In the comparison I have used current exchange rates.
GBP or PLN don't have a tendency to drop down by 10% overnight.
I also do not see the reason why Apple couldn't offer the option to charge in USD, in Europe many banks offer currency conversion without fees for online card payments, such as Monzo in the UK.
It’s simple, their finance team’s would be made significantly more complicated and costly - eg now you get to do extra FX management on your stores local sales for VAT. And virtually all their local customers will be wanting/ only able to pay in their local currency anyway. All to sell at an arguably lower price ?
Not to mention, potential higher operating costs in some countries (which means the cost to provide these items is also higher). For example, labor and energy costs are higher in the UK and Europe than in the US.
Someone else mentioned that warranties are required to be longer in the EU, which would increase the OEM's operating cost as well.
As a slight aside, _minimum warranty_, that is I think?
Certainly when UK was in the EU then the Consumer Rights Act gave (and gives) (paraphrasing) "as long as a reasonable person would expect" as the effective warranty period; washing machines are expected to last a decade, at least, so if it fails after 3 years you can claim regardless that the warranty on the box says 2 years.
Software providers say "no returns" or give a couple of hours of gameplay time, but the UK law (as above) specifically includes software and gives no such limit.
Proportionally the price difference is more or less the same as it is for new devices. For example, an iPhone 14 Pro Max starts from $1099 in the US and $1279 pre VAT (€1222 pre VAT) in the EU.
I'm building a community that collects data about the longevity and repairability of products. This could evenentually help to keep corporations accountable: http://looria.com/ExitReviews
If you’re relying entirely on user submitted data, how are you planning to combat spam, griefers, disgruntled types, and competitors trying to smear each other?
I've been recently trying to resurrect my mom's old 2015 MacBook Air and there's a special excitement in being able to follow the clues on the logic board as to where there's a problem, and then being able to fix it.
When I was going through my father's stuff after he died, I came across a Television manual that had come with the product. It included a full schematic of the TV. Every resistor, capacitor, transistor, and diode. I marveled at the idea that the company who made this TV was more interested in your having confidence in the product than protecting their next sale...
> I marveled at the idea that the company who made this TV was more interested in your having confidence in the product than protecting their next sale...
Because back then a TV cost an arm and a leg and they broke more often. Being maintainable was a requirement for the initial sale.
This is always an important point that seldom gets brought up these days when people are complaining about "they don't make things like they used to." Of course they don't, and we're generally better off as a result.
Sure some things are better—but you won’t find half-decent workmanship in the majority of products—just walk through Home Depot and take a look at anything “Husky”.
And regardless, modern features are pretty much frivolous crap anyway. I mean, a smart refrigerator? A smart oven? Please. Older ovens are designed to bake—not sell ads.
When my TV just magically started showing ads I decided it’s time I go to the library and read more books. Books were designed to better humanity.
I'll take a set of Husky wrenches over any early 20th century hand tools, any day. Sure, many of those wrenches are still around, but they're awful to actually use.
One of the last times something like this came up I went and looked up the cheapest desk fan in an old Sears catalog. Maybe the ‘60s or so.
It was priced at like $15, about the same as today.
But if you did the math for inflation, it would cost like $120.
So of course they lasted forever. And they were made of metal and designed to be workhorses. They cost $120!
When you make a plastic desk fan for $15, even with razor thin profits for everyone involved there just isn’t much money left to put into lasting quality parts.
And the plastic desk fan probably lasts for years anyway.
A lot of us have way too much disposable odds and ends--I don't even want to tell you how much tech logo clothing I've ended up with over the years. But not everything needs to be pass down to your grandchildren quality.
And just think when you got the tech logo clothing you become a walking billboard. Are you getting paid to wear it?
But yeah most grandchildren auction off their parents belongings anyway. That’s why birds make nests and then they go somewhere else and maybe return, make a new nest.
People are fixated on permanence—perhaps that’s another way to build housing: design it so it is sustainable, then tear it down and recycle the materials every 10 years.
About a decade ago we got a Lasko box fan that was all-metal. About $100 versus maybe $25 for the plastic ones (back then—I'm sure both would be worse now, thanks inflation).
It's amazing, and unlike the plastic ones didn't die in 2-3 years. Way more powerful (the "low" setting is somewhere between "medium" and "high" on the plastic fans we've owned), cord's thicker and heavier, whole case and the screens are heavy metal so they're difficult to break and I could probably repair them somehow, if they did.
Unfortunately, last I checked nobody makes anything like it now. Guess we'll have to look for some kind of shop-fan if this one ever dies and can't be fixed, assuming those haven't been shittified by then.
One of the first people I've seen suggest that planned obsolescence is a good thing for consumers. Let me guess, you are somehow financially motivated to see people buying more stuff more frequently?
I think the point being made is that if all you have available is $120 fans, there is going to be a good number of people who can't afford them at all.
Cheap goods make things more accessible to more people. Planned (or even unplanned) obsolescence is an unfortunate side effect.
Re: planned vs. unplanned: I don't think the cheap fan manufacturer really builds it that way so you keep having to come back when yours breaks. At least, I don't think that's the primary motivator. More likely, their goal is just to sell more units in the first place, and lower prices are usually a good way to do that.
