[HN Gopher] Apple announces Self Service Repair
___________________________________________________________________
Apple announces Self Service Repair
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 1160 points
Date : 2021-11-17 14:02 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| [deleted]
| bborud wrote:
| So from "it would be dangerous to allow service engineers not
| contracted to us" to "here's a booklet that shows you how to poke
| the innards of your phone with a screwdriver".
|
| Right now some propaganda copywriter making a living churning out
| manuscripts for anti-right to repair lobbying just entered the
| job-seeking market.
| wubbert wrote:
| Wow. What a revolutionary new idea Apple has come up with! I
| can't believe that no other tech company has come up with the
| idea for consumers to repair their own devices before.
| bcraven wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't
| cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer,
| including at the rest of the community.
| braunshedd wrote:
| Genuine Apple batteries are miles better than any of the
| secondhand ones I've replaced them with (even the iFixit
| batteries).
|
| Very exited to get my hands on the OEM replacements and extend my
| laptop's life another 3-5 years
| Tenoke wrote:
| They are offering this only for this year's Iphones and at some
| point this year's Macs. It doesn't seem like you can get a
| battery for 3-5 year laptops nor that you'd be still be able to
| get a battery for this year's laptop 3-5 years from now.
| Hamuko wrote:
| That probably remains to be seen. I imagine batteries are one
| of the most desired parts that they're going to make
| available, and assuming that they put a healthy Apple-sized
| margin on the prices, why stop selling them after a new
| product comes out?
| Tenoke wrote:
| It's possible but the reasons not to would be because the
| margins on a whole new device are larger and because
| carrying and producing old parts has costs.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Don't they still offer battery replacement services for
| those devices? If so they're already bearing the cost of
| producing/carrying these old parts. In fact, they could
| potentially make more profit selling these parts by
| themselves to end-users considering how much demand there
| is for things like batteries.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| I installed two iFixit MPB 2015 batteries, the second one as a
| free warranty replacement. Both degraded incredibly fast.
| aequitas wrote:
| I just received mine for the MPB 2015 this week, original
| battery (which I doubt was genuine) is bloated, but still
| held up in terms of capacity to originals according to
| coconutBattery[0]. Will monitor the iFixit one closely as
| well. But I still trust them better than random China or
| local seller.
|
| [0] https://coconut-flavour.com/coconutbattery/
| braunshedd wrote:
| The degradation is the real problem. They hold up for the
| first tens of charges but quickly lose 20-50% of capacity.
| It might have to do with the lack of OEM charging circuitry
| on the replacements, or perhaps just shoddy quality
| aequitas wrote:
| Would capping the max charge at 80% make any difference
| for this? Apple seems to do it with their latest phones
| and laptops. I don't plan on using the laptop on battery
| for long times. So my main concern is just keeping it at
| a 2-3 hour capacity for the upcoming years (mostly
| plugged in) and not having it bloat up like the previous
| one, making the laptop a fire hazard.
| RossM wrote:
| Correlates with my experience of late 2013 MBP batteries (it
| might be the same model actually). My original Apple battery
| lasted until 2019. Both of the iFixit replacements have
| lasted a year until not holding original charge, and just
| last night I noticed a cell starting to swell.
|
| I doubt I'll ever find factory original cells again for the
| 2013 but if Apple sells them I'd consider buying a MBP again.
| onphonenow wrote:
| This. Despite all the talk the "oem" stuff on eBay is crap. You
| really understand why apple does the warnings on battery - is
| careful on repairs
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| I wonder if this will have the same sort of markup that Apple
| tend to apply to lower end products (eg. cases, that cleaning
| cloth, watch bands). It seems hard to imagine Apple selling tools
| at the same sort of price as a DIY store. Definitely sounds like
| a great move though.
| davidhariri wrote:
| Yes- will definitely be expensive.
| 120photo wrote:
| Damage control
| 23B1 wrote:
| Obvious right-to-repair defense/play, and not a terrible one.
| Apple is a leader and if you can own the repair ecosystem while
| providing some semblance of 'choice'...
| xondono wrote:
| I wouldn't call it a "play", in the end it's what supposedly
| all the RtR advocates wanted.
| guywhocodes wrote:
| Louis Rossman has taught me to be welcoming of things like
| these but skeptical. Until this is in real consumers hands and
| reasonable rates and effort I will consider it a big maybe.
| gjvc wrote:
| If it means people can legitimately and easily get their hands on
| genuine replacement parts then this alone is a step in the right
| direction.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| If that will work without any hidden issues, I'll be officially
| Apple fan. That's a huge in my list.
| stoned wrote:
| This is amazing. Not to be overly cynical, but I suspect this
| must be related to the global labor shortage. They must be happy
| to let people do their own labor whenever possible now, if the
| difference is providing bad service vs letting people get good
| service elsewhere or at home.
|
| Either way, this appears to be great. Looking forward to seeing
| how this plays out!
| rwc wrote:
| Much more likely it's related to increased antitrust and
| regulatory pressures. Vanishingly few customers likely to take
| advantage of this, its true value is in the PR.
| [deleted]
| makeitdouble wrote:
| A lot repair shops have been using screen and replacement
| part sourced randomly for common repairs.
|
| You'll see one in every shopping mall, and while franchised
| ones won't be much affected, smaller shop should benefit from
| from wider access to parts (no need to get accepted as a
| repair shop for instance)
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| Only if those parts are still affordable. People won't use
| these shops if their fee is 80% of a new phone.
| wastedhours wrote:
| And getting in front of it means they get to dictate the
| pricing structure - you can bet your spare parts will be
| beautifully packaged and sold at a decent markup.
| bserge wrote:
| What global labour shortage? Can I move into your bubble?
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| What about older iPhones and Macs?
| vadfa wrote:
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/images/product/repair/standar...
|
| Is this supposed to be a human? Someone needs to go back to art
| school.
| scop wrote:
| Don't think this should be downvoted as it's an observation
| tangential to the article: for a company that puts Design
| amongst its highest priorities, how can they casually roll out
| these tiny-headed monstrosities?
| oceanplexian wrote:
| It is called "Corporate Art Style"
| (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/corporate-art-
| sty...) AKA the worst thing to come out of the 2020s.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| 2010s.
| ekzy wrote:
| This image really threw me as well. Weird.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| I thought similarly. It's a disturbing representation of a
| human
| userbinator wrote:
| "Corporate Memphis".
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
|
| That said, anime-style doesn't look realistically human either,
| but I find it more pleasing than this, which seems to be the
| exact opposite in proportioning (tiny heads, huge bodies).
| jiveturkey wrote:
| Wait, did they just "invent" the user-replaceable battery?!
| Iolaum wrote:
| Anyone read the fine print?
|
| Will a consumer be able to buy a screen replacement and give it
| with the broken phone to a third party repair shop to have them
| do the repair?
| vishnugupta wrote:
| I had a similar question.
|
| Will Apple allow a mom and pop (not apple-authorized/certified)
| repair shop to buy these parts in bulk to offer repair service?
| cromka wrote:
| This reads like it's April Fools'.
| beezischillin wrote:
| I don't mean to jinx myself here but I really hope this is part
| of the beginning of an industry-wide trend (after-all, Microsoft
| already talked about making their gear more repair-friendly) and
| if it is, then I'm really happy. I'm thankful for all the people
| who poured tons of money and countless hours of their lives into
| activism to make progress happen because the state of things is
| rather depressing when it comes to actual ownership of products.
|
| As an example, in my country all Apple repair is done by
| certified 3rd parties and in 2/2 cases the repair work I got back
| was less than satisfactory. My 2017 MBP arrived with broken
| speakers after a keyboard repair (obviously) and the iPhone X I
| sent in for a battery swap started to bulge at the top after less
| than a month.
|
| If I have the choice to order the components myself I'd rather
| lose my warranty when I'm close to losing it anyway and just
| bring it to a person whom I trust with doing a good job.
| mhmmmmmm wrote:
| This is great! I wonder what the prices will look like, there has
| to be a catch...
| dpkrjb wrote:
| Was this genuinely Apple's push or is there some future
| regulation I don't know about forcing them to do it?
| artemonster wrote:
| If you wonder whom to thank, his name is Louis Rossmann.
| mikece wrote:
| My first question was: "Will Louis Rossmann be happy with this
| or is there some BS in the fine print that he'll find and make
| another video about?" Either way I'll be watching his YouTube
| feed for updates:
| https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup/videos
| checker wrote:
| I don't see anything on this post about how they will warrant
| self-repair, so I imagine Louis will be bringing this up.
|
| Years back I replaced the battery on my iPhone (I tried to
| have Apple replace it ... it's a long, infuriating story).
| But I took it in for a charge port recall due to the port
| losing connection to the cable. It was completely unrelated
| issue but they wouldn't replace it under recall due to prior
| third party repairs. It's similar to Ford not replacing your
| recalled alternator because you replaced your radiator with a
| third party. In any case I haven't bought an iPhone since
| because of the frustration this experience left me with.
|
| So this is definitely a positive step in the right direction
| but hopefully it doesn't end without amendments to their
| warranty and recall policies.
| Xavdidtheshadow wrote:
| His initial response is up:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jCtVDCiY_8
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Given his prior record, he'll wind up giving credit where
| credit is due, and then having to eat his words a few days
| later when it turns out the program is far too restrictive to
| be useful to repair shops.
| Macha wrote:
| This doesn't target repair shops at all so doesn't improve
| the situation there. So my reading is it's going to be
| "this is better for consumers but they still need to do
| something for those users who aren't technical enough to
| carry out their own repairs".
|
| Still waiting to see if Louis finds any problems though
| TrevorJ wrote:
| Cynically, I wonder if what Apple will do here is make it
| difficult/impossible for independent repair shops to take
| advantage of this. Thus, Apple gets good press ("See! We
| support right to repair!"), but in the end, they know
| _most_ consumers won 't feel comfortable effecting these
| repairs themselves so it won't eat into Apple's bottom line
| much.
| whoopdedo wrote:
| Parts bought through the self-service store will cost
| significantly more than even what the IRPs pay.
| mikkelam wrote:
| 100%. Apple is mostly doing this because they saw it coming
| anyway. Might as well bend now and position your brand in a
| better light. Right to repair is winning.
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| Makes me think of the changes they announced to how 3rd party
| repairs will be handled recently. Given this change, I am
| still wondering why independent repair shops aren't held to
| the same standard...
|
| E.g, We'll allow this, but you _must_ (without exception)
| follow our procedures to the letter. I mean, AASP exists so
| they already have a framework for the Independent Repair
| Providers to adhere to as a way of enforcing QC among shops
| in a uniform way.
|
| Seems like an area where creating a closed system would be
| advantageous...
| rasz wrote:
| The procedure AASPs follow to the letter is "mail this
| device to repair depot, offer customer refurb or try to
| upsell them to a new device, here is a list of talking
| points"
| dzonga wrote:
| and dozens of lawsuits and right to repair laws. this wouldn't
| have been a problem if the republic answered to citizens and
| not corporations
| surfpel wrote:
| Nah it was totally just a semi obscure vlogger and not myriad
| of lawsuits, lobbying from ifixit, changes in EU laws, a
| vocal Wozniak...
| 654wak654 wrote:
| "semi obscure"
| spiderice wrote:
| What are you saying? Louis Rossmann is basically THE
| definition of semi-obscure. Marques Brownlee and Linus
| Tech Tips both have roughly 10 times the subscriber count
| compared to Louis, and even they could be considered
| semi-obscure to Apple's core user base (not HN crowd).
| asow92 wrote:
| His videos are gold
| megakid wrote:
| Amen - Thanks Louis!
| causality0 wrote:
| Abso-fucking-lutely. Nobody has fought longer or harder for
| this.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Wait for the next video from Louis. He will expose this as a
| scam. Yes, they are scared and trying to appease their
| customers. No, it is NOT in any way actual right-to-repair.
| They will not let you replace a charge port (for example) and
| the prices they are asking for parts are ludicrous.
| SynasterBeiter wrote:
| Is there a price list somewhere? Bear in mind Louis has an
| incentive here, as this Apple program directly competes with
| his business.
| ilaksh wrote:
| https://youtu.be/2jCtVDCiY_8
| bogwog wrote:
| This isn't much of a victory though, it's just a shitty
| deflection. Sure, you can now buy (probably) overpriced screens
| and batteries from Apple when you're repairing your own phone,
| but 99% of people aren't going to repair their own phone.
|
| So where do 99% of people go to get their phone repaired? The
| same places they were going before: Apple's overpriced and
| shitty repair shops, or independent repair shops that don't
| have access to genuine parts because Apple refuses to sell to
| them (and prevents suppliers from selling parts to anyone but
| them).
|
| This announcement does nothing in the grand scheme of things,
| even if it is a marginal improvement over the previous
| situation. What I think is important to notice about this
| situation is that the only thing that caused Apple to take this
| (extremely tiny) pro-consumer and pro-environment step was
| regulatory pressure. They would not have done this on their own
| if it wasn't for the pressure put on by people like Louis
| Rossman.
|
| The logical conclusion of course is that if we want Apple to
| stop destroying the planet and exploiting consumers while doing
| it, then we need to apply more pressure. Apple is going to do
| shit unless we force them to. (this can also be seen with their
| App store monopoly, where they reduced the fee a while back
| only after the pressure from lawmakers and Epic's lawsuit).
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Couldn't users just buy the parts and then bring them to
| their local repair store and pay them for the labor?
| xxs wrote:
| Likely the most parts will be extremely limited, i.e. to
| battery and screen for the phones - which is what their
| current program is.
|
| So you'd be able order a battery or screen and go to some
| place and they'd swap it. Edit: just noticed Rossmann has
| released a video suspecting pretty much the same.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup/videos
|
| https://twitter.com/rossmannsupply
| yurishimo wrote:
| Why did you link his Twitter when he hasn't tweeted since
| 2013!?!?
| isx726552 wrote:
| Rossmann's twitter looks like it hasn't been updated since
| 2013, and all the links to rossmannsupply.com are dead (just
| a spam site in its place).
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| That doesn't explain anything. Got any specific article about
| him vs Apple?
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Go watch his 1000s of videos, but be careful! Before you
| know it you'll be replacing a charging port successfully.
| vultour wrote:
| He's been working on a right to repair campaign in the US.
| I'd also discourage you from watching those videos; unless
| you want to see him complain for 45 minutes that the Genius
| Bar doesn't have microscopes and schematics and can't
| replace a tiny microchip on a circuit board. He's fighting
| for a good thing but the constant complaining, often way
| off base, just makes him look annoying.
| [deleted]
| dkonofalski wrote:
| This doesn't have anything to do with Rossmann. In fact, he's
| probably a little pissed because this is going to bite into his
| business model.
| fencepost wrote:
| _this is going to bite into his business model._
|
| Not in the least. If anything, this will HELP his business
| with people who purchase parts then discover that they're not
| actually capable of doing the work themselves and turn to him
| to do the work with official parts they've already purchased.
|
| The _vast_ majority of people might be able to do the repairs
| themselves - eventually after hours of frustration and fear (
| "I just killed my phone!") and after purchasing additional
| equipment they don't normally have, just as the vast majority
| of people could _eventually_ learn to do the same technology-
| related work that many of us here make livings on.
|
| The always-DIYers fraction of a percent are not the customers
| anyone's looking for. The vast majority that are willing to
| pay to have someone else do that hard part are the customers
| everyone's looking for. It's like plumbing - everyone CAN do
| it, few want to do it themselves (and take on the risks).
| Waterluvian wrote:
| If we take him at his repeated word, he is happy to be put
| out of business if this thing happens.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I see no reason why anyone would take him at his word. He's
| already shown that he will lie and mischaracterize things
| to get his way.
|
| I fully support right-to-repair but I despise that he's
| become the face of it.
| 2fast4you wrote:
| Haven't followed him in awhile, what did he lie about?
| Kranar wrote:
| Ooof, I am curious to know when he lied. I'm sure he
| mischaracterizes some things but that can be an
| understandable mistake and he has in the past followed up
| to correct himself.
|
| But lying is a pretty big claim, and not that I've seen
| all his content but I've never had a reason to believe
| that he has intentionally deceived people on any of his
| public platforms.
|
| I'd be happy to see an example where you believe he did.
| robertoandred wrote:
| The sketchy guy who uses counterfeit parts?
| [deleted]
| prions wrote:
| Just taking a look at his youtube channel. Why is he so hot on
| culture war issues now? It seems that right to repair has taken
| a back seat to his polemics about covid lockdowns, vaccine
| skepticism, and homeless people.
| loudmax wrote:
| I wish Youtube had a "Culture War" button. It would be
| wonderful to have an easy way to steer clear of culture war
| bullshit. Not just for YouTube, the whole internet.
| lucaspm98 wrote:
| He is a business owner in New York City so Covid lockdowns,
| vaccine mandates, local government bureaucracy, and the real
| estate market are affecting him personally. He seems to view
| his channel as a platform for his varied interests that often
| overlap instead of an algorithm-maximizing focus on purely
| Macbook board repair.
| remorses wrote:
| It's incredible the influence and reach he is able to
| accomplish with just a YouTube channel
| lostgame wrote:
| And an insane amount of talent and skill, let's not forget.
| :)
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Having access to legitimate Apple displays is huge. Basically the
| only way you can get a genuine one now is canibalizing another
| phone. Hard to even believe Apple is doing this.
| snambi wrote:
| This should be called "iRepair".
| ramanujank wrote:
| or uRepair. I haven't gotten over the "My Computer"/"Your
| Computer" debate yet. Haha.
| janandonly wrote:
| The year is now 2021. It's about time.
|
| Also, the are only doing this now because litigation and
| legislation in several countries and locales are forcing them to.
|
| Rant out...
| hyperstar wrote:
| Great! now take the (potential) hardware backdoors out of your
| computers and make them Linux-friendly.
| quenix wrote:
| Isn't any hardware a "potential" hardware backdoor? What
| matters is whether it actually is one.
|
| So what is the hardware backdoor you are referring to?
| danaris wrote:
| Probably the one that Bloomberg lied about, and never
| retracted.
| hyperstar wrote:
| I was assuming they have something equivalent to the Intel
| Management Engine. Do they not?
|
| > Isn't any hardware a "potential" hardware backdoor?
|
| I don't know. Is this true of open hardware? I mean, there
| could be a backdoor, but it would also be practically
| possible for qualified people to find it, right?
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Don't give Apple _to_ much credit here, they see the writing on
| the wall. But credit where credit is due.
| fastssd wrote:
| Rossmann discusses this here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jCtVDCiY_8
| nostromo wrote:
| Sorry for the tangent, but I'm sad to see even Apple is now
| pumping out terrible Alegria corporate art.
|
| In 10 years people are going to look back on all this terrible
| art and wonder what the hell every tech company was thinking.
|
| There's even a subreddit dedicated to hating the Alegria trend:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckalegriaart/top/?t=all
| rglover wrote:
| Tyranny of the bubble people.
| alexfringes wrote:
| When this first started popping up, it reminded me heavily of
| Adobe Acrobat's product packaging and launch screen from the
| 90s / 00s: http://splashscreens.sourceforge.net/acrobat.php
|
| I had viscerally negative reactions to those as a child.
| Nothing ever foreshadowed "this is not going to be fun" quite
| like those shirts & ties. Nor was it clear why one would need
| to juggle the world to open a text document. (Maybe it was all
| just a premonition about the malware that is CC.)
| david2ndaccount wrote:
| The globe is a symbol of the world wide web.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| I can't say I like or hate it (yet), but why do all the tech
| companies start using them simultaneously?
| nostromo wrote:
| It started with Facebook in 2017:
| https://buck.co/work/facebook-alegria
|
| It's popular because 1) it's cheap and easy to produce since
| it doesn't take much talent 2) it's easily vectorized and
| resizable 3) its color pallet and disproportionate human
| forms are supposed to make it feel universal.
|
| Google copied Facebook, then a bunch of companies copied
| Google. And now finally Apple is onboard too. It's not a good
| look for Apple, which usually tries to create design trends,
| not follow them.
| StevePerkins wrote:
| > _its color pallet and disproportionate human forms makes
| it feel universal_
|
| So we went from having Homer Simpson universal-color
| emojis, to a pallet of specific-color emojis, to be more
| inclusive. And then switched from stock photos of diverse
| people, to Homer Simpson cartoons, to be more universal.
|
| We're just making this all up from year to year, aren't we?
| cpmsmith wrote:
| Not exactly - the "Homer Simpson" yellow emoji came after
| the initial (Apple) emoji font, which just had all the
| humans looking white, with no other options.
| userbinator wrote:
| Long before non-Japanese started calling them "emoji", we
| had "smilies" and they were yellow.
| ectopod wrote:
| Yes. PhpBB and my Nokia feature phone have had yellow
| smilies since before iPhones were a thing.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| This is accurate. https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/08/smiley...
| nostromo wrote:
| This is false. The first emojis were Japanese in origin
| and were the first to use yellow faces. Apple copied the
| existing style from the Japanese illustrations.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| This is untrue. Not that any of them look like Simpsons
| characters, but the only emoji option on iOS for like
| five years was the yellow-shaded cartoon face. It's still
| the default skin tone in most emoji sets.
|
| https://emojipedia.org/emoji-1.0/
| ziml77 wrote:
| The companies need to represent everyone, individuals
| want to represent themselves. There is no conflict here.
| beenBoutIT wrote:
| Facebook: We don't just tolerate bad design we celebrate
| it!
| rglover wrote:
| Because independent thought is on life support. I'll be
| downvoted for that but most people are terrified of thinking
| for themselves. This is "safe" art.
| gen220 wrote:
| It's a design trend, and the digital design space is
| relatively small and strongly-connected. Many companies use
| the same set of design shops, or employ designers who look up
| to or learned from those shops.
|
| It's analogous to how engineers across the english-speaking
| world simultaneously began using Docker or Hadoop or
| whatever. "Network effects".
