[HN Gopher] Apple Shipped Me a 79-Pound iPhone Repair Kit to Fix...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Shipped Me a 79-Pound iPhone Repair Kit to Fix a 1.1-Ounce
Battery
Author : kryptiskt
Score : 458 points
Date : 2022-05-21 10:40 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| Reading this article and the comments here makes me quite sad.
|
| 1. The repair kit described here is not mandatory for anyone to
| rent to be able to buy the parts. You can just buy the parts
| alone and use whatever tools you want. If you attempt your own
| repair, you should use the simple ifixit style tools, and
| understand the higher risk of damage you are taking.
|
| 2. The kit described in the article seems very decent for any
| kind of independent repair shop. They will probably already have
| pretty much the same setup.
|
| 3. Right to repair is about access to documentation and parts.
| Nobody epects anyone to make it easy for the user to replace 512
| pin BGA part. Right to repair does not mean that it should be
| easy to repair something, just that there shouldn't be artificial
| obstacles and that there should be supply of documentation and
| parts.
|
| 4. Repairability is still an important topic and with discussing,
| but it is a separate issue from right to repair. E.g. I think
| phone makers could make replacing batteries much easier and that
| it would be a much smaller design compromise than some people
| like to claim. But that is a different topic from the baseline of
| right to repair.
|
| To me this seems like Apple has a good basic right to repair
| offering both for individuals and independent shops. This article
| is bad for the right to repair movement, because it doesn't
| understand what it is asking for.
|
| Parts. Documentation. No artificial obstacles.
| hatware wrote:
| I think you have grossly underestimated how propaganda against
| right to repair legislation has colored your perception.
|
| That is what's sad. We used to fully own the devices we buy,
| now look at us.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| I think my perspective is pretty good, thanks.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| to #3 I think most people want to easily swap out their screen
| and batteries and maybe usb/lightning port. Those are the parts
| that usually wear out. I doubt any expects to swap out the BGA
| and RAM other than maybe a professional tech who wants to do it
| for bragging rights.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > The repair kit described here is not mandatory for anyone to
| rent to be able to buy the parts.
|
| Is this the case? Is Apple allowing people to just buy the
| parts separately, or do they make you get the whole kit?
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| https://selfservicerepair.com/order
|
| I can't go through the whole order process because I don't
| have an iPhone IMEI, but to me it looks like you can just buy
| the parts you need.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Ah, yes I agree, based on how they've designed the site it
| definitely seems you can order individual parts!
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > No artificial obstacles.
|
| There are 2 such artificial obstacles in fact. The first is you
| can only buy parts if you provide a serial number for the
| device in question, preventing things like repair shops from
| having a stock of batteries on hand. For self repair, it also
| complicates the "help a friend out with a replacement" flow.
|
| The second is the software lockout. Even though you provide the
| serial number at time of ordering, the battery still comes up
| as being unauthorized after it's first installed and things
| like face unlock refuse to work, despite the battery playing no
| role in security. You then need to call a number and go through
| a process to get that battery remotely authorized.
|
| Both of those extremely artificial limitations are completely
| bullshit moves on Apple's part.
| btbuildem wrote:
| Agreed. The one part of this repair that Apple seems to have
| made purposely difficult is that you have to call them and
| "register" or whatever your new battery to your device. They
| hold the keys and refuse to activate the new part for any
| reason.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Weird thing to care about for a battery I agree, I suspect
| this scheme was designed for things like camera or touchid
| replacement that had security implications, and is now just
| used for all parts possible to do so, regardless of the
| possibility of attack.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| On this topic I'm leaning towards that this is ok for them to
| do, although I think it is unnecessary and a reason I would
| rather buy a competitors procust, that doesn't have this
| requirement.
| blakesley wrote:
| I like what you tried to do here, but then you got to #3. It's
| bizarre to me that you feel this process of Apple's constitutes
| "no artificial obstacles". Phone & laptop batteries used to be
| easy to replace. A few models still have this feature. It's not
| a hardware problem, it's a business decision. This process of
| Apple's is following the letter of the law but not the spirit
| of the law.
| elil17 wrote:
| I absolutely hate anticompetitive business practices. Like I get
| genuinely angry about it. But this seems totally fine to me. The
| author followed the instructions and ended up with a perfect
| result. They were stressed about repairing it because they might
| break it, but that's true of many DIY things. There was a lot of
| equipment sent to them, but it was offered at a reasonable price
| and made the repair much safer for the phone. I just don't see
| the problem.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| A part of me doesn't agree with the author that Apple's main goal
| is to make it so difficult for people to repair their own devices
| that most people just buy another phone.
|
| Personally, I do a lot of DIY things and have always preferred to
| have the best quality tools for the jobs. I own several vehicles,
| none of which have under 100k miles on the odometer, and I do 95%
| of maintenance on them all. They range in age from 47 years to 7
| years so I need to understand old-school mechanical things and
| new electronic-controlled things and as a result I look for tools
| that simplify troubleshooting and parts replacement.
|
| I build with wood and metal too and am familiar with carpentry
| and cabinet building, stick frame construction, welding and
| cutting various metals, and finishing the resulting constructions
| so that they last a long time. All of this requires tools made
| specifically for the task. I am currently rebuilding a fireplace
| and hearth and refacing it with slate and basalt so I don't need
| to stare at all that ugly 70's brick.
|
| I also dink around with everything that fails in an effort to
| understand what happened and whether it is an easy fix or it is
| time for a new gizmo. I have repaired our refrigerator, our
| dishwasher, clothes washer and dryer, and a number of small
| appliances. My usual method is to disassemble the device and
| troubleshoot until I find the failure point. I use online videos
| and manuals, blog and forum posts, etc to keep me moving in the
| right direction.
|
| I have also replaced the battery, hinges, and screen on a MS
| Surface device and a couple of telephone screens. For this work I
| used iFixit as a resource and everything went smoothly as a
| result.
|
| I still use my Windows Phone because it is a great phone and it
| still works, though that will end later this year when the 3G
| networks are removed from service, so I will likely end up with
| an iPhone.
|
| So far I have not needed to replace an iPhone screen or battery
| on any of my family devices, but if I end up needing to do this
| in the future I am pretty sure that I would just go through the
| process that the author documents since he was able to accomplish
| the task with no serious issues. That's the actual goal here.
|
| The fact that a user is able to employ exactly the same tools
| Apple uses without having to buy those tools and the entire
| procedure is documented with photos and concise descriptions of
| operations is a huge plus. I don't have time to examine every
| device or gadget that glitches or fails in an effort to
| guesstimate what I think needs to happen to make it work
| correctly.
|
| I think this is a bargain for those of us who are inclined to
| repair our own devices.
| exabrial wrote:
| Just another reminder Apple is not a green company
| orf wrote:
| That's 35kg to fix a 31 gram battery for anyone else confused.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| I'm not sure why the weight matters. The factory that made the
| battery was many tons, but if that's what's needed then that's
| what's needed.
| mhb wrote:
| And you won't believe what it takes to make a 100 gram silicon
| wafer.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| All this just to replace a battery is obviously utterly
| ridiculous.
|
| On the one hand this could be malicious compliance.
|
| On the other maybe they still need to design their new phones to
| be easier to repair and this is a temporary measure?
|
| Either way, newer laws should be worded such that it costs $0,00
| to replace a battery with no deposit; all costs for tooling go to
| the manufacturer. Then it will cost the manufacturer money, which
| incentivizes them to make it easier to repair.
| nvrspyx wrote:
| > On the other maybe they still need to design their new phones
| to be easier to repair and this is a temporary measure?
|
| Doubtful. Yes, they could be easier to repair and it's kind of
| a pain in the ass, but you can buy all the tools required to
| fix an iPhone 13/13 Pro battery from iFixIt for less than $100,
| although the tools are not as advanced as the ones Apple
| provides.
|
| Also, if Apple benefits from this being a ridiculous process,
| which they do, there is probably no intention of making this
| easier. This reminds me of the iPhone battery and slowdown
| "scandal", there may have been good intentions at first, but
| then realized that it would benefit them to not tell the user
| what was going on, encouraging entirely new purchases rather
| than simple battery replacements.
|
| Apple seems to only take exploitative opportunities when it
| provides the cover of plausible deniability because then it's
| difficult to argue. CPU slow-down? We just wanted to make sure
| people's phones still worked with bad batteries, please ignore
| the fact that we didn't tell the user the battery was bad.
| Repairing yourself both twice as expensive and extremely
| inconvenient? We're just trying to do right by the user's right
| to repair and provide the tools that we ourselves use, please
| ignore the fact that we're still charging the exact same price
| for the battery alone, the cost of the tools only makes sense
| on our scale by reducing the number of times our Geniuses break
| phones during repair, and request 100% collateral for our tools
| before renting. Please don't look at rental car services, it's
| not the same. Our tools are important and advanced...that's why
| we need them back in 7 days, no extension.
| 777Blooms wrote:
| Is there any good solution to this? An easily repairable phone
| that is also waterproof?
| Terretta wrote:
| ITT, "technologists" who don't understand "normals".
|
| The most important line in the article:
|
| > _I'd never successfully repaired a phone -- and my wife has
| never let me live down the one time I broke her Samsung Galaxy
| while using a hair dryer to replace the screen._
|
| Every crack and snide remark about Apple's motivations, both in
| the article and in this thread, pretend that remark doesn't
| describe _almost everyone_. It's certainly the most plausible
| explanation and motivation for every aspect the author ascribes
| as bad intent by someone trying to help him do a good job when he
| _doesn't want to do a good job_.
|
| It's not just phone batteries, it's spark plugs, compressors ...
| nobody knows how to repair anything ... and they generally don't
| want to. They (a) don't want to think about it when it works, and
| then (b) don't want to have to do anything when it doesn't.
|
| Apple's process was built for normals. Their designs make the
| devices inconceivably reliable relative to the past, and then
| they take responsibility to deal with those choices at the repair
| step. Regardless what normals say if you poll them, that's what
| normals actually want.
| [deleted]
| mgdlbp wrote:
| I wonder why the battery arrived flat--aren't Li-ions charged to
| ~50% at the factory for maximum shelf life (or rather 30%, the
| max allowed for shipping)?
|
| I don't think the battery in question had time to self-discharge:
| it's a model A2660 introduced with the iPhone 13 in 2021, and the
| Li-ion self-discharge rate is only several percent per month at
| full charge, with discharge plateauing at lower voltages.
| [deleted]
| cmbuck wrote:
| I suspect the battery arrived in "cut-off" mode. This is a mode
| which reduces battery drain specifically during the period
| between manufacture and customer use. In this mode the battery
| pack control circuit (inside the battery pack) keeps the
| battery terminals disconnected (no voltage on the output) until
| it receives a signal from a control unit (or microcontroller)
| in the device. Once the charging cable is connected to the
| phone it powers on control unit which essentially turns the
| battery on, and it's normal operation from there.
|
| Using battery cutoff mode reduces the discharge rate especially
| during shipping/logistics periods, where the battery may be in
| transit for mouths or sitting on a shelf for a long time.
|
| If the battery Apple shipped was the same OEM part, they
| probably just ship all of them from the battery factory in cut
| off mode--no special process for the batteries allocated for
| these repair kits.
| VLM wrote:
| The bigger the company the more the friction in simple business
| operations.
|
| Its the nature of the beast, not a specific problem in this
| situation.
|
| Many a time I've ordered, perhaps, one socket, from digikey
| overnight to repair something, and it arrives in a giant box with
| multiple layers of anti-static packaging and styro peanuts, all a
| huge ecological waste but someone at corporate got 100% on his
| "anti-static key performance goal" and nobody from shipping got
| in trouble for delivering bent pins.
|
| On the other hand you order from an individual in China using
| Ali-Express and he chucks a microwave synthesizer board in an
| envelope, no packing material, no anti-static, just a tyvek bag
| and a prayer, and five weeks later it arrives looking like the
| dragged it behind the boat the whole way, but amazingly it works
| fine.
|
| Usually small businesses selling on Amazon are a happy medium of
| doing stuff reasonably and reliably.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Does Apple _require_ you to rent all of these specialty tools to
| replace the battery? Or is this author just getting all of the
| specialty tools to make a point?
|
| Obviously, people have been replacing iPhone batteries without 79
| pounds of special tools for a long time. The fact that Apple
| provides the option to buy their special tools is great, but this
| author is digging deep for a reason to spin that as a _bad thing_
| which is kind of silly.
|
| At this point I don't even understand what people who are
| complains about this actually want (other than to complain about
| Apple?). Do they want Apple to completely redesign every phone to
| use old school screws and gaskets and other features that double
| the size of the phone just in case somebody wants to repair it
| without having to improvise tooling? Or do they want Apple to
| just not offer the custom tools at all and instead sell the
| battery with a "Good luck, you're on your own" mentality?
| soneil wrote:
| Apple's position seems to be that most people don't need the
| tools at all - 80% of the US lives within 20 minutes of an
| AASP, and frankly rural people know fine well they need to
| drive further to reach services like this (it used to take us
| more than 20 minutes to get to a post office).
|
| The big wins are that the parts are available to customers and
| the tooling is available to third-party service providers.
| Being able to rent the tooling yourself is meant to cover the
| edge-cases.
| blagie wrote:
| You misread the article. Apple is renting out the tools for $49
| and a $1200 deposit. Apple is doing this at a loss; the tools
| cost more than $49 to ship, let alone rent, and probably way
| more than $1200 to buy.
|
| That's weird.
|
| Apple is also charging $69 for a $5 battery -- their normal
| repair fee. That's unfair.
|
| Apple set up a bizarre, convoluted process, on which both Apple
| and the customer lose money.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The author negligently failed to mention the ~$25 refund you
| get when returning the old battery for recycling. The pricing
| is structured to incentivize part returns but the author was
| focused on what appears to be a hit piece and did not mention
| that.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Although they are not $69, these are also not $5 batteries.
| $15-$20 buys you (for a reasonably modern iPhone) an
| AliExpress battery that has a one day warranty against
| exploding and is probably made from materials mined by
| enslaved children. Apple works hard (though they do not
| always succeed) to source their materials responsibly and has
| a large interest in making sure the parts are of reasonable
| quality. If they start exploding Apple will do a recall,
| while a random AliExpress seller will just disappear.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| No, my point was that you don't need the official repair kit
| _at all_ if you're willing to improvise like we've been doing
| forever. The author of this article is being dramatic to try
| to make a point.
|
| > Apple is also charging $69 for a $5 battery -- their normal
| repair fee. That's unfair.
|
| Honestly I don't see any problems with any of this. A $70
| replacement battery option for my $1200 iPhone that I'm
| owning for 3-4 years seems entirely reasonable. Renting the
| professional level gear as an option if I want it. For $49 is
| an unbelievable gesture of goodwill. Are you really demanding
| that Apple sell batteries for $5?
|
| At this point, I'm not convinced the HN crowd would be happy
| with any solution any company could offer, aside from making
| phones twice as big and using screws and offering $5
| batteries for these $1200 phones just in case someone needs
| to replace the battery after 3 years.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Do you have any source on that battery price? I could see a
| dodgy battery from AliExpress that's likely a reject from
| official production lines or a knockoff maybe being that
| cheap, but high quality OEM surely costs more.
|
| That was how it generally worked with laptop batteries,
| anyway -- the dirt cheap ones were massive gambles that in
| the worst case could cause stability issues with the laptop
| and usually had capacities and cycle counts way under what
| was advertised. You generally had to go up to prices about
| halfway between the dirt cheap stuff and OEM to have a chance
| at getting a decent product, but even then nothing was as
| reliably solid as OEM.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The normal repair fee of $69 covers the $5 battery and the
| install fees. So the remaining $64 dollars does not seem
| exorbantly high on paying someone their wage of manually
| removing/installing all of those screws and doing so without
| damaging everything plus some fees for overhead of operating
| the business. Sure, with a different design for user
| replaceable batteries all of that would be moot, but with the
| current design and the PITA process of doing the replacement
| it's not prohibitively expensive for a once in every 3-4
| years type of fee. Hell, most people replace the phone itself
| before needing a battery replacement.
| asveikau wrote:
| But in this case the user is charged $69 to repair it
| themselves.
| dylan604 wrote:
| So if that's the case, then it looks like the labor for
| the replacement is free when having Apple do it.
|
| Everyone keeps talking about it being a $5 battery, but
| where can you get the battery for $5? If it costs Apple
| $5, then you're dreaming if you think Apple is going to
| ever sell for that. Nobody sells at cost and stays in
| business.
|
| Also, you're forgetting about it being a $69 kit. It's
| the $5 battery and $64 dollars of kit.
| blagie wrote:
| For the record, $5 is about the top for what I pay for
| similar batteries on Fleabay. Here's a bunch for $3.50
| for my phone, in quantities of 3:
| https://www.ebay.com/itm/202981911712
|
| OEM will cost a little bit more to manufacture -- some of
| the Fleabay ones are a little bit sketchy -- but not a
| lot more.
|
| Tear-down sites give similar costs:
| https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-
| images/chuckjones/files/201...
|
| That's my experience from industry as well (not Apple),
| but that's NDAed.
|
| I think $5 is a fair estimate. I would be shocked if
| Apple paid more than $10 for the battery. Not surprised,
| but shocked. That points to a fair retail price in the
| $10-$30 range, depending on markup, distribution costs,
| etc.
| asveikau wrote:
| I didn't come up with the $5 claim and i agree it's low.
| I was just pointing out that the argument was mis-
| summarized. I am myself not certain to what extent I
| agree with the argument personally.
| Someone wrote:
| Looking at https://selfservicerepair.com/home, it doesn't look
| as if it requires it, but I couldn't fully check, as you have
| to enter a valid IMEI fairly early in the sales process, and I
| don't have qualifying hardware.
|
| Also, their manuals assume you have the necessary hardware
| (makes sense to me, but means Apple won't help you do repairs
| without that hardware)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > The single most frustrating part of this process, after using
| Apple's genuine parts and Apple's genuine tools, was that my
| iPhone didn't recognize the genuine battery as genuine. "Unknown
| Part," flashed a warning. Apparently, that's the case for almost
| all of these parts: you're expected to dial up Apple's third-
| party logistics company after the repair so they can validate the
| part for you. That's a process that involves having an entirely
| separate computer and a Wi-Fi connection since you have to reboot
| your iPhone into diagnostics mode and give the company remote
| control. Which, of course, defeats a bunch of the reasons you'd
| repair your own device at home!
|
| Yikes
| samatman wrote:
| "Apple shipped me the repair kit they use to replace batteries,
| so I can replace the battery in my iPhone".
|
| Better?
| kappuchino wrote:
| I suggest some people group together to simultaneously order the
| repairkit / battery replacement to figure out how many of these
| self repair sets exist. I would not be suprised if it was only 10
| to 20ish.
|
| On another note, legislation with the intent to advance the right
| to repair needs to be carfully worded like when the devil grants
| you a wish: You want your phone battery to be user replacable?
| Yes, wish granted. Oh and also not accessable without a 1200$
| deposit and authorization. Enjoy your hell.
| quitit wrote:
| I think there would be more controversy if Apple skimped here
| and only provided an iFixIt style repair kit instead of the
| legitimate tools that the authorised repairers use.
|
| I guess there will always be people to argue both sides of this
| point. However it seems clear that the shipping would mean
| Apple is losing money on the transaction.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| Not all issues have to be "both-sides"-ed.
|
| You really think it'd be more controversial if Apple were to
| ship a standard, iFixIt style replacement toolset like
| everybody else does rather than two suitcase-sized boxes
| weighing a combined 80 pounds with a 1200$ deposit and
| further require a call to their support line to validate the
| parts in order to change a battery?
| ghaff wrote:
| While this is arguably extreme, I do think you'd find
| people complaining if they broke their screen with the
| standard iFixit suction cup and other tools when trying to
| replace a battery. (Which I managed to do on an old iPhone
| I didn't much care about.) iFixit does a nice job but a lot
| of electronics repairs without training and the right
| equipment are not something just anyone can easily do.
| wrycoder wrote:
| What I want is for Apple to allow iFixit to buy OEM
| batteries, and the battery should come with access to the
| validation service.
|
| That way, Apple has no liability for the actual repair.
|
| But, as others suggest, I think there is actually a dark
| pattern at work here.
| ghaff wrote:
| There's nothing particularly special about OEM batteries.
| I don't generally buy them when I need replacements.
| wrycoder wrote:
| I've replaced several iPhone batteries. Even when
| purchased from iFixit, they don't last nearly as long as
| OEM.
|
| About half as long, I'd estimate.
| quitit wrote:
| It's confirmed as the the same toolkit used by Apple and
| 3rd party authorised repair. The controversy exists
| because people want it to - iFixIt exists and offers a
| different approach. Sounds dumb to me that Apple should
| offer something different from their official procedures
| to please those that are in over their head.
| quitit wrote:
| Yes I absolutely believe that - and I believe you'd be the
| exact person to pipe up about it.
|
| The problem with your type is the word "Apple". From there
| it's double standards all the way.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Controversy was unavoidable when they shipped devices that
| can't be repaired without these giant kits. This is probably
| the lesser controversy, though.
|
| Reserving the full price of the equipment on the credit card
| places these repair out of the hands of the people that need
| affordable repairs the most. I'm also honestly sure that
| Apple can design better tooling for consumer repair than
| this, they've solved more difficult problems.
| Aeolun wrote:
| If the repair cost in-store is the same as the cost of a
| shipped replacement battery then there was no point to this
| entire thing in the first place.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| This tragi-comedy comes from the same circle of hell as the
| long failure of the Public Service (student) Loan Forgiveness
| program. Exposure of its failures led, finally, to some relief.
|
| Michael Lewis podcast transcript -
| https://podscribe.app/feeds/https-feedsmegaphonefm-against-t...
|
| NPR article -
| https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1041872045/education-dept-pla...
| [deleted]
| lpcvoid wrote:
| This is absolutely awesome. I don't see why the author is so
| upset here. They are giving you all the tools you need to do a
| quality job. I normally don't like Apple, but this is amazing.
| wfhordie wrote:
| Apple can't win here. If they had sent the sleek, easy to carry
| tools this author asked for, the author would complain about the
| pathetic tools they are providing.
|
| Really disappointed in The Verge on this article. Could have been
| a cool piece about the specific tech that Apple provides, but
| instead it's framed so disingenuously that I come away not
| feeling particularly good about right to repair in general. It no
| longer sounds to me like people trying to get access to their own
| devices. It sounds like people taking potshots at BigCo because
| big co bad.
|
| By the way. The tools this guy used are common, dead-common in
| China. Go to any repair mall in Shenzhen and you'll see hundreds
| of these.
|
| Does he actually want to repair his phone? It doesn't seem like
| it.
| ornornor wrote:
| You have to admit that requiring 79 lbs of equipment, a 1200$
| deposit, and so much effort just to swap a friggin' battery is
| a tad overkill and exactly what is wrong with the current state
| of self repairs. Never mind the DRM on the battery so that the
| phone won't recognize even a genuine battery as genuine without
| involving the 3PL to marry the parts together...
|
| It shouldn't be so complicated. If it makes the phone one mm
| thicker but you can swap the battery easily without requiring
| all this equipment, why aren't we there yet?
|
| I can (with a bit of a stretch) understand why they would not
| accept just any OEM part, but making extra difficult to even
| use an Apple bruine battery with the rest of the Apple
| hardware, that's also very unnecessarily self repair hostile.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > You have to admit that requiring 79 lbs of equipment, a
| 1200$ deposit, and so much effort just to swap a friggin'
| battery is a tad overkill
|
| You know people were swapping batteries long before this was
| available, right? And that you don't have to rent the
| official factory tools?
|
| Apple did a great thing by providing this option _at a loss_
| to themselves. The fact that people are rushing to criticize
| the move suggests more that people like to find reasons to
| complain about everything.
|
| It's surreal to read HN threads where people are floating
| ideas about making laws to prevent companies from designing
| better hardware products just because they want to replace
| batteries with a screwdriver. I guarantee if you put a
| screwdriver-repairable phone and a modern iPhone in front of
| average consumers, 99% or more would choose the modern iPhone
| without a second question. The obsession with easy battery
| replacement seems limited to a very narrow set of people
| while the rest of the population has moved on to appreciate
| the benefits of modern sealed phones such as impressive
| resistance to water damage.
| ornornor wrote:
| Not having easily replaceable batteries (and pardon me but
| I don't consider requiring 79 lbs of equipment and a 1200$
| deposit "easy") in modern phones is akin to selling cars
| with the tires welded on.
|
| It is ridiculous, consumer hostile, and wasteful.
|
| Batteries are consumable, they should not be a reason to
| throw the phone away once they stopped working.
|
| You don't throw your house away when the garbage bag is
| full or when the tap starts leaking. These are things
| you're expected to replace and it can easily be done with
| simple tools.
|
| Phones shouldn't be any different when it comes to their
| parts, especially _consumable_ ones.
| mmcnl wrote:
| This analogy only supports Apple's method? Car shops have
| a lift for easy access to the car and machines for
| balancing your tires. Very expensive equipment that
| almost no one has, which also goes for the tools for
| replacing an iPhone battery.
|
| Also Apple is not "consumer hostile", come on. That's a
| ridiculous accusation.
| deschutes wrote:
| Anyone can mount a wheel. Clearly the author is talking
| about a hypothetical vehicle where the wheel has been
| welded to the axle assembly.
|
| Actually replacing the tire on a wheel has practical
| engineering constraints that leave it best suited for
| shops. Even changing bicycle tires is non trivial and the
| performance and durability demands there are negligible
| in comparison.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| If my house was 90% garbage bag, I'm not sure. Houses get
| razed and rebuilt all the time, especially in Japan. They
| are not as modular as we'd like them to be, as I'm
| finding out in planning a kitchen renovation.
| cesaref wrote:
| Around by us in a city in the UK i'm unaware of any house
| that has been knocked down and rebuilt except for
| situations where a large house is knocked down and
| replaced by flats. For someone to knock down their own
| house to re-use the plot for a new (single occupancy)
| house is just not how we do things here.
|
| But saying that, we do tend to build houses with
| materials like bricks which are designed to last hundreds
| of years, and this is not necessarily how it's done
| elsewhere. We tend to renovate rather that demolish and
| rebuild. Our home for example is 110 years old, and is in
| a street of similar age houses. There are some missing
| ones down a neighbouring street, but I believe these were
| destroyed by bombing in WW2.
| jmull wrote:
| There is an easy option: have Apple or a repair shop
| replace the battery.
|
| All your complaints are addressed in the light of that
| simple and well-known fact.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Whoa whoa hold on. You can pay Apple to replace your
| battery. That's been true for years. I've done it with
| multiple phones. We just had Apple replace the battery in
| my wife's iPhone SE (the original version) and it's
| working great.
|
| The metaphorical tires are not welded on; you can keep an
| old phone going with a new battery.
|
| But just like tires, if you _insist on doing the work
| yourself_ , you're going to need some special equipment.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| You absolutely do not need any special equipment to
| change a wheel. In fact, the only equipment you need
| _comes with the car_ , a jack and a wrench, _and_ a spare
| wheel (or at least they used to). Sure, you need to buy
| the tires, but you also need to buy the battery.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Which one inflates the new tires, the jack or the wrench?
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| The tire shop who mounted the tires on the wheels, or a
| simple bike pump.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| But I thought changing the wheels was a simple process
| you could do at home with the tools provided with the
| car?
|
| A bike pump and a tire shop aren't provided with the car.
| Hell, most don't come with jacks or a wrench either. Some
| won't even include a spare tire/wheel nowadays.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Repairs can be pretty easy when you pay someone else in a
| shop to do the hard part for you.
|
| In my case, replacing my iPhone battery required no tools
| at all after I paid the Apple shop to mount the new
| battery in the phone.
| Sirened wrote:
| money can be exchanged for goods and services?? you tell
| me this now??
| shuckles wrote:
| The tool to mount a tire onto a wheel costs between $50
| and $2500 dollars and is very large. The alternative - a
| spare wheel - is a kludge! Cars carry around an entire
| tire and wheel all the time in a special compartment
| because you can't expect people to mount tires
| themselves. Or modern cars spec run flat tires which come
| with a host of their own tradeoffs.
| MereInterest wrote:
| > But just like tires, if you insist on doing the work
| yourself, you're going to need some special equipment.
|
| That is not a constant of the universe, and is entirely
| dependent on the design. A long time ago, I had a Palm
| Treo 650. The removable back cover didn't require any
| tools to remove, after which the battery could be popped
| out. I could carry spare batteries with me and swap them
| out as needed.
|
| Does this change the design constraints? Yes. But
| pretending that it's outright impossible ignores the
| decisions that were made during design.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I did not claim it's a constant of the universe or
| outright impossible. This thread is about working on
| iPhones.
| jeffbee wrote:
| And if you dropped a Treo the battery cover stood a 100%
| chance of popping off and the battery would land 100
| meters away in a bush or down a sewer grate. Terrible
| misfeature.
| bombela wrote:
| but the screen wasn't cracked though...
| shkkmo wrote:
| > The metaphorical tires are not welded on; you can keep
| an old phone going with a new battery.
|
| The metaphorical tires are DRM'd on by a company that has
| been actively trying to prevent third party repair shops
| from being able to work on your car.
|
| The doubt of Apple's intentions here is not happening in
| a vacuum, but against their consistent and ongoing
| efforts to make self-repair unnecessarily difficult.
| Bud wrote:
| There is absolutely no evidence about Apple's
| "intentions" or "efforts" here, despite constant
| hectoring and bad-faith, zero-evidence arguments from
| people like you.
|
| "Unnecessarily" difficult? Whatever. What you really mean
| is that Apple has been optimizing for durability, water-
| resistance, and smaller size, and people like you don't
| like those choices, so you are having a tantrum. Those
| choices, of necessity, mean that repairs are going to be
| a bit of a pain.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| When we're talking about "right to repair," we need to
| distinguish between:
|
| a) the use of DRM to prevent repairs
|
| b) the physical challenge of working on complex things
|
| c) planned obsolescence via consumables
|
| The big problem with Apple and many companies is a), and
| I support efforts to make that illegal.
|
| Problem b) is unavoidable for complex things. And there
| are design trade-offs that deliver benefits for costs,
| for example thin waterproof smartphones have hard-to-
| replace batteries. I'm not a fan of trying to use the law
| to force one set of design decisions on everyone.
|
| Problem c) is an issue for some Apple products like
| EarPods. But not for iPhones, as I point out above.
| shuckles wrote:
| It honestly seems perfectly reasonable to authenticate a
| battery which is among the most dangerous component of a
| device I regularly hold in my hand and up to my head. A
| fully charged iPhone battery probably has enough energy
| to blow body parts off.
| deschutes wrote:
| Personally I've needed lots of batteries replaced and
| lost 1 phone to water damage. It's not at all clear to me
| that hermetic phone designs are the right tradeoff from a
| utilitarian perspective. On the other hand, if
| utilitarian phones sold better somebody would be making
| them.
|
| Tires have obvious engineering constraints that
| presumably led to the current approach. Maybe a bit of
| path dependence as well. It's completely incomparable.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| What people want is a low cost third party shop to replace
| batteries
| sokoloff wrote:
| People have had that for years (including a sub-$100
| device to copy the TrueTone ID for the screen and battery
| info for the battery).
|
| Every small mall I can think of had a kiosk that would do
| it in an hour while you shopped. (Eastern MA, US.)
|
| I'm just a consumer and have replaced 3 iPhone batteries
| myself and am doing a 4th later today.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| Completely made up and false conundrum.
|
| You can design devices that are easy to repair and still
| waterproof and sleek.
|
| This is a made up target-conflict that is easily resolved
| by any trained industrial designer and engineer.
| Bud wrote:
| Lol. Yeah, right. "Any" trained industrial designer?
|
| Why has fucking nobody ever built this fantasy product,
| then? Because NOBODY has. We've had to listen to 15 years
| of this whining and NOBODY to date seems to be able to do
| this supposedly-trivially-easy thing you are talking
| about.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| Because they don't want to.
|
| Also e.g. the Pixel 6 has an element in the display
| assembly that makes the repair easier + a glue that melts
| well.
|
| Older iPhones were also easier to open, but their glue
| gets seems to get more aggressive each year.
|
| The whole access via glued display construction can be
| fairly easy to work with when the display assembly is
| done right and they use a glue that melts well.
|
| And sure, the even easier access design around screws is
| harder to do, but also possible. See the iPhone 6, which
| used screws and a much weaker glue.
| asoneth wrote:
| This assumption (that there are minimal tradeoffs when
| optimizing for repairability) has not been my experience
| in industrial design. Every single product has tradeoffs
| between size, weight, cost, ruggedness, ease of repair,
| etc.
|
| I believe Apple didn't set out to make it difficult to
| repair, it was just a side effect of not caring one way
| or the other and optimizing for the other aspects.
|
| Personally I buy products that are more repairable even
| when they're slightly less waterproof or sleek than what
| Apple offers. But I recognize that the vast majority of
| consumers do not share my preferences and Apple's
| products seem to do a fine job of catering to that market
| segment.
|
| (That's not to say that there aren't valid reasons we
| might want to force companies to make products repairable
| just like we already force them to make products safe,
| just that if we do there will be design tradeoffs
| involved.)
| shkkmo wrote:
| > I believe Apple didn't set out to make it difficult to
| repair, it was just a side effect of not caring one way
| or the other and optimizing for the other aspects.
|
| Apple's efforts with DRM and using IP law to restrict
| parts supply seem to clearly indicaye a desire and intent
| to limit the ability to self-repair. While there are
| legitimate trade-offs to make, it seems obvious to that
| Apple has made choices that unnecessarily reduced
| repairability.
| thetinguy wrote:
| Why should Apple allow people to use their trademarks in
| order to fool people into paying more for "genuine"
| components. Do you think Louis Rossman was going to tell
| his customers that, "I know this replacement battery has
| an Apple logo but I didn't buy it from Apple."
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| So if the market already produces that kind of phone (and
| I assume has good aspects in variables you didn't mention
| like reliability, battery life, performance, production
| costs, etc...) why do we need to force Apple to produce
| the same? Can't consumers just buy the phone on the
| market that already suits their wants?
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| > _Can't consumers just buy the phone on the market that
| already suits their wants?_
|
| It sounds straightforward but actually isn't. In a
| perfect world with unlimited resources and no dangers of
| pollution etc it would undoubtedly be a clear yes, but in
| reality the consequences of all sides have to be
| evaluated to decide this.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I'm actually suspicious that the phone doesn't really
| exist, that some compromise was made by Apple or the
| other vendor to achieve their design goals. Saving people
| from themselves is reasonable given socialized
| environmental costs, but given that the battery makes up
| much of the phone these days (and Apple thankfully
| requires them to be returned for proper recycling), what
| we are trying to save are the higher value but less
| environmentally expensive components (eg screen,
| semiconductors).
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| We don't need to force them. Where did I say I want to
| force them?
|
| I pointed out that the conundrum of repairability vs.
| quality is made up, or at least dramatically overstated.
|
| There is currently only one company that I know of that
| focused on repairability in their phones (Fairphone) and
| they have a hard time competing on other factors due to
| the fact that they are tiny.
|
| Now your are going to say that them being tiny means
| nobody wants repairability. Then I'm going to say that
| people do, but it's just one aspect and that the phone is
| lacking in others. Then you are going say that this means
| you can't build good repairable phones. To which I will
| say that you can but nobody but one small company is
| trying. At which point we will be stick in an endless
| loop.
|
| Truth is, if Apple really wanted the could design their
| phones in such a way that you could open the back with a
| couple of screws go replace the battery, but they have no
| motivation to do so and instead prioritize other aspects.
| 99% of the industry does the same.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Screw choices are really important when it comes to
| reliability and production costs. Yes, they could make a
| couple of screws that the user could remove, but those
| screws also tend to come loose on their own...
|
| I don't really buy that apple's engineers are
| incompetent, rather they are making a bunch of design
| decisions and trade offs that make their phones more
| appealing for consumers to want to buy. Yes, they could
| make other trade offs.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| I never said they are incompetent.
|
| These trade offs are far sampler than what they want
| people to believe. Apple has the budget and the talent to
| do it. They don't because they don't want to. //edit:
| also screws are not the only option, see Pixel 6 which
| doesn't have screws but still makes it easier to open up
| the phone.
|
| That's fine and that's their right, but we should call it
| what it is, and not act like a screw is something
| impossible to design.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I was referring to
|
| > This is a made up target-conflict that is easily
| resolved by any trained industrial designer and engineer.
|
| It seems like your first comment was claiming that Apple
| could easily solve these issues without trade off.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| Yes, I think they could. They have the best engineers in
| the world and incredible amounts of money. The regularly
| invent new manufacturing techniques to enable their new
| designs. They often invest heavily in their suppliers to
| enable them to make the parts they need.
|
| If Apple wanted to they could make an iPhone that people
| love and has all the features they want and be much
| easier to repair then the current version.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Apple tried to make the MacBook Pro just a few
| millimeters thinner and gave us the disastrous, almost-
| universally-loathed butterfly keyboard. I feel like your
| view that Apple engineers have massive design margins
| they are choosing not to exploit is just not real.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| Maybe your view that a massive design margins are needed
| is not real.
|
| Literally the choice of glue can make a huge difference
| for ease of repair with no impact on the design.
| yellow_postit wrote:
| This is a general argument against all most forms of
| environmental or safety regulations.
|
| If you believe calls to conscience and market forces
| alone are insufficient for issues like eWaste then
| regulation like right to repair is a tool to consider as
| a society.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| That wasn't the point of parent comment. It was that you
| could have this all without making trade offs.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _You can design devices that are easy to repair and
| still waterproof and sleek._
|
| [citation needed]
| jjulius wrote:
| >You know people were swapping batteries long before this
| was available, right?
|
| Ah, yes. That's the way it's always been done, let's not
| rock the boat, shall we?
|
| >And that you don't have to rent the official factory
| tools?
|
| Wouldn't it be nice if the official mfg'er was a bit more
| helpful for some subsets of it's customers, though?
|
| >Apple did a great thing by providing this option _at a
| loss_ to themselves.
|
| Praise Apple, how generous of them! Their profits have
| really been struggling and they didn't have to take this
| loss, but they did. Stellar folk.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| People can just buy a Fairphone if they want one with a
| detachable battery. It is however bulkier, heavier and not
| waterproof.
| dTal wrote:
| Swappable with the aid of a screwdriver != detachable
| mmastrac wrote:
| My fairphone battery is removable with no screwdrivers
| whatsoever.
| dTal wrote:
| Of course, I was obviously unclear. My point was it is
| also possible to design a phone which is waterproof, thin
| etc and also has a battery which is replaceable with a
| screwdriver. There is a wide margin between "field
| swappable battery" (which I do actually like, but accept
| it comes with some compromise) and glued shut like
| iPhones are. My (unpopular) comment was merely an attempt
| to point out the false dichotomy; you _don 't need_ to
| buy a FairPhone just to avoid this practice - my Unihertz
| Titan, an obscure Chinese phone with IP67 waterproofing,
| has four magnificently large philips-head screws up the
| edges.