(Meanwhile, companies like Apple have found the holy grail: an expensive, high-margin, premium product that's difficult to repair.)
And there's no real guarantee the $150 fan will last 40 years anyway. A few years ago I bought an unreasonably expensive toaster and it broke after less than 2 years.
I think this is the real issue. A lot of premium priced stuff today is not built to match the quality the price suggests.
If you did spend $150 on a fan today, it would probably last just as long as a $15 one. Emphasis on probably, there are good quality items... just not a lot.
TVs are a great example: a $900 Sony smart TV I got 5ish years ago lasted barely longer than its 3 year warranty (before a hardware-related bootloop). A crappier cheaper TV would have lasted the same.
Seems to be the trend when introducing smarter software features. Near every appliance I had to replace in the last decade died because of "the motherboard" (according to several technicians), which was coincidentally about 50% the price of the appliance. I guess manufacturers like to cheap out on embedded hardware components?
Yeah, it is hard for a consumer to judge long-term longevity, and even harder for a company to demonstrate it.
> Near every appliance I had to replace in the last decade died because of "the motherboard"
Part of this is because appliance repair techs are not skilled in component level repair. They are trained to understand module-level repair, and that's it. It is possible to do more precise repairs, but mass manufacturing makes new modules cheaper than skilled (western) labor.
And it's not like everything was made to last longer in the "good old days." If you lived somewhere with snow, you were lucky to get a car through 5 years and 50,000 miles--and it probably needed fairly regular tune-ups etc. to keep running.
Where / when was this? Living in Scandinavia, this was not my experience at all - as a kid we went through a number of used cars - Lada, Mazda, even a VW Beetle - and while the Beetle was definitely more of a summer car (heating would have been nice!), I never heard of a car being terribly worse off because of snow.
It’s not the snow it’s the salt that’s sprayed on the roads in the colder states. I’m down South and only see small amounts of snow every couple years or so. Our cars do not have this problem.
I think the 70s were more notorious for cars rusting out. It’s still a slight concern for older cars coming from colder states. I watch two people on YouTube who specialize in 90s and 00s Mercedes and BMWs. Many times they are looking in specific spots for rust on older cars.
US states with snow typically salt their roads in the winter, in an attempt to melt it down to the bare road, and it is very corrosive. Not sure about where you lived, but some other places use other strategies, often: requiring vehicles to have snow tires.
My first car, built in 1987, was partially galvanized (I know
because the sales brochure was proud of this fact), but had rust streaks down the doors at 50k miles and the frame rusted completely through at 80k miles.
The improvements in automotive coatings in the 90s and 00s have been immense.
Yes, today 50K miles would be very short-lived. In my more recent experience, getting to 100K miles and ten years or more is pretty easy. Cars have gotten a lot more reliable both in terms of not rusting out and mechanical reliability generally.
70s in the US--typically European cars. Even in the last 20 years I had a Ford Explorer that I ultimately got rid of because everything underneath in the vehicle was rusting out at about 100,000 miles.
> If you lived somewhere with snow, you were lucky to get a car through 5 years and 50,000 miles--and it probably needed fairly regular tune-ups etc. to keep running.
And farmers and other rural people all knew how to do this, had welders and other power tools and access to spare parts (or at least a junkyard). The frame parts themselves were made with enough slack that even if you had a crash with something, it needed to be a fairly serious collision to cause damage beyond the frame. Hell, even a 1994 VW T4 could collide with the rear end of a traffic jam, be 10cm shorter than before and it would still run (I speak from experience on that one).
Today, most cars are locked down so hard you need specialized software from the manufacturer to swap a fucking stereo, and the frame is packed with bits and pieces so even a tiny ding on a parking lot can end up with a five figure repair bill.
> The frame parts themselves were made with enough slack that even if you had a crash with something, it needed to be a fairly serious collision to cause damage beyond the frame. Hell, even a 1994 VW T4 could collide with the rear end of a traffic jam, be 10cm shorter than before and it would still run (I speak from experience on that one).
A return to this would likely require unwinding decades of global crash and pedestrian safety legislation - it's this more than anything else that has made cars less resilient to small knocks, especially the pedestrian safety rules found in many markets. Yes old cars were easier to fix, but survivability for occupants and anyone else involved in your accident was significantly worse. Personally, I'll take the safety features of 2022 over 1994 - the changes are massive.
Bumpers used to actually be bumpers or, as someone once quipped, braille devices to help you park. Now they're fairly fragile containers for all manner of sensors.
A cars' bumper is still there, it's still steel (save for a few exceptions), and still intended to take the impact from another vehicle. The fragile container for sensors is technically the bumper cover.
This implies that the prices of goods would be higher relative to wages.
From an environmental perspective it is a reasonable position. But a democracy is never going to support any such transformation. “Make appliances more expensive so that I cannot afford new ones easily” said nobody.
If appliances break less frequently or are repairable more easily they will last longer. That means you can spread the higher cost over a longer period of time.
Appliances generally are quite reliable today, and most failures aren't particularly difficult or expensive to fix compared to appliances in the past. But there are also some limiting factors to spreading appliance cost over a long period of time. People may have limited funds (whether cash or credit) to purchase appliances, and if they can, they prefer to have them all up front. While in the past, it may have been reasonable to save up for years to buy a refrigerator, and use a root cellar in the meantime, that isn't socially acceptable today (nor is it a remotely viable expectation for a business to make of their customers). Also, people in the US move relatively often, and so it makes little sense to buy an appliance for the sole purpose of someone else's benefit.
But no one could fix a capacitor or resistor for less than it would cost to manufacture a new one. "fix a capacitor" even seems silly to say, because it is beyond the scope of the average person to fix. A similar analogy is a car engine, you can repair the engine, however mostly what a mechanic does is swap out pieces. Some things can be fixed with a welder, most (spark plugs, gaskets, belts, even parts like a carburetor) are just replaced.
This is similar for "technology" items. The parts may not be fixable but sub-components should be replaceable; the overall product should be repairable.
Repairing many TV faults like bad caps or bad LEDs is not that expensive compared to TV repairs in the past. It just makes sense to pay a couple hours of labor on a TV in 1960, but it doesn’t in 2022. The TVs today aren’t worth paying the labor to fix them. The labor is more than the price of a new TV.
But, set aside the cost, there is as I see it a not-so-hidden environmental cost, the discarded TV set that could be repaired replacing one or two components needs to be somehow taken care of.
There was a manufacturer in Italy that - at the time - created the "perfect" setup for cheap repairs that produced no or very little waste (old post):
While you can't fix the component in the IC, you can replace the IC - and often we're not even dealing with BGA components - Just surface mount or even through-hole. Poking around YouTube reveals a number of folks who have done it.
Though I doubt you could run a TV repair business these days and be very profitable.
Don’t they? Not in the glovebox, but there are repair manuals for cars that are easily available. I get access to every model’s repair manual with my .edu account.
The thing is that having the manual or not is not the problem, is the equipment you’ll need that is hard to get, and not only that, for cars you may only use them once, for that particular car, that particular repair, and it may cost hundreds. Maybe if you keep the car for 15 years and 300k miles you get to use it again.
Same with the equipment you need to do circuit repair nowdays.
Back in the day the boards were simple, big and you could use a $10 soldering iron to fix things. Now a regular soldering iron tip covers 3 components at a time.
> there are repair manuals for cars that are easily available.
Less than they used to be. It feels like the Chilton manuals have dried up for late model vehicles.
People took their TVs to TV repair shops in the past, as well.
Buyers want their durable goods to be durable. They don’t want to spend a significant chunk of their income on a product and be stuck with a broken product next year. Whether that’s a 10 year 100,000 mile warranty, or a schematic you can take to your local TV repair man, they don’t care.
Cars are a lot cheaper nowadays per feature then 50 years ago.
For example just adding air conditioning to a normal family sedan back then would cost the equivalent of $10000 USD nowadays.
If your fine with paying $10000 for an air conditioner, $20000 for an electric driver's seat, another $20000 for an electric passenger seat, $10000 for heated seats, $30000 for ventilated seats, etc... then I'm sure manufacturers would be more than willing to supply a transistor level diagram.
You could go even further with the Apple II reference manual (the Red Book)
http://cini.classiccmp.org/pdf/Apple/ (page 122 is where it really gets interesting). It has enough information to wirewrap your own (and hand key the instructions to blow a prom).
Business values have definitely changed over the years. This has lead to a drastic change in options available to consumers and what they have come to expect. And even in what schools in the US teach.
When something is a cultural change... and you notice something better in the past... how do you push to make it better, again, in the future?
First you have to define what better means, before you can try to make it better again. What you just said boils down to "make it more expensive, again, in the future"
My mom's first VHS player got repaired when it broke. On a new equivalent it would probably get chucked. Sounds terrible? Her first VHS player cost $700. In the early 80s! That would be absurd in todays money much less back then, of course that bad boy got repaired when it broke.
Same goes for things like washers and dryers. Nostalgic memories of how back in the 60s they were built like tanks. Of course they were, they cost the same price then as they do now, not adjusted for inflation. Spend that kind of money on a washer today and it will be built like a tank.
The context we were talking about was repairability. Modern washers and dryers are still fairly repairable. Even at their lower price point when figuring for inflation
Cars are getting less repairable. I think most people who’ve worked on cars for a long time will argue that car repairability is getting worse. Cars are also a case where the average cost, when figuring for inflation, has gone up
I bought a microwave recently and it came with an electronics schematic for repair too. Now, it uses large capacitors, resistors, etc so it would be fairly easy for a novice or field repairman to work on. I can kind of understand why microelectronics don't come with circuit repair schematics though.
I would really like to believe this is not some sort of cynical attempt to circumvent current-and-future "right to repair" laws.
On the one hand: yes, this does allow third parties to carry out repairs on Apple equipment. On the other hand: no, this is so costly and inconvenient that it effectively locks out everyone but Apple anyway.
So, what would it take to enable cost-effective repair of Apple equipment? A relaxation of "parts DRM", even if it weakens overall ecosystem security? A mandate to enable side-loaded OSes to extend hardware lifetime and perhaps enable certain kinds of (security-sensitive) repairs?
> So, what would it take to enable cost-effective repair of Apple equipment?
Forcing them to make a larger, more modular device that a few loud people want and most regular users couldn't care less about. I don't buy the argument that Apple is forcing people to choose their devices. They're in business to make what customers want, and their broad success suggests they've got that nailed.
> Forcing them to make a larger, more modular device that a few loud people want and most regular users couldn't care less about.
Even worse than that, those few loud people who say they want it can easily turn out to be just that - loud, but not actually wanting it once their demands are satisfied.
Case in point - iPhone Mini. Some people were loudly demanding a smaller iPhone for years. Apple introduces iPhone 12 Mini in Q4 2020 with great specs in a small form-factor. Builds on top of it with iPhone 13 Mini a year later. Then in 2022, Apple announces discontinuing iPhone Mini line due to very weak sales.
Why would your takeaway from that be that even the loud people didn't want it? It's perfectly plausible that all the loud people bought the Mini, but it still wasn't enough to make it a viable product.
Also, Apple gave it less then two years. I could easily imagine plenty of people wanting the Mini, but being unable to justify the purchase because their existing (larger) iPhone was only a few years old. Not everyone has the resources to buy a new iPhone every year or two.
New product is a major investment, nobody competent would just discontinue it because it doesn’t sales well early on. I suppose Apple has the number to show future sales of the Mini would be weak.
I don't know if that's actually the case, given that SE is noticeably larger than Mini.
The only people I know who pick SE are those who either still want the physical home button or just want the cheapest new iPhone. In all other metrics, including smaller physical size, Mini wins hands down.
So I find your claim about people who loudly demanded a smaller iPhone cannibalizing Mini sales by picking a larger SE instead a bit difficult to believe.
That would be true when purchasing a phone now, but not at the time the SE launched. At that time, the Mini had not launched, and it was not clear that any such device would launch. Since most of the people in the market for a small phone would have been using relatively old devices, most of them purchased the SE. Already having the SE would mean that few of them would want to upgrade to the Mini.
Also, it is worth noting the desire for small phones is mostly due to a desire for easier one-handed use, and the SE is as easy to use as the Mini in that regard, since the user does not need to reach the top of the device and the home button is centrally located, and thus easier to reach.
I agree, right to repair is a difficult thing. Technically I can repair my own car, but realistically I will take it to a shop because owning or renting all the tools required to even replace a tire from a rim is way too high.
The question is if you can take your car to an independent repair shop and do they have access to tools, repair manuals and original parts? Today, independent shops often don't have access to genuine parts and the manufacturers don't make them available on purpose so that only they can do the repair at much higher prices.
Right to repair isn't necessarily about doing the work yourself.
Replace the whole wheel. You don't need any tools (except those that supplied with the car itself).
There're plenty of perfectly serviceable cars. You might be too rich to care about it, but I live in a third-world country and there're lots of people who do self-service for some repairs and procedures. It's not hard and it doesn't require costly tools. Especially with modern resources when you can download service manuals and watch youtube videos its easier than ever. You only need a will (or necessity).
Replace the whole wheel. You don't need any tools (except those that supplied with the car itself).
Note that many new cars these days don't come with any tools at all. And spare tires are an expensive optional extra that don't always come with the tools anymore.
It's very different being able to take your car/laptop to any old shop than there only being a single shop that's licensed (enforced by lawyers+DRM+tool/part availability) to do repairs on your particular brand.
I used to be a professional auto mechanic. I know how to swap tires on a rim. I know how to do it without scratching the fuck out of your nice alloys (which you, dear inexperienced reader, are guaranteed to do the first few times you try it). I know why you need to get the bead into the recess of the rim lest you struggle mightily to get the new tire on. I've changed motorcycle tires by the side of the road with nothing but a couple of tire irons.
I also know that "a lot of work" doesn't even begin to describe it if I'm doing it on my garage floor with tire irons. If you're low on money and without other options, by all means, give it a go. But if $100 isn't the difference between your kids eating or not, save yourself a fuck-ton of grief (as well as half a Saturday) and just go get those new skins put on at a shop where they have big air-driven machines that will spoon those things on in mere seconds. Back in my pro days, myself and a helper timed ourselves from the time the car pulled into the bay until it hit the ground with four new tires: nine minutes. I probably can't get a single wheel off my car from a cold start in nine minutes.
So, yeah, it can be done. But you don't want to do it.
The problem with 'a lot of work' is that people price that as $0 while it actually isn't "free", unless you are prohibited from doing meaningful work for others or yourself, which most people aren't. So if the cost for some low-quality tools is the same as having it done with high-quality tools but saving you time and effort, it doesn't make sense to try to mass-market the low quality option.
This is also what is probably at the core of all this right to repair stuff: there are definitely some anti-consumer practises but in reality people might be too busy with other things to fiddle around with their products when someone else could be doing it instead (or they might simply prefer it and shift any blame and quality control to a third party while they are at it).
Even for really simplistic things like changing a light bulb in a car people just can't seem to be bothered.
A lot of car tools are specialty tools than can only be used on other cars. And they are big because cars are big. It is hard for a library to stock some of these tools, too. People often have a few car tools, though: A jack, wrenches, and things like that. You know, the ones that are easier to store in an apartment closet and can be used for other things. Some libraries rent these.
