an average curious hacker is playing into Apple's bullshit about how magical and integrated their devices are and that therefore they're the only ones that can possibly work on them.
I'll concede that it's possible with cheaper equipment. But the people who actually do this work tend to have $1000+ in equipment at their disposal. And there are very few of them. And none of them would be accurately described as "consumers", or even "DIY-inclined consumers". These people have skillsets so unique that their skills are beyond the capabilities of most professionals in the electronics repair field.
> And none of them would be accurately described as "consumers", or even "DIY-inclined consumers".
I think there's much more people that are somewhat inclined to learn these skills and that have access to such equipment than you think. And plenty who don't work in any industry related to electronics that just happen to tinker with electronics as a hobby and effectively have gotten very proficient with a soldering iron. Don't underestimate curious hackers from places where fixing your own equipment makes economic sense.
For me, disassembling my iPhone and replacing its battery was much more difficult than any sort of component-level repair. So if we're letting 'consumers' do that, why not let them also try component level repair?
This isn't an Apple-sponsored educational exercise. It's a consumer-facing program where they are sharing some of the parts, instructions, and components they use for repairs. While I think Apple should share repair information, I don't think it is a reasonable expectation for them to provide information on repairs that they don't even do.
We don't expect this level of detail from any other industry, even when they are required by law to provide repair information. Toyota doesn't give information on how to weld damaged engine parts, even if it's a technically feasible repair. They don't do this repair themselves, they replace it, so how would they be expected to provide this level of detail?
Also, it's done for laptops and phones by a huge number of shops in China, which clearly has no shortage of skilled labour. Many years ago I went there with a friend to get his laptop fixed and the customer experience was incredible. The young lady doing it (in a shop of about a dozen others) actually left the stall and went with us to the other shops in the building to buy the necessary parts, and we got to see them being installed and tested. It was surprisingly cheap too, I only learned afterwards that haggling is the norm but we paid the asking price (which was already quite low from a foreigner's perspective!)
(1) Component level repair is done daily by multiple repair shops. Apple not doing something doesn't make it impossible or uneconomical.
(2) Competition and availability of parts/tools/manuals will bring down costs. Apple forces suppliers to not sell parts to repair shops driving up acquisition costs for parts.
(3) If someone still doesn't want to use a third party repair shop, they can take it to Apple.
(4) Labor prices vary throughout the world. Smart people exist everywhere.
Lets focus on the real issue - reducing e-waste and promoting longer device lifetimes via repair.
This program is not for repair shops. Apple not producing repair procedures for component-level repairs does make it impossible for them to share those procedures... because they don't have them to share.
We don't need any "repair procedures" from Apple. What needs to stop is Apple choking the repair market by blocking sales of components by third-parties.
I'm sure Apple has designed the electronics really well, so there is no complaint there. But they're still using normal components in a normal circuit doing normal things. At the electronics level, a competent tech can diagnose and fix/replace faulty components with some working knowledge of electronics and a curious mind. Like with anything else people get better with experience so there may very well be a difference in the amount of repair each individual repair shop can do.
As a society, our final goal should be to reduce e-waste and promote longer device lifetimes through reuse and repair in all industries.
>We don't need any "repair procedures" from Apple.
Who is we? Experts? Or consumers repairing their own devices? For the latter, people absolutely do need repair procedures. The first stop for most people is a site like iFixit -- a site founded on the need for documentation to repair an Apple laptop.
While we certainly need to be mindful of e-waste, I'm not convinced that component-level repairs are unquestionably a net benefit to society vs module-level repairs. Process efficiency, shipping, warehousing, packaging, materials-used, and the environmental controls in place have huge environmental impacts as well. The total environmental impact is much more complicated than the board itself.
I understand and share the desire to tinker with and repair anything regardless of complexity. However, as someone who also produces products, I also think that the law should be reasonable in what it forces me to do when I create something.
I can only hope you've read statements from environmental organizations urging electronics makers to promote repair and reuse to reduce e-waste. The goal isn't to convince you or change your beliefs, the goal is to reduce e-waste. There are plenty of volunteers, but companies like Apple are also hiring lobbyists to block right to repair legislation by making false statements.
>I understand and share the desire to tinker with and repair anything regardless of complexity. However, as someone who also produces products, I also think that the law should be reasonable in what it forces me to do when I create something.
Sorry, but the environment comes first. The point with right to repair is to remove the artificial restrictions on expert technicians so they can service consumer electronics.
I don’t disagree with the sentiments you have, and I share the goal of protecting the environment. However, our environmental impact is very multidimensional and affected by much more than just the quantity of e-waste.
Our missteps with recycling programs are a good example of this. As municipal recycling programs grew with a singular goal of increasing recycling quantity, many cities (like my own) decided to legally require recycling. This increased the quantity of the recycling, but decreased the quality. Eventually the quality got so low that third world purchasers started dumping it in the ocean. So, in an effort to save a bottle from being sequestered carbon in a landfill, we instead shipped it halfway around the world to become ocean pollutant.
Now, the recycling demand for some types of material has completely dried up and some cities have nowhere to put the recycling other than the landfill. So in effect, they’re burning more diesel to drive two trucks to the landfill instead of one.
The same experts who were urging everyone to recycle in the 90s now agree that we’d be better off if the people who didn’t wash out their peanut butter jars didnt recycle. “More recycling = more better” ruined it for everyone.
All I’m saying is be careful not to be focused on the single dimension of component-level repair in this case as well. Good intentions to improve one variable can backfire if it doesn’t consider its effect on the entire lifecycle.
It isn’t hard to imagine a similarity disastrous situation if tens of thousands of sweatshops started dumping flux and solvents in their rivers, when Apple may have a more environmentally controlled process in spite of a modular approach to repair. Just because something is labelled "recycling" doesn't guarantee that those processes are lower impact than any alternatives.
I agree with the the public's right to repair, in that it compels companies to share the same repair parts, procedures, and tools that the company itself uses. But you're asking for more than that, which I think is unreasonable, and a misguided hill to die on, particularly for environmental reasons. If component level repair of iPhones was more accessible, you won't see this cottage industry flourishing in well-regulated high wage countries with strong information industries. This is high-skill labor intensive work. It will happen in low-wage countries with skilled workers, many of which have horrible environmental protections.
I'd rather focus on the solutions than what some people did wrong - of which there are plenty of examples for every good initiative.
>All I’m saying is be careful not to be focused on the single dimension of component-level repair in this case as well. Good intentions to improve one variable can backfire if it doesn’t consider its effect on the entire lifecycle.
You can only improve your model from past data. When it comes to major policy initiatives we are getting better at many things every passing decade. We only have to measure outcomes when it comes to childhood immunization, poverty, childhood mortality, healthcare, etc, etc. All of these were far far more complicated to execute than right to repair.
>It isn’t hard to imagine a similarity disastrous situation if tens of thousands of sweatshops started dumping flux and solvents in their rivers, when Apple may have a more environmentally controlled process in spite of a modular approach to repair. Just because something is labelled "recycling" doesn't guarantee that those processes are lower impact than any alternatives.
It also isn't hard to imagine things going well, and as long as we're imagining I prefer to be positive rather than negative. I am not only talking about recycling - but also reuse and repair. Devices are ending up in landfills because companies refuse to let repair shops do their job. This is why we need a right to repair law.
>I agree with the the public's right to repair, in that it compels companies to share the same repair parts, procedures, and tools that the company itself uses. But you're asking for more than that, which I think is unreasonable, and a misguided hill to die on, particularly for environmental reasons. If component level repair of iPhones was more accessible, you won't see this cottage industry flourishing in well-regulated high wage countries with strong information industries. This is high-skill labor intensive work. It will happen in low-wage countries with skilled workers, many of which have horrible environmental protections.
If things were open and available, you'd see experts from all walks of life - smart teenagers working on the lower hanging fruit (replacing buttons, screens, fixing charge ports etc) for extra cash on the side, older people who were left out of the labor market, etc, etc. I see immense potential. If specs were open it would be much easier to design an automated diagnostic tool-set to reduce the time-cost in evaluating which component has failed, etc, etc.
I see regular people discuss complicated car repairs about their alternator or fuel injector or vacuum lines, and this is only possible because the components are not a mystery. We have entire generations of people who grew up knowing for a fact that a car has components that can be repaired by experts. With consumer devices we have an entire generation that grew up thinking of electronics as blackboxes that you don't touch because you can break them and then its impossible to repair them, etc.
As far as the point about high-skill labor - no that is not necessarily true. It would be easy to develop tools to pinpoint the location of failure. Not only that, if I was a repair shop I'd replace the customers broken device phone like-like with a repaired one and then send the repair to a 'bulk repair' service which can then farm out the repairs based on complexity and other factors. Its very easy to imagine a system that CAN work, just as you say its easy to imagine a system that CAN'T :)
Equipment costs are capex and amortized over all repairs. Apple doesn’t do them because of economies of scale and the cost of hiring talented repairers.