| thg wrote:
| I guess it's only bulkier because it's made up of several
| user-replaceable components.
|
| The Fairphone 2 is a lot smaller and lighter than the
| FP3, though. My boss has a FP2 and my FP3 is really quite
| a monster compared to his.
|
| Regarding buying one: Only us Europeans can actually do
| that since it's not available anywhere else.
| speeder wrote:
| No they can't just buy a fair phone. I want one and they
| are not allowed in my country.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Right. It's the same here with hacker news people toting
| how proud they are of their website that only uses 2KB of
| JavaScript.
|
| A lot of us ignore these people and happy produce websites
| that use jQuery and have 10MB of JavaScript and have
| iPhones that are hard to self repair, and live very happy
| and fulfilling lives.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Some things are still smarter than others.
|
| Before the appearance of the iPhone, regular cellphones
| had always been consumer-friendly enough so that no maker
| would ever consider not having an instantly user-
| replacable battery.
|
| Any further migration toward the anti-reuse/anti-
| recycling approach so strongly embraced in digital tech
| by companies like Microsoft would have been immediately
| rejected.
|
| A battery without user access would be recognized as
| disposable electronics by design.
|
| People knew that something like that would be a stupid
| phone, certainly not a smart one.
|
| What made a smart phone smart at the time was its PC-
| compatibiliy, with regular removable user storage like
| memory sticks which you can pull out of the phone and
| plug into your PC to read & write directly. So there was
| functionally no limit to the internal storage to begin
| with. And advanced free PC software to owners so they
| could interface to the phone through its often-unique USB
| cable or alternatively by Bluetooth, or even earlier IR.
|
| The phone couldn't actually be used as a hotspot itself,
| but it would get one PC on the internet and the PC could
| do the rest.
|
| And that was everywhere you could get a simple cell
| signal, before data plans existed and for years while
| less-smart phones dependent on data plans were still
| waiting for the data roll-out nationwide to reach their
| neck of the woods.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| > Apple did a great thing by providing this option at a
| loss to themselves.
|
| Apple is no saint. Right to repair became popular and it's
| getting law.
|
| If it's at a loss, it's a consequence because they made
| repair hard.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Yup.
|
| In this case, let the law prevent a certain outcome.
|
| Let the market figure out how to cope.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > It shouldn't be so complicated.
|
| It's not - it's Apple's way of scaring people away from
| repair.
|
| These tools most likely make it more convenient if you have
| to open hundreds of phones per day, but for a one-off repair
| you can get away with a hair dryer and cheap iFixit tools
| just fine.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Just as the Porsche/Mercedes/BMW service manual is not shy
| about defining a service procedure that uses the best
| available tools, I'd expect the Apple service process to
| spot themselves the best available tools as well.
|
| Shade tree mechanics find a workaround in both cases. If
| you make a mistake with the shade tree tools, it's on you,
| not the manufacturer, which feels fair enough to me.
| lr1970 wrote:
| > It shouldn't be so complicated. If it makes the phone one
| mm thicker but you can swap the battery easily without
| requiring all this equipment, why aren't we there yet?
|
| Because a non-replaceable battery is a great marketing tool.
| Dying battery (every three years or sooner) is a powerful
| force making a customer consider their options including
| buying a new phone. This alone makes companies design their
| products deliberately introducing friction to the repair
| process (even if it their own repair process). Marketing
| allure is just too tempting to pass by.
| ornornor wrote:
| > Because a non-replaceable battery is a great marketing
| tool.
|
| This is exactly why we need laws to prevent this kind of
| behavior. It's against the greedy nature of companies and
| their desire to externalize social costs, the only way to
| stop this is by making it illegal.
| epistasis wrote:
| This is a rather narrow view.
|
| Nobody markets the difficulty of repair, they market
| waterproof phones, that survive being dropped in the sink
| or toilet or pool, or whatever.
|
| When it comes time to buy a new battery, and the option is
| a $70 replacement service or 10x that for a new phone, will
| a $45 manual repair with a screwdriver really drive more
| people to replace the battery instead of buy a new phone?
|
| The idea that these processes are all driven to make people
| buy new phones instead of replacing batteries doesn't make
| much sense to me. The numbers don't really show that.
|
| And when we consider the value of being able to drop a
| phone in water and not have to replace it, that's pretty
| damn high and probably saves a ton of phones early compared
| to the people that were willing to do a $45 battery
| replacement but not a $70 replacement and instead opt for a
| new phone entirely.
| mmcnl wrote:
| It's not complicated.
|
| - Go to an Apple Store and have them replace it for you. - Go
| to a third party repair store at your own risk - Do it
| yourself in the official Apple recommended way
|
| I'm not sure what people want. It used to be easier until the
| iPhone 6S, starting from the iPhone 7 in 2017 Apple started
| gluing the screens to make them waterproof. That's the
| complicating part. I'm pretty sure 99% of the customers would
| rather have the phone to be waterproof then easier to repair.
|
| Apple can't win here it seems.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I view this differently. This article is documenting a process
| people are surely curious about. But the costly deposit and
| multiple heavy pelican cases of supplies show just how deep the
| hole Apple has dug for themselves really is. Apple is so anti-
| repair they have no provisions for a reasonable at home
| process. You must realize that a $1200 deposit alone means this
| process is out of reach of many people.
|
| Meanwhile I recently pulled all my old smartphones from a
| storage bin and the rear cover pops right off, revealing a
| battery which comes out with no effort. There's even an
| affordance for your finger nail to catch the edge of the
| rectangular cell. Obviously newer phones are waterproof and
| arguably more durable, but Apple has gone so far towards a
| factory sealed design as to require absurd equipment to do a
| proper job.
|
| What this all makes me wonder is: what would this all be like
| if Apple had never dismissed user replaceable batteries? If
| they had just as many years of engineering behind a removable
| back cover as they do with high resolution screens and custom
| processors? How many billions have they spent on this and that
| improvement, and what would the phone look like today if some
| of that had gone to making a phone not destined for the
| landfill?
|
| To me, the size and cost of their DIY repair kit is a monument
| to how far from repair Apple has strayed. Fortunately I suspect
| that if they stick with user serviceable batteries, the process
| will be a whole lot simpler once they've really put some
| engineering effort in to it.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| > Apple is so anti-repair they have no provisions for a
| reasonable at home process.
|
| Just because they don't prioritize their designs for at home
| repair, doesn't mean they're anti-repair. Clearly they're not
| anti-repair if they're voluntarily making their tooling
| available for repairs.
|
| I can't really blame them for prioritizing design over
| repairability. At least for now, repairability doesn't sell a
| lot of phones -- the number of people who want to repair
| their own phone is so small, and I say that as someone who
| has repaired a couple iPhones in the past.
| bostonsre wrote:
| I guess I could go either way on this. It seems possible
| apple is being genuine and they just optimized for a sleek
| design and repairability wasn't a concern because they didn't
| need to support at home repairs before. This could just be
| the first iteration of supporting repairability and maybe
| they will make design decisions to make it easier in the
| future. Or.. They could be dragging their feet and they are
| trying to make it as laborious and tedious as possible to
| avoid needing to put too much effort into supporting at home
| repairs. I guess they could also just be trying to open up a
| new market and sell fancy iPhone repair products.
| js2 wrote:
| It's a trade-off. I am someone who repairs my own stuff. I've
| repaired my fridge, my dishwasher, my oven, my microwave, my
| garage door openers, my 1998 Jeep Cherokee, and on and on.
| 99% of people do NOT do this.
|
| I've replaced the batteries in multiple first generation
| iPhone SEs.
|
| I'll never replace a battery again in an iPhone, nor do I
| ever desire too. The phones have become too hard to open, but
| in return, Apple offers battery replacement for a reasonable
| charge and a modern iPhone is nearly water proof, more
| durable, more compact, and with better battery life than
| ever.
|
| For a portable device like a phone, I'm happy with the trade-
| off, and I think the market shows that most consumers are
| too. The trade-off for a laptop is less clear to me, but nor
| is replacing the battery in a Macbook as hard as replacing it
| in an iPhone.
|
| The things that really drive me crazy though are devices that
| don't need to be sealed that are. Homepods, Sonos speakers,
| previous generation Apple chargers with hardwired cords,
| those sorts of things.
|
| I just had to order an entire new Vitamix S-series blade base
| for $75 that I could repair myself if they'd sell me just the
| rubber seals and a couple bearings -- And I probably don't
| even need the bearings from them since they look like
| standard 8mmx22mmx7mm skate wheel bearings, but who knows,
| maybe theirs are food safe.
|
| https://www.vitamix.com/us/en_us/shop/s-series-blade-base
|
| ($75 is probably even a fair price. It's just the principle
| of the matter.)
|
| Anyway, I feel about this article as wfhordie does. It's not
| just descriptive of the process, which would be fine. It's
| filled with snark, and doesn't acknowledge the trade-offs in
| manufacturing a more easy to repair device. Engineering is
| always trafe-offs. Shame on The Verge.
| gernb wrote:
| I don't think it's all that hard to make a replaceable
| battery and have the phone be waterproof or small. My Go
| Pro has a replaceable battery and it's waterproof. Googling
| there are plenty of waterproof phones with replaceable
| battery.
| thedougd wrote:
| I'm out of touch with 99 percent of people do. Can they
| really afford to call the repairman for every minor
| appliance issue? Or do they just live with it until
| replacement?
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Sorry for my french but this is all a bit of bullshit. I
| have some old sport watch that I open with a cent coin, it
| is completely waterproof as it was 10 years ago (so seals
| work), its whole sealing part is tiny and doesn't interfere
| with design/size/weight/price. If one wanted to manufacture
| top of the class phone with removable battery, it would be
| entirely possible.
|
| But since we all know revenue is not anymore primarily
| function of units sold, but _services_ continuously sold on
| top of those devices. Taking huge commission on every app
| sold, proprietary /brand stuff like cables (even if they
| fray worse than 1$ ebay ones), cases, buds, anything.
|
| Apple used to be pioneer of this bad behavior, but now most
| manufacturers jumped on that wagon since apparently people
| kept buying their products anyway. I used to just pop back
| lid on my Samsung S2 to change sim card or add memory card,
| now with S22 that's a pipe dream.
|
| I wouldn't call it a trade-off. I would call it what it is
| - customers are not pissed off enough to affect sales in
| negative way. So let's do it and milk them more. One
| step/slot/port/3.5mm jack at a time.
| alibarber wrote:
| I get what you're saying but I think a 10 year old sport
| watch and a modern iPhone aren't really comparable.
|
| Unless you've turned off the "sent from my Casio" footer.
| least wrote:
| If you can open up your watch with a coin then obviously
| the design is affected by this being something you can
| do. Saying that it doesn't interfere with design, size,
| weight, or price is disingenuous. Of course it does. It
| might influence those things positively or negatively,
| but it absolutely is affected.
|
| If you have to put in a mechanism to easily remove a
| battery from a phone then how wouldn't that affect
| literally all of those factors? What sort of properties
| would this entail and what would be suitably easy to
| remove? That answer is different depending on the person.
| Some people perhaps just want the back to slide off,
| which would probably require a plastic back. You could
| add a hinged door, but that would certainly add to its
| thickness and affect the design. You'd also need to have
| a way to interface the battery to the phone. Phones that
| had easily replaceable batteries had contacts built into
| the phone and the battery that were sufficiently large as
| to make it nearly impossible for someone to fuck up the
| installation of a new one. This obviously added weight
| and thickness to the phone.
|
| I'd love to hear how you'd engineer it to be just like a
| phone without an easily removable battery without
| affecting the criteria you listed.
| austinkhale wrote:
| Playing devil's advocate for just a second, I really
| appreciate that my Homepod & Sonos are sealed. It allows
| for longer device longevity when placed in high humidity
| environments (bathrooms, tropical areas, etc.).
|
| Definitely a trade-off game with all hardware devices &
| Apple (and others) are not blameless when it comes to
| engineering things to be purposefully difficult. However, I
| think we often underestimate the sheer number of
| environmental constraints an international hardware
| retailer with near universal demographic appeal has to
| account for in designs.
|
| Agree on everything else. The article gets a thumbs down.
| depereo wrote:
| I had this Vitamix frustration with v-moda. I had a couple
| missing screws on a headset. They were totally unwilling to
| send a couple screws from the USA to New Zealand in an
| envelope (even at my own expense), instead insisting on the
| whole headset being shipped back to them, halfway across
| the world, at _their_ expense. There is such a horror of
| simple parts being made available for home repairs.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| How can you have a user accessible door to remove the battery
| while still being at least somewhat thin and water resistant?
|
| I'm sure there are ways but I would probably significantly
| increase the BOM costs. For example some kind of waterproof
| battery that connects to a waterproof jack.
|
| That will you the battery but cracked screens and stuff?
| Those pretty much have to be a pain in the ass to keep the
| cost, weight and watertight-ness up to spec.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > How can you have a user accessible door to remove the
| battery while still being at least somewhat thin and water
| resistant?
|
| Don't know what you mean by "somewhat thin", but as far as
| I'm concerned, maybe they could ask Samsung.
|
| My Galaxy S5 had a removable battery door, removable
| battery, and was water resistant (I'd use it as a GPS on a
| motorbike, even under heavy rain). It also had a headphone
| jack, which also didn't seem to be an issue for its water
| resistance.
|
| It was less than a mm thicker than my iPhone 7 and barely
| thicker than a 13 mini.
|
| Dimensions from Wikipedia:
|
| GS7 : 142.4 x 69.6 x 7.9 mm
|
| iphone 7 : 138.3 x 67.1 x 7.1 mm
|
| iphone 13 mini : 131.5 x 64.2 x 7.65 mm
|
| I prefer the iPhone 7 for the overall smaller size, but I
| think that's a different issue. I never found the GS7
| "thick", just "big", because it was too tall and wide and
| would sometimes be uncomfortable in my jeans pocket (and
| I'm a guy).
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Well, "somewhat thin" is subjective so that is no real
| barrier. Water resistant? I would think you make the phone
| in two halves, and it splits in the middle. This way both
| halves can be sturdy enough that a few screws and a
| silicone seal are enough to keep the water out. Maybe two
| halves is the wrong idea, but you can still make a stiff
| back shell that engages in a row of clips along the side
| that are tapered so as it catches it presses against a
| silicone seal. Then just a few screws to hold it in place.
|
| Anyway, Apple has solved a million engineering problems. I
| bet if they cared as much about user serviceable parts as
| they do about putting LIDAR in their face scanner, we'd see
| all kinds of clever solutions. Seriously the idea that
| Apple, one of the most capable engineering and
| manufacturing companies to ever have existed, could not
| elegantly solve this problem is a bit far fetched to me. I
| think the only reason people cannot conceive of it is that
| we haven't seen it.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| > Obviously newer phones are waterproof and arguably more
| durable, but Apple has gone so far towards a factory sealed
| design as to require absurd equipment to do a proper job.
|
| I'm not too familiar with the matter but wouldn't other
| manufacturers' waterproof phones have a similar construction
| to enable said waterproofness?
| arcticbull wrote:
| They don't force you into the tools, the deposit or anything
| else - they offer you parts at the same prices they offer to
| third-party service providers and Apple stores. They even
| offer you credit for returning the old parts. If have your
| own iFixit kit, the only thing you're on the hook for is
| parts cost.
|
| Access to the tools for what is likely at-cost shipping
| prices seems like an above-and-beyond thing to me that the
| right to repair folks weren't even asking for.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| I always say the same, people wants 2022 tech with the
| simplicity of 1980s tech. You're holding more computing
| power in your pocket than the one that brought apollo to
| the moon and yet want servicing it to be as simple as
| undoing 4 screws.
| zootboy wrote:
| Yes, I want that. I don't really see how increased
| computational power should make a device impossible to
| hold together with 4 screws.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Considering that batteries still only last about a day and
| Apple led this shift to non-user-swappable batteries they
| still deserve some blame for landfill culture. Most of
| their efforts around repair appear to be the minimum anyone
| motivated by new sales would do once faced with looming
| regulation.
|
| Even if at cost the extreme sophistication and complexity
| of such tools reinforces the point that these devices
| aren't really built for repair. They're built for eye
| appeal first and foremost.
| losvedir wrote:
| > Considering that batteries still only last about a day
| and Apple led this shift to non-user-swappable batteries
| they still deserve some blame for landfill culture.
|
| I disagree. I think you're conflating home user
| repairability with longevity of the device. Just because
| the user can't repair it at home doesn't mean it goes in
| the garbage. More realistically a broken phone will be
| traded in, Apple will repair it, and it will be sold
| refurbished. Apple phones hold their value very well, and
| there is a booming second-hand market, even including
| officially by Apple.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if the average lifetime of an
| Apple phone exceeded that of even a "repair friendly"
| Android phone. I'd love to see data on that either way,
| but until we have it, you can't say whether the design of
| Apple phones contributes to landfill culture or not.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Apple is in a class of their own in some ways, so until
| they offer a repairable one I don't think a fair
| comparison can be made.
| saagarjha wrote:
| > Considering that batteries still only last about a day
| and Apple led this shift to non-user-swappable batteries
| they still deserve some blame for landfill culture.
|
| Sure, but it seems like this makes phones thinner and
| lighter and consumers want that. It "sucks" that Apple
| gave them that option and they went for it, but I don't
| consider this to be inherently malicious.
|
| > Even if at cost the extreme sophistication and
| complexity of such tools reinforces the point that these
| devices aren't really built for repair. They're built for
| eye appeal first and foremost.
|
| ...these are the tools that Apple uses to repair your
| phone?
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| > Sure, but it seems like this makes phones thinner and
| lighter and consumers want that
|
| Or Apple devices are also a tech fashion statement, so
| their loyal consumers will put up with everything Apple
| changes. iPhones could show off their sleek design if
| they weren't designed to need a case. People definitely
| wanted bigger screens and batteries for years, and Apple
| was very reluctant until the iPhone 10. I'm sure many
| iPhone users miss the fingerprint reader, but they won't
| get it, and they will still buy the next model because
| the slight and gratuitous design differences make it
| obvious you're using an old iPhone.
| nemothekid wrote:
| >Or Apple devices are also a tech fashion statement, so
| their loyal consumers will put up with everything Apple
| changes.
|
| This argument is tired; it doesn't explain why every
| other manufacturer on the planet has also gone down this
| route. It's just an argument that helps nerds feel good
| (those _other_ guys aren 't real _techies_ , like me,
| they only care about _fashion_ ).