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/dont-worry-these-gangley-
| armed-...
| zucked wrote:
| THANK YOU for helping me put a name to this. I started seeing
| it around the 2018 time frame EVERYWHERE. Gusto, Google, etc -
| you name it, it seemed like every mid-large tech company
| adopted it overnight. I felt like a crazy person trying to get
| people to notice!
| robocat wrote:
| An article on the history of Algeria:
| https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/dont-worry-these-gangley-
| armed-...
| cpeterso wrote:
| It's also called Corporate Memphis, a reference to the
| Memphis Group, an Italian architecture group from the 1980s
| known for its designs often thought to be garish:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
| nomel wrote:
| > In 10 years people are going to look back on all this
| terrible art and wonder what the hell every tech company was
| thinking.
|
| This is true for all things, which is why art and styles
| constantly change, and constantly repeat. Whatever they picked,
| that you would have been happy with, would have meet the same
| fate, and a younger you would have the same perspective of it
| as you do now.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| I'm continually impressed by the internet's ability to come up
| with ways to be negative about things.
| missedthecue wrote:
| They're great because you can make them genderless, raceless,
| and their body shapes are completely ambiguous, being neither
| overweight nor fit.
|
| My mother worked as a photo-editor for a textbook publishing
| company many years ago and it was ridiculous how many meetings
| went into making sure they balanced the distribution of people
| that appeared in the books.
| alexfringes wrote:
| I'm not a fan of the style, but I don't see how its defining
| visual characteristics are significantly more geared toward
| the political correctness safe route that you seem to be
| portraying it as. At least not when compared with
| illustration styles that employ a similar degree of
| abstraction.
|
| In the the 8 years that Adobe employed a similar style,
| starting in the mid 90s, it clearly managed to do so without
| even an inkling of diversity:
| http://splashscreens.sourceforge.net/acrobat.php Depending on
| the year you look at, the 90s version is less abstract than
| the current examples we're discussing here, but some years
| are actually more abstract. The lack of diversity is fairly
| clear to me regardless of that variation.
|
| Of course, whenever we analyze abstract visuals, biases come
| into play. So maybe this read above is rooted in my own bias
| (either in favor of being able to make a point here, or in
| regards to how I believe a 90s corporation would portray "the
| business user"), but I think that's a stretch in most of
| these examples.
| wilg wrote:
| Except the art in question is neither genderless nor
| raceless.
| userbinator wrote:
| _neither overweight nor fit_
|
| Unfortunately, they all seem to have elephantiasis instead.
| zucked wrote:
| Yup! In this whimsical style, the people shown can have skin,
| hair, etc. shades in every possible color of the rainbow.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| When you make something for everyone, it's reduced and
| diluted to the barest parts. Completely soulless i.e. perfect
| for a faceless tech giant!
| threeseed wrote:
| How is Apple faceless ?
|
| Everyone knows who the CEO and key executives are since
| they are visible at every product release.
| nerfhammer wrote:
| Obviously the solution should be to use muppets instead of
| people. Much more fun.
| philwelch wrote:
| Except now they're racializing muppets:
| https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055733980/sesame-street-
| make...
| dTal wrote:
| >They're great because you can make them genderless,
| raceless, and their body shapes are completely ambiguous,
| being neither overweight nor fit.
|
| Your description reminds me of another classic corporate
| clip-art style from the 90s, the infamous Microsoft "screen
| bean":
|
| http://clipart-library.com/image_gallery/176157.jpg
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Screen beans are cool now they're back underground, didn't
| you get the memo?
| dTal wrote:
| Well, _I_ thought they had a certain obscure retro
| cachet. But if people on HN are telling me they 're cool,
| I guess they're now too mainstream.
| oliv__ wrote:
| Oh thanks for sharing that link, I thought most people actually
| _liked_ that kind of illustration. I personally can 't stand it
| and I had no idea it had a name
| novok wrote:
| I don't mind the illustration style, but it's annoying about
| how overplayed it is among tech companies. If I was a founder
| I would ask my designers to not have the exact same art style
| as all the other companies explicitly, so people can tell the
| difference between our brands beyond color schemes and the
| size of our sans serif helvetica derivative word logos.
| TheHypnotist wrote:
| What a bizarre gripe
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| it really is a horrible illustration style that is everywhere
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| But this is a blatant lie, right in the subtitle. They are not
| available to individual customers but to Apple-licensed service
| shops and at significant markup. Shame on you, Apple. Do you
| believe you will fool anybody with a headline?
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Does everyone like these illustrations? I find them almost
| repulsive somehow
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| This is going to be great. Let the customer fix your crap,
| nothing will go wrong.
| podgaj wrote:
| Look at how much is companies change when we put him in a little
| bit of pressure on them. Imagine what would happen if we could
| even more pressure on them?
| david-cako wrote:
| Absolutely based and gigachad-pilled.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Apple have pulled too much bullshit for me to trust this right
| away. I'll wait for the review of tech repairers. The chance is
| high that the are some outrageous provisions making this
| essentially worthless.
|
| Spontaneous guess: The tools will only work with genuine parts
| and the genuine parts will be uneconomically expensive.
| gruez wrote:
| How is this service going to work with the fact that the
| display/battery are cryptographically bound to the phone itself?
| Will they also provide the tool to rebind the parts?
| easton wrote:
| iOS 15.2 (currently in beta) disables the display
| authentication for Face ID that was added to the newer iPhones.
| If this program is going to be mostly screens and batteries
| (the easiest things to swap), that will be enough.
| rasz wrote:
| Simple. They will require you to mail bad part, wait 2 weeks
| while they receive it, verify, encode new one with same
| signature and finally mail it back to you.
|
| This is how their "Independent Repair Program" works (or used
| to work, I dont keep current).
| StephenSmith wrote:
| This is a very important question. This feels like two opposite
| directions that Apple is taking here.
| tyingq wrote:
| I suppose they've at least exposed themselves with the press
| release and some of the wording. So if that capability isn't
| provided, perhaps there's some leverage.
| mrzool wrote:
| After years of disillusion and disappointment, I am so happy to
| see how things at Apple have apparently taken a turn for the
| better. With M1 and especially the new MacBooks Pro, they are in
| the process of fixing their hardware, with incredible results.
| Now they're taking concrete steps to make repairs more
| accessible, which was unthinkable just a year ago.
|
| Now, time to fix software and documentation :)
| rd_police wrote:
| That's a huge in my list. If that will work without any hidden
| issues, I'll be officially Apple fan.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| iFixit plunges 10% on news of Apple..
| 256DEV wrote:
| It's a move in the right direction but I can't help but feel that
| this is an example of a massive corporation getting ahead of
| regulation with a watered down version of right-to-repair than
| Apple suddenly having a genuine change of heart...
|
| That said, my sincere hope is that this move doesn't dampen
| enthusiasm amongst people considering switching from Macbooks to
| Framework laptops. We desperately need a computer manufacturer
| that puts repairability at the core of their design process and
| Framework has made such a high quality start that it even with
| their first attempt it doesn't feel like a compromise!
|
| If you care about really owning your device and being able to
| repair it take a close look at the caveats Apple may include in
| the actual details of this programme versus with Framework.
| quitit wrote:
| Is there a scenario where you feel this would have an effect on
| Framework?
|
| I ask because it seems like those are two different customers.
|
| The issue of hivemind thinking in forums is that it projects a
| uniform idea of what customers value while ignoring the obvious
| demographics. Apple gets a lot of scorn on here because their
| products suit an audience which differs quite a bit from the
| typical HN commenter.
|
| If using this forum as an example, everyone wants a fully
| editable device, and wants every vendor to make such devices -
| but actually not buy from said vendors because they're evil. I
| find this idea of people wanting to control the design of
| devices they'll never buy to be such an interesting concept -
| that's also why I don't see the Framework buyer ever being
| allured to Apple's laptops.
|
| Following on from this I fully expect this move from Apple to
| be seen here as anything _but_ a good thing: such as tokenism,
| part of a grand evil scheme, or similar conspiracy-level plan.
| This is in spite of a high-level view of Apple steadily
| expanding repair options over the last decade. Not to get
| philosophical, but it does have a Friedrich Nietzsche feel to
| it all: that apple's actions don't matter, they'll always be
| construed into being a scheme.
| abletonlive wrote:
| >enthusiasm amongst people considering switching from Macbooks
| to Framework laptops.
|
| That's like five people. The real enthusiasm is amongst people
| waiting for their m1 macbook pros to be delivered.
| endemic wrote:
| Yeah, the M1 hardware sounds great -- Apple continuing Jobs'
| vision of locking down the platform is not so great. n+1 here
| for leaving the Apple ecosystem.
| rank0 wrote:
| I dunno I'm gonna switch once my 2018 MBP bites the dust. The
| apple ecosystem is pretty slick but I'm getting fed up with
| vendor lock in.
| asymmetric wrote:
| Surprised to see even Apple using Corporate Miami.
| davidhariri wrote:
| This is awesome! I've been doing my own repairs for friends and
| family since high school. Having access to genuine Apple parts
| and the tools used by their own technicians will be so helpful.
| Smart move, Apple.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I've been self servicing my Macbook's for years. Decades even.
| I'm glad to see Apple announcing this new pathway.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| This incredible. I can't be cynical about this.
|
| It doesn't matter how or why we got here and it doesn't matter if
| it's only a narrow scope of products to start with, this is still
| a huge step forward for Apple. It signals a major course
| correction that is likely to continue on from here.
|
| (And for those saying it's not enough - this sort of change
| doesn't happen overnight!)
| user3939382 wrote:
| This feels like the sort of change that's reacting to an existing
| legal situation or they're preempting one. I'm not privy to what
| that may be though.