This announcement is about consumer self-service repair. Not repair facilities justifying a capital expense.
But as you mention, the associated labor cost is prohibitive even for Apple. So who exactly is component-level repair of iPhones a good option for? It seems that it's more of an ideological position than a practical repair technique.
OEMs must be required to provide all parts at cost plus s/h. And misc docs for free.
I totally get that Apple is constantly under seige from scammers, knockoffs, etc. Not my problem.
Further, setting up official spares channel would likely resolve 90% of fraud by fullfilling a definite need. No diff than acceptible streaming moots most demand for pirating.
Lastly, I'm fine with self repair requiring an official factory reset, or whatever, for stuff dependent on the secure enclave. Like rebinding FaceID to a new camera/display assembly. A fair tradeoff between security and convenience. So I can repair my phone now, suffer with entering PIN, and then make a quick stop at a Genius Bar later, at my leisure, to reenable FaceID. With so many third parties trying to pwn Apple gear, I totally grok
this precaution.
> Further, setting up official spares channel would likely resolve 90% of fraud by fullfilling a definite need. No diff than acceptible streaming moots most demand for pirating.
It will curb the problem certainly, but I think 90% is a bit optimistic. More people than you think would elect to buy the cheapest part they can find, regardless of quality. It’s why those dangerous dirt cheap chargers sold at gas stations, Aliexpress, Wish, etc that lack safety circuitry continue to sell in large quantities.
Electronic replacement parts should be much more tightly regulated so that the worst junk can’t even be imported. I think it’s fine that third parties make replacement parts, but there should be a minimum bar of quality they’re held to.
Maintaining inventory makes “cost” a weird concept. And I can’t think of any regulation requiring anyone to provide something at “cost” that works well.
> They had to set Sarcasm Generator all the way to 11 to write this.
Except the M1 Air did improve battery repairs, and the M1X Pro. Apple Watch Series 6 has fewer finicky seals. The only move in the wrong direction has been locking parts, and it looks like this is the fix right here?
It's sure weird the quality of the of comment you can get away with if you're bashing something unpopular around here...
Same way you can argue Apple dont even manufacture anything themselves, its contractors all the way down. The fact is they separate real repair from their Users, funneling it thru sale channels in order to upsell at every step. "Oh it doesnt charge? Replacement logic board will cost $700-$1100, or you can "upgrade" to M1 air for only 1295.99!!1"
Right, but all you need to do component level repair is access to schematics and the ability to buy the chips. The schematics definitely exist - they have to, in order for the motherboard to exist. And the chips on the motherboard probably exist too. But Apple would clearly rather you didn't know that, since they contract their chip manufacturers to not sell the chips to anyone else for any purpose.
Just how Apple does not calculate profit on their AppStore eh. What a wonderfully self serving coincidence.
Apple does not do component level repair because they want to push new devices and at reluctantly sell parts at obscene profit margins. That does not imply component level repair is not economically viable. It only implies that Apple is that sort of dinasour which Silicon Valley is supposed to disrupt.
I don’t see a lot of disruption heading in the direction of local high skilled technicians doing sophisticated component level repair. If anything I see the exact opposite. Unless we have some regulation forcing companies to account for cost of disposing of devices, they are going to keep making devices more disposable.
No Apple doesn't do component level repair because of the cost of having that level of techs at EVERY Apple retail isn't realistic for the number of repairs they would have to do every day.
The problem is that on the sheer scale of Apple's worldwide repair needs (if every big repair was sent to a US location), they'd need to have tens of thousands of highly-paid technicians who are good at soldering, and make very few mistakes (also, add the cost of new machines for every failed repair). Apple's already struggling with "lego-block repairs" (take out bad motherboard, put new one in), there's no way they could do this at scale.
I agree that it's not great, but IMO a big problem with the IRP program for repair shops is that you had to submit your customer's data and wait for the part to be shipped (you couldn't order parts to stock them in advance).
These aren't dealbreakers for the end-user though, and in a lot of cases the problem with authorized repair isn't the cost but availability or having to ship your device off. Being able to do the repair yourself (even if still paying a markup on the part) is still a welcome improvement.
"Tools and manuals" would most likely include tools or solutions to legitimately override any linking of parts to its original phone, so you can finally replace screens or Touch ID/Face ID sensors.
I'm all for forgiveness, however in this case even if they executed it perfectly, I'm not sure supporting them would be the right thing to do, especially now that Framework laptop is a thing, hopefully to be followed by a larger model and a Framework phone.