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Leading fashion brands have network effects and it can
| create something like Stockholm syndrome to those who buy
| into it. Other manufacturers often follow leading brands
| for prestige, or because people become accustomed, not
| always because the direction is objectively better when
| accounting for costs to future generations.
| pdoege wrote:
| No, it's because Apple phones have margin. They make
| money. Their competitors desperately want to make money.
|
| They make their money selling phones wholesale into
| retailing supply chains. One of the rules of those supply
| chains is that the OEM eats the costs of early returns.
|
| So they removed every widget that they possibly could and
| then glued everything down so that it could not possibly
| come loose, be dropped, wedged etc. during the warranty
| period.
|
| Battery doors, headphone jacks, you name it. All gone.
|
| End customers don't seem to care. Phones with swappable
| batteries, headphone jacks, etc. exist. They don't sell
| well in high margin markets.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Intent is less important when we're burning the world for
| blue bubbles, cheaper waterproofing, and a few
| millimeters thinner.
|
| If iphones had to be priced with externalities included
| (via regulation) I suspect they'd get user replaceable
| batteries shortly there after.
| ctbeiser wrote:
| I suspect that of all the things burning the world, it's
| mostly oil and cars. iPhones are unusually useful, but
| they're not unusually resource intensive.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Just because something is worse doesn't mean we should
| ignore the problems of the first.
| mikestew wrote:
| If you've ever heard someone talk about frying fish, and
| how they have bigger ones that need frying, they're
| probably speaking metaphorically.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Some things are mutually exclusive. User serviceable
| phones and more sustainable transportation are not.
| sokoloff wrote:
| You have a _storage bin_ holding old smartphones with readily
| replaceable batteries.
|
| That suggests to me that readily replaceable batteries isn't
| anywhere near the entire story in terms of keeping phones out
| the landfill (or in your case, a storage bin).
| bsder wrote:
| Part of the issue with old smartphones and batteries is
| that every battery is a snowflake so eventually nobody is
| willing to produce the replacement battery anymore.
|
| Contrast this to car batteries where the form factor is
| specified within certain limits.
|
| This is, unfortunately, a point where the law probably has
| to step in and say "battery replacements must be available
| for 20 years" which would make it unpalatable to be a
| snowflake anymore. At that point, the suppliers would get
| together and agree on a "standard" battery form factor.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| The lack of user replaceable batteries is one symptom of a
| larger problem, yes. And the symptom being discussed today.
| salawat wrote:
| You are correct. without datasheets, you have no way to
| even approach reprogramming a computer system. Those
| datasheets, schemata, and documentation are some of the
| closest, most tightly held trade secrets in the tech world.
|
| Increasingly, the world has gotten away from "sell thing to
| owner to own" to "sell hook for revenue extraction from
| User". part of which has also increasingly been "be the
| unofficial or unnoticed arm of power by keeping
| inconvenient things hard to acquire as determined by the
| parties in power". Say... industrial equipment without
| backdoors.
|
| Until I can load my own firmware/microcode, it ain't mine
| yet. I'd love to have a cobbled together group of
| heterogenous computing devices just for the novelty.
| wrycoder wrote:
| And that's the reason to continue to grow the FLOSS /
| Open Hardware ecosystem.
|
| You don't have to program or fix stuff yourself. But you
| should be able to hire your local shop to do it for you
| at reasonable expense and to keep your old, but good,
| stuff running as long as you like.
|
| While flip phones are disposable are their price point,
| that's not true for hardware like smart phones or beyond.
| We need better, sustainable solutions.
| [deleted]
| simonh wrote:
| There have been constant complaints that Apple doesn't make
| its repair and maintenance equipment and parts available for
| others to use. Now that they do, it turns out they use
| extremely high quality professional tools to do near-factory
| quality work. So fine, here you are, you can get all the
| exact same stuff Apple uses. You win.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > show just how deep the hole Apple has dug for themselves
| really is
|
| I guess it shows this hole to the _public_ , but Apple's know
| this the whole time. They scale out in-store iPhone repair to
| 500 stores around the world where they have low-paid retail
| workers performing the repairs.
| jeffbee wrote:
| And it's a great service, too. You pay $50 and wait a few
| minutes. You get a new, genuine OEM battery with a warranty
| that extends the life of your phone indefinitely.
|
| The right-to-repair people have just lost contact with
| reality. This is the way people want it to work. It is a
| _great_ product experience.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Right-to-repair in no way prevents or hampers Apple's
| ability to offer that service. If people want the current
| state, they can continue to pay for it. Right to repair
| offers strictly more options and choice, it doesn't
| remove anything
| jeffbee wrote:
| It removes the ability of the manufacturer to make a
| phone that is the size and weight people prefer and has
| the features they want. Billions of people want a
| waterproof phone and I doubt you could even fill a bus
| with people who really give a damn whether or not the
| battery is replaceable in the field.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| No it doesn't. Requiring Apple to sell or allow 3rd party
| replacement parts as well as providing repair
| documentation does not in any way prevent them from
| making the phone they currently are.
|
| You're confusing (perhaps intentionally) right to repair
| with the EU's proposal to mandate easily swappable
| batteries. They are not the same thing.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| You can sell the parts and manual, sure. But making it
| easy for a layman with non specialized tools? That is a
| tall order against cost, weight and waterproofing.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Being easy isn't a primary goal. Simply being possible at
| all is the goal: https://www.repair.org/policy
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| For buyers of new devices that may be true. Yet I've sold
| plenty of phones I had bought second hand (after years of
| my own use), and those with user swappable batteries are
| far more likely to be reused without great expense. More
| so if they also have an SDcard slot to minimize wear on
| the soldered storage.
|
| As phone features plateau we should strive to make them
| last longer and avoid unnecessarily consuming tons of new
| material every year. (IIRC a single iphone consumes like
| 0.5 tons of materials to go from the ground to the
| pocket.)
| jeffbee wrote:
| The facts aren't really on your side of the argument. The
| glued-together Apple phones are the ones least likely to
| be in the trash. They are still shipping the latest
| software on phones from 2015. By contrast, removable-
| battery phones are all garbage practically as soon as you
| open the box. The Samsung XCover is only 2 years old,
| might not even get Android 12, and definitely will never
| get anything after Android 12.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Imagine a world in which iphones still had user swappable
| batteries. They would almost certainly retain their
| appeal and fewer would end up in landfills.
|
| The fact that they've become a luxury brand is a
| compounding factor you cannot dismiss. You're comparing
| apples to oranges.
| nasmorn wrote:
| I have had batteries replaced by random repair shops for
| 40 euros before. If I could have done it for 20 in parts
| how does that change the calculus compared to a new
| phone?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Phones are more likely to end up in landfills when
| batteries and basic repairs aren't user serviceable. The
| calculus should include externalities like the cost in
| resources for new phone vs only a new battery.
| desmondwillow wrote:
| > By contrast, removable-battery phones are all garbage
| practically as soon as you open the box. The Samsung
| XCover is only 2 years old, might not even get Android
| 12, and definitely will never get anything after Android
| 12.
|
| That isn't a property intrinsic to removable-battery
| phones; An Apple phone with a removable battery would be
| the best in terms of software and battery longevity, both
| of which are factors which serve to prolong the life of
| the phone.
| gambiting wrote:
| I hate how we have collectively forgotten that there were
| waterproof phones long before this nonsense from
| Apple(and others, to be fair). Bah, we even had
| waterproof phones with removable battery doors. But of
| course, now somehow humanity forgot how to make those and
| the only way is gluing everything together.
| salawat wrote:
| They have not. You're being disingenuous. After all,
| battery replacements became a big deal after Apple
| started OTA updating and throttling performance to hide
| the battery degradation instead of being up front about
| the need for eventual replacement.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Remember when you could just buy a battery off the shelf,
| pop out the old battery, and pop in the new one? Without
| waiting for service or finding a brand store that's at
| best hours away? And without having to worry about
| whether the manufacturer has deemed your phone too legacy
| to allow you to replace the battery anymore?
| Amezarak wrote:
| The nearest Apple Store is hours away, this is definitely
| not convenient and how I want things to work.
| ksec wrote:
| >You pay $50 and wait a few minutes.
|
| I would have no problem if this was true. But it is not.
| $49 only for non-Face ID Model. $69 for FaceID, or pretty
| much all current iPhone lineup except iPhone SE. You also
| have to wait 30 min to hours depending on store. Not few
| minutes unless you are the only one doing Battery Swap
| which is highly unlikely given how they are always fully
| booked.
|
| Depending on which part of the world you are in, your
| prospective on the Battery swap pricing differ greatly on
| a $10 Battery part.
| ctbeiser wrote:
| iFixit is charging $39 for an iPhone mini battery, or $25
| for an iPhone SE battery. Paying $25-30 for half an hour
| of labor--on a $400-1200 device--every two years
| sounds... totally fine to me?
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Not when that labour is only required because of Apple's
| (and other manufacturers', but Apple was the first and
| worst to do this) malicious design in the first place.
| zouhair wrote:
| > Apple can't win here.
|
| This assumes iPhones just happen to be the way they are. The
| need of this extravagant display is because of how iPhones were
| engineered in the first place.
|
| They were engineered to be hard to repair, that's the whole
| point.
|
| Apple and any other company need to stop making products that
| are hard to repair, they need to be forced to do so otherwise
| they will most likely never do it willingly.
| Teever wrote:
| Sympathy for Apple or not, the issue is that this proposed
| solution by Apple obviously isn't scalable.
|
| So if the solution the problem isn't scalable, is it really a
| solution?
|
| And if Apple, a company renowned for their uncanny ability to
| identify novel, game-changing solutions to problems produces
| this as their 'solution' can you honestly say that they gave it
| their all on this one?
|
| Apple can't win here if they don't try.
| nneonneo wrote:
| They'll get to find out if it's scalable with this iteration
| of their repair program. It's quite likely that only a small
| fraction of people will be interested in self-service repair,
| but if that assumption turns out to be false Apple would have
| to design another iteration of the process to improve
| accessibility.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Apple can't win here
|
| They could by providing open access to parts and tools to
| independent shops
|
| The "Self Repair" seems to be designed to still be purposely
| hostile to repair while still "allowing" repair so they can
| claim they are satisfying the "letter of the law" when it comes
| to Right to Repair legalization that is going to be passed in
| many jurisdictions, they are getting out ahead of this right
| now.
|
| Instead of just allowing a Repair shop to order up 10 Screens,
| and 10 batteries, owners have to register their repair, then
| "activate" the repair with Apple, all while using these
| expensive and time consuming tools that most people will simply
| not want to do.
|
| IMO this is not Apple changing their tune on repairability,
| this is Apple being passive aggressive in the face of Right to
| Repair
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The problem is that Apple intentionally insists that this is
| the only way to do a repair to scare people away from it - and
| the media seems to be lapping it up pretty well and spreading
| it - I wish the article called out their BS right away.
|
| If I had a full-time repair operation going, I'd probably get
| those tools too. But for a single repair, I can open one with a
| hair dryer and 20 bucks of iFixit tools faster than it takes to
| unpack all that kit.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > The problem is that Apple intentionally insists that this
| is the only way to do a repair to scare people away from it
|
| As they should.
|
| If Apple had instead shipped batteries with instructions for
| pure DIY repair, we'd be reading an article about "I tried to
| replace my iPhone battery but I destroyed my iPhone in the
| process"
|
| And if Apple redesigned the iPhone to be bigger so it could
| have a separate battery compartment with screw and a big old
| gasket so users could swap batteries, we'd be reading an
| article titled "Apple ruins new iPhone design for a feature
| you don't need"
|
| Apple did a great thing with this program. That fact that
| journalists and HN commenters are getting worked up into a
| frenzy to complain about it is disappointing.
|
| It's also telling they many people here haven't worked on car
| repairs in detail. It's standard practice for manufacturers
| to cite specific manufacturer tools as required in the repair
| manual and want you to pay hundreds or thousands to buy them.
| And it's standard practice for DIYers to improvise around it
| (at their own risk) or purchase cheaper aftermarket custom
| tools. It would be great news if they offered subsidized tool
| rental programs like Apple for the repairs.
|
| This whole article and the rage around it is beyond silly.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > If Apple had instead shipped batteries with instructions
| for pure DIY repair, we'd be reading an article about "I
| tried to replace my iPhone battery but I destroyed my
| iPhone in the process"
|
| Is that happening with cars? Because you can trivially walk
| up to any dealership and buy brake parts.
|
| > It's standard practice for manufacturers to cite specific
| manufacturer tools
|
| Normal, cross-manufacturer tools (aka wrenches, sockets,
| etc) will get you 90% of the way there, and kludgy, one-off
| hacks with what you have on hand will usually get you the
| last 10%.
|
| The main problem with regards to Apple and the right to
| repair is parts availability and intentional restrictions
| against repair such as part serialization where it still
| needs Apple to be in the loop to "pair" the part to the new
| device. Nobody was complaining about the lack of a specific
| machine to open their iPhone - that problem has been solved
| already long ago.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Serializing parts is another issue, but the author of the
| original article hardly mentions it or cares. The
| article, for what it states, is unnecessarily naive about
| basic logistics.
| joenathanone wrote:
| > Apple cracked down on unauthorized repairs by throwing
| warnings or even disabling features if you repair phones
| with non-"genuine" parts, though it walked some of that
| back after an outcry. And it put together a contract for
| indie repair shops that was reportedly so invasive, many
| refused to sign it.
|
| From the article.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Is that happening with cars? Because you can trivially
| walk up to any dealership and buy brake parts.
|
| You can buy batteries for Apple phones and DIY the
| install, too.
|
| This article is the equivalent of someone who doesn't
| know anything about cars trying to replace their head
| gasket and then being shocked that it requires _tools_ to
| do it and there's an _official procedure_ with
| _manufacturer recommended adhesives and tools_ to do it.
|
| If journalists started writing "I tried to rebuild my
| engine" articles they'd read more or less like this
| iPhone article.
|
| Modern engineering is complex. Crucifying a company for
| offering to rent custom tools to work on products is
| insane. This is a great move by Apple. At this point, the
| criticisms seem to be more about finding anything to
| complain about than being productive.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Crucifying a company for offering to rent custom tools
| to work on products is insane.
|
| You said it yourself - there are plenty of off-brand
| options that are far more affordable and easier to obtain
| that would result in the same fix. So it's _insane_ to me
| Apple would charge a $1200 deposit and ship shit in
| pelican cases. They 're being willfully obtuse, and it's
| obvious.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| To be fair, it shouldn't be Apple's responsibility to
| advertise third-party options that they have no way of
| testing or assuring the quality of.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _Is that happening with cars? Because you can trivially
| walk up to any dealership and buy brake parts._
|
| What is your point here? You can just buy the parts
| trivially from Apple too.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Not trivially - see my other comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31458161
| sokoloff wrote:
| Your complaint seems to center around the idea that you
| don't want to eat a ~$25 core charge to have standing by
| on the shelf a replacement battery, which is a part that
| degrades over a period around 20x slower than ground
| shipping.
|
| As a consumer, why not just order the battery when your
| battery is down to 80-85% health and it's about to be
| convenient to spend a half-hour of quality time with your
| phone? As repair shop, Apple has already undercut your
| price to use official supply chain parts, so you're
| likely already using the <6RANDOMCAPITALS> branded
| batteries and the $100 bootleg part programmer.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > As a consumer, why not just order the battery when your
| battery is down to 80-85% health and it's about to be
| convenient to spend a half-hour of quality time with your
| phone? As repair shop, Apple has already undercut your
| price to use official supply chain parts, so you're
| likely already using the <6CAPITALS> branded batteries
| and the $100 bootleg part programmer.
|
| In my case self-repair is more about convenience than
| money. Bootleg parts/tools are still a better experience
| for me than shipping a phone to Apple for repair or
| making appointments to the Apple Store and then
| reinstalling the software on the new phone (twice, if you
| have to do it on a spare device to use in the interim).
|
| Regarding _batteries_ specifically, I agree, Apple 's
| prices are unbeatable. In my case, my main use-case for
| self-repair is _screens_ - the batteries are just a bonus
| because if I 'm already in the phone I may as well put a
| new battery in there. The pricing on screens (including
| the "core charge") is much higher and makes self-repair
| more attractive.
| 0daystock wrote:
| Of course they can win, by designing hardware with replaceable
| components. This is something my 20 year old Thinkpad has
| figured out, and many other user-friendly products before it.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Here's the video showing how to disassemble a modern Thinkpad
| to replace the battery. You might notice that it looks a fair
| bit like the video to replace the battery on a modern phone:
| https://youtu.be/lpMGVM8lPTU&t=1m10s
|
| (Also interesting that it doesn't appear that Lenovo even
| sells the battery [though several 3rd party suppliers do]: ht
| tps://www.lenovo.com/us/en/d/compatibilityfinder?accessory...
| )
| gambiting wrote:
| I completely disagree with you. I think the author is right -
| requiring people to put a $1200 deposit down to rent some tools
| and sending them 40kg of stuff just to replace the battery is
| insane and clearly done to discourage repairs, the fact that
| you have to call their specialists to validate the battery at
| the end is just a cherry on top of this rotten cake - it's just
| done to stave off legislators ruling that apple _must_ make
| their hardware more repairable. It 's a token effort at best.
| leokennis wrote:
| If you read the article, the 40kg of equipment are clearly
| needed to do the repair.
|
| So now you're demanding Apple ships you a light bundle of
| small tools that do the same as that 40kg of tools or
| otherwise it's just a "token effort"?
|
| Or you want Apple to design a phone that you could safely
| repair using only a few small tools? That's fine too. In that
| case I'll just sit here waiting for all the bitching from HN
| about their new repairable iPhone that is prone to water
| damage, has shit battery life and creaks when you hold it.
| thetinguy wrote:
| You can buy just the battery and supply your own equipment
| (or do it by hand).
| MereInterest wrote:
| Apple has a very easy way to win here. If they take
| repairability into account while designing phones, such that
| repairs can be made using commonly available tools, then this
| entire situation can be avoided. This is especially the case
| for parts that have predictable degradation over time, such as
| batteries.
|
| If Apple backs itself into a corner, it doesn't get to complain
| about having no longer having reasonable options remaining.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| If it was this simple, the other manufacturers would be doing
| this. But it is not this simple. If the device can open
| easily using basic tools, it can't be thin, light and
| waterproof.
|
| But anyway, I didn't hear Apple 'complaining about having no
| longer having reasonable options remaining'. I heard you
| complaining about Apple providing the tools and parts
| required to repair their phones.
| [deleted]
| mym1990 wrote:
| For all the stupid things that apple does to their devices,
| they can surely find a way to remove a cover. The truth is
| that almost every phone manufacturer would rather your
| phone reach end of life so that you can take a mini loan
| for another one.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| You sound like one of those people complaining about the
| Steve Jobs reality distortion field, while you are also
| demanding Apple distorts the fabric of reality so they
| can create devices that meet your demands. Because
| without that, you can't build a device with an easy way
| to remove its cover, while also making it thin, light and
| waterproof (and cheap, preferably).
|
| If 'almost every manufacturer' is in some kind of
| conspiracy of manufactured obsolescence, that implies
| there are ones that are not. So go buy one of their
| phones. But chances are they are heavy, bulky and not
| waterproof.
| mym1990 wrote:
| You lost me at reality distortion field honestly.
| lovich wrote:
| Are they dead common for consumers? I wouldn't be surprised
| that business owner tooling they needed to run, that's outside
| the budget for most consumers
| wfhordie wrote:
| Yes, dead common for consumers, but consumers don't really
| buy them because there are places that do the repairs so
| cheaply everywhere.
| paxcoder wrote:
| mizzao wrote:
| That box of tools reminds me of the engineering teardown of the
| Juicero: https://blog.bolt.io/juicero/
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Furthermore, according to Apple technicians, these are the
| actual tools they have always used every day in Apple stores,
| but the author is framing it as though Apple went out of their
| way to make difficult tools for consumers - by giving them
| exactly what they were asking for, the actual tools.
|
| The author complains that after renting the tools and buying
| the battery, it's more expensive than having Apple do it. _So?_
| Is Apple supposed to ship $1200 in tools to you for free
| without a hold (incentivizing theft), or sell parts for cheaper
| than they sell them to their own stores (the prices are the
| same as to their stores and service providers)? Repairing
| _anything_ is expensive if you don't have the tools or don't
| want to buy the tools and reuse them.
|
| iFixIt should (frankly) denounce the article as it will almost
| certainly be used by Apple in a future court case to argue that
| Right To Repair activists are "extreme."