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| I suppose the question is how long will parts be available?
| They're starting with recent iPhones and MacBooks. Will the parts
| still be orderable 10 years from now, when it's most likely these
| devices will need to be repaired?
|
| Auto manufactures legally have to make parts available for 10-20
| years due to recall potential. I used to work at a manufacturing
| plant that made auto parts and sold them to Ford and Chrysler.
| The big motor companies HATED this because it cost them so much
| money to pay manufacturers to make 10 year old parts. It was
| almost always a net loss for them.
|
| So will there be legal requirements for apple to continue making
| parts available, even if it's a net loss?
| userbinator wrote:
| _The big motor companies HATED this because it cost them so
| much money to pay manufacturers to make 10 year old parts._
|
| Maybe that's why some parts haven't changed in several decades.
| IMHO that's a good thing.
| danaris wrote:
| First of all, it is vastly more likely that a car will still be
| in active use after 10 years than a computer, let alone a
| phone.
|
| Second of all, if a 10-year-old computer crashes and burns, its
| user loses some data. If a 10-year-old car crashes and burns,
| it * _crashes and burns*_. Its owners ' and other people's
| lives are at risk.
|
| Suggesting that computers (and related devices) should be
| subject to the same kinds of regulations doesn't have much of a
| solid foundation without the same dangers.
| xuki wrote:
| Even Apple themselves don't support a 10-year-old laptop. I
| think it'll be available until the product is marked obsolete
| by Apple's definition:
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
| imglorp wrote:
| It's not enough. Any third party, should be able to obtain parts
| --and importantly the auth codes or software to enable them--at
| reasonable cost.
|
| The reason is you still want to go to the repair provider of your
| choice, not Apple's proxies.
| doniphon wrote:
| awesome move. hell has frozen!
|
| well done Apple! (assuming there are no exotic tricks in the
| small details)
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I guess it'll basically be the equivalent of an iFixit kit, but
| still, I feel like it's different when it's the original
| manufacturer telling you to do steps that definitely feel like
| workarounds-- you know, melting glue with a hairdryer, that kind
| of thing.
| javchz wrote:
| I'm glad to hear this. But I'll wait a little bit before getting
| excited. The last independent repair program... was more a miss
| than a hit.
|
| I want to hope for the best, wanting this not to be just a PR
| move, but a genuine effort from someone or a team inside Apple
| wanting to produce less e-waste, and a lasting devices.
|
| I was watching videos restoring Macbooks from 2007 and was
| incredible how easy was to serve the most prone-to-fail
| components and upgrade tech that will eventually get better like
| RAM. So repair was in Apple's DNA, hope still it is (I'm aware
| the chance is low).
|
| I will bet despite being counterintuitive easy to repair devices
| it's good for Apple in the long run. Most people upgrade because
| of the status that gives you "having the last iPhone", but those
| cheap 2nd hand devices could be the ideal option for someone to
| get into their ecosystem for the first time.
| wallaBBB wrote:
| This ^ !!! Wait for it first... ... and I do want to believe...
| ...but we've been burnt...
| oxplot wrote:
| Best part of this is that because Apple did it, it'll most likely
| become a trend and other companies will follow suit.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Generally other companies are ahead on this already.
| Replacement parts for non-Apple phones and laptops are much
| easier to acquire.
| traveler01 wrote:
| Ok, this is cool and I'm pretty astonished by this atleast. But
| there's a side of me that tells me this move will come with a
| HUGE CATCH.
|
| As you guys may be aware Apple has been doing everything possible
| to screw over third party parts. So... now that they will sell
| OEM parts officialy (and probably quite pricey...) I'm kinda
| scared that repairs will become even more expensive.
|
| Hope I'm wrong.
| sebow wrote:
| the catch is that apple stays in the repair game.They will lose
| against the right to repair principle, so the only move is to
| stay in the loop by directly providing the means to that
| repair, instead of 3rd parties.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| Good on Apple for doing this, assuming there's no tricky gotcha's
| or other issues that might come up later.
|
| My one criticism of them here has to do with the art style on the
| images on this page. What's with the weird proportions on the
| figures? It feels unsettling and inhuman. Apple is arguably the
| richest corporation in the world. They can't afford to hire a
| great artist to create an art style that's aesthetic and
| uplifting and fills people with joy? They have to mimic the
| bottom of the barrel trendy art style that's god-awful and that
| bottom of the barrel talentless art students who can't draw love?
| This is more worthy of criticism to me than them previously
| borking the repairability: at least that had an understandable
| financial motive. This is just bad decoration that fulfills no
| purpose.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| It's called "Corporate Memphis." Yes, it's horrendous and
| unsettling and, yes, it's already a meme.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
|
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/corporate-art-sty...
|
| It genuinely inspires a sense of dread within me. Like my skin
| is melting and my internal organs are bubbling and dislodging
| because I've drunk acid.
| reayn wrote:
| Where i come from it's referred to as the "Globohomo" art
| style and god do I hate it with a passion.
|
| I will admit the iteration in this specific article isn't too
| bad but the style overall just seems tasteless and attempts
| to be so unoffensive that it ends up being offensive in a
| different way.
|
| I'll stop ranting about it now.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Good Lord, that's hideous.
|
| It's like they've somehow managed to make Corporate Memphis
| even uglier, as difficult as that might be to believe.
|
| That sound you hear off in the distance is Jony Ive,
| screaming. :-)
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| /doubt
|
| But we'll see
| meibo wrote:
| How is this going to work?
|
| You can't replace cameras, screens or batteries on modern iPhones
| without the OS falling apart or breaking a sweat until they are
| re-signed to the phone by Apple, will they patch that out?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| They may just ask you the serial number of your device during
| purchase and ship you a part that's already programmed to it,
| so it's a drop-in replacement and will "just work".
|
| They could also provide a software tool to do so or even have
| the target's device firmware re-link the part at first boot
| (potentially checking the serial number of the source device to
| prevent iCloud-locked phones being used for parts).
| seltzered_ wrote:
| It's neat to see this, but there has to be some discernment
| around what will be component 'replacing' versus 'repairing'.
|
| The more interesting repairs people like Rossman, ipad rehab, and
| others do can involve IC replacement or circuit trace repair and
| some of their complaints around sourcing ICs, not just larger
| assemblies like a display.
|
| This also flows into expertise and tools around such repairs -
| you need some knowledge of the PCB schematic (in which there's a
| cottage industry around selling them like http://www.laptop-
| schematics.com/ ), how to use board rework tools (you need more
| than just a soldering iron). I sorta dream of a prosumer
| 'makerspace' for people to do these things but in practice feel
| like anyone with these skills just asks to use their employer's
| lab in the off-hours for such things or tends to their own
| private homelab.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I won't hold my breath when it comes to proper component-level
| repair, but I'd also argue that component-level repair is
| already possible (with manuals from grey-area sources).
|
| This is good news for at least being able to order legitimate
| "consumable" parts such as batteries which are difficult (or
| dangerous) to obtain unofficially, or easily-broken parts such
| as screens.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > The more interesting repairs people like Rossman, ipad rehab,
| and others do can involve IC replacement or circuit trace
| repair and some of their complaints around sourcing ICs
|
| Asking manufacturers to stock and sell the individual ICs they
| use to build products is completely untenable. The number of
| people who can actually execute such repairs is vanishingly
| small.
|
| The reason the independent repair shops would want availability
| of the raw materials is so they can capture the profit of doing
| intensive manual repairs instead of swapping out a main board
| in a few minutes.
|
| I have all of the equipment to rework dense PCBAs with small
| SMT components, and I'd still rather buy a replacement main
| board in most cases than do a hand rework operation myself.
| Machine assembly and factory validation is best.
| acd10j wrote:
| There is huge price difference between replacing a single
| chip vs whole board. Sometimes 5x to 10x.
| rasz wrote:
| >Asking manufacturers to stock and sell the individual ICs
| they use to build products is completely untenable.
|
| We can settle at not forcing IC manufacturers into contracts
| prohibiting third part sales.
|
| >Machine assembly and factory validation is best.
|
| You mean like the time Apple "factory certified refurbished"
| by gluing a piece of rubber instead of reflowing detaching
| ICs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaGHcBZjmWA
| lopis wrote:
| Or maybe ICs would start to become more standardized if there
| was regulatory pressure to keep them in stock for at least 5
| years.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>Asking manufacturers to stock and sell the individual ICs
| they use to build products is completely untenable. The
| number of people who can actually execute such repairs is
| vanishingly small.
|
| The problem that Rossman was trying to highlight was that _it
| appears_ as if Apple goes out of their way to make sure
| people like him can 't get components. As an example -
| macbooks use a specific chip to control the USB-C charging,
| and that chip frequently burns out. Until some time ago, he
| could just buy it from the manufacturer in China, no problem,
| at like 10c a piece. But then from a certain revision onwards
| Apple requested a custom version of the same chip from the
| manufacturer, which as far as Rossman can tell is identical,
| except the pin layout has been swapped. And of course the
| manufacturer won't sell you that Apple-specific chip, so now
| he has no way of fixing a fried chip, other than buying the
| entire motherboard.
|
| Like yes, I agree, it's untenable to expect Apple to sell you
| their own ICs individually, but _it appears_ like they
| specifically swap publicly available ICs for their own
| versions for no other reason other than to try and prevent
| repairs. Of course there might be another explanation, but if
| there is we don 't know it.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| Are the new ICs burning out as frequently? (And how
| frequently is frequently?)
|
| In any case it's certainly possible the new pinouts enable
| better routing that could reduce failures.
|
| Besides, how many people are able and willing to do
| component level repairs on a charging chip that it would be
| worth Apple's time to reroute part of their boards just to
| screw 'em?
| gambiting wrote:
| I don't know - all I mean is that this was Louis'
| argument - that more and more repairs that he could do
| with a 10c chip are now impossible due to changes Apple
| is introducing. Whether the reasoning behind those
| changes is solid I don't know and I'm not sure he knows
| either.
| acd10j wrote:
| I will not trust this announcement untill Louis Rossmen reviews
| it, including part prices and gives his thumbs up.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| This is great news but I'd still like some form of R2R law on the
| books. I wonder if the purpose of this is to placate the R2R
| movement so that they're less effective.
| rasz wrote:
| 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.
| kosh2 wrote:
| 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!"
| kokey wrote:
| >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.
| ChrisRR wrote:
| 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
| saagarjha wrote:
| When has Apple ever done this?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| 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.
| IanSanders wrote:
| The only reason for the markup, is because they can, which
| they ensured in advance
| BoorishBears wrote:
| > 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...
| [deleted]
| viro wrote:
| Apple themselves don't do component level repair. Why do you
| think those "tools, manuals" even exist.
| wl wrote:
| Not in store. Those refurbished logic boards have to come
| from somewhere, though.
|
| See https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/acqwut/do_you_kno
| w_w...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I had always assumed this about refurbished products, and
| hence stayed away from them.
| guywhocodes wrote:
| Wow nice clown move, someone does, someone uses those
| manuals.
| rasz wrote:
| 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"
| viro wrote:
| 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
| HelixEndeavor wrote:
| 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.
| Danieru wrote:
| 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.
| tibbetts wrote:
| 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.
| viro wrote:
| 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.
| kenned3 wrote:
| 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"?
| concinds wrote:
| 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_yo
| u_know_w... and more recent reporting on CSAT Solutions's
| incompetence, poor incentives, and very high turnover).
| IanSanders wrote:
| 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.
| audunw wrote:
| 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.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| q3k wrote:
| > 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.
| userbinator wrote:
| 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!)