There’s no way that it would be even remotely economical for them to do so. I can’t think of any board they have that costs more than the labor costs that would be required to do such repairs at scale.
My guess is they aggregate defect units in specialised locations that can do bulk repair and make them available for refurbished (or even new) units depending on the demand or tossed/recycled for EOL products/parts.
I don't think they ever do. Even "officially" replacing the battery on those MacBooks where it's glued in meant replacing the entire top case along with it. I'm 99.999% sure they would also replace the entire motherboard rather than the actual $0.05 component on it that failed.
I suspect they mean "recycled" as in "we reuse existing assembly lines / stocks of parts" and not "we take apart old iphone 8s to make SEs". That doesnt seem feasible from a quality assurance POV
Depends on the repair needed, but more often than not it seems like they send it in for refurbishment and send you a new one. It probably makes a lot more sense from a QA standpoint to do it that way. Screen replacement and battery servicing are pretty routine, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the only kind of repair that your typical end-user is ever going to feel comfortable doing.
>By designing products for durability, longevity, and increased repairability
They had to set Sarcasm Generator all the way to 11 to write this.
I have found iPhones to be the most repairable compared to the other smartphone brands I've repaired. Macbooks are a different story, but I see Macs and Macbooks as a different type of product compared to a PC which is modular by nature since the first IBM PC clone.
Some non-Apple parts for iPhones are terrible, so it's nice to have the option of genuine parts though it's not going to be useful if it's very expensive.
> What this is is Apple getting scared. They can smell losing their long battle against Right to Repair and are trying to make smallest steps possible giving appearance of caving in.
This was my take as well. They might now something about an upcoming bill that everyone else will learn in 6-8 months :-)
> AASPs and IRPs do NOT get access to 'tools, manuals and parts'. They get access to batteries and screens at significant markup and repair manuals that say "mail device to Apple" in case of other defects. Yes, AASPs are Prohibited from component level repair.
It may depend on the territory and the specific AASP but this isn’t universally true. This is understating what AASPs have access to and the types of repairs they can carry out.
Not to unduly support Apple though - they are admittedly very restrictive on all this.
Agreed. This looks much more like a tactic against true repairability than a real commitment to it: It will be used as an argument why laws with teeth to guarantee real repairability are not needed.
"Look here, we do repairs and such! No laws needed! We regulate ourself just fine!"
This feels like when Apple lost the Samsung curved corners case and basically posted "We're sorry that Apple phones are so cool and Samsung's aren't" on their front page
They're knuckling under in the most Apple way they can
Because if the cost Apple is selling the screen at reached a certain percentage of the cost of a new device, it becomes clear that they did not pay that much for the screen, otherwise they wouldn't be making a profit on their phones.
Good on Apple for doing this, assuming there's no tricky gotcha's or other issues that might come up later.
My one criticism of them here has to do with the art style on the images on this page. What's with the weird proportions on the figures? It feels unsettling and inhuman. Apple is arguably the richest corporation in the world. They can't afford to hire a great artist to create an art style that's aesthetic and uplifting and fills people with joy? They have to mimic the bottom of the barrel trendy art style that's god-awful and that bottom of the barrel talentless art students who can't draw love? This is more worthy of criticism to me than them previously borking the repairability: at least that had an understandable financial motive. This is just bad decoration that fulfills no purpose.
Where i come from it's referred to as the "Globohomo" art style and god do I hate it with a passion.
I will admit the iteration in this specific article isn't too bad but the style overall just seems tasteless and attempts to be so unoffensive that it ends up being offensive in a different way.
They are offering this only for this year's Iphones and at some point this year's Macs. It doesn't seem like you can get a battery for 3-5 year laptops nor that you'd be still be able to get a battery for this year's laptop 3-5 years from now.
That probably remains to be seen. I imagine batteries are one of the most desired parts that they're going to make available, and assuming that they put a healthy Apple-sized margin on the prices, why stop selling them after a new product comes out?
It's possible but the reasons not to would be because the margins on a whole new device are larger and because carrying and producing old parts has costs.
Don't they still offer battery replacement services for those devices? If so they're already bearing the cost of producing/carrying these old parts. In fact, they could potentially make more profit selling these parts by themselves to end-users considering how much demand there is for things like batteries.
I just received mine for the MPB 2015 this week, original battery (which I doubt was genuine) is bloated, but still held up in terms of capacity to originals according to coconutBattery[0]. Will monitor the iFixit one closely as well. But I still trust them better than random China or local seller.