Phone tools are closer to the car tools that people have. Even small libraries can rent them and you can store them in your desk. You'll probably be able to use some on other electronics or at least other phones. You'll probably let family borrow them. Some of the tools are already affordable, too. The things you can't do, you can pay someone for. And they can probably work out of a kiosk.
I'd actually argue that right to repair is hard, though - just not for the reasons stated. It is easier to unscrew something than to unglue it. We don't design for ease repairs. Ease of manufacturing has been winning out.
It's not ease of manufacturing. Looking closely, following for years, one notices it's never been "ease of making" above all else for Apple, it's been how the device feels and lasts.
They've demonstrably gone to insane lengths to figure out how to manufacture things better for use but impossible to make at scale before they figured it out. Then they teach suppliers those methods.
This actually really upset me when Apple first released their Self Service Repair program.
Apple said it was the exact same tools their repair technicians use, and offered all the tools for a $49 rental (which, honestly, probably doesn't even cover shipping for 77 lbs. of equipment). The Verge, iFixit, Ars Technica, and others claimed Apple deliberately designed and priced their repair program to make self-service repair not worth it, even if there wasn't the part serialization.
Which... what malarkey. Of course repairs are cheaper when you don't need to rent the toolkit every time and can reuse tools. According to Apple, the parts are the same cost the Apple Stores and their repair partners get, and according to congressional testimony this is not a profitable program, so what do you expect? Apple to sell parts publicly for cheaper than they get themselves? Do you want Apple to send you the repair tools for free and have cheaper parts? That's what they were saying - the parts should be cheaper and the tools should be less complicated even though that is what Apple literally uses. You think Apple repairs screens with guitar picks and are upset Apple doesn't ship those instead? It was really disappointing.
Imagine if Apple was a car company. They wanted the ability to repair their cars, so Apple agreed to loan them for $249 hundreds of pounds of equipment for repairing just about anything on their cars. Then imagine if people cried this made car repair too complicated by design. Right to Repair does not encompass right to simple, idiot-proof, no-tools repair.
The problem is the Verge's arguments do hold some water. Its not just a 49 dollar rental - its 49 dollars with a mandatory hold on a credit card of the full replacement value.
Many iPhone owners will not have a credit card (especially in Europe), let alone a credit card with a credit limit capable of holding thousands of dollars even if it's temporary. It's also a risk some people on lower incomes simply will not want to take. The tools Apple send are so over-engineered for the task at hand, the replacement value is enormous relative to the task.
When NYT tried, 49 dollar rental fee, 1210 dollar hold. 1210 dollar CC hold just to replace a battery is crazy when independent stores across the USA do it with third party tools costing a fraction of this just fine every day. Apple's right to repair efforts arguably verges on a parody of a right to repair at times - cellphones should not need a holding deposit significantly larger than renting a car for the same period of time to replace a $79 battery. If Apple's motivations are genuine, the full replacement hold could arguably become a lower insurance hold fee just like a car rental often does.
If you want to look to a company renting for 7 days expensive, heavy, complex technical equipment - I think lensrentals.com does a great job renting equipment costing tens of thousands of dollars and Apple's repair program could learn a lot.
The underlying idea of the right to repair program is for companies to start designing their stuff with self-repair in mind. It's not only about making spare parts available. So that you don't need hundreds of dollars of equipment to open up your phone. Then the whole buying/rental thing is a non-issue because all you'll need is a Philips #0. Or torx even (I love torx because it doesn't skip and damage the screw head)
Fairphone for example does a great job showing us what what would look like.
But this is the criticism I have with Apple's program. Technically they comply here but not in spirit. It's clear to me they don't actually want this to happen. They didn't invent pentalobe because it looks cool like a little flower. But to keep people out.
Of course existing products can't be improved but upcoming products should take be easier to repair.
This is a different definition of Right to Repair entirely. iFixit and others fall into this definition, while people like Louis Rossmann believe R2R simply means Right to Repair, and not Right to a Repairable Design. This is another issue with R2R - some define it as just getting parts and tools; others as mandatory design guidelines and requirements.
Pay attention carefully and watch different videos about what R2R means. There's a significant schism in the R2R movement over whether R2R means repairable design or not. The most successful branch legislatively (New York, Rossmann, EU proposals) says that it does not include repairable design; and that Right to Repair only encompasses the right to have manuals and parts, not that the manufacturer has to make specific design choices (other than, like, USB-C but that's not repair-related).
Edit: Another issue that comes up is how granular is a "part". Louis Rossmann sees a part as being on the level of a specific microchip and is upset he can't order parts at that level of granularity. Apple, and other R2R activists, view a part as a much larger finished item, such as a PCB or a Battery (rather than, say, the specific resistor on the inside of a Battery). Legislators for R2R in EU currently are trying to define R2R as being "if the manufacturer sells a part, they must sell it to everyone," not "the manufacturer must individually sell all pieces of a product until they are no longer divisible" - but the Louis Rossmann crowd views as being insufficient R2R. So... another loose R2R schism.
It's a problem with politics in general: that of some slogan going around which gains traction among a wide range of people, but different people have different interpretations of what the slogan actually means. They support their chosen definition, not that of others.