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| q3k wrote:
| > 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?
| kube-system wrote:
| 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?
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| > 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| I'd agree.
|
| That doesn't mean that the superset is comparable to the
| subset.
| passivate wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| passivate wrote:
| >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.
| least wrote:
| > 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.
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| You do realize you're holding the repair industry against
| your ability, right? You've probably attempted a few handful
| of repairs that required solder. You do realize people do
| this for a living? Sure, I'd probably say that 1/2 the people
| out there claiming to be repair people are just hacks with no
| skill but I've come to realize that that's the truth in ANY
| industry. You wouldn't want a new engine for a timing belt
| change, or a master cylinder repair. Would you take it to
| Jiffy Lube for this stuff? Absolutely not, but there are
| qualified people out there to do the work just as there are
| people that can rip out a pinless chip and replace it in
| their sleep.
| kube-system wrote:
| This announcement was not about the repair industry. It was
| about consumers repairing their own devices.
| clarge1120 wrote:
| But, so what? This is not an argument about soldering or
| other specialized skills required to do a scary sounding
| repair.
| [deleted]
| cr3ative wrote:
| 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.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| 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.
| cr3ative wrote:
| I agree with you there, the parent was decrying the nature
| of AASP repairs.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| 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.
| varjag wrote:
| 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.
| cr3ative wrote:
| 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".
| rz2k wrote:
| "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
| rootsudo wrote:
| New word added to my internal dictionary. Thank you! :)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Agree, thank you! New favorite word!
| pbronez wrote:
| 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.
| arrrg wrote:
| 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.
| iicc wrote:
| 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.
| lodi wrote:
| Motte-and-bailey?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
| haspoken wrote:
| paltering - lying and deceiving with true statements.
| vipa123 wrote:
| This needs more votes, and more attention in the world at
| large...
| clarge1120 wrote:
| 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.
| IncRnd wrote:
| Lie Deceive Misrepresent Prevaricate
| Equivocate Palter
| hnlmorg wrote:
| 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.
| dogleash wrote:
| >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.
| cmorgan31 wrote:
| 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.
| dogleash wrote:
| 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.
| cmorgan31 wrote:
| 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?
| dogleash wrote:
| >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.
| baybal2 wrote:
| That is something which is supposed to be a norm, not a pity
| from the vendor.
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| > 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.
| atmosx wrote:
| > 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 :-)
| reaperducer wrote:
| _screens at significant markup_
|
| If an original Apple screen cannot be purchased on the open
| market, how do you know it's marked up?
| HelixEndeavor wrote:
| 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.
| namdnay wrote:
| Do Apple actually do component-level repair? Or do they just
| bin it and send a new one?
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| naravara wrote:
| 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.
| aequitas wrote:
| 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.
| grishka wrote:
| 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.
| IanSanders wrote:
| Their smaller / cheaper iphone line (SE?) is made mostly
| from _recycled_ components I heard
| grishka wrote:
| Probably their usual greenwashing stuff like "100%
| recycled aluminum"
| IanSanders wrote:
| I meant from previous generation iPhones of the same form
| factor - it used exactly the same screen and camera
| namdnay wrote:
| 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
| postalrat wrote:
| Your first question is the same as "Does Apple actually care
| about the environment?"
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| > 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.
| specialist wrote:
| 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.
| tibbetts wrote:
| 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.
| HelixEndeavor wrote:
| If they're able to maintain inventory on all of their
| current products I think they can probably maintain
| inventory on parts for them.
| katbyte wrote:
| A lot of their "inventory" is "ship it right after
| manufacture directly to the customer".
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| throaway46546 wrote:
| If you could get all parts at cost couldn't you build your
| own iPhone for less than the price of an iPhone?
| specialist wrote:
| 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.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > 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.
| selectodude wrote:
| No other company provides replacement parts at cost.
| specialist wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| mihaaly wrote:
| So it's basically deception tactics in a legal battle? "Nice!"
| : )
| pembrook wrote:
| Based on all the dumbfounded and cynical replies, I don't think
| people understand why this is happening.
|
| Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust headlines
| doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple works. When an
| announcement like this is made, it means this program has been in
| the works for YEARS.
|
| My guess, this is all part of Apple's slow shift towards a
| recurring revenue services model, and a better integration of
| customer & business incentives.
|
| It used to be, the worst thing that could happen to Apple was the
| customer stops upgrading their phone.
|
| But now, when the revenue growth is coming from services instead
| of hardware, it doesn't pay to piss off customers by making them
| buy a new phone a year early because the battery died.
|
| The worst thing that can happen now under this new business model
| is the customer leaves the ecosystem or buys less services
| because they aren't happy with the hardware.
|
| Hence why you're seeing Apple do things they never would have
| before. Capitulating on the MacBook Pro and rolling back on the
| Touch Bar, opening up to more repairability, etc. etc.
| StephenJGL wrote:
| Eh, back burner plans, or frameworks for years maybe. You
| undersell the pace of change at companies like Apple when
| driven by appropriate forces.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| >When an announcement like this is made, it means this program
| has been in the works for YEARS.
|
| Doesn't mean its wasn't spurred by right-to-repair movement.
| Its not like Apple was blindsided by it.
|
| > But now, when the revenue growth is coming from services
| instead of hardware, it doesn't pay to piss off customers by
| making them buy a new phone a year early because the battery
| died.
|
| I don't agree. Apples model has always been to produce sleek
| hardware, with every new release causing lines in front of
| physical stores. Nothing has changed since then. Furthermore,
| the repair through Apple services was always somehwhat of a
| money grab, with occurrences of pricey repairs and not-needed
| services.
|
| It be interesting to see what the pricing on these kits are.
| Since Apple has been rolling out hardware with id, that
| prevents it from working with non authorized hardware, it
| almost seems like its trying to put the 3d party repair shops
| out of business, and this is just filling the void while
| fulfilling right-to-repair requirements.
| abakker wrote:
| I guess I don't see this as "right to repair". I think this
| attached to the importance of the enterprise sales channel.
| They can pilot this with consumers, but the value here is in
| allowing the fortune 500 to adopt apple devices and staff for
| same-day repairs. They just announced and MDM, and they have
| rolled out the ability for iOS apps to run on m1 macs. To me,
| this makes it look like apple is vying to become the standard
| app dev environment for new enterprise apps, and have that
| inertia drag their devices into businesses. These small changes
| they've announced all seem to be stacking in that direction.
|
| edit to add: Security focus and end-to-end control are what the
| Apple ecosystem is built on. If the results of the trial with
| Epic go poorly for them, they still have all these features
| that make their ecosystem a good choice for paranoid/security
| conscious enterprises. If they get enough of those on the
| platform, then they have lots of companies depending on that
| security to back them up when Apple highlights their walled
| garden approach as a feature.
| volkl48 wrote:
| Apple has always had a self-servicing program for medium-
| sized and up clients. They don't need this program at all for
| that and it's not how any Fortune 500 will be doing their
| servicing.
|
| https://support.apple.com/self-servicing-account-program
|
| That's not new and the requirements for participation haven't
| changed. Minimums are 1,000 Apple devices in the org and 25
| repairs per year minimum, only service equipment your
| organization owns, and a line of credit to pay. Next day
| shipping of parts (subject to availability).
|
| --------
|
| To the extent that this new program fills a gap, it's for
| small organizations that want to do in-house repairs for
| their stuff, or at least have the option of doing it (and
| doing it with legitimate parts).
| ksec wrote:
| >Apple has always had a self-servicing program for medium-
| sized and up clients. They don't need this program at all
| for that and it's not how any Fortune 500 will be doing
| their servicing.
|
| This. I dont know how many times this needs to be repeated
| before we could stamp out that narrative Apple is doing it
| for Fortune 500.
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| it's incredible whether ulterior motives were present or not.
| devices aren't more secure if you literally repair them with
| official parts, the guides shouldn't be compiled by 3rd parties
| pentagrama wrote:
| > Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust
| headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple
| works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this
| program has been in the works for YEARS.
|
| They can perfectly build the program and keep it on
| hold/maintenance internally, and when the threat of legal
| action/bad brand image arrives, launch it.
| bengale wrote:
| I'm glad to see the most sensible response float to the top. It
| seems a lot of people having given any thought, or plain don't
| understand, how complicated a program like this would be to
| implement at a company the size of apple. Just think about how
| complicated this might be from a supply chain perspective. How
| about a support perspective?
| Closi wrote:
| Absolutely - it's different doing this for a small business
| and doing it at 'Apple Scale'.
|
| Setting up distribution for this alone via an already-
| established 3PL multiuser facility will take 6-8 months if
| you include all the contract negotiations (and do them for
| all regions simultaneously). That's of course assuming you
| can't squeeze it in your existing facility - and that you go
| down the 3PL route (if you are setting it up yourself and
| don't have space in an existing facility it will take
| longer).
|
| And that's just distribution, it doesn't include all the work
| that has to go into 'consumerizing' all the parts (i.e.
| presumably they need to come with proper packaging,
| instructions, disclaimers etc).
|
| The people claiming that this can be done (well) in a few
| weeks have clearly never worked in ops or supply chain
| development.
| ksec wrote:
| This is making the assumption a lot of consumer will be
| doing self repair. Basic Distribution are already done with
| current programme. Especially in US.
|
| > presumably they need to come with proper packaging,
| instructions, disclaimers etc.
|
| This will be the same as current Apple Authorized Service
| Provider. Except for a few parts which has MOQ.
|
| >The people claiming that this can be done (well) in a few
| weeks
|
| People are only claiming this isn't prepared in years. Not
| to mention it only begins launching in early 2022. It is
| basically building on top of what they announced in 2019,
| and later expanded or updated in 2020. The biggest
| obstacles for Apple is likely legal clearance.
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| That was the most frustrating part about reading HN while
| working at Apple. Changing something like the touch-bar or
| keyboard are things that take enormous amount of redesign and
| engineering from both the product and manufacturing standpoint
| which take time.
| Syonyk wrote:
| Oh, dear, engineering people have to do engineering. The
| horrors.
|
| The "broken" four years of Apple laptops (2016 to 2019) were
| quite a bit more frustrating to users.
|
| - The keyboard was prone to failure at entering text - "You
| Had One Job!" This was an amazingly bad reversion to... I
| don't even know when, actually. People love and hate various
| styles of laptop keyboards, but it was exceedingly rare to
| hear that a keyboard fundamentally didn't function as a
| keyboard after some time of use. Ive's (I assume, given his
| known preferences) pursuit of Thin Uber Alles led to a
| fundamentally broken keyboard. Ok, not a huge issue if the
| keyboard is a cheap and easy fix, but...
|
| - The keyboard was _so_ integrated into the top case that the
| whole thing was unrepairable without literally replacing the
| whole top case, track pad, battery, etc. IIRC it was around
| $700 out of warranty, and while Apple kept extending out the
| keyboard repair issue window for a while, it doesn 't change
| the fact that it was both disruptive for users and,
| apparently, quite expensive to Apple.
|
| When I got a lightly used mid-2015 MBP in 2018 or so (oddly,
| the base model was still being made quite a while after it
| had been "replaced" in the consumer lineup), I figured it
| would be my last Apple laptop, because the replacements were
| clearly broken, and after three or four years of it, it was
| clear that the direction was set, and that you were typing on
| it wrong, or something of the sort.
|
| I'm exceedingly glad to see that with the departure of Ive,
| some engineering sanity has returned to Apple, and the
| freshly redesigned M1 {Max,Pro} laptops seem to be a
| reversion to "That Which Works." A more standard keyboard
| actuation, and actual ports on the side. Woah...
|
| Unfortunately, that said, I'm no longer using Apple products
| at the moment because the whole CSAM thing, on top of bowing
| to China regarding iCloud, and the questionable labor ethics
| involved have driven me off. I'm glad to see they're
| addressing repairability and such, but it was painful enough
| to rip myself free of that ecosystem (I'm currently using a
| Flip IV phone, a PineBook Pro, and some Kobos as my general
| use hardware - yes, they all have a lot of sharp edges) that
| I don't want to really dive back in unless I'm confident I
| won't have to exit it again in the near future. With the on-
| device scanning, in particular, "Well... we're delaying it...
| for a while..." is a very different claim from "Yeah, sorry,
| that was a bad idea and we're not going to do it." The second
| would be useful, the first implies that they're waiting until
| either a few more issues are resolved, or until people simply
| forget about the objections. Or it could imply that they're
| planning on the second, but just don't want to say it for
| some reason. I have no way of knowing.
|
| It's been interesting, though. I so very badly want one of
| the M1 Max laptops, as it's literally everything I was
| looking for in a laptop, just... anymore, I'm too hesitant
| about Apple to actually buy one. And the alternatives for
| little ARM laptops all mostly suck... oh well. I didn't need
| to do high performance compute anyway.
| officeplant wrote:
| -- yes, they all have a lot of sharp edges
|
| I swear my Pinebook Pro has drawn more blood than any other
| computer device I've ever opened. You'd think I'd learn to
| be more careful after the third time the bottom shell
| sliced my finger open.
| echelon wrote:
| > Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust
| headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple
| works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this
| program has been in the works for YEARS.
|
| Apple knows it has been skirting the line and likely has many
| programs in place to deploy if and when the time is right.
| a2tech wrote:
| No clearly this is Apple responding to Louis Rossmann
| complaining on Youtube and nothing more. Gigantic companies
| almost always make policy decisions based on influencers on
| Youtube.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Just to be clear, Louis Rossmann has raised millions of
| dollars in funding for his Right to Repair efforts and has
| hired lobbyists to push forward repair legislation in
| something like 15 states. He is not just some YouTube guy he
| is a hard working advocate with 1.7 million followers and a
| legal campaign with teeth.
| ksec wrote:
| And to the point Apple ( or representative of Apple ) has
| to one way or another threaten the state along with other
| measures. Louis has documented many of these tactics in his
| video. I think Apple stopped ( or changed their _tone_ )
| sometimes after all the bad press targeting them.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I don't think it is related to antitrust, but I do think it is
| related to the growing "right to repair" advocacy.
|
| The reason I think that, is that Apple devices have always been
| repairable! By Apple. No one needed to "buy a new phone a year
| early because the battery died" if they were willing to hand
| their phone and $99 to Apple. I got the battery repaired in 2
| different iPhones and it worked great (and was less expensive
| and wasteful than a whole new phone). I also got the screen
| repaired on one of those phones.
|
| So look at what is new here. It's not "an iPhone can be
| repaired." What is new is that Apple will help me do the repair
| myself.
| pembrook wrote:
| > _I don't think it is related to antitrust, but I do think
| it is related to the growing "right to repair" advocacy._
|
| That's my point. The customers shouted, and Apple actually
| listened this time. And this has been happening more lately.
| Why?
|
| It's because an exec at "old" Apple would say: "sure, the
| customers want to be able to repair easily, but won't this
| hurt our revenue growth and my bonus next year? What if they
| stop upgrading hardware as often?"
|
| An exec at "new" Apple is now incentivized to think: "well,
| even if they keep their hardware longer, it doesn't matter.
| Because the customer will still be in the ecosystem and we
| can get them to spend more via Apple Pay, iCloud, Apple TV+,
| News+, Advertising, App Store, etc. etc. and all these new
| services!"
| chewbacha wrote:
| Thats a good spin by the exec, but it's more like "the
| people shouted, governments listened, began legislation,
| apple protected themselves by getting ahead of it"
|
| I don't really think that this was a direct reaction to
| customer demands but a forced hand with good spin.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Yep, this is entirely "we can give you the right to
| repair your device. You don't need that silly law." The
| law is about giving consumers _and repair shops_ the
| right to repair, but Apple is pretending that "right to
| repair" is _just_ about giving individuals the ability to
| repair their stuff.
|
| It's especially safe for Apple because Joe Q Public is
| not going to even remotely think about DIY'ing this, and
| they get to charge a price that assures they don't lose
| money on it. The parts are cheap, the instructions are
| cheap. It's the labor that is what is expensive.
| webmobdev wrote:
| Apple parts are unnecessarily expensive though. And
| they've already started rolling out new firmware in place
| to reject parts from third party sources. This will
| essentially force you to buy parts from them at high
| prices - I remember the when I bought a Mac Mini, Apple
| RAM and SSD was nearly double the price of its
| competitors for the same specs. And they will continue to
| make even more hard to repair devices (note that nothing
| will change on their part here - Apple will not give you
| the ability to customise your hardware or software from
| non-Apple sources, as that will give you the freedom to
| leave their ecosystem).
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It also leaves them open to make it still a scam.
|
| Independent repair shops: Apple won't sell us parts so
| you have to pay them $69 for a repair we could do for $49
| or you could do yourself for $20 because it's really $20
| in parts and $29 in labor.
|
| Apple: Okay, here's the part you wanted, you can have it
| for $59 or have us do it for $69. No need for any new
| laws.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _" sure, the customers want to be able to repair easily,
| but won't this hurt our revenue growth and my bonus next
| year? What if they stop upgrading hardware as often?"_
|
| I honestly think it was closer to "the customers will screw
| up the repair, burn down their house and then for two weeks
| the headlines will be about iPhones torching poodles."
| Between right-to-repair laws and the proliferation of
| unlicensed repair shops, however, their hand was forced.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Jeff Williams, quoted in the press release, joined Apple in
| 1998. Tim Cook joined about the same time. So old Apple and
| new Apple are actually the same people.
|
| Also it's not accurate to say these are things Apple would
| never do before. I have an Apple MacBook Pro from 2009 and
| it was quite intentionally designed for users to upgrade
| and repair. And that was when they were much more purely a
| hardware company, with little services revenue or goals.
|
| I just don't see the overarching narrative that you do.
| threeseed wrote:
| > and it was quite intentionally designed for users to
| upgrade and repair
|
| Only for the battery.
|
| Failure rates on the memory and hard drive components
| were far higher than we have today. And it didn't benefit
| Apple at that time to be soldering them to the logic
| board since thinness wasn't a concern i.e. due to the DVD
| drive dictating size.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I replaced both memory and HD in that machine myself
| easily. The HD was under the same hatch as the battery.
| ksec wrote:
| Out of 320 comments only one notice this PR quoted Jeff.
| And not anyone else.
|
| I read this as Jeff is on the supporting side and pushed
| for it within Apple. ( Which is inline with Post Steve
| Jobs PR pattern ) And Despite both Jeff and Tim Cook
| joining at about the same time and both in operation.
| Jeff and Tim Cook has a very different personality. At
| least Jeff has a product mind set.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| At what point was Apple operating like the first quote
| here? I've never seen them as a revenue growth chasing
| business. Sure they print cash, but that doesn't say
| anything about how they go about earning it. I would like
| to see some actual proof that Apple works/worked that way,
| rather than concluding the cause from the outcome.
| afrodc_ wrote:
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/a
| mp/...
|
| This is the latest example and they have had previous
| lawsuits before about intentionally throttling devices
| which leads to people buying the latest devices.
|
| Their earnings reports depend on volume of iPhone sales,
| so the incentive exists to push for more.
|
| > I've never seen them as a revenue growth chasing
| business
|
| Apple is always chasing revenue growth. They're notorious
| for it. Most businesses are..