The degradation is the real problem. They hold up for the first tens of charges but quickly lose 20-50% of capacity. It might have to do with the lack of OEM charging circuitry on the replacements, or perhaps just shoddy quality
Would capping the max charge at 80% make any difference for this? Apple seems to do it with their latest phones and laptops. I don't plan on using the laptop on battery for long times. So my main concern is just keeping it at a 2-3 hour capacity for the upcoming years (mostly plugged in) and not having it bloat up like the previous one, making the laptop a fire hazard.
Correlates with my experience of late 2013 MBP batteries (it might be the same model actually). My original Apple battery lasted until 2019. Both of the iFixit replacements have lasted a year until not holding original charge, and just last night I noticed a cell starting to swell.
I doubt I'll ever find factory original cells again for the 2013 but if Apple sells them I'd consider buying a MBP again.
It's neat to see this, but there has to be some discernment around what will be component 'replacing' versus 'repairing'.
The more interesting repairs people like Rossman, ipad rehab, and others do can involve IC replacement or circuit trace repair and some of their complaints around sourcing ICs, not just larger assemblies like a display.
This also flows into expertise and tools around such repairs - you need some knowledge of the PCB schematic (in which there's a cottage industry around selling them like http://www.laptop-schematics.com/ ), how to use board rework tools (you need more than just a soldering iron). I sorta dream of a prosumer 'makerspace' for people to do these things but in practice feel like anyone with these skills just asks to use their employer's lab in the off-hours for such things or tends to their own private homelab.
> The more interesting repairs people like Rossman, ipad rehab, and others do can involve IC replacement or circuit trace repair and some of their complaints around sourcing ICs
Asking manufacturers to stock and sell the individual ICs they use to build products is completely untenable. The number of people who can actually execute such repairs is vanishingly small.
The reason the independent repair shops would want availability of the raw materials is so they can capture the profit of doing intensive manual repairs instead of swapping out a main board in a few minutes.
I have all of the equipment to rework dense PCBAs with small SMT components, and I’d still rather buy a replacement main board in most cases than do a hand rework operation myself. Machine assembly and factory validation is best.
>>Asking manufacturers to stock and sell the individual ICs they use to build products is completely untenable. The number of people who can actually execute such repairs is vanishingly small.
The problem that Rossman was trying to highlight was that it appears as if Apple goes out of their way to make sure people like him can't get components. As an example - macbooks use a specific chip to control the USB-C charging, and that chip frequently burns out. Until some time ago, he could just buy it from the manufacturer in China, no problem, at like 10c a piece. But then from a certain revision onwards Apple requested a custom version of the same chip from the manufacturer, which as far as Rossman can tell is identical, except the pin layout has been swapped. And of course the manufacturer won't sell you that Apple-specific chip, so now he has no way of fixing a fried chip, other than buying the entire motherboard.
Like yes, I agree, it's untenable to expect Apple to sell you their own ICs individually, but it appears like they specifically swap publicly available ICs for their own versions for no other reason other than to try and prevent repairs. Of course there might be another explanation, but if there is we don't know it.
Are the new ICs burning out as frequently? (And how frequently is frequently?)
In any case it's certainly possible the new pinouts enable better routing that could reduce failures.
Besides, how many people are able and willing to do component level repairs on a charging chip that it would be worth Apple's time to reroute part of their boards just to screw 'em?
I don't know - all I mean is that this was Louis' argument - that more and more repairs that he could do with a 10c chip are now impossible due to changes Apple is introducing. Whether the reasoning behind those changes is solid I don't know and I'm not sure he knows either.
I won't hold my breath when it comes to proper component-level repair, but I'd also argue that component-level repair is already possible (with manuals from grey-area sources).
This is good news for at least being able to order legitimate "consumable" parts such as batteries which are difficult (or dangerous) to obtain unofficially, or easily-broken parts such as screens.
Wonder if I can get my credit-card warranty to cover the cost of self-service repair. I'd love to run a small diagnostic app which generates a PDF file saying
* this device's battery is failing sooner than designed and should be replaced,
* the first-party warranty would have covered this repair and expired 3 months ago
* the OEM replacement will be $279 + $15 shipping
Upload that to the CC warranty portal and, voila, free $294 statement credit.
Not at all clear from this announcement that they're providing enough tools to unlock that end-to-end scenario -- will consumers be able to download Apple Services Toolkit 2?. It's also really not clear that their partners would be very happy if it were this easy to get extended-warranty coverage; you can imagine Amex exerting some pressure on the Apple Pay relationship if MacBook extended-warranty claims went too high. But it's nice to dream.