In fact, I would propose this kind of ambiguous slogan has, as a memetic advantage over more well -defined ideas, precisely because of this "broad appeal" which is actually the broad appeal of a slogan, not a policy.
>Legislators for R2R in EU currently are trying to define R2R as being "if the manufacturer sells a part, they must sell it to everyone," not "the manufacturer must individually sell all pieces of a product until they are no longer divisible" - but the Louis Rossmann crowd views as being insufficient R2R. So... another loose R2R schism.
Rossman appears to want the same as you say the EU want, the actual manufacturer to sell parts freely rather than being locked up by that manufacturer's downstream buyers (eg Apple) preventing repairers like Rossman from going to the chip factory to get the supplies to do repairs, in the same way that Apple go to the factory to get supplies when manufacturing boards, etc.
For everyone who says "it's too hard" to repair tiny parts, it's not. It requires special tools and surgical hand precision, but the tooling is affordable. You can outfit a lab for less than $1000 non-recurring cost. We should have schematics and boardviews available because they _are_ in effect the product repair manual. We should have ability to order individual chips. Limiting repair to field-replaceable units is IBM's business model.
When I don't have schematics and boardviews, I have to spend time generating them in my head.
Please do not legislate to screw up my devices' durability and reliability so some wing nuts can, well, disassemble them with wing nuts.
I prefer indestructible and long lasting devices-as-tools. I want more appliances, fewer janky assemblies of parts more likely to fall apart or fail me when I need them most.
Put another way, the goal is not "easier to repair", the goal is net fewer devices requiring repair, net fewer repairs.
One of those is actually better for the environment than the other, and it's not the one that churns through parts for people who want to repair or tosses more devices in the trash for people who prefer to just buy a new one.
The thing that's good for the planet is devices that last. That's the goal.
TL;DR:
If you want to legislate something, legislate lifetime warranties.
So, I've to iPhones, one with a broken camera and one with a donor camera (for whatever reason, battery problem, mainboard, whatever). I can swap the camera module, or take up a repair shop. But Some make sure the repaired device won't work fully even though all of the parts are Apple originals.
Tell me how Apple not doing that shit would make the slightest iota of difference to their ability to make devices that last?
How would them not attacking 3rd party repairers make a difference.
> Please do not legislate to screw up my devices' durability and reliability so some wing nuts can, well, disassemble them with wing nuts.
But rugged devices are generally much more easily disassembled and often even have replaceable batteries. Like Xcovers. We use them in work and they can be easily taken apart with torx screws, battery replaced etc, all while being much more rugged than normal phones and waterproof.
The only reason I don't really use them is that Samsung keeps putting midrange CPUs and mediocre LCD screens in them. I really wish the S-active range was still around. The last one was the S8 active sadly.
But these things don't have to be mutually exclusive at all.
> The thing that's good for the planet is devices that last. That's the goal.
That's your goal. Not mine. Upgradability for example makes devices last longer. Having the user decide what is repairable instead of a company also.
> If you want to legislate something, legislate lifetime warranties.
Lifetime limited warranties is what this will turn out to be.
There's no point in a lifetime warranty if a supplier can simply refuse it because there's an unrelated scratch on the side so they can claim it to be user damage.
I don't think trusting corporations is ever the answer.
> Having a user decide what is repairable instead of a company
Users do not know better.
As soon as you have aftermarket repairs, next thing you know, users are suing makers because some aftermarket nonsense burned a hole in their leg, or more recently, because their entire multi-family dwelling burned down.
It's been interesting how fast the same places passing laws giving right to repair pass jump to pass laws that you can't use repaired things so people don't die.
> As soon as you have aftermarket repairs, next thing you know, users are suing makers because some aftermarket nonsense burned a hole in their leg, or more recently, because their entire multi-family dwelling burned down.
Those poor companies. Give them a few wrongful lawsuits and they fall over. /s
If only it were so simple to bring companies down. I think the odds are heavily against something like this being a big issue. Companies have more money to prove you wrong and also pay better lawyers to present proof. Sure, there could be a few of such cases. But they probably happen anyways.
That said, you sure can "fix" your John Deere easier to increase the horsepower while also unlawfully increasing exhaust fumes. But this is an individual issue then, not the problem of the company (John Deere). Right to repair does make some things more tricky. But the payoff is worth it imho.
> Fairphone for example does a great job showing us what what would look like.
Which is to say that it makes a trade off of improved repairability by sacrificing water resistance and battery life compared to Apple’s phones. TANSTAAFL
Fairphone is only one example. There are many repairable designs that are waterproof.
For example Samsung's XCover series can be opened, have removable batteries and are waterproof. It's a matter of priorities, waterproofing just wasn't one for Fairphone.
I know XCover isn't meant to be repairable as such but it's obviously a lot more repairable than a glued up phone.
iPhone 13 lasted me this whole year without any major damage with 2 small children - multiple times in water, countless drops on tiles all without a case.
Replacing a tire is one thing that requires specialized equipment built for the task, but something like regular maintenance - changing oil, replacing filters, battery etc is relatively easy and can be done with basic tools that almost every "handy" person will have: wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.