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > by giving them exactly what they were asking for, the
| actual tools.
|
| When it comes to Apple devices, the "tools" that DIY
| repairmen want are the schematics, software to provision new
| parts (ideally there wouldn't be a need for this to begin
| with) and proprietary parts that can't be bought elsewhere.
|
| When it comes to opening the phones, there's nothing
| particularly complex about this and third-parties have
| figured it out already, all the way down to the proprietary
| screwdrivers.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Right, but that's not what the author of the article is
| complaining about. Instead, the author is complaining about
| the (shockingly reasonable and probably a loss leader) tool
| rental cost, complains about the part cost (even though it
| is the same cost service providers pay, and the author does
| not mention the ~$25 recycling refund to deliberately make
| it look worse than it is).
|
| Apple is totally going to use this in a future court case
| to argue Right to Repair people will never be satisfied
| unless the tools fit in a pocket, had free shipping and
| returns, the part is 50% off, and there are no credit card
| holds on the tools. (The authors comparison to how car
| rentals don't require a full value hold is absurd because a
| thing called Car Rental Insurance exists.) The author
| wouldn't be happy with anything else.
| dwighttk wrote:
| I especially liked the line mocking the instruction to have
| sand available if the battery catches on fire. That's a good
| idea.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| Yeah. Anyone who spends long enough at an RC car track will
| witness a battery fire. When I used to race it was ripe with
| people saving money by buying cheap chargers and batteries,
| charging things too fast, running motors that pulled too much
| current for the support hardware, and failing to balance
| cells. Thankfully sand will save you! The car is usually
| roasted though.
| hatware wrote:
| > Does he actually want to repair his phone? It doesn't seem
| like it.
|
| Does Apple really want to support right to repair?
|
| Or is this some baked-in-irony workaround that lets them
| legally _say_ they allow anyone to repair their phones, while
| offering what is the least consumer centric service I have ever
| seen from a company of this caliber.
|
| I think you missed the point of the article, which is to show
| how ridiculous this process is on the whole.
| zenexer wrote:
| At least some of these tools are name brand. For example, the
| torque screwdrivers are Wera Kraftform Micro ESD pre-set torque
| screwdrivers. Apple sells them cheaper than anyone else, as far
| as I can tell--which is quite curious. Surely if you ordered
| them in bulk you could beat Apple's prices, but you can't order
| a single set of the same screwdrivers for less than what Apple
| is charging. I'm also told this is the exact same brand Apple
| itself uses in their stores.
|
| There's an alternative, though: head to Home Depot and buy and
| adjustable torque screwdriver for $60. It'll have the same 10%
| tolerance rating. It won't be ESD-safe--but does it really need
| to be for a one-off home repair? You could find something even
| cheaper on AliExpress, I'm sure.
|
| Curiously, this program seems like a great deal for repair
| shops: for a bit over a thousand dollars, they can get the same
| tooling that Apple's own stores use. It makes no sense for a
| consumer to buy or rent these tools from Apple, but a repair
| shop? $1,200 is a bargain to say you're using the exact same
| tooling as Apple.
| ynniv wrote:
| _this program seems like a great deal for repair shops_
|
| Which AFAICT is what Right to Repair is about anyway.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _but does it really need to be for a one-off home repair?_
|
| Again: cue the "Apple provided me with second-class tools
| that are NOT the ones they used in store and I broke my
| iPhone" story.
|
| Manufacturers can't possibly satisfy "right to repair" if
| every single person gets to decide how they want to do the
| repair, how much compromise they're prepared to take in terms
| of likely outcome and so on.
| zenexer wrote:
| > Again: cue the "Apple provided me with second-class tools
| that are NOT the ones they used in store and I broke my
| iPhone" story.
|
| Oh, I'm not complaining about the tools. If they didn't
| have an ass-backwards policy that could be construed as
| preventing you from using the tools on anything other than
| an approved Apple product, I'd have a rental kit shipped to
| me and just pay the security deposit. Sure, I could buy the
| tools outright, but then I wouldn't get the cool cases, and
| the policy still seems to imply the tools are only to be
| used for Apple products.
|
| Again, this is great for repair shops. These are great
| tools at reasonable prices that are meant to last. But
| y'know what would be even better? Making a battery that you
| can replace with a fingernail.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Apple can trivially comply with Right To Repair by just
| selling _parts_ , documentation and any software needed to
| pair new parts.
|
| They don't have to provide tools, just like car
| manufacturers don't provide tools when you buy parts.
|
| This repair programme is purely a PR move to maliciously
| (attempt) to comply with Right to Repair and try to prevent
| actual regulation all while putting the spotlight on how
| complicated, dangerous and time-consuming repair to
| discourage people from ever trying it.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Did you even research the program? Apple's SSR store will
| happily sell you the parts _without the toolkit_ if you
| want to improvise and use the iFixIt method of repair.
| You are not required to buy or rent any tools when
| placing an order.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > Did you even research the program?
|
| Yes, I did. I summarized my thoughts on it here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31458161
|
| I still stand by my opinion that this is malicious
| compliance to prevent formal Right To Repair legislation
| - not necessarily about the tooling (indeed, _optionally_
| providing tooling is a good move) but the fact that
| besides the problems mentioned in the linked comment, the
| actual selection of parts is minimal, hopefully _for the
| time being_.
| Someone wrote:
| Browsing https://selfservicerepair.com/home, it seems to
| me they do more or less exactly that (the parts sometimes
| are bundled with mounting screws, the manuals assume you
| have professional tools, and you'll have to call them to
| DRM 'register' your new part with the other hardware.
|
| I can't find the requirement to rent this set of tools on
| that site (disclaimer: I can't fully emulate a sale, as
| the site asks for an IMEI, and I don't have a device for
| which they sell parts)
|
| So, from my browsing, renting the tools seems optional.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _Apple can trivially comply with Right To Repair by
| just selling parts, documentation and any software needed
| to pair new parts._
|
| ... which they do! It 's $69.00 for the iPhone 13 mini
| battery or $70.99 for the kit which also includes a
| replacement display adhesive and a set of spare security
| screws. In both cases, you can get $24.15 credit when you
| return your old battery.
|
| You don't have to get the toolkit; you can put together
| your own tools and do whatever crazy shit you want with a
| hairdryer or whatever.
|
| Are you seriously saying that Apple's decision to both
| sell and rent (on what I'm pretty sure must be a loss-
| making basis) the tools that they themselves use for the
| repairs is ... malicious?
| mmastrac wrote:
| It's designed to make the process complicated and
| financially risky. That is the malicious part.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| What? Let me get this clear: Apple provides no tools -
| you are OK with this. Apple provides optional tools,
| which are the ones they use - this "make[s] the process
| complicated and financially risky".
|
| Is that what you are saying? Can you walk me through your
| logic because it's escaping me.
|
| Objectively, it is a risky process to do without the
| right tools based on feedback from people who have
| actually done it on a regular basis; ref. the poster
| upthread here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31457776
| Nextgrid wrote:
| My problem with this process is that it's a low-volume,
| just-in-time system where you have to order the part, do
| the repair and send back your old part in a limited
| timeframe otherwise you are overcharged, not to mention
| the final step of having Apple support pair the new part
| to your phone to disable the warnings.
|
| It's unnecessarily annoying and admin-heavy. Compare that
| to just buying a handful of batteries and keeping them
| "just in case" so you can then do the repair in your own
| time as needed. I currently do that but have to use grey-
| market parts as Apple won't sell them to me without the
| aforementioned restrictions.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| I mean, I don't even know what to say, how often do you
| think consumers are having to replace the batteries in
| their phones? The idea that people would keep stock on
| hand is just beyond absurd.
|
| Returning cores for a price rebate is a totally standard
| industry practice. You apparently get 18 days to initiate
| the return and Apple gives you a free return label.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I'm not saying people _should_ be keeping stock on-hand.
| I 'm saying that their current system is clearly
| malicious compliance as all that admin also costs _them_
| more, so the only reason I can see is extra annoyance to
| make self-repair less attractive (and prevent third-party
| _shops_ from using this program as a source of genuine
| parts).
|
| > Returning cores for a price rebate is a totally
| standard industry practice.
|
| Depends for what. A worn down (or outright destroyed, if
| you screwed up and couldn't get it out intact) battery
| has zero value beyond its raw materials, which are much
| less than the cost of shipping it back (the eco-friendly
| option here is to drop it off at a local recycler which
| will collect and ship them _in bulk_ ).
| pcmoney wrote:
| Its the verge, its a joke now. They have one article lately and
| its "tech company bad".
|
| They basically pander to people who want to think they know
| about tech but aren't in tech and likely couldn't make it in
| tech. Feels like a bunch of bitterness and copium. I just
| ignore them now but miss their old good tech coverage.
| cycomanic wrote:
| I would have somewhat agree with you except for the point that
| you have to give apple freaking remote access to the phone
| because the replacement battery shows up as nongenuine. That
| right there tells me that apple is trying to make the process
| as painful as possible.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Totally agree. If Apple is paying to ship everything and the
| kitchen sink both ways, then cool! I have repaired of my
| iPhones for myself, friends, and family with the dinky $50 kits
| you can get on Amazon, and man I'd love to have the "one-armed
| bandit" shown in the article. (Imagine the look of horror on my
| dad's face when after sealing up his iPhone and testing it I
| said "Wow, I actually managed not to brick it this time!")
|
| For better or worse, Apple clearly didn't design the iPhone
| with consumer repairability in mind. We can debate to what
| degree this is intentional evil vs. design/cost necessity, but
| at least its cool that they're shipping their repair workbench
| as bulk as it may be.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| > Apple can't win here.
|
| They can, very easily. Just don't be hostile to your users when
| designing the phone. Look at Nokia circa 2005.
| Animats wrote:
| _By the way. The tools this guy used are common, dead-common in
| China. Go to any repair mall in Shenzhen and you'll see
| hundreds of these._
|
| This is an issue with hobbyist electronics projects in the US.
| The US hobbyist market is still using 1970s packaging
| technology - 0.10 inch pin spacing, solderless proto boards,
| and through-hole parts. I designed a hobbyist board that was
| all surface mount. Smallest parts were 0.5mm pitch. Although a
| few people built it, I got a lot of complaints. Surface mount
| is beyond most American hobbyists. Even though 0.10 inch
| through-hole is obsolete commercially, and modern parts come in
| surface mount only.
|
| That said, Apple's aesthetic inherently makes things hard to
| open. Glass on both sides and minimal bezel is what Apple fans
| pay for. It forces a heat and suction disassembly process,
| which requires proper tooling to do right.
| Sirened wrote:
| This was quite a wakeup call for me too. I was always into
| hobby electronics but a couple of years ago I got into
| multicopters. A _lot_ of parts were these tiny SMDs. I
| remember having to figure out how to attach FETs and even
| (once) a little BGA microprocessor. It was a very steep
| learning curve and nobody else in the hobby scene here had
| really done anything with it, so it was a lot of trial and
| error. Industry has moved on, there are so many things now
| that are practically out of reach for hobbyists nowadays :/
| Animats wrote:
| _nobody else in the hobby scene here had really done
| anything with it_
|
| Sparkfun has tutorials.[1]
|
| There are surface mount practice kits, where you get a
| little board and a bunch of dud parts to practice on. It's
| not all that hard, but it takes practice. It takes a while
| to get skill with tweezers under a microscope. Cheap USB
| microscopes are very useful. Figure on ruining a few of
| those cheap practice kits.
|
| It's not rocket science, but to do consistently good
| assembly you need the right tools and some reasonable hand
| tool skills.
|
| [1] https://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/category/2
| Sirened wrote:
| Ah, no, I was more referencing my local community. We
| have a fairly vibrant electronics DIY community but the
| technical skill caps out at around SMD stuff. Thankfully
| though while the community is largely stuck in the 70s,
| we aren't actually stuck in the 70s and have the internet
| to try and figure things out.
| Animats wrote:
| _We have a fairly vibrant electronics DIY community but
| the technical skill caps out at around SMD stuff._
|
| I had that experience in the heyday of TechShop. Which I
| felt was embarrassing for Silicon Valley. Not enough
| people making stuff.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Completely agree
|
| They got two suitcases of top of the line tools for iPhone
| repair. _Make use of it_
| Stevvo wrote:
| Did you even read the article? The author _doesn 't complaint
| about the tools_ other than the $1200 you will loose if you
| don't return them within 7 days. Your comment comes across as
| more disingenuous.
| kurupt213 wrote:
| I think apple did win, and the author is manufacturing outrage.
| Apple loaned him a professional setup to repair his phone. That
| is completely in line with the Apple customer experience, and
| gives insight into why they resisted home repair so long.
|
| Apple doesn't take shortcuts on their hardware. They have a
| design/experience expectation. Flimsy tools, eyeballing
| alignment, cheap 3rd party replacement parts. These are all
| things that significantly increase the likely of degraded
| quality/experience after a layperson's self repair.
|
| I think there's a healthy medium somewhere, but for now, apple
| expects home repair to done at the same level of service they
| would do. I'd rather error on the side of quality and
| robustness myself.
| honkdaddy wrote:
| I ran an iOS sales and repairs service for years, eventually
| stopping around the iPhone X era. I had decent third-party
| tools, but despite being careful, I'd still break peoples'
| devices on rare occasion and have to eat the cost.
|
| The adhesive they use to bind the screen to the body has gotten
| consistently tougher over the years, to the point where there
| really isn't a reliable way for someone to do it correctly on
| their first try without specialized tech like this. You WILL
| underestimate the amount of heat required and either crack your
| screen or break your tool when trying to pry them apart. It's
| incredibly frustrating and delicate work if you're just using a
| heat gun and a screwdriver.
|
| If they shipped him a "warming sock" and some kludgers like
| iFixit used to do, I'm sure a quarter of the people who attempt
| the repair would end up breaking their device and the whole
| program would be a failure.
|
| Unless they ditch the adhesive and return to the iPhone 4/4S
| design of a back-cover which slides off easily, I actually
| think the 70lbs of equipment might be their best path forward.
| Kiboneu wrote:
| I've repaired / modded non-iphones that bind display / covers
| with adhesive. Both broke them in various ways the process
| and saved them later.
|
| Using screwdrivers to pry will very likely crack the screen
| and if that's the only tool available, one ought to wait on
| repairs the right tools are available. Using a screwdriver
| would otherwise introduce scratches / chips in the areas
| you'd insert / slide it through. One has to use a material
| that's softer than the contact material and non-abrasive. It
| also requires a lot of patience, but it pays off. I don't
| really know if that's knowledge someone can get in under 30
| minutes of internet research, but if it is, I don't expect
| that onus to fall on a manufacturer.
| newsclues wrote:
| Yeah, I will pay more for a device that is designed to be
| repaired.
| chevill wrote:
| Me too, the problem is that for such a thing to exist at
| scale we have to make the simply awful protoypes that
| people keep coming up with financially successful. Which
| means paying as much or more as you would for a cutting
| edge flagship for a janky mess that uses technology that's
| several generations behind and hope that it supports our
| carrier.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| This reminds me of the people who laughed at the iPhone
| because the Blackberry had a real keyboard and was the true
| professional device. Saying you'll pay for something that
| probably doesn't have many people behind it is not really
| going to move mountains. Most people care about this sort
| of stuff for about a minute when their phone breaks which
| is something like once every few years max.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| ... and when there's enough of you for this to represent an
| actual, realistic target market you will then find someone
| who will sell you one.
|
| Personally, my perspective on this is that it's a lot like
| the kind of complaining that gets a lot of play in the
| motoring press about the disappearance of the manual
| transmission (like Car and Driver's "Save the Manuals"
| thing). Lots of people will claim they would like the
| choice, but virtually no-one actually buys them when
| they're available on mainstream models.
| katbyte wrote:
| We'll car companies are making it harder and harder to
| buy manuals so of course it's disappearing. Can't speak
| to American brands but the Toyota 4Runner stopped making
| a manual trim 20 years ago and the Tacoma while it has
| one, only 5% of them produced are manual on limited trims
| making it really hard for people who want one to actually
| get it without a lot of effort. How much is it people
| don't want it/never learned/car companies reducing trim
| numbers and cost pushing automatics?
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Even with performance car enthusiast models, like say the
| BMW M4, the take rate for the manual is super low.
|
| This article ...
| https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/07/save-manuals-
| give-... ... is from 2015, but says that the M4 couple
| was 83:17 in favor of the automatic gearbox; and I doubt
| things have gotten better since then.
|
| Automatic gearboxes (whether torque converters, CVT or
| dual-clutch) have just gotten much better to the point
| where they're better for both performance and fuel
| economy.
|
| Manual transmissions are much, much harder to integrate
| with any kind of hybrid system, stop-start system, power-
| off coasting etc. which help with fuel economy too.
| cycomanic wrote:
| > Manual transmissions are much, much harder to integrate
| with any kind of hybrid system, stop-start system, power-
| off coasting etc. which help with fuel economy too.
|
| Not necessarily disagreeing, but just wanted to say that
| it certainly is possible. I rented a manual Renault
| (don't remember the model) a couple of years ago and was
| surprised how it had a stop-start system power off when
| coasting system.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| I would definitely buy a manual if I could. Just more fun
| to drive. I think Honda civic's lowest model might still
| have one. Not sure of anything else.
| Bud wrote:
| As someone who just owned a manual Mini Cooper for about
| 18 years, I recommend that. The manual combined with the
| way the Mini is designed, with the wheels pushed way out
| to the corners, firm suspension and incredibly responsive
| steering, is a real joy. It's a feeling of complete
| control of the car and constant awareness of exactly
| where all four corners of the car are. So easy to
| parallel park these older Minis, too, before they kept
| making them larger and larger.
|
| Hard to find this in any current cars, especially
| affordable ones.
| blake1 wrote:
| Corolla comes in a hatchback with a manual.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Pretty much every compact/subcompact still has a manual
| option.
|
| If you want a crossover I think the only new one that
| still has a manual is the Crosstrek.
| nkrisc wrote:
| If "fun" is the primary advantage (I know there are
| others) then it's no wonder there's fewer manuals in the
| US, at least. I think for many people, myself included, a
| car is a tool. I don't need it to be fun. I need it to be
| reliable, easy to use, and as efficient as possible.
|
| For some cars are a hobby, but for many people they're
| most another tool in our lives.
| katbyte wrote:
| Manuals have an advantage in some situations (off
| roading, transmission doesn't overheat, better
| performance with skill, repairability) and autos have
| theirs (easy, better fuel economy)
|
| If I commuted to an office every day I'd get an auto
| (actually these days an EV), but working in the
| bush/backroads? Manual
| cypress66 wrote:
| All those points, except for repairability, are arguable
| for modern gearboxes such as DSG.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, and fun on a windy country road is a heck of a lot
| less fun commuting in stop and go traffic.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Even in a stop-and-go traffic jam, a manual transmission
| will be the least of your worries.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Looking at what cars people buy, fun and prestige seem
| huge contributers to purchasing decision. Otherwise there
| is really no way to explain how SUVs are the best selling
| cars and how a significant portion of buyers opts for way
| overpowered cars.
| flomo wrote:
| I did my part and bought a manual VW. The problem was
| reselling it. Nobody wanted it.
| smugma wrote:
| Golf R
| salawat wrote:
| Bullshit.
|
| This is a conscious business decision to not accomodate.
|
| Wanna know how I know? (Besides experience in tech)
|
| Sewing machines.
|
| Millions of ladies with sewing machines out there, and
| harried husbands/partners/neighborhood
| mechanics/machinists out there that fix the bloody
| things. Yet, as a fixer thereof, you'll find the older
| machines are jealously guarded and highly sought after
| for reliability, stability through heavy loads, and
| servicibility.
|
| And yet... All you have is plastic pieces of crap that
| warp and miss stitches under load, increasing usage of
| integrated circuit boards and plastic gearing.
|
| A corporation will not optimize for the utility to end
| user and QoSL (Quality of Service Life). They will
| optimize for future sales and cheaper production.
| Literally converging on the worst product people will
| still pay for.
|
| Stop making platitudes that "Oh the economy would
| accommodate you if only there were more of you!"
|
| It is grade A, concentrated, unadulterated, Bull.
| Fucking. Shit. The business world will wring every last
| cent they can out of the buyer, while spending the
| absolute minimum required to "solve" the problem they set
| out to fix, and arguably, don't.
|
| I am Quality Inspector number effing 7. I get into knock
| down, drag out brawls with management on the crap they
| expect me to put my seal of approval on for the sake of
| being there to be sneered at by the by the end user.
|
| Enough is e-frigging-nough.
|
| Since you brought up automotive. Same damn thing. Can you
| get cars with open-source, well documented software
| running on the ECM and BCM? No. Is CANBUS free and open?
| Nope. Are engine compartments built for anything else
| than the ability to be assembled by automaton? Nope.
|
| Farm tractors and Ag equipment. Same bloody thing. This
| is all according to plan, because it's the default, and
| capital decides what the most profitable default is going
| to be.
| Jiejeing wrote:
| > ... and when there's enough of you for this to
| represent an actual, realistic target market you will
| then find someone who will sell you one.
|
| Probably not, considering the very high cost of entry in
| the target market, it is unlikely to be offset by the
| marginal amount of additional money people are ready to
| invest into such devices. Markets don't produce goods out
| of nothing. Especially if that person specifically wants
| an iphone for whatever (objective or subjective) reason,
| the market cannot deliver that.
| judge2020 wrote:
| the iPhone Mini was a testament to that Apple themselves
| will respond to a certain amount of market demand,
| however its inability to sell well (with reportedly under
| 4% of total iPhone sales) is probably going to be a
| lesson for Apple to heavily consider whether or not extra
| SKUs are really worth it.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| They're keeping the same number of SKUs, but they just
| want a cheap(er) but bigger phone. They're looking at how
| many Pro Maxes they sold in China and thinking "We could
| make a lot more money making a big model that was
| slightly cheaper."