I kept envisioning one could warranty repairs if you could videorecord oneself doing the whole repair process - from unboxing the part to replacing it. No idea if there's a practical business idea in this.
I'm glad to hear this. But I'll wait a little bit before getting excited. The last independent repair program... was more a miss than a hit.
I want to hope for the best, wanting this not to be just a PR move, but a genuine effort from someone or a team inside Apple wanting to produce less e-waste, and a lasting devices.
I was watching videos restoring Macbooks from 2007 and was incredible how easy was to serve the most prone-to-fail components and upgrade tech that will eventually get better like RAM. So repair was in Apple's DNA, hope still it is (I'm aware the chance is low).
I will bet despite being counterintuitive easy to repair devices it's good for Apple in the long run. Most people upgrade because of the status that gives you "having the last iPhone", but those cheap 2nd hand devices could be the ideal option for someone to get into their ecosystem for the first time.
I don't mean to jinx myself here but I really hope this is part of the beginning of an industry-wide trend (after-all, Microsoft already talked about making their gear more repair-friendly) and if it is, then I'm really happy. I'm thankful for all the people who poured tons of money and countless hours of their lives into activism to make progress happen because the state of things is rather depressing when it comes to actual ownership of products.
As an example, in my country all Apple repair is done by certified 3rd parties and in 2/2 cases the repair work I got back was less than satisfactory. My 2017 MBP arrived with broken speakers after a keyboard repair (obviously) and the iPhone X I sent in for a battery swap started to bulge at the top after less than a month.
If I have the choice to order the components myself I'd rather lose my warranty when I'm close to losing it anyway and just bring it to a person whom I trust with doing a good job.
After years of disillusion and disappointment, I am so happy to see how things at Apple have apparently taken a turn for the better. With M1 and especially the new MacBooks Pro, they are in the process of fixing their hardware, with incredible results. Now they're taking concrete steps to make repairs more accessible, which was unthinkable just a year ago.
I wonder if this will have the same sort of markup that Apple tend to apply to lower end products (eg. cases, that cleaning cloth, watch bands). It seems hard to imagine Apple selling tools at the same sort of price as a DIY store. Definitely sounds like a great move though.
Call me cynical all one wants, but I am not at all convinced this is motivated by some kind of altruism and the whole "inclusion" corporate propaganda tinge of the copy/images makes me even more suspicious of the manipulative corporate motivation of this move. I see what you are doing, Apple.
Unless I missed something, there is no talk of lowering the price by the cost of labor for, e.g., a $270 screen replacement. So my assumption is that you get to do an amateur screen replacement for the same price while also assuming the risk and liability of messing something up.
I even wonder if this is a kind of counter-punch against the right to repair movement so Apple, et al., can claim, "see, we allow repairs"; while it really just serves to take the wind out of the sails of the right to repair movement in the halls of Congress and the bureaucratic demons in DC.
It depends on what your interests are. Motivations are a higher order from intentions and can inform on future actions or reveal patterns of behavior. To the other reply; I would say that Apple retaining it's iron grip on exorbitant profit margins and the supply chain is the motivation, and the intention is to do so by the subject method that will undermine the threat to that not controlling the right-to-repair narrative would represent.
This is not something that Apple decided in a vacuum or even as it relates to the USA. Apple is surely looking at this with the lessons it has learned as it relates to how the EU has been behaving and its motivations too.
Not to belittle anyone, but the upper echelons of Apple and their servant army of attorneys operate from Mt Olympus and have a far wider aperture than most of us mere mortals have, regardless of how broadly we believe we understand a relatively narrow focus like how this relates to goings on in the USA alone.
No, because their intentions are clear enough. They want to keep their iron grip on their supply chain, which is why they'll only ship you complete assemblies that cost $500+ instead of the charging IC that costs $3 OEM.
It's certainly possible that that's the reason for it, but it's predicated on various assumptions.
It's also completely possible that the reason they're selling complete assemblies instead of individual ICs is because a) even they don't replace individual ICs, because it's fiddly, more likely to cause further problems, and requires keeping a stock of a lot of different individual chips, and b) they genuinely believe that there's not enough people who would be able to do that replacement (regardless of willingness) for it to be worthwhile.
Neither of those are really sufficient reasons though, if they didn't want to channel people through their expensive, first-party repairs then they wouldn't lock down their supply chain so hard.
We know Apple very well now, they'll be expensive af and will give them a reason to keep screwing over third party parts by introducing hardware locks.
The cynic in me wonders if Apple is simply reading the room on Right to Repair laws and throwing the crowd a bone so that they can say, "You don't need those laws! Apple already provides numerous ways for you to repair your own devices!"
Monitor in the coming months how much they continue to spend on anti-RTR lobbying. That would be the better litmus test of their sincerity.
Why is this a problem? If you can get companies to do this without passing stupid regulations that's a better option. Government regulation shouldn't be the de facto.
Obvious right-to-repair defense/play, and not a terrible one. Apple is a leader and if you can own the repair ecosystem while providing some semblance of 'choice'...
Louis Rossman has taught me to be welcoming of things like these but skeptical. Until this is in real consumers hands and reasonable rates and effort I will consider it a big maybe.
That said, anime-style doesn't look realistically human either, but I find it more pleasing than this, which seems to be the exact opposite in proportioning (tiny heads, huge bodies).
Don’t think this should be downvoted as it’s an observation tangential to the article: for a company that puts Design amongst its highest priorities, how can they casually roll out these tiny-headed monstrosities?
So from "it would be dangerous to allow service engineers not contracted to us" to "here's a booklet that shows you how to poke the innards of your phone with a screwdriver".
Right now some propaganda copywriter making a living churning out manuscripts for anti-right to repair lobbying just entered the job-seeking market.
Ok, this is cool and I'm pretty astonished by this atleast. But there's a side of me that tells me this move will come with a HUGE CATCH.
As you guys may be aware Apple has been doing everything possible to screw over third party parts. So... now that they will sell OEM parts officialy (and probably quite pricey...) I'm kinda scared that repairs will become even more expensive.
the catch is that apple stays in the repair game.They will lose against the right to repair principle, so the only move is to stay in the loop by directly providing the means to that repair, instead of 3rd parties.
This is amazing. Not to be overly cynical, but I suspect this must be related to the global labor shortage. They must be happy to let people do their own labor whenever possible now, if the difference is providing bad service vs letting people get good service elsewhere or at home.
Either way, this appears to be great. Looking forward to seeing how this plays out!
Much more likely it’s related to increased antitrust and regulatory pressures. Vanishingly few customers likely to take advantage of this, its true value is in the PR.
A lot repair shops have been using screen and replacement part sourced randomly for common repairs.
You’ll see one in every shopping mall, and while franchised ones won’t be much affected, smaller shop should benefit from from wider access to parts (no need to get accepted as a repair shop for instance)
And getting in front of it means they get to dictate the pricing structure - you can bet your spare parts will be beautifully packaged and sold at a decent markup.
This is great, but let's be honest here: They saw which way the legal winds were moving on right to repair, and saw how bad the PR for opposing it was.
Good for them for getting on board before a court ordered them to change their behavior, but let's not pretend Apple wanted to do this.
So recent iPhones will complain of a non-genuine screen even if you take the screen from another iPhone (I found out the hard way), because apparently the screen has the serial number programmed into it and the iPhone checks for a serial number mismatch to determine if it’s a “fake.” Does Apple supply the repair stores with the programmers to change the screen serial? Or do you have to just-in-time order the screen once you have the serial number you’ll be repairing?
What this did for me? Four days ago, I dropped my phone (again) and the screen broke (again) and this time when I had the option of choosing a genuine iPhone screen or a Chinese knockoff, I ordered the knockoff.
> Does Apple supply the repair stores with the programmers to change the screen serial?
Yes. Apple will loan you a special machine to pair screens, TouchID fingerprint sensors, and other things to logic boards. The machine is never your property, but theirs.
I suppose the question is how long will parts be available? They’re starting with recent iPhones and MacBooks. Will the parts still be orderable 10 years from now, when it’s most likely these devices will need to be repaired?
Auto manufactures legally have to make parts available for 10-20 years due to recall potential. I used to work at a manufacturing plant that made auto parts and sold them to Ford and Chrysler. The big motor companies HATED this because it cost them so much money to pay manufacturers to make 10 year old parts. It was almost always a net loss for them.
So will there be legal requirements for apple to continue making parts available, even if it’s a net loss?
First of all, it is vastly more likely that a car will still be in active use after 10 years than a computer, let alone a phone.
Second of all, if a 10-year-old computer crashes and burns, its user loses some data. If a 10-year-old car crashes and burns, it *crashes and burns*. Its owners' and other people's lives are at risk.
Suggesting that computers (and related devices) should be subject to the same kinds of regulations doesn't have much of a solid foundation without the same dangers.