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > intentionally throttling devices which leads to people
| buying the latest devices.
|
| As the battery ages, internal resistance goes up, leading
| to voltage sags under high CPU usage, which is called
| "brownout." By lowering the maximum CPU frequency _when
| they detect voltage sagging_ , Apple prevents the device
| from crashing or randomly rebooting. The iPhone gets
| slower, but it keeps working, and replacing the battery
| restores it to full speed.
|
| It allows you to use an iPhone without replacing the
| battery significantly longer than you would be able to
| otherwise. It was customer and environmentally friendly.
|
| _Chasing revenue growth, indeed._
|
| Oh, and by the way, this is what I'm typing this reply to
| you on: https://i.imgur.com/ShDwshe.png
|
| At the time I bought this computer - now eight years ago
| - one of the reasons I bought it was because the battery
| was a new type that was rated to have 80% or better
| capacity after 1500 cycles. It exceeded that, by the way,
| handily.
|
| About the only laptop that could manage similar battery
| durability would be a Thinkpad, with its min/max battery
| charging controls.
| ralfd wrote:
| Apple throttled devices to prevent devices shutting off
| unexpectedly when an aging battery couldn't sustain the
| power draw. And they later added a setting to led users
| control this.
|
| If this was done out of nefarious reasons, don't you
| think doing nothing (devices switching off when the
| battery degrades) would have driven more sales of new
| devices?
| lolpython wrote:
| > https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article
| /amp/...
|
| This just links to a manifest.json
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Of course it is related to "right to repair" advocacy. This
| is the basic function of a company listening to feedback and
| making changes. As long as it doesn't conflict with the core
| values of the company, there is no reason to not add this. I
| love how this empowers individuals to repair themselves, or
| develop the skills to do this for friends, family and
| eventually open a shop in their local community. Apple is
| using their powerful iPhone economy to create local commerce.
| Pretty cool.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| It's actually not too expensive, $49 or $69. Cheaper than
| some non-Apple shops:
| https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/service/battery-
| powe...
| hmrr wrote:
| It's really cheap when you add the risks. Apple replaced
| the battery in my 6s about three years back and it didn't
| work afterwards. If this was an independent phone shop
| they'd give it back and make an excuse or try and sell you
| another hooky handset. Apple gave me a brand new untouched
| 6s handset instead.
| kshacker wrote:
| Been there done that. Went in for a battery replacement,
| on pickup they said they could not fix it as is, and gave
| me a new phone. Probably was a 6/6S for me too.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Me too.
|
| And then within 2 days I put a deep scratch in the
| screen.
| TheBill wrote:
| Just did this with my 10, $74.95 for a new battery, spent ~2
| hours down the street curating a newsletter at a bar I like.
| It was a similar experience when I needed the battery in my
| MacBook Air replaced but closer to 100.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| > When an announcement like this is made, it means this program
| has been in the works for YEARS.
|
| I don't think so. Repairability is already something they have
| to consider because their stores conduct repairs. They ship
| tools and replacement parts to stores and to thousands of
| Authorized Service Providers already. And they already make
| manuals, tutorial videos, and repair guides available.
|
| They also provide all the tools and repair resources (including
| software) to large companies and institutions - which is why
| universities can repair students' MacBooks on campus, and why
| companies can have an internal IT help desk that can perform
| repairs.
|
| Adapting this for self-service is just a question of sorting
| out the legalities around warranty and liability - but their
| terms and conditions are so broad that it couldn't have been
| too difficult. And it's not too time-consuming for them to film
| a new tutorial video for display, battery, and camera
| replacements aimed at DIYers - perhaps their existing videos
| are already sufficient for this.
|
| This is absolutely in response to antitrust and environmental
| criticism.
| beenBoutIT wrote:
| Unless Apple's lying it has been in the works for YEARS.
|
| "Apple spokesperson Nick Leahy told The Verge that the
| program 'has been in development for well over a year'."[0]
|
| [0]https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787336/apple-right-
| to-...
| ksec wrote:
| >Unless Apple's lying
|
| It is called a spin? Or you could call that a lie.
|
| If you count the programme started when they were opening
| up to 3rd party repair it is well over a year.
|
| That is the same as Apple ( or specifically Tim Cook )
| spoke on record, under oath, in court, that their 15% App
| Store Small Business Services discount idea started well
| before the trial.
|
| And Apple has been caught many times doing this. From
| Qualcomm trial to IMG PowerVR Trial. Either lying by
| omission or spinning.
| pas wrote:
| It's completely believable, yet utterly meaningless.
|
| Development can mean anything from actually addig SKUs to
| the webshop to talking about expansion of the service
| network...
| lifty wrote:
| This article on The Verge sheds some more light on what
| motivated Apple to make the move:
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787336/apple-right-to-...
|
| Not sure how accurate it is but there was definitely pressure
| on Apple to make changes.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust
| headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple
| works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this
| program has been in the works for YEARS.
|
| I know how companies of this size work. When they have
| regulatory/pr/legal risk, they can move really fast for their
| size. Don't know if that's the case here, but given it only
| covers subset of parts of few latest models, limited to USA
| initially, and will likely take a few years to properly expand,
| it could totally be rushed in timeline of under a year.
| concinds wrote:
| The legend going around, is that the iPhone's screen was
| changed from plastic to glass a week before the announcement
| (6 months before launch). Nowadays, things like the cameras
| get finalized 2-3 years before the phone comes out (according
| to John Gruber) because of how complex finding suppliers,
| etc. is, but obviously if they find big issues 6 months
| before release, they can adapt and make late changes. But
| that's hardware.
|
| There's zero reason they would need years to come out with
| this self-repair announcement, when all it is right now, is a
| blog post, announcing something that'll come out "in 2022".
| irae wrote:
| Apple is not known for good web services. The App Store
| being a fork of iTunes Store and the Mac App Store building
| on the same unstable foundation. Sure they are getting
| better and better, but still...
|
| Apple will want to scale this from the web or from on-
| device apps. Previously we've seen that Apple is detecting
| each part by serial number, so even mixing genuine parts
| disable a lot of features [1]. So, now it becomes clear
| part of their reason: If they can detect all the genuine
| parts, they can ship for self repair and it will work for
| the intended customer and not for other devices. This
| reduces chances of cloning, theft and scams, while
| guaranteeing quality (and guaranteeing their revenue on
| replaced parts too).
|
| IMO, yes, it would require years for them to announce this.
| There is all the checkout part, they would need to issue
| the right part with the correct serial number to the exact
| customer and charge taxes accordingly. All this logistics
| is centered on software Apple has a bad reputation at best,
| and very slow process of development from what is seems
| from the outside.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7NmMl_-yg
| jaywalk wrote:
| I think you've completely missed the fact that this
| program is taking something they _already do_ and
| expanding access to end users.
| ksec wrote:
| >according to John Gruber.... because of how complex
| finding suppliers
|
| The same John Gruber claims AirPod $159 were sold at near
| cost. Which leads to a whole world of misinformation passed
| along as fact in all AirPod discussions.
|
| He may get a few things right in terms of design and
| software. But seriously his creditability in terms of
| hardware and supply chain is practically zero.
|
| And no, camera or lens dont get get finalized 2-3 years
| before the phone comes out.
|
| But I agree it absolutely does not need _years_. And if
| anyone has been following Apple for a long period of time
| should know this PR means it wasn 't prepared for _YEARS_.
| Not to mention they are basically opening up their repair
| programme from 3rd party to end users. The only thing that
| take time rather than a flip of a switch is user
| instruction and legal clearing.
| ralfd wrote:
| "available early next year in the US and expand to
| additional countries throughout 2022"
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" The legend going around, is that the iPhone's screen
| was changed from plastic to glass a week before the
| announcement"_
|
| It's not a legend. Apple even mentioned the switch to glass
| in a press release at the time [1]. The original prototype
| iPhone shown at the announcement event had a plastic
| screen, but the version that shipped 6 months later had
| glass:
|
| [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/06/18iPhone-
| Delivers-Up-...
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| A plastic screen would have been a complete disaster.
| Apparently none of you owned an iPod pre-iPhone days. The
| screens got scratched if you looked at them funny.
| Reason077 wrote:
| The stainless steel back case on the original iPod was
| worse than the screen in my recollection. Scratched so
| easily.
| jen729w wrote:
| Good job you didn't need to look ~~at~~ through it all
| day in order to use the product then!
| Krasnol wrote:
| Also this anti-trust finale grande is also the result of
| years of resistance. They surely knew there is at least a
| chance that they may lose.
|
| The only curious thing is why OPs comment is so far up. Do
| people really want to believe that story so bad?
| noneeeed wrote:
| It's also worth pointing out that they will be ramping up
| this program over an extended period of time. It's not like
| this is landing fully formed. This is an early announcement
| of something that is still having the details worked out.
| dpweb wrote:
| Win-win-win for Apple with this move. New revenue stream of
| expensive parts. Those iphone repair shops scattered all over
| the country that are getting pissed at you - just made them
| your customers. Keeps people with broke phones in the
| ecosystem. Puts down calls for legislation about right to
| repair. Takes a shot at the third-party parts market.
| Preserves the ability to have the firmware reject 'non-
| genuine' parts.
| webmobdev wrote:
| Yeah, unfortunately you are spot on - this move is created
| to kill the growing criticism against its increasingly hard
| to repair devices, while also ensuring that they have a
| ready excuse to reject parts bought from third-party's and
| be forced to buy only costly parts from Apple. Except for
| the availability of exorbitantly priced "genuine" parts,
| nothing will really - they continue to design more and more
| hard to repair devices with more soldered parts, with no
| real ability to customise or upgrade the hardware or
| software from non-Apple sources.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust
| headlines doesn't understand
|
| Or doesn't understand new regulatory threats from Right-To-
| Repair, which already has at least one state that is moving to
| legalize full R2R (MA).
|
| I agree with the rest though, that this can just be a new
| revenue stream for them.
| ggoo wrote:
| This has been in the works for years, it was just only
| available to apple certified repair people. Tbh, this seems
| more like a rebrand of their existing program to me.
| shawnz wrote:
| > Anybody saying this is a response to recent anti-trust
| headlines doesn't understand how a company the size of Apple
| works. When an announcement like this is made, it means this
| program has been in the works for YEARS.
|
| It's likely they have many pro-consumer and anti-consumer
| initiatives in the works at any given time. Public opinion can
| still impact whether those initiatives get accelerated or
| delayed.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| I don't think you know how this works.
|
| Apple prepared self repair already a long time ago, just in
| case they would lose money because of legislation ( because it
| would hurt sales of it becomes law = a business risk)
|
| Upcoming legislation in Europe and UK. On 17th of June it was
| filed in Congress and voila.
|
| There it is.
|
| Eg similar. Office on Mac/Android was the exact same thing.
| Released under the current CEO, but created under Ballmer.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| The cynic in me wonders if Apple is simply reading the room on
| Right to Repair laws and throwing the crowd a bone so that they
| can say, "You don't need those laws! Apple already provides
| numerous ways for you to repair your own devices!"
|
| Monitor in the coming months how much they continue to spend on
| anti-RTR lobbying. That would be the better litmus test of their
| sincerity.
| CountDrewku wrote:
| Why is this a problem? If you can get companies to do this
| without passing stupid regulations that's a better option.
| Government regulation shouldn't be the de facto.