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The mini iPhones seem in an odd position between SE and
| "normal". As far as I know, the SE models have always
| been quite popular.
| nicoburns wrote:
| If it was, say $40 more or even $100 and was marketed as
| being repairable, I bet a lot of people would buy it.
| They would after all be actually likely to get that money
| back over the lifetime of the phone, and it's much more
| environmentally friendly.
|
| This isn't a case of "market doesn't want it", this is a
| case of Apple don't want to offer that choice because
| they make money off of the repairs.
| ericpauley wrote:
| From the layperson's perspective they already are
| repairable. Apple offers repair programs at a somewhat
| reasonable cost already. I doubt the average person will
| care if they themselves can repair it at home.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _this is a case of Apple don't want to offer that
| choice because they make money off of the repairs._
|
| Apple is on record saying they _lose money_ on repair
| services. Or do you think they 're just lying about that
| too?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Apple can say many things, that doesn't make them true.
| Of course they loose potential money on repairs if they
| can get customers to buy a new phone instead, that's how
| consumer electronics make Money.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I can't see how Apple can make a net profit on the repair
| itself at $69 for modern phones, so the profit
| motive/outcome must come from tilting people towards
| replacing a phone with a trade-in credit.
|
| There is a _sliver_ of the market who would rather
| replace their own battery on a 30 month old phone.
|
| There is a _gigantic wedge_ of the market who looks
| forward to their battery dying so they can get the
| swankiest new phone for just $39 /month.
| notriddle wrote:
| > I can't see how Apple can make a net profit on the
| repair itself at $69 for modern phones, so the profit
| motive/outcome must come from tilting people towards
| replacing a phone with a trade-in credit.
|
| Apple could probably sell the devices at a loss and still
| make money overall on App Store commissions.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The repair is not $69. That one is purely for battery
| replacement in an otherwise-intact phone.
|
| Screen replacements are more expensive, but the worst is
| actually damage that's neither the screen nor the battery
| - for example just a scratch on the housing or a cracked
| back glass are actually the most expensive options (even
| though said housing on eBay is around 20 bucks).
|
| Similarly, water damage can usually be fixed by just
| cleaning the board and replacing a few mainboard
| components - that's something Apple will outright not do
| (good luck if you have valuable data on the device), and
| yet there's clearly a business there as both Louis
| Rossmann and Jessa Jones (from iPad Rehab) have been able
| to build profitable businesses on it.
| newsclues wrote:
| A think a right to repair badge on products that promises
| schematics, parts, etc for a modest premium, would be a
| key selling feature for many important consumer purchases
| for a small but influential group of consumers.
|
| Cars, appliances, tech, it's all the same and some people
| are happy with replacing everything every couple years on
| obsolescence schedules, but some people hate it and want
| good quality stuff that works and lasts for a fair price.
| mlyle wrote:
| > If it was, say $40 more or even $100 and was marketed
| as being repairable, I bet a lot of people would buy it.
|
| Not all the costs are denominated in dollars.
|
| You want a small phone with little wasted volume and
| waterproofness, you're using adhesive everywhere. There's
| not room for O-ring seals and flanges and fittings.
|
| My phone being small makes it more practical.
|
| My phone being waterproof makes it less likely to need
| repair.
| hermitdev wrote:
| My old Samsung Galaxy S4 was water proof and had a
| removable battery. At least, it was waterproof enough to
| be able to answer a call in the shower, if need be. I
| never fully submerged the phone, but casual exposure to
| water was absolutely fine. Oh, and it had O-rings around
| the edge of the battery cover. It was a pretty great
| phone. Its downfall was being too thin. It didn't fit
| great in my pocket and it ended up getting bent when I
| sat down. Didn't break the phone, but was enough to leave
| aermanent bend in the phone about 3/4 of an inch from the
| top and a little bit of delamination in the one corner.
| Even with the bend, I kept the phone for quite a while
| before it finally met its demise falling out of a coat
| pocket onto asphalt exiting a car.
| mlyle wrote:
| Galaxy S4: 136.60 x 69.80 x 7.90mm -- 75.3 cm^3 -- 68
| cm^2 screen, volume to screen area ratio 1.10 cm.
|
| IP67, 1m 30 minutes (AKA don't really immerse this-- even
| if you drop it in a puddle it may not be OK).
|
| iPhone 13 Mini: 131.5 x 64.2 x 7.65mm -- 64.6 cm^3 -- 72
| cm^2 screen, volume to screen area ratio 0.9 cm.
|
| IP68, maximum depth 6m 30 minutes (AKA brief immersion in
| depths of less than a couple meters is OK).
|
| There's a reason why all these adhesives are used
| everywhere.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| There are bezels on the top and bottom because the S4
| came out in 2013, not because of the waterproofing
| method.
|
| IP67 is enough for me, and I will happily trade .3mm of
| thickness for a removable battery.
|
| Not that we should assume that IP68 has to be sacrificed.
| There aren't a lot of comparison points on that specific
| attribute. A Galaxy Xcover Pro is bulky but that's
| because it's much more ruggedized in general.
| mlyle wrote:
| > There are bezels on the top and bottom because the S4
| came out in 2013, not because of the waterproofing
| method.
|
| There are bezels on the top and bottom because older
| phones were less volume efficient than they are today--
| something that is enabled by the use of adhesive.
|
| > IP67 is enough for me, and I will happily trade .3mm of
| thickness for a removable battery.
|
| OK, but, I believe the penalty would be significantly
| more than .3mm, and most people won't.
| smugma wrote:
| This is a largely a U.S. specific thing. In Europe,
| manual transmission is still commonly available.
|
| If you want a high-end-ish car with a manual in the US,
| there's the Golf R.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| That's somewhat a quirk of your displacement taxes
| resulting in tiny engines.
|
| When the choice is between a CVT or automatic that has to
| be dragged kicking and screaming into the upper RPM
| ranges (because how else are you gonna get acceptable
| performance out of a tiny engine) and a clutch pedal many
| people choose the clutch pedal.
| flomo wrote:
| Yep, I used to be a manual fanatic, but I realized it's
| only 'fun' when the engine is slightly underpowered. On a
| typical modern car sold in USA you'd practically have to
| take it to a racetrack.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I can testify that a manual transmission is still fun
| when the engine is adequately power or beyond.
| flomo wrote:
| I had a 6 cylinder VW and the feeling was more 'any gear
| is fine', so I lost interest. Also grew up driving
| manuals so never had a problem commuting, its
| advantageous sometimes to take it out of gear in stop-n-
| go traffic.
| chongli wrote:
| Manual transmissions are less fun when most of the time
| spent in the car is in gridlock during the twice-daily
| commute.
| b3morales wrote:
| A stick on unpaved hill and mountain roads is still fun
| too.
| carlob wrote:
| You might just as well argue the opposite: American gas
| and car prices don't factor in the huge externalities of
| a badly engineered gas guzzler (and I don't think they
| are priced in in the EU either). So you get around in
| things that are far too heavy and need huge engines.
| Granted, the real solution would be to get rid of most
| personal vehicles with engines, but you can just look at
| the displacement of F1 cars to know you are arguing in
| bad faith.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >You might just as well argue the opposite: American gas
| and car prices don't >Oh FFS quit with the trope
| slinging.factor in the huge externalities
|
| It takes a special kind of insanity to argue in favor of
| displacement taxes. The environment doesn't care how wide
| your pistons are or how far they move. It cares about the
| fuel burned. If you wanna tax the externality tax fuel.
|
| >of a badly engineered gas guzzler
|
| Because Toyota and Mercedes are so good at it? Ha.
|
| If there's one thing the Americans are very good at it's
| getting big engines to consume less fuel than you'd
| expect from their size.
|
| Regardless, your typical sedans, hatches and crossovers
| are available on both sides of the pond and gets the same
| fuel economy on both sides because fuel economy is
| dominated by the weight of the vehicle and aerodynamics.
|
| > but you can just look at the displacement of F1 cars to
| know you are arguing in bad faith.
|
| What's the operating RPM of an F1 engine? You're the one
| arguing in bad faith here.
|
| Imagine you're cruising down the road ad 1200rpm (because
| fuel economy) and you want to step on it for whatever
| reason. With a CVT you get to sit there waiting while it
| slowly revs its way there. With an automatic you get to
| sit there a second and a half waiting while the computer
| decides that yes, you do actually mean to be flooring it
| and then shifts for you. With a manual you shifted before
| you even stomped the skinny pedal. Smaller displacement
| engines with less low end grunt exacerbate this hence the
| European preference for the 3rd pedal.
| cycomanic wrote:
| It is somewhat funny how you argue that American engines
| are quite economical for their size. So you agree that in
| comparison to small engines they are less fuel efficient?
| Also just looking at how many European and Japanese cars
| are sold in the US vs the other way around is pretty
| telling.
|
| That said I agree that taxing fuel over car taxes would
| likely be a good thing, however I think there is also the
| view of taxing car ownership because they take up space
| in particular in cities.
| bombela wrote:
| Because you are playing with the clutch, it keeps you
| busy. And the total time it takes to shift feels shorter
| this way.
|
| CVT are by definition using the best RPM possible from
| the engine for maximum power and efficiency.
|
| Modern automatics are also quite fast.
|
| Anyways the future is electric without gears.
| Arcanum-XIII wrote:
| If I look at the stats regarding manual car in Europe,
| most customer will select the automatic one. Even for
| high end sports car (most will have better shift
| performance with a robotic shifter, and will correctly
| bleep on downshift)
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Europe is just lagging the U.S. ... if you look at the
| take rates for transmissions, more automatics than
| manuals are now sold in the U.K, and mainland Europe is
| not far behind.
| Robin_Message wrote:
| Those rates are skewed by electric and hybrid cars
| though. Diesel and petrol cars are still majority manual
| in the UK.
| cycomanic wrote:
| The irony being that it's the other way around for
| trucks, where most Europeans have automatic transmission
| systems while quite a few US ones run on manual.
| bob29 wrote:
| So actually we live in the best world possible[1] with
| the best technology possible. If it were possible to make
| a better iPHone, someone would have made it, but the fact
| that it doesn't exist means its either not possible or
| not good to have a removable battery on an iphone.
|
| [1] according to this book i read in highschool, it was
| called Candide
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It _is_ possible and multiple such phones exist on the
| market today. But there 's a lot more people who want to
| complain about the iPhone battery than people who want to
| buy a Nokia 1.3.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| No; we live in the world of engineering and business
| compromises where wishes are not, in fact, horses.
| bob29 wrote:
| >No
|
| You aren't disagreeing with me. The claim is that we live
| in the best world _possible_ , not the best world
| _imaginable_. The compromises you mention are necessary
| due to the underlying reality of resource scarcity. We
| may act to change our environment in many ways but can
| not violate the laws of the universe.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Manufacturer self-interest is not a law of the universe.
| Manufacturers do what's best for them, and not for some
| idealized free market. Often,they fail to do what's best
| for the org in the long term because they comprise humans
| who mostly care about the short term (bonuses, careers
| and such).
|
| "If better was possible, it would already exist" can be
| filed under _Capitalism Fantasy_ because it ignores all
| confounding factors. It also fails to explain why curremt
| consumer products are getting worse (for the consumer,
| but more profitable for the producer e.g. TVs, washing
| machines, fridges)
| b3morales wrote:
| This expansion just makes the claim into a truism with no
| useful information. It's the same shape as a No True
| Scotsman reply.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| Yeah, but my understanding is that the manual issue is
| compounded by the fuel efficiency gains in newer
| automatic transmissions using these 8-speed designs, with
| minimum efficiency rules meaning it's impossible to match
| in a manual. I've noticed that in the handful of models
| still offering manual, often the manual is not offered
| with the top performance engine.
|
| This seems to be happening in Europe as well where
| historically over 80% of cars have been sold with manual
| transmissions.
| cgearhart wrote:
| The other issue (at least in the US) is that automatic
| cars can be programmed to "game" the fuel economy tests
| by having shorter gears and shifting early, etc. The
| automatic winds up being faster and reporting better fuel
| economy, but the manual would perform the same if it had
| more similar gearing. (I heard recently that first gear
| is like 60% shorter in the automatic version of one of
| the BMW M series cars than the manual version.) Combined
| with engine auto stopping in automatics, etc., and it's
| not really an equivalent comparison anymore.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Automatic transmissions now have 8, 9 or 10 gears which
| means that engines can spend more time in efficient parts
| of their range; I don't think people would put up with a
| manual transmission with that many gears. Newer automatic
| transmissions also have better control of lock-up, so
| that you're spending less time with torque-converter
| losses.
| thinkmassive wrote:
| > I don't think people would put up with a manual
| transmission with that many gears
|
| ...other than truck drivers!
|
| _maniacal laughter as the clutch is released into 18th
| gear_
| jt2190 wrote:
| > The adhesive they use to bind the screen to the body has
| gotten consistently tougher over the years... Unless they
| ditch the adhesive...
|
| We talk about this adhesive as if it's easily replaced with
| some screws, but I wonder if that's really true anymore. I
| can imagine that as devices and their tolerances get smaller
| that simply screwing something together might actually make
| the device a lot more delicate. Do you know if this is the
| case here?
| sva_ wrote:
| The adhesive makes the phone waterproof.
|
| I recently replaced my gf's iPhone screen and all I really
| needed was a hairdryer to heat up the adhesive, a suction
| cup to pull it off, and a screwdriver. I guess with these
| tools it'd be safer, but it worked well regardless.
| lisper wrote:
| > The adhesive makes the phone waterproof.
|
| So would a rubber o-ring.
| tesseract wrote:
| Given a relatively high and sufficiently uniform clamping
| pressure on the entire o-ring. Which then requires high-
| stiffness parts (bulky, heavy, high material usage) or a
| _lot_ of fasteners (take up space, potentially add to the
| oh-so-hated bezel width depending on how they have to be
| implemented).
| greenglass wrote:
| O-rings are known to fail.
| lisper wrote:
| O-rings are the standard seal technology in waterproof
| watches, and also in scuba diving equipment where lives
| literally depend on them. They are actually
| extraordinarily reliable.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| But at the same time, a diver is trained to look for
| leaks as part of their pre-divw checklist, and oring
| replacements are fairly common. On my last liveaboard,
| the crew replaced probably good 1-2 dozen tank orings
| over the course of a week. One of my LP hose orings had
| frayed as well and needed to be replaced.
|
| It might be the standard, but it's not exactly the best
| experience either.
| lisper wrote:
| The o-rings that require regular attention are the ones
| that handle high-pressure air. Run-of-the-mill
| waterproofing o-rings, like the ones used to seal dive
| watches and dive computers, are fire-and-forget. And yes,
| dive watches and dive computer have beefier housings than
| iPhones, but iPhones don't need to be waterproof to 150m.
|
| (I am a certified scuba diver.)