Years ago I decided I should know how to change the oil in my car, and do it myself regularly. I bought the required equipment, did it once, and then never did it again. It took me longer than it took someone with expertise (and expensive, professional equipment), and it actually cost more, when considering I couldn't buy motor oil in bulk, and had to pay to dispose of one-off quantities of used oil properly.
I would certainly replace the battery on my own, though. Well, maybe: getting a new battery home without the use of my car might be so annoying that it would probably be easier to just get a tow to a mechanic (or get someone to jump it and then drive to the mechanic). And again I'd have to deal with disposing of the old battery on my own: again, annoying and costly.
"People stopping stealing iPhones" is not going to happen. And the current Apple policy of "well, enter your AppleID credentials to unlock this phone" deals with that pretty effectively.
What we're talking about here, is disabling that possibility once the fingerprint sensor (OK), screen (huh) or battery (double huh) has been replaced.
In other words: after which "repairs" exactly does Apple get to disable a device? Some of these would enable fencing, others definitely not... TL;DR: yeah, difficult!
Ah I see the article says "Europe" not EU, many convolute the two alas. More so this is only some countries in Europe, so might want to change the title.
As a resident in a minor EU country, the fact we are often excluded from lists of EU countries in many companies websites is a source of much frustration.
The title should be amended to say "parts of Europe", not "across EU".
I'd love to hear the backroom conversations that lit a fire under them to launch this in the EU. I wager that right-to-repair is getting close over there and forcing Apple devices to use USB-C was a bellweather.
Their programs haven't been great so far, but _some_ repairability is better than none, and eventually this will build a taste for non-disposable devices in consumers' minds.
I really don't think the law is what pushed Apple to adopt USB-C. I think they actually wanted to use it back in 2012 when they introduced lightning, but USB-C wasn't ready for primetime, so they made their own.
It was pretty clear that Apple was going to phase out Lightning in favor of USB-C at some point. The only question is at what point given that it was going to be something of a slight negative for existing customers--but that's less true today with USB-C increasingly widespread.
Now is about the right time for my family. We've got critical mass for USB-C -- the macbooks, newest iPads for the kids, chromebooks, etc. We're down to only having Lightning for our iPhones and my wife's iPad. So we've crossed over the point where losing the lightning cable would be annoying, and into the zone where it'll be nice to throw it out and only have USB-C from here forward.
> forcing Apple devices to use USB-C was a bellweather.
Apple has been migrating all of their devices over to USB-C for years. The iPhone has been a holdout because people will bitch about not being able to use their 10 years of accumulated lightning cables. I hate to have sympathy for a big corp, but c'mon, nothing they do will appease everyone.
I don't think this take holds up to scrutiny. Unless I've missed any recent news, Apple has currently said they will switch the iPhone to USB-C for the EU market but keep the lightning connector in the US.
my story: dropped my iphone x ended up with a detached screen.
Decided to fix it myself. While handling the screen and disconnecting cables I managed to damage Face ID sensor permanently.
Decided to take advantage and replace battery. In the process of removing the battery cable managed to damage it in such a way that cable now keeps disconnecting itself.
While trying to disconnect the battery cables by removing the parts near charging connector I managed to pull it a bit strongly and damage the charging connector that is connected to the logic board.
Even if I manage to repair the phone to the state it was (incl face id) with a professional it will cost as much as another phone.
With the experience above I decided I will think twice next time before trying to repair devices myself.
I tried to fix a broken ringer switch along time ago, felt it just needed cleaning.
Took off screen, unclipped connector. Cleaned out switch.
Then I tried to hook connector back, couldn't get it connected back. Panicked. Felt I basically broke it, and needed to buy a new phone. Left it for a day, didn't sleep at night, with a sick feeling since I wasn't ready to buy a new phone at the time. Thought about buying the previous model used.
But then the next day, I figured since it was broke to me, I'd just try really hard to push it back on. Eventually with enough force I thought I'd break everything on it, nearly all my weight, I felt the click of the connector snapping on.
Phone turned on. Switch still didn't work. Gave up fixing my phone after that.
A nice first step, but somewhat frustrating that they don't include pre-2020 models. A fan in my 2018 mbp has recently started to act up and "reputable" sellers (ifixit) are currently out of stock.
The response from the folks at repair.eu is great[1]
Apple is just trying to front-run legislation that is gaining momentum, just like they did last year when Biden and the FTC signaled R2R friendly legislation.
They will do anything to make sure they stay at the center and in control of their products from cradle to grave.
If your default assumption is Apple is evil, you will always find a reason to be critical. There is literally nothing they could do which would make you happy.
Where did I say Apple is evil? They make incredible products, and I've been a lifelong user. I'll happily give credit where credit is due - They have made great strides in their latest iteration of products towards repairability with battery glue tabs and making the batteries accessible without full disassembly. The Jony Ive era of "Thin at all costs" is thankfully over.
But I'm not going to be their cheerleader when they make a move that is deliberately designed to undercut independents and preempt consumer-friendly legislation for repair in the EU and US. This program is purely corporate strategy and marketing to defend a major profit center.
iPhone 13 Display Bundle: $269.95 ($236.35 after credit). Letting Apple stores handle it is ~300, so not really worth doing it yourself. Yeah I guess they did that on purpose.