This is awesome! I've been doing my own repairs for friends and family since high school. Having access to genuine Apple parts and the tools used by their own technicians will be so helpful. Smart move, Apple.
How is this service going to work with the fact that the display/battery are cryptographically bound to the phone itself? Will they also provide the tool to rebind the parts?
Simple. They will require you to mail bad part, wait 2 weeks while they receive it, verify, encode new one with same signature and finally mail it back to you.
This is how their "Independent Repair Program" works (or used to work, I dont keep current).
iOS 15.2 (currently in beta) disables the display authentication for Face ID that was added to the newer iPhones. If this program is going to be mostly screens and batteries (the easiest things to swap), that will be enough.
I suppose they've at least exposed themselves with the press release and some of the wording. So if that capability isn't provided, perhaps there's some leverage.
This is great news but I'd still like some form of R2R law on the books. I wonder if the purpose of this is to placate the R2R movement so that they're less effective.
How long will they support the iPhone 12 and 13 though? Will they support repairs for as long as they support software updates? I imagine it's a bit harder to keep old parts in production.
The next step should be to allow others to create compatible parts when Apple decides to drop support entirely. I doubt they would though, that's why they've locked parts to specific motherboards.
I'm really surprised Apple doesn't simply add a sensor to detect the case being opened, and then have software pop up a dialog box forcing details of the repair to be entered into some kind of 'service history' before the device is usable again.
Then they can use this to deny warranty coverage for repairs done by third parties without their accreditation.
It doesn’t matter how or why we got here and it doesn’t matter if it’s only a narrow scope of products to start with, this is still a huge step forward for Apple. It signals a major course correction that is likely to continue on from here.
(And for those saying it’s not enough - this sort of change doesn’t happen overnight!)
Apple have pulled too much bullshit for me to trust this right away. I’ll wait for the review of tech repairers. The chance is high that the are some outrageous provisions making this essentially worthless.
Spontaneous guess: The tools will only work with genuine parts and the genuine parts will be uneconomically expensive.
I guess it'll basically be the equivalent of an iFixit kit, but still, I feel like it's different when it's the original manufacturer telling you to do steps that definitely feel like workarounds— you know, melting glue with a hairdryer, that kind of thing.
But this is a blatant lie, right in the subtitle. They are not available to individual customers but to Apple-licensed service shops and at significant markup. Shame on you, Apple. Do you believe you will fool anybody with a headline?
It's good. Last time I took my macbook to their bar. I want to repair a stick key but they requested me to replace the whole bottom becasue they saw some water overthere. The final bill is about $800 USD.
You can't replace cameras, screens or batteries on modern iPhones without the OS falling apart or breaking a sweat until they are re-signed to the phone by Apple, will they patch that out?
They may just ask you the serial number of your device during purchase and ship you a part that's already programmed to it, so it's a drop-in replacement and will "just work".
They could also provide a software tool to do so or even have the target's device firmware re-link the part at first boot (potentially checking the serial number of the source device to prevent iCloud-locked phones being used for parts).
Having access to legitimate Apple displays is huge. Basically the only way you can get a genuine one now is canibalizing another phone. Hard to even believe Apple is doing this.
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. But maybe it will at least be possible to buy a genuine battery directly from them (for high price but still).
Look at how much is companies change when we put him in a little bit of pressure on them. Imagine what would happen if we could even more pressure on them?
This really sucks. Why not partner with iFixit? JFC, leave some business opportunities for other companies. Do they have to extract all value? How much is enough? (sadly, I know the answer).
I was assuming they have something equivalent to the Intel Management Engine. Do they not?
> Isn't any hardware a "potential" hardware backdoor?
I don't know. Is this true of open hardware? I mean, there could be a backdoor, but it would also be practically possible for qualified people to find it, right?
Wow. What a revolutionary new idea Apple has come up with! I can't believe that no other tech company has come up with the idea for consumers to repair their own devices before.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in the works for YEARS.
My guess, this is all part of Apple's slow shift towards a recurring revenue services model, and a better integration of customer & business incentives.
It used to be, the worst thing that could happen to Apple was the customer stops upgrading their phone.
But now, when the revenue growth is coming from services instead of hardware, it doesn't pay to piss off customers by making them buy a new phone a year early because the battery died.
The worst thing that can happen now under this new business model is the customer leaves the ecosystem or buys less services because they aren't happy with the hardware.
Hence why you're seeing Apple do things they never would have before. Capitulating on the MacBook Pro and rolling back on the Touch Bar, opening up to more repairability, etc. etc.