| martini333 wrote:
| Don't get too exited until you see the price for parts and
| tools...
|
| Apple now allows and backs right to repair on paper. People are
| gonna buy cheap non-OEM parts anyway.
| remorses wrote:
| This looks like some media trickery to make Apple look like they
| care about repairability, probably because of the ongoing right
| to repair case [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair
| datavirtue wrote:
| Third party parts like I can get for my car?
| mherdeg wrote:
| Wonder if I can get my credit-card warranty to cover the cost of
| self-service repair. I'd love to run a small diagnostic app which
| generates a PDF file saying
|
| * this device's battery is failing sooner than designed and
| should be replaced,
|
| * the first-party warranty would have covered this repair and
| expired 3 months ago
|
| * the OEM replacement will be $279 + $15 shipping
|
| Upload that to the CC warranty portal and, voila, free $294
| statement credit.
|
| Not at all clear from this announcement that they're providing
| enough tools to unlock that end-to-end scenario -- will consumers
| be able to download Apple Services Toolkit 2?. It's also really
| not clear that their partners would be very happy if it were this
| easy to get extended-warranty coverage; you can imagine Amex
| exerting some pressure on the Apple Pay relationship if MacBook
| extended-warranty claims went too high. But it's nice to dream.
| seltzered_ wrote:
| I kept envisioning one could warranty repairs if you could
| videorecord oneself doing the whole repair process - from
| unboxing the part to replacing it. No idea if there's a
| practical business idea in this.
| svnpenn wrote:
| Wow, you are evil.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| What is evil about using the offered warranty?
| Aissen wrote:
| Did they just announce that they'll simply comply with EU right
| to repair law ?
| sheinsheish wrote:
| Yeah
| boppo1 wrote:
| I was an android devotee, but this makes me think twice.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| How long will they support the iPhone 12 and 13 though? Will they
| support repairs for as long as they support software updates? I
| imagine it's a bit harder to keep old parts in production.
|
| The next step should be to allow others to create compatible
| parts when Apple decides to drop support entirely. I doubt they
| would though, that's why they've locked parts to specific
| motherboards.
| aardvark179 wrote:
| Normally 7 years from when they stop distribution of the
| product, and up to ten years for laptop batteries.
|
| Yes, it is subject to parts availability, but they've managed
| to repair quite old iMacs for me in the past.
| dotdi wrote:
| What?!
|
| I was completely blindsided by this. I do regular laptop and
| smartphone repairs for friends and family and getting original
| parts often is difficult or even impossible. There are many
| scammers around that will sell "original OEM" i.e. cheap knock-
| off trash.
|
| Ebay is OK-ish for second hand parts but sometimes you are just
| out of luck.
|
| I'm pretty excited about this, to say the least.
| kefabean wrote:
| I am pretty excited about this too, but it (somewhat
| understandably) targets latest iPhones only for now so any
| chance of servicing and resurrecting older devices with
| official parts is not a reality.
|
| Will be interesting to see if they roll support backwards or
| only provide the ability to fix from current devices onwards.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Hopefully this means they'll either stop intentionally
| binding parts to its original device (so they can't be
| swapped) or provide official tools/software to bind them to
| the replacement device.
|
| They can even still use the mechanism for theft-deterrence by
| checking whether the original phone is iCloud-locked before
| allowing you to associate the part with the target device.
| nojito wrote:
| >provide official tools/software to bind them to the
| replacement device.
|
| This is never going to happen as long as touchid/faceid
| exist.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Why not? There's no technical reason why the touch or
| face sensor needs to be trusted. The actual security
| processing happens in the secure element. The sensor is
| just an input device.
| mirashii wrote:
| That doesn't prevent a malicious FaceID chip from
| recording and replaying sensor output, allowing a
| backdoor to unlock the phone, or a variety of other
| attacks.
|
| There's a security guide that talks more about what the
| threat model is and where exactly the encryption and
| trusted communications happen.
| https://support.apple.com/guide/security/touch-id-and-
| face-i...
| smoldesu wrote:
| If someone has physical access to your iPhone, it's game
| over. The US government holds your decryption keys, and
| there are third-parties that sell exploit kits that are a
| lot cheaper than spoofing some encrypted I2C interface
| (see: Greykey).
| tata71 wrote:
| Threat models: what are they, how do they work?
| cromka wrote:
| > Hopefully this means they'll either stop intentionally
| binding parts to its original device (so they can't be
| swapped) or provide official tools/software to bind them to
| the replacement device.
|
| Each piece will probably come with a unique QR-encoded
| serial code that will require activation online before it
| can be paired with the phone. Not really a rocket science.
| cjoelrun wrote:
| Apple backs off of breaking Face ID after DIY iPhone 13
| screen replacements.
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/9/22772433/apple-
| iphone-13-...
| judge2020 wrote:
| > provide official tools/software to bind them to the
| replacement device.
|
| Via iFixIt:
|
| > You'll be able to buy parts and tools through the 'Self
| Service Repair Online Store,' where you'll also have access
| to service manuals and some version of their repair-
| enabling software.
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/55370/apple-diy-repair-
| program-p...
| [deleted]
| marianov wrote:
| I'm replacing my 10yo Thinkpad camera thia week. Guess what will
| be my next laptop? Wish phones were like that
| kraig911 wrote:
| Well now I've seen everything. Any one else check on hell has it
| frozen over?
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| don't worry, you havent seen the pricing yet :)
| tada131 wrote:
| We'll see actual prices on genuine replacements.
| traveler01 wrote:
| Yeah, genuinely worried about this.
|
| We know Apple very well now, they'll be expensive af and will
| give them a reason to keep screwing over third party parts by
| introducing hardware locks.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Because a lot of third party parts are crap and we're being
| used to scam folks. The battery warning is a good approach
| traveler01 wrote:
| Well I can agree with you, most of those third party
| parts could be even dangerous for the user, i.e faulty
| batteries blowing up.
| ModernMech wrote:
| No but I did see a pig careening across the sky earlier.
| Thought nothing of it at the time but I think this explains
| everything.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| I think I saw some pigs fly
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| Call me cynical all one wants, but I am not at all convinced
| this is motivated by some kind of altruism and the whole
| "inclusion" corporate propaganda tinge of the copy/images makes
| me even more suspicious of the manipulative corporate
| motivation of this move. I see what you are doing, Apple.
|
| Unless I missed something, there is no talk of lowering the
| price by the cost of labor for, e.g., a $270 screen
| replacement. So my assumption is that you get to do an amateur
| screen replacement for the same price while also assuming the
| risk and liability of messing something up.
|
| I even wonder if this is a kind of counter-punch against the
| right to repair movement so Apple, et al., can claim, "see, we
| allow repairs"; while it really just serves to take the wind
| out of the sails of the right to repair movement in the halls
| of Congress and the bureaucratic demons in DC.
| danaris wrote:
| I mean...does it matter what Apple's _motives_ are for this?
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| It depends on what your interests are. Motivations are a
| higher order from intentions and can inform on future
| actions or reveal patterns of behavior. To the other reply;
| I would say that Apple retaining it's iron grip on
| exorbitant profit margins and the supply chain is the
| motivation, and the intention is to do so by the subject
| method that will undermine the threat to that not
| controlling the right-to-repair narrative would represent.
|
| This is not something that Apple decided in a vacuum or
| even as it relates to the USA. Apple is surely looking at
| this with the lessons it has learned as it relates to how
| the EU has been behaving and its motivations too.
|
| Not to belittle anyone, but the upper echelons of Apple and
| their servant army of attorneys operate from Mt Olympus and
| have a far wider aperture than most of us mere mortals
| have, regardless of how broadly we believe we understand a
| relatively narrow focus like how this relates to goings on
| in the USA alone.
| smoldesu wrote:
| No, because their intentions are clear enough. They want to
| keep their iron grip on their supply chain, which is why
| they'll only ship you complete assemblies that cost $500+
| instead of the charging IC that costs $3 OEM.
| danaris wrote:
| It's certainly possible that that's the reason for it,
| but it's predicated on various assumptions.
|
| It's also completely possible that the reason they're
| selling complete assemblies instead of individual ICs is
| because a) even _they_ don 't replace individual ICs,
| because it's fiddly, more likely to cause further
| problems, and requires keeping a stock of a _lot_ of
| different individual chips, and b) they genuinely believe
| that there 's not enough people who would be _able_ to do
| that replacement (regardless of willingness) for it to be
| worthwhile.
|
| Personally? I think it's some of both.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Neither of those are really sufficient reasons though, if
| they didn't want to channel people through their
| expensive, first-party repairs then they wouldn't lock
| down their supply chain so hard.
| selimnairb wrote:
| This really sucks. Why not partner with iFixit? JFC, leave some
| business opportunities for other companies. Do they have to
| extract all value? How much is enough? (sadly, I know the
| answer).
| KayL wrote:
| It's good. Last time I took my macbook to their bar. I want to
| repair a stick key but they requested me to replace the whole
| bottom becasue they saw some water overthere. The final bill is
| about $800 USD.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| This is what what we have wanted forever.
|
| Hell---I might even buy one of their new products now.
|
| Was it that hard Apple.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| This is great, but let's be honest here: They saw which way the
| legal winds were moving on right to repair, and saw how bad the
| PR for opposing it was.
|
| Good for them for getting on board before a court ordered them to
| change their behavior, but let's not pretend Apple wanted to do
| this.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I'm really surprised Apple doesn't simply add a sensor to detect
| the case being opened, and then have software pop up a dialog box
| forcing details of the repair to be entered into some kind of
| 'service history' before the device is usable again.
|
| Then they can use this to deny warranty coverage for repairs done
| by third parties without their accreditation.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| So recent iPhones will complain of a non-genuine screen even if
| you take the screen from another iPhone (I found out the hard
| way), because apparently the screen has the serial number
| programmed into it and the iPhone checks for a serial number
| mismatch to determine if it's a "fake." Does Apple supply the
| repair stores with the programmers to change the screen serial?
| Or do you have to just-in-time order the screen once you have the
| serial number you'll be repairing?
|
| What this did for me? Four days ago, I dropped my phone (again)
| and the screen broke (again) and this time when I had the option
| of choosing a genuine iPhone screen or a Chinese knockoff, I
| ordered the knockoff.
| nebukadnet wrote:
| It just means they'll remove that check in an update.
| tvararu wrote:
| > Does Apple supply the repair stores with the programmers to
| change the screen serial?
|
| Yes. Apple will loan you a special machine to pair screens,
| TouchID fingerprint sensors, and other things to logic boards.
| The machine is never your property, but theirs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-17 23:01 UTC)