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Adhesives are also known to fail. They almost certainly
| have a higher failure rate even.
| msrenee wrote:
| Do o-rings have a dramatically high failure rate that I
| don't know about? It can dry rot or otherwise break down,
| but as a seal on the back of a phone, I've found them
| 100% reliable.
| tallanvor wrote:
| I assume they're referring to the Challenger explosion (h
| ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_dis
| as...), although it's a pretty poor comparison.
| starky wrote:
| The reality is that with the way devices are designed to be
| IP rated and as compact as possible, your only option is
| these fancy PSA adhesives.
|
| There is a direct disagreement between what a consumer
| wants in their device and making it easy to repair,
| especially since most people don't expect to repair the
| device they are buying.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Like 50 years of wrist watches kinda calls BS on that.
| Mass produced, low cost, waterproof devices with easily
| removable batteries used to be the norm. We as a species
| certainly haven't forgotten how to do that, these
| adhesives are far from necessary.
|
| They exist not for IP rating, but to make the device
| appear to not have any screws. Both for aesthetic reasons
| and to keep people out reasons.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| An Omega Seamaster weighs anywhere between 100 and 200
| grams, depending on the model. Extrapolating that to the
| size of a phone, you'd have to lug around a 1kg brick.
| Now, I'm not a fan of the trend of thinness and lightness
| above all, I'd prefer a slightly beefier phone but one
| that weighs a kilo is ridiculous.
| msrenee wrote:
| I've got a Samsung Xcover pro. It has an easily removable
| back plate and a replaceable battery and is IP-68 rated.
| My old Casio was in the same vein. Maybe you couldn't get
| it quite as thin, but they did away with the easily
| removable battery long before they started trying to
| waterproof it.
| kd913 wrote:
| Uhh are we all kind of forgetting the Samsung S5?
|
| A phone with ip67 rating, a microsd card slot, headphone
| jack and removable battery?
|
| Yea I am calling nonsense on this being an engineering
| limitation.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| I have an xCover FieldPro from Samsung because it is one
| of two devices they make that are waterproof with a
| removable battery. It is marketed as a device for first
| responders and is built with field use in mind. It even
| comes with a spare battery.
|
| I decided after my S4 Active battery died and I broke the
| screen trying to replace it that I wouldn't buy a phone
| without a removable battery. Not easy to find anymore. I
| did have to sacrifice Qi charging. But the xCover phones
| have pogo pin charging docks that suited my nightstand
| charging needs.
| [deleted]
| mrcartmeneses wrote:
| There's also very little chance that those tools cost only
| $1200. If they were knockoffs from China then maybe, but just
| the two pelican cases can cost as much as that depending on the
| model
| thenthenthen wrote:
| Uh these machines come straight from shenzhen
| 99_00 wrote:
| But they are not knockoffs.
| earthbee wrote:
| Or they and other phone manufacturers could just stop building
| phones that are purposefully difficult to disassemble or
| repair.
| iosjunkie wrote:
| Or consumers could stop buying phones that can't be easily
| disassembled or repaired.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Modern smartphones have a lot of constraints to deal with
| and still meet consumer demand. People want large displays,
| all day battery life, no slow downs, fast wireless, and the
| phone needs to fit in a normal pocket. Oh and the phone
| should be durable against drops and immersion in water.
|
| A large display, fast processor/GPU, and wireless are all
| battery hungry components. These require a large battery to
| not only supply enough amperage but have enough capacity to
| last more than a few minutes. Batteries heat up when
| charging _and_ when discharging. Things that heat up need
| to expand. The electronic components also heat up with
| usage further complicating the thermals. Vents and fans are
| untenable in something held in one hand or put in a pocket.
| The total envelope of the phone is constrained by human
| hands and pockets.
|
| The modern "sealed" smartphone design exists because it
| satisfies those constraints. Non-removable batteries can
| have much thinner outer packaging than removable ones. They
| don't need to resist drops and punctures and still get
| underwriting certification. Glued components don't tend to
| wiggle themselves loose after years of thermal exercise.
| Glue with more seamless casings increase water resistance
| and overall durability. Glue also allows for smaller
| contact surfaces than are possible with screws giving more
| volume to internal components.
|
| A phone that is easy to disassemble will be much less
| durable than one that's sealed. In the common case where
| internal access is never required, the durable phone will
| be superior to the easy to disassemble one. User
| serviceable batteries need thicker more durable envelopes
| which means lower power density than fixed batteries.
|
| Most consumers do not want the easily repaired phone. It's
| going to require a lot of performance and ergonomic trade
| offs over the sealed flagship phones. Even if people went
| for repairable phones en masse it's not like they would
| stay out of landfills.
|
| Even if screws over glue halved the effort to replace a
| broken screen the component cost wouldn't change. So a
| repair might be a few tens percent cheaper to perform. Even
| passing the savings on to a customer, it's still likely
| someone with a broken screen or whatever phone-ending
| damage would just buy a new phone.
| bsder wrote:
| > People want large displays
|
| That's not clear. "Larger display" is _easy and obvious_
| from a marketing standpoint. But it 's not clear that
| buyers are benefiting from them.
|
| I can, in fact, point to the Galaxy Tab S8 as an example.
| My wife wanted AMOLED for the display, but that _forces_
| the 12.4 " display (or bigger) which my wife didn't
| really want.
|
| Manufacturers like Samsung and Apple are delivering what
| is convenient _for the manufacturers_ --what the consumer
| actually wants is a second level consideration.
| innocenat wrote:
| If only thing were that easy.
| vaylian wrote:
| Consumers don't know any better. Someone has to explain the
| problem to them first.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Ah, the old "let me tell you what you want" ... arrogant
| much?
| bowsamic wrote:
| More like "let me tell you what I want" lol
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Apple isn't making these design choices to inhibit repairs.
|
| The advanced sealing techniques are used for real benefits
| like water resistance and reduced size, which are a much
| bigger priority for the average consumer than being able to
| replace batteries at home.
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Waterproof phones with replaceable batteries exist.
| ghodith wrote:
| Not in the same size they don't.
| herf wrote:
| Does this also mean the independent shops can get the official
| kit for $1200?
| lupire wrote:
| This is clearly a professional repair kit, to be used at a local
| shop or maker space.
|
| And now that the devices are available to the public, anyone can
| use the ideas in them to develop less fancy alternatives.
|
| Maybe it's time to accept that a tiny powerful computer, radio,
| camera, and display is worth the base price plus $50 for and
| extended 3 more years of use?
| robomartin wrote:
| People who understand manufacturing will think this is great.
|
| Those who do not will think this is excessive, if not ridiculous.
|
| It's a matter of having the sufficient context. If I was
| interested in repairing my iPhone this is precisely the toolset I
| would want to have in front of me. No question about it. This is
| the kind of tooling you need for process-controlled disassembly
| and reassembly. Regardless of what you are doing, there's nothing
| better than using the right tool for the job. It can make a
| massive difference in outcomes.
|
| I found a video showing their use. As someone who has designed a
| lot of production tooling over the last thirty years, I
| appreciate the purpose and design of the tools Apple is shipping.
| To beat the message to death: The right tool for the job ensures
| success.
|
| I can understand how this can look from the perspective of those
| with no experience in manufacturing, yields and reliability. I
| get it. This is likely precisely the tools Apple uses to repair
| your phone when they do it. They have to because they need to
| ensure the repair process delivers reliable products.
|
| Coincidentally, we had an interesting experience this past week.
| One of my kids dropped his Android phone and cracked the screen.
| My wife, against my objections, decided to take it to one of
| those repair shops at the mall. Well, $130 later the phone's
| speaker didn't work and it would vibrate nonstop when you plugged
| it into the charger.
|
| I decided to now go there myself with the phone and see what they
| would do about it. I stood there the entire time and watched this
| guy take the phone apart again. I never told him that I was an
| engineer, much less about my experience in manufacturing.
|
| Let's put it this way: If someone in a manufacturing environment
| handled any kind of a device like this guy did in front of me,
| they would have been fired instantly. Stupid tools. Horrible
| process. Laughable, really, he had an ESD mat on the counter and
| yet he was walking around and not grounded himself. The process
| was not clean. He really didn't have enough knowledge to know
| what he was dealing with. He was using latex or nitrile gloves
| (not ESD gloves) and the tips of the glove index fingers were cut
| out so he could use his fingertips to grasp stuff. He was
| touching the boards indiscriminately as he did the work, not even
| trying to just grab from the edges as a way to mitigate potential
| ESD damage.
|
| Three disassemble-reassemble cycles later (I stood there and
| watched the whole thing) he gave up and offered a full refund of
| the $130. I walked away with a phone with a cracked screen, only
| that now it wasn't working. It worked fine with a screen having a
| single crack on it, nothing wrong with it beyond that.
|
| Of course, I went there knowing full-well that I was going to
| have to buy a new phone. I knew what happened before I even
| stepped foot in that store, it was likely ESD damage during
| handling.
|
| Here's the kicker: The brand new phone from Verizon, after
| discounts, was $180. Better phone, brand new, next-generation and
| all that.
|
| It all came down to using the wrong tools for the job and not
| having a clue really. Interestingly enough, while I was there a
| woman came into the store with a similar problem.
|
| Oh, yeah, he also offered me a previously repaired phone "at a
| really good deal". Brilliant.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6u4MepcI0A
| m3kw9 wrote:
| It tells me there is so much precision to minimize size and fill
| any air gap that you need such things to service it.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > That Apple would even let me buy those parts, much less read
| its manuals and rent its tools
|
| Definitely will not be trying to get my hands on these any time
| soon.
| [deleted]
| shaicoleman wrote:
| "The more I think about it, the more I realize Apple's Self-
| Service Repair program is the perfect way to make it look like
| the company supports right-to-repair policies without actually
| encouraging them at all."
| hatware wrote:
| Bingo. Yet you have tons of commenters who are _sure_ that
| Apple is doing the right thing.
|
| I miss when products were made for the consumer.
| throwk8s wrote:
| I don't think it's incumbent upon Apple to invent a new set of
| tools for self-service repairs.
|
| Assuming these are the tools they actually use, rather than a
| cumbersome set they invented just to be insufferable, then
| making the tools available seems like a fair way to
| (reluctantly) satisfy the right-to-repair demand.
|
| I think a better indication of whether they're really honoring
| the right to repair is if they keep doing things like inventing
| new screws that existing tools can't open. Time will tell.
| Closi wrote:
| Agreed - I'm not sure why we assume that a modern smartphone
| is designed to be completely taken apart and reassembled with
| a standard toolkit.
|
| I've had two third party repairs on my iPhones - one was done
| with a heat-gun and the finish was awful and the screen
| popped up in one corner at the end and the metal frame was
| dented from the pry-tool, and the second shop used a proper
| heat pad and an assembly tool and the finish was like it was
| a new phone.
|
| Personally I would have been suprised if Apple
| recommended/advised use of a hairdryer / conventional heat-
| gun when that's not what they use themselves and clearly not
| how the iPhones are designed to be reassembled. Also
| presumably asking amateurs to use a heat-gun on their
| electronics would come with it's own risks (particularly heat
| guns + lithium batteries if you aren't careful!).
|
| Like this article includes the following complaint:
|
| > The repair manual not only suggests you need three pages
| worth of tools but also a jar of sand in case your battery
| catches fire -- one of many not strictly necessary items that
| don't come with the kit.
|
| This doesn't sound entirely unreasonable from Apple's
| perspective - because at their scale they probably should be
| worried about the risk of people piercing the battery during
| a repair or using a heatgun near their battery. Also seems
| weird to throw shade at Apple for sending you too much stuff,
| but then also note that Apple didn't ship you a bucket of
| sand, but appreciate that was a kind-of joke.
| cheshire_cat wrote:
| > Agreed - I'm not sure why we assume that a modern
| smartphone is designed to be completely taken apart and
| reassembled with a standard toolkit.
|
| The point is that they chose to do it that way because it
| makes them more money, not because their technology is too
| advanced to let the user easily change their battery. If
| companies designed their product in a way that you can
| exchange parts that often break (batteries) and make
| generally easy then we would at least slow down the growth
| of the e-waste problem.
|
| But of course it's not our problem because we like to
| externalize the costs. Here in Europe we ship our
| electronic waste mostly to Africa where it is a huge health
| hazard.[0]
|
| [0]
| https://www.spiegel.de/international/tomorrow/electronic-
| was...
| lupire wrote:
| It's $100 for 3 more years of battery. If you can't
| handle that, buy a slightly cheaper phone or a refurb.
|
| The alternative id far worse -- phones that get thrown
| away after a year or two because they don't get OS
| updates or they just break.
| cheshire_cat wrote:
| Just because most Android phones don't get OS updates
| doesn't mean we couldn't do better. On the Google and on
| the Apple side of things.
|
| I hope that a mix of regulations and more sustainable
| Linux phones actually becoming usable as daily drivers
| will eventually improve the situation..
| Majromax wrote:
| > It's $100 for 3 more years of battery. If you can't
| handle that, buy a slightly cheaper phone or a refurb.
|
| But tell me, where does it say on the iPhone box that the
| phone battery only lasts three years, give or take? How
| is a customer supposed to know what they need to
| 'handle'?
|
| The battery is effectively a wear-item, where a very
| finite lifespan is an acceptable trade-off for better
| initial performance. However, designing the phone this
| way also makes the service an intended part of phone
| ownership, not merely a response to damage or accident.
|
| Apple (alongside the other manufacturers, by this point)
| is double-dipping by designing a phone that effectively
| requires service and by being the only reasonable
| provider for that service.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Lithium battery lifetimes vary greatly on operating
| conditions, and degrade at a non linear rate.
|
| It should be common knowledge by now that lithium
| batteries start showing performance losses around 700
| charge cycles, and definitely by 1,000 charge cycles.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Parent commented on the crazy design screws, and I think
| it's an important point.
|
| We didn't end up in the current situation with Apple
| innocently improving its technology and the lack of
| repairability being an unexpected side effect of the
| advancements. They pretty much always straddled the line of
| making their own repair job doable while having self
| repairs as hard as possible.
|
| I really don't think customer safety was their primary
| motivation.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I agree but I thought the same when SMDs (surface mount
| devices) came on the scene many, many, years ago. I did not
| have a reflow oven, nor a rework station capable of replacing
| a bad capacitor, etc.
|
| Alas, had we all poured out into the streets and demanded
| companies stick with through-hole components....
|
| It does seem technology (more specifically, manufacturing)
| are moving beyond the means of a "guy in a garage".
| ghaff wrote:
| And for that matter frequencies and other specs have
| generally moved beyond the scopes and logic analyzers that
| individuals are likely to be able to afford to debug
| problems (though they've gotten cheaper as well).
|
| I certainly support right to repair and voted for it in my
| state (both times as Tesla in particular tried to do an end
| around) and strongly oppose artificial barriers like DRM.
| But honestly I find framing this around a less than $100
| repair by Apple (or a third party) maybe every 3 or 4 years
| seems to me like an odd hill to die on.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Time won't flow back, but it was less than a decade ago that
| you replaced batteries by popping the phone's back. I
| wouldn't say Apple bears no blame in making 79 pound tools
| necessary to replace a battery.
|
| And as they basically opened that path for every other maker
| to follow and point at Apple as a justification, we really
| shouldn't give them a pass.
| lupire wrote:
| Those phones had smaller batteries/phone ratio due to the
| extra casing, which creates the waste of throwing away an
| extra (smaller) battery.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Is your argument that we currently don't have the
| technology to have the phone's screen and back enclosed
| hermetically in a reversible matter, while staying thin ?
| We're also not arguing that no tool should be required,
| just not 79 pound ultra expensive ones.
|
| We have 3d stacked nm features processors, I would not
| see the above as an unsolvable problem, nor even a very
| hard one to be honest.
| snorkel wrote:
| Gotta admit, that's a cool looking repair kit. Meanwhile hole in
| the wall repair shops just use a hair dryer, razor, and putty
| knife.
| isodev wrote:
| I really don't see the problem here - why wouldn't you want to
| use the correct tools to repair your iPhone?
| Aeolun wrote:
| I want to buy a $70 battery and be done. The iPhone should be
| designed to facilitate that.
|
| The outrage is not against these tools. The outrage is against
| Apple acting like this is a reasonable way to give people the
| right to repair.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why not just buy a ovine that uses removable batteries to
| begin with?
| ynniv wrote:
| Do you want it to be certified waterproof, or do you want it to
| be easy to open? When they were easy to open, a blue moisture
| indicator meant your warranty was void. Now you can fetch it from
| the bottom of the pool and still get AppleCare to replace that
| scratched screen. As another thread pointed out, this is a kit
| for independent repair shops. Right to Repair has always been
| about supporting local specialty shops. The Verge is putting on a
| show for attention.
| aeyes wrote:
| > As another thread pointed out, this is a kit for independent
| repair shops.
|
| I disagree. Officially you can only rent the tools, you can't
| buy them. Yes there is a $1200 deposit if the tools don't make
| it back but that doesn't mean that Apple won't come after you
| if you don't ship them back on purpose.
| ynniv wrote:
| Sure, the "individual self-service" program doesn't
| officially have a purchase option. There are other programs
| that are part of the same initiative though:
|
| _In the past three years, Apple has nearly doubled the
| number of service locations with access to Apple genuine
| parts, tools, and training, including more than 2,800
| Independent Repair Providers._
| sigmar wrote:
| >As another thread pointed out, this is a kit for independent
| repair shops.
|
| Nope, this "Self-Service Repair" program is explicitly for
| Apple customers and not repair shops. "For customers with
| experience in the complexities of repairing electronic devices,
| we created the Self Service Repair program" You can see tables
| comparing "Self-Service Repair" to "Independent Repair
| Providers " and "Apple Authorized Service Providers" in their
| press releases on this topic.
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/04/apples-self-service-r...
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| This creates a small market for an after-market repair kit. The
| things you need for the repair do not need to cost $1200.
|
| My family of 5 has more than 5 devices, it could make sense to
| just buy the tools. I'm also the kind of person that likes to do
| repairs, so others ask me for help too.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Ok 79lbs is big, but those two pelican cases together should
| account for about 1/3 to 1/2 of that total.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| Go to new Delhi, India. Look up "ghaffar market".
|
| This is like " the" mobile repair market. Entire rows upon rows
| of literally one man stalls which repair your phone on the fly.
|
| They take mobile repairing to the next level. No need for
| "sterile environment" that people show, clean rooms and all. They
| just do it in all the dust and grime and sweat showing our
| devices are really resistant to a lot.
| srvmshr wrote:
| Places like Ghaffar Market exist in most Asian cities. In fact,
| Delhi has another at Nehru Place
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| My point is, if people like these can repair your phone in
| 1/50 the cost of a "genuine apple repair" or even a "trusted
| third party repair" guy, why do you care about "genuine"
| because the lines are blurry at that point. Sure you can
| spend $200 to repair your $1000 iphone screen from apple but
| you know if you take to the ghaffar market, they will charge
| you what, $30 if that. Sure there will be quality issues but
| what about if your phone costs $200 and the "official" screen
| repair is 50% of that but sketchy place rate is like $10?
|
| The point is about Choice. i know if i break my cheap
| android, i can get it repaired at a cheap price and continue
| using it or else i had to go to "official" shop and they
| would quote me 60% of the price of a new device into forcing
| me to buy a new thing. Thats bad
| srvmshr wrote:
| Getting arm twisted to buy is a bad thing of course. The
| core concern is not the availability of talent to do this
| but the supply chain of genuine parts, and authentication
| of successful repair thereafter. iFixit already provides
| several kits and could theoretically provide iPhone kits
| too - but if you are eventually forced to pay Apple a
| premium to validate that repair, then the repair pipeline
| goes waste.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| yeah. the "talent" part gets perfected in the market?
| right? i mean if you are a repair guy and your work isnt
| appreciated by your customers, you either have to get
| better or close shop. these small repair people that are
| everywhere in asia simply improve their skills with each
| device so there is that
| 99_00 wrote:
| I liked the article.
|
| Is there a browser plug-in that filters out snark?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| It's so silly that modern phones (from all manufacturers, really)
| need these giant kits (or hacks like microwaving a jelly sock)
| just to replace the single part that wears down.
|
| I still have my first Android phone. It contains a battery you
| can pop out after removing the back cover. Replaceable batteries
| used to be the norm!
|
| Now we need suction cups, hot air stations and professional
| guides to replace the part, because somehow those billion dollar
| geniuses chose to make their devices unrepairable.
|
| This programme is mostly greenwashing but it's a step forward
| some other manufacturers still haven't taken. If Apple actually
| cared about repairing phones, they'd design better phones.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| On the other hand phones are now thing and waterproof. Not
| saying that replaceable batteries are bad but it's not like
| this was an entirely arbitrary decision.
| bogwog wrote:
| The issue with right to repair isn't that phones are too hard
| to repair due to being thin/waterproof/etc. It's that Apple's
| business decisions and contracts with suppliers are designed
| to monopolize the repair process, so that third party repair
| shops can't fix peoples' phones without resorting to extreme
| measures (like buying blackmarket parts that were likely
| stolen from Apple factories by rogue employees).
|
| This repair program is trying really hard to frame it as:
| "look how risky and complicated it is to fix your own phone!
| Nobody actually wants to do this!". Drawing attention away
| from the obvious alternative where people send their phone to
| an independent repair shop rather than do the repair
| themselves (and benefit from competitive pricing rather than
| Apple exorbitant ones)
|
| As an example, you can't buy a replacement screen from this
| program unless you provide a valid IMEI. This means that a
| repair shop can't possibly offer same day repairs since they
| can't keep any screen in stock.
| ghaff wrote:
| >extremely specialised tools which ensure every repair is
| perfect with little room for any human error.
|
| I'm not sure I see the problem. Apple is saying that this is
| the "right" way to do the repair. Alternatively, you can have
| them do it. You can also, although Apple won't endorse it,
| take it to a third-party, order a kit from iFixit, or
| otherwise do it yourself.
|
| Ford will also not _endorse_ doing repairs yourself, using an
| independent mechanic, using parts from a junkyard, etc. but
| they don 't generally prevent you from doing so.
| vvillena wrote:
| The first Motorola Defy was a comparable device to its
| competitors when it was released, and its big feature, being
| water-resistant, didn't make any compromises apart from
| rubber caps on the ports (not necessary in modern phones) and
| a better back cover with a manual latch.
|
| Sealing phones isn't needed at all. It's a decision driven by
| the market makers.
| lupire wrote:
| The Defy weight over 8oz, a huge compromise. It's too heavy
| for the average personn to handle comfortably.
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| 8 oz is 227 grams
|
| The iPhone 13 Pro Max is 8.46 ounces (240 grams)
|
| The iPhone 13 Pro is 7.19 ounces (204 grams)
|
| The Defy is only 11% heavier than the iPhone 13 Pro, and
| lighter than the iPhone 13 Pro Max.
|
| Doesn't seem like much of a compromise to me.
| londons_explore wrote:
| There are also a lot of laws and regulations about shipping
| and selling batteries that don't apply to devices with non-
| removable batteries.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Not to mention aftermarket batteries. Imagine someone
| putting a $5 battery off Wish into their $1000 iPhone and
| starting a fire.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The Galaxy XCover 5 is waterproof (IP68) and has a
| replaceable battery. It's built for extreme conditions so it
| looks a little funky, but it's clearly possible to have both.
|
| Sure, gluing the battery into a closed container is a lot
| easier than developing novel waterproofing methods, but it's
| not impossible to do so.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| We've been waterproofing watches for almost 100 years. If
| Apple cared, it's absolutely possible.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| If you find a way to run a phone off a watch battery you
| will make a lot of $$$
| mmastrac wrote:
| The point is not to run off a watch battery. The point is
| that you can open and close a watch without affecting its
| waterproofing rating.
| simondotau wrote:
| A watch mechanism is (typically) circular, ideal for
| devices that need to be opened and closed frequently. And
| the mechanism is a much smaller percentage of a watch's
| overall volume; much more of its volume is enclosure
| material.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I can't find the rating for the 1926 Rolex Oyster (if
| there was one), but the Submariner in 1953 was 100m.
|
| ... I daresay we're not talking about that level of
| waterproofing, so circularity of sealing gaskets and case
| structural integrity shouldn't be as critical.
|
| Although if Apple made an iPhone Deepsea, I have no doubt
| they'd have buyers at any price point, a vanishingly
| small percentage of whom would actually submerge it.
| lstodd wrote:
| What's so novel about rubber gaskets? My Nokia 5210 from
| 2002 was waterproof, and its electronics were actually
| suspended inside shock-absorbing case so that it survived
| being thrown against a wall repeatedly.
| totetsu wrote:
| Rough break up?
| lstodd wrote:
| Nah, we were checking who's got the most sturdy phone one
| night at a bar.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Almost all consumers would prefer to take their phone in
| for a battery replacement than have it look weird.
| Considering a replacement is something you do maybe once
| while the form factor is something you will always be
| affected by.
| thescriptkiddie wrote:
| I used to carry a spare battery with me and swap them in
| 10 seconds when the one in the phone died. Now I have to
| carry a much bulkier battery powered charger and USB
| cable that takes an hour to recharge the phone.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Power banks are pretty small these days. If you have
| magnetic inductive charging capabilities on your phone,
| you can even just snap them on and keep going. Otherwise,
| get a power bank that has a small cable built in.
| ghaff wrote:
| I found the lack of swappable batteries somewhat
| irritating at first. But these days, for the relatively
| few times when I run low on juice I'd rather just use an
| external battery pack than carry a bulkier phone around
| all the time. And as you say, with inductive charging,
| there are pretty unobtrusive options.
| Gigachad wrote:
| That stopped being an issue for most people a while ago.
| The latest gen phones last all day under reasonably heavy
| usage and charge within a few minutes on a wall charger.
| razodactyl wrote:
| If a group of government scientists can deploy devices into
| the field with waterproof enclosures and replaceable battery
| banks - it makes me wonder if Apple could do it :P
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Gaskets are not 0 size. You can absolutely make a
| waterproof case. It'll just be thicker.
| jackpeterfletch wrote:
| I guess the question is should they be _made_ to do it.
|
| If someone comes along and creates a device that has those
| features, like we've seen with the Framework laptop, that's
| great.
|
| For the people that want that kind of device with that
| specific set of benefits and trade-offs that's awesome.
|
| Personally not my device though. my usage patterns means it
| makes more sense for me to take the more integrated
| solution, and just forego any upgrades all modularity for
| the life of the product.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > It's so silly that modern phones (from all manufacturers,
| really) need these giant kits
|
| People have been replacing iPhone batteries long before this
| kit was available as an option.
|
| 99% or more of iPhone owners have no desire to replace their
| own batteries. Suggesting that Apple compromise the design of
| the iPhone just to cater to the rare customer who wants to swap
| batteries isn't a realistic suggestion and I'm kind of baffled
| that so many HN commenters can't understand that much.
| londons_explore wrote:
| You could totally laser cut a hole in the _back_ of an iphone
| to replace the battery. You might need to remake a few ribbon
| cables, but then you 'd have yourself a removable battery.
|
| You could start a business that can cut the required hole, and
| then sell batteries that fit the hole with the case pre-glued
| on. (you'd replace a square of the back of the iPhone whenever
| you replaced the battery)
| ezconnect wrote:
| The battery has DRM now as stated on the article.
| chinathrow wrote:
| This shit has to stop.
| Gigachad wrote:
| It isn't drm, a warning shows up on boot if the battery
| replacement was done unofficially. It has no functional
| impact on the device.
|
| The reasons behind it are pretty strong. A lot of repair
| stores use second hand, or fraudulent parts which damage
| the user experience. So for an owner getting a repair, if
| they don't see warnings, they know the repair was done
| right. And as a buyer, you can tell the phone is using
| all official parts.
|
| It's also likely used to ruin the resale value of stolen
| parts from the factories.
| skyeto wrote:
| You could surely still have this for non-genuine / used
| batteries, but here we have a _genuine_ battery coming
| _straight from Apple_ throwing that warning. Just let 3rd
| party repair shops buy them at a reasonable price and don
| 't throw the warning if it's unused.
|
| Edit: and preferably let them buy the batteries in bulk,
| without having to have the phone on hand which just
| causes unnecessary delays.
| Gigachad wrote:
| It's because a lot of them are genuine batteries which
| have either been stolen from factories, second hand from
| other phones, or have had the id ripped from a genuine
| battery.
|
| The thing is there is very little drm here. There is no
| complex crypto chip on the battery. The battery just says
| "my id is 36382" and the phone goes "that's not the id I
| expect". Which makes it impossible for fraudulent parts
| to replicate since even making the chips respond
| identically won't work.
|
| Yes it has some downsides. But I think the trade off is
| reasonable. If you want to do an unofficial replacement,
| you still can. Just ignore the notification that shows on
| boot.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Surely this is easy for an unofficial battery to
| replicate... You just have a step during installation
| where you put the new and old batteries face to face
| briefly so the data lines touch, and the new battery can
| read the old batteries ID and memorize it?
| Gigachad wrote:
| There were some devices that would let you copy the ID
| over but they fell out of popularity / couldn't keep up.
| Just not worth it for a low margin item I guess.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| The opposite in fact. As someone who buys second hand
| phones I want to know which parts are genuine and which
| aren't.
| srvmshr wrote:
| > I still have my first Android phone. It contains a battery
| you can pop out after removing the back cover. Replaceable
| batteries used to be the norm!
|
| > If Apple actually cared about repairing phones, they'd design
| better phones.
|
| They do make excellent phones. No doubt about it. I think the
| end claim is tad contrived: If you (and millions similar) are
| willing to let go of IP68 dust & waterproofing, willing to work
| with cheaper melamine casing, and plastic screens, I am sure
| Apple will have no argument to back up its high ground of why
| they need specialist repair tools & services. What you desire
| is a state of the art smartphone, with gloss, finish & every
| working bell & whistle. What you demand for is a Nokia 3200
| (which incidentally wasn't too behind in evolution).
|
| This protocol exists because the devices are sophisticated. And
| they ship this hulk with the assumption you are at Level 0. I
| can only imagine good faith on Apple if they empowered local
| technicians to handle such repairs instead of this elaborate
| stunt to prove their point on self-servicing.
|
| Repairability is much different topic from build
| sophistication. Lets not mix up these two. Apple's approach to
| prove its point is labored. What we probably eventually want is
| iOS devices to be easily serviceable by ourselves (if well
| equipped) or via locally available technicians, instead of
| entering their marbled ecosystem. Eventually we will reach some
| middle ground. But it is crucial to understand that self-repair
| isn't everyone's cup of tea and a corporation cannot keep a
| supply chain for the 1-5% customers who dabble with this hobby
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| You're not wrong. I used to have a phone with a replaceable
| battery. I replaced the battery after a year. The next year I
| wanted a better phone anyway. I realized that the battery in my
| iPhone is replaceable. I just need to pay Apple to do it. It's
| still way cheaper than buying a new phone, and I benefit from
| the advantages of having a sealed phone. Within two weeks of
| buying my iPhone 12, I dropped it in a lake :)
| Gigachad wrote:
| You don't need all this. A hair dryer and guitar pick and
| suction cup is all you need. Ifixit sells a very cheap kit that
| has everything you need. It's quite easy and reasonable to do.
|
| Problem is apple insists that phones can only be touched with
| extremely specialised tools which ensure every repair is
| perfect with little room for any human error.
|
| And instead of loosening their requirements for self repair,
| they have taken the absurd approach here.
| 8organicbits wrote:
| For what it's worth, I've done maybe five Android screen
| repairs using the iFixit tools. One repair I messed up and
| the new screen broke almost immediately. The others looked
| good. Price wise, I wasn't able to find cheap replacement
| displays although my net cost is maybe still 70% the cost of
| going to an unofficial repair place. I'm not sure it was
| worth my time, or stress when moving tiny ribbon cables with
| tweezers.
|
| Going forward I think I'll just buy phones that have screens
| that don't die when dropped. I'm OK with a cracked screen,
| but the display needs to work.
| lupire wrote:
| Is Apple going to sue you if you use a hair dryer, or merely
| decline to fix it for you for free when the battery expired
| after your 3yrar warranty anyway?
| srvmshr wrote:
| If made to fulfill the word of the law without actually having to
| follow it in spirit, this would be my modus operandi too.
|
| By designing $1200 deposit, $49 rental & two Pelican suitcases of
| tools and manuals, while keeping the battery replacement price
| same at $69 (what you'd normally pay in total at Store), they
| have entirely disincentivized self-repair without actually
| breaking any law.
|
| Masterstroke /s
| Spivak wrote:
| I don't know what Apple could have done better here. For $50
| they _shipped_ , both ways, all the expensive equipment Apple
| themselves use to repair their devices.
|
| For how adamant Apple has been about the price of genuine parts
| for so long I'm starting to think that they actually sell
| replacement batteries at cost and eat the labor. Because having
| used 3rd party batteries they're about half the cost but they
| degrade is way fewer cycles.
|
| The problem with "right to repair" is that people thought they
| could hitch what they really wanted -- "right to use cheaper
| 3rd party parts" which is a tougher political sell than "right
| to cosplay as the underpaid Apple service tech."
| mindslight wrote:
| IMO the $1200 deposit is less ridiculous than the same-as-store
| $70 battery price. If the cost for the new battery were at
| wholesale prices, and one were able to purchase tools from the
| kit individually, I think that would be the best Apple could do
| (besides redesigning their devices to make repair easier).
|
| Tools always cost money, a capital investment which ends up
| being vested in professionals that buy the tools once and then
| repair many people's gadgets. Right to repair is just as much
| about empowering independent repair shops as the individual
| DIYer.
|
| Us DIYers have kind of gotten spoiled with the continually
| dropping prices of tools and parts combined with the always
| rising price of labor and overhead. For example, I was just
| shamelessly quoted $1300 for a rear brake job (wtf?). For that
| price I could buy all the tools to do the job, premium parts,
| and still come out favorably compared to engineering rates.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I have a standing offer for my friends: I'll do a brake job
| _with you_ in my driveway to show you how easy and cheap it
| is. It's _common_ for those $1000+ dealer quotes to be
| $75-$150 in parts, $5 in consumables, and < 90 minutes from
| door open to putting the last cleaned tool away (while
| explaining each step to them and having them do at least part
| of each step).
|
| Over 20 years, I've done this for a few handfuls of people.
| How many have switched to DIYing anything more than filling
| washer fluid and _maybe_ replacing a lamp? One. (Two others
| have switched to indy mechanics.)
|
| The others keep complaining about their $800-1250 _per axle_
| brake jobs and $2500+ service visits at the dealer and how
| expensive it is to own a car, but keep right on doing it.
| <shrug />
| mindslight wrote:
| Yeah, the "could" in my comment was only because I already
| own the tools, and I had just done the brakes on the other
| car. I might take the excuse to buy a new jack though, so I
| can lift up to the jack stands without needing to cheat
| with blocks.
|
| The funny thing is they also wanted $700 to adjust the
| valve clearances. This is expensive (it's the stealership
| after all), but I might have said yes just to have one less
| thing on my docket. However after the outrageous brake
| quote put me in the mindset to DIY, I figure I might as
| well do that myself as well.
| xattt wrote:
| > Masterstroke.
|
| And we think you're going to hate it too!
| fartcannon wrote:
| I have never understood this kind of compliance. The hordes
| that buy their disposable garbage aren't going to care, they've
| shown repeatedly that they're insensitive to, sometimes even
| aggressive towards their own autonomy. So why do this? Just to
| _waste_ more?
|
| It's so petulant.
| hatware wrote:
| You can thank the finance and legal departments for their
| lack of creativity.
| fartcannon wrote:
| How much you want to bet Tim laughed? "Oh that'll teach
| them!", he grinned.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| There's also a PR aspect to this in showing that 80 lbs worth
| of expensive equipment is the only way to replace batteries
| safely.
| fartcannon wrote:
| But who's actually being converted by that? No one with any
| sense, and the rest were already fanboys.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Politicians? The shock value of seeing all that lab-grade
| equipment contributes to their narrative of "repair is
| unsafe".
| [deleted]
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Probably to make sure that their iPhone repair business (and
| that of their authorized partners) doesn't just collapse by
| getting massively undercut by unauthorized resellers that can
| use the official repair kit.
| mcphage wrote:
| If you're going to run a business replacing batteries,
| eating the $1,200 deposit loss and keeping the equipment
| seems a no-brainer.
| Spivak wrote:
| Which is otherwise known as "paying for the equipment."
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Did they conveniently forget to say that Apple will give you a
| further refund in you return the replaced part? Ah, yes, they
| did. In the case of the battery for iPhone 13 mini described in
| the article, that's an additional refund of $24.15.
|
| Since I've never heard of anyone getting back the broken part
| when getting an in-store repair, it'd be reasonable to compare
| at the $44.85 price, wouldn't it?
| canuckintime wrote:
| They didn't 'conveniently' forget; it's mentioned and
| accounted for in the article:
|
| > $49 to rent Apple's tools for a week, more than wiping out
| any refund I might get for returning the old used part.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| It's $49 to have Apple ship two Pelican cases of tools to
| you, to have you use them for the week, then to ship them
| back to Apple and (presumably) to have someone inventory
| them to make sure there's nothing missing and that they're
| reading to ship out to the next person.
|
| You think Apple is making money on that?
| Teever wrote:
| No, I think Apple is making money in slow-walking an
| actual, practical repair program and if we lived in a
| society with proper regulatory bodies they would get
| their hand slapped so hard for doing so.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I think the EU is generally better at designing it's
| regulations to avoid exactly this problem.
|
| Probably something to the extend of "tools to repair must be
| found in any general DIY store".
| srvmshr wrote:
| I think, barring the USB-C issue which is more supportive of
| industry wide efforts to standardize and reduce e-waste, you
| cannot by any legal instrument force an equipment
| manufacturer to stick to certain parts or boiler plate
| designs, which can be seen as harming their competitiveness.
|
| This argument can be construed by Apple lawyers as exerting
| unfavorable judicial bias to downgrade/bottleneck technical
| capabilities, which Apple would have otherwise provided to
| its customers & claim significant advantage over competition
| in offering their products.
|
| EU or not, such regulation will be dead fish in water unless
| smartly crafted.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Probably something to the extend of "tools to repair must
| be found in any general DIY store".
|
| Does everyone realize how insanely bad this would be for
| phone progress? If we're forcing manufacturers to avoid
| specialty adhesives and tooling, the overall quality and size
| of phones would be greatly compromised.
|
| I understand a lot of HN commenters will say they don't care
| if their phones are twice as big and not waterproof as long
| as they can replace the battery with a screwdriver from Home
| Depot, but that's not even close to typical consumer
| behavior.
|
| People want small, waterproof phones. Making laws to force
| companies to compromise everything so 1% of buyers can swap
| batteries at home instead of paying for official repair
| service is one of the more out of touch product suggestions
| I've read on HN.
| ghaff wrote:
| They should probably ban surface mount components as well.
| Those make it really hard to repair PCBs. </s>
|
| You can argue about specific design/manufacturing decisions
| but, in the aggregate, but in general there's a huge amount
| of modern technology that's become much more complex and
| difficult to repair especially at the individual component
| level. But most people probably don't actually want to go
| back to 1980s vintage car phones.
| mdoms wrote:
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > the overall quality and size of phones would be greatly
| compromised
|
| Har, har, the phone would be 0.02mm thicker! Unacceptable!
|
| Seriously? Take any smartphone from 2014 and compare with
| your current one. They didn't thinned _that_ much.
|
| Hell, I do it for you:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_13
| Dimensions 13: H: 146.7 mm (5.78 in) W: 71.5 mm
| (2.81 in) D: 7.65 mm (0.301 in) 13 Mini:
| H: 131.5 mm (5.18 in) W: 64.2 mm (2.53 in)
| D: 7.65 mm (0.301 in)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droid_Razr
| Dimensions 130.7 mm (5.15 in) H 68.9 mm (2.71 in) W
| 7.1 mm (0.28 in) D <-- LOL (MAXX: 8.99 mm (0.354
| in) D)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moto_G4
| Dimensions G4 Play: 144.4 mm (5.69 in) H 72 mm (2.8
| in) W 9.9 mm (0.39 in) D G4, G4 Plus: 153 mm (6.0
| in) H 76.6 mm (3.02 in) W 9.8 mm (0.39 in)
| D
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| What I don't understand is why do people feel the need to
| force Apple to produce what they could have just gotten
| from another phone vendor? Is it about denying other people
| choice (so we are all forced to carry around bulkier
| phones), or do they believe that Apple would make the DIY
| repairable phone they wanted better than the other phone
| producers? It doesn't make sense to me.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| It's because they want all the benefits of the iPhone and
| all of the openness and repair ability of the PinePhone,
| but they don't want to have to compromise anywhere.
|
| The reality is that the magical solution doesn't exist
| and can't practically exist. There would be major
| tradeoffs with much of what's being suggested in this
| thread, many of which would make the phone undesirable to
| the people demanding it.
| Teever wrote:
| Because they feel that society should regulate entities
| like Apple to behave this way because they feel it's
| better for them as individuals and society as a whole if
| a corporation the size of Apple was regulated in this
| fashion?
| kllrnohj wrote:
| You're ignoring ecosystem lock-in, which Apple is
| extremely effective at (eg, iMessage's "green bubble"
| bullying).
|
| Regulation fills the gap when freedom of choice & ease of
| movement isn't actually viable for most people. See also
| search engine regulations, even though the barrier for
| using a competing product is _much_ lower than it is for
| switching smartphone ecosystems
|
| Also in this case you're ignoring the bigger picture of
| the entire industry is incentivized to be "anti-consumer"
| and hamper repairs. Right to repair isn't about Apple,
| it's about _everyone_. Nobody is going after Apple
| specifically, they are just the leading example. Samsung,
| Motorola, etc... are