Or: Apple is profiting from both repairs and sale of repair kits?
(I have no idea which is true, but the fact that the kit is roughly the price of the repair+a reasonable salary for the work is by no means an indication that they make no profit)
And this probably should give everyone an idea of how powerful EU is an economic entity despite being more internally divided than US. Naturally, as moves go ( edit: for Apple ), it is very rational ( and as some already noted, it is not that dissimilar to what some car makers do -- provide tools, but at ridiculous cost and hoops to jump through ).
What does this have to do with the EU and the US? The program just launched in 8 European countries, 7 of which are in the EU, several months after launching in the US. I don't see any clear pattern that has to do with the EU considering the program was launched in a non-EU country first and still isn't available in much of the EU.
Are you suggesting Apple provided this program out of their good will? In a very real sense, were it not for the strength of EU as an economic block, this would not have happened.
I don't think Apple cares that much about EU legislation. Given their location, I think it's more likely they're paying attention to legislation in California and getting out ahead of that.
> Are you suggesting Apple provided this program out of their good will?
No. I'm not sure where you found that in my comment, but to clarify, I'm genuinely curious what you claim is the link to the EU given that this wasn't rolled out in the EU first and still isn't available in most of the EU.
Hmm, that is a good counter. Off the top of my head, I can't. It does not automatically invalidate the argument, but it does significantly weaken it. Maybe there is something here I am missing.
> "We believe the best technology for our customers and for the planet is technology that lasts, which is why we design our products to be durable and rarely require maintenance or repair,” said Jeff Williams, Apple’s chief operating officer. “But when a repair is needed, we want customers to have many options for safe, reliable, and secure repair. That’s why we’re excited to launch Self Service Repair in Europe, giving our customers direct access to genuine Apple parts, tools, and manuals.”
Corporate PR doublespeak at its finest. My eyes rolled back into my head reading this.
"Technology that lasts" from a company who perfected planned obsolescence.
"Rarely require maintenance or repair" might've been their ethos decades ago, but nowadays there are plenty of dumb design and hardware issues. See Louis Rossman for examples.
"We want customers to have many options for safe, reliable, and secure repair" translates to "we were happy gouging customers for an AppleCare subscription, and fighting 3rd party repair shops, until governments introduced pesky consumer rights and anti-competitive laws".
But great, let's celebrate all mighty Apple finally doing what they should've been doing all along, _in one region of the world where they're legally obligated to do so_.
I find Apple devices have outlasted similar caliber devices from Google or Samsung. Obviously, they all can suffer from battery issues over time, but everything from physical build quality to software updates seems to last.
I used my last iPhone for 7+ years I believe, and didn't feel forced to upgrade when I finally did either. How is that Apple have "perfected planned obsolescence"?
These are just the top results for "apple planned obsolescence". You've either been living under a rock or willfully ignoring these issues. Your personal anecdata doesn't make them any less true.
I had heard of all those stories, but they're not convincing to me. Having worked in tech companies similar to Apple for most of my career, slowing the phones down to preserve battery life seems like a more likely explanation than the intentional consumer harm theory. I can see how a court that doesn't know any better or folks on the internet who get a lot of utility from hating apple would lean the other way though.
In any case, even stronger evidence that this particular case was one of planned obsolescence doesn't support the assertion that Apple have "perfected planned obsolescence" which is the phrase I was originally contending.
> Having worked in tech companies similar to Apple for most of my career
Why do you think that gives you any authority in this argument? If anything, it makes you biased.
> slowing the phones down to preserve battery life seems like a more likely explanation than the intentional consumer harm theory.
It's not about intentional consumer harm. Companies are rarely that evil. The most likely explanation is that it was a business decision to boost profits. If Apple truly cared about their users, they could've suggested any of the existing power saving features, or introduced more, like a performance slider, and given users the choice to decide what they value more.
> I can see how a court that doesn't know any better or folks on the internet who get a lot of utility from hating apple would lean the other way though.
"Folks on the internet" are hundreds of thousands of users all around the world. And some of the lawsuits were settled[1].
Why you think your personal opinion matters more than thousands of consumers is beyond me. But I can see why it would happen on this forum.
Oh, and this slowing down issue isn't the only example of planned obsolescence from Apple. There are many cases of dropping support of new OS versions or features for perfectly capable hardware[2].
I'm sure you'll tell me how there were good reasons for all of these, but let's spare ourselves the time, and don't bother.
Apple didn't invent PO, but it has certainly played a role in making it the world's most profitable company. Hence, "perfected it". :)
And now, flying in the face of all this evidence, they have the audacity to claim how consumer and environment friendly their devices are, and to frame this minimal effort to offer user repair options in Europe as another example of their benevolence. It's corporate gaslighting at best.
It's frustrating having to defend this case in a forum surrounded by smart people, but again, unsurprising given many here have FAANG backgrounds.
Example, iPhone 13 Pro Max screen price:
US: $311.96
UK: $338.63 ($26.73 more expensive)
Poland: $351.35 ($39.39 more expensive)
The prices are without VAT/Sales Tax (20% for UK and 23% for Poland already deducted respectively)