Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.




Which part is a lie?

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.


"Paltering"

Here[1] is a discussion about how Exxon uses paltering in NY Times ads in contravention of NYT's claims that they prevent misleading ads.

[1] https://heated.world/p/how-exxon-duped-the-daily


New word added to my internal dictionary. Thank you! :)


Agree, thank you! New favorite word!


Great word, thanks!

Here it is in context:

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.


It's a deception.

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.

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


paltering - lying and deceiving with true statements.


This needs more votes, and more attention in the world at large...


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".


People who are able to reflow BGA chips are not the market of this. There isn't a magic, hidden tool to get your way around fairly advanced skills.


Is that a reasonable expectation to have?

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.


  Lie
  Deceive
  Misrepresent
  Prevaricate
  Equivocate
  Palter



>it'd have very variable quality outcomes compared to module swaps, and they're putting their name to the quality of the repair

That's a deflection. Apple _chooses_ to put their name on those 3rd party repairs.


They are choosing not to put their name on it due to the variable outcomes and lack of quality control. It looks straightforward to me.


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.


But that's the thing.

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.


I agree with you there, the parent was decrying the nature of AASP repairs.


Ok, it's not a lie. It is deliberately misleading to the extent that the reader interprets that sentence in a way that in untrue.

Somehow that doesn't feel any better than a lie though.


> 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.

It's my device. Apple can suck it.


That is something which is supposed to be a norm, not a pity from the vendor.


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:

https://www.repair.org/policy

https://www.repair.org/legislation

https://www.repair.org/the-environment


> 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?


> people who actually do this work tend to have $1000+ in equipment

> none of them would be accurately described as "consumers", or even "DIY-inclined consumers".

I'm assuming that nearly every single one of the people in your first quote, got there by starting off as someone described in your second quote.


I'd agree.

That doesn't mean that the superset is comparable to the subset.


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!)


Hate to say it, but that is factually incorrect.

(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.


But, so what? This is not an argument about soldering or other specialized skills required to do a scary sounding repair.


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.


If you could get all parts at cost couldn't you build your own iPhone for less than the price of an iPhone?


Cost includes the overhead of packaging, inventory, returns, etc. So it'd generally be cheaper to buy a complete assembled unit retail.

Trying to think of exceptions... Can't think of any. Maybe the Sears & Robuck kit houses?

My father bought us a kit computer. An off the shlef equiv unit would have been cheaper. We paid extra for the priviledge of self assembly.


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.


If they're able to maintain inventory on all of their current products I think they can probably maintain inventory on parts for them.


Of course they can, the person above was alluding to the fact that keeping an inventory of parts often costs more than the parts themselves.


A lot of their “inventory” is “ship it right after manufacture directly to the customer”.


No other company provides replacement parts at cost.


Outrageous, isn't it? Why do auto manufacturers, to pick a villan, treat their spares as a profit center?

I'm for any measure that pushes back on planned obsolenscence.


> 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...


Apple themselves don't do component level repair. Why do you think those "tools, manuals" even exist.


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"


no its the fact that component level repair isn't really provided by most OEMs. It was never offered on any of my past laptops


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.


This is an absolute nonsense response.

Ever heard of mailing your phone in for "major repairs"? Why do they need to do 'component level repair at every retail outlet"?


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.

(See https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/acqwut/do_you_know_w... and more recent reporting on CSAT Solutions's incompetence, poor incentives, and very high turnover).


Not in store. Those refurbished logic boards have to come from somewhere, though.

See https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/acqwut/do_you_know_w...


I had always assumed this about refurbished products, and hence stayed away from them.


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.


The only reason for the markup, is because they can, which they ensured in advance


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.


Do Apple actually do component-level repair? Or do they just bin it and send a new one?


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.


Their smaller / cheaper iphone line (SE?) is made mostly from recycled components I heard


Probably their usual greenwashing stuff like "100% recycled aluminum"


I meant from previous generation iPhones of the same form factor - it used exactly the same screen and camera


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.


Your first question is the same as "Does Apple actually care about the environment?"


>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


When has Apple ever done this?


screens at significant markup

If an original Apple screen cannot be purchased on the open market, how do you know it's marked up?


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.


So it's basically deception tactics in a legal battle? "Nice!" : )




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

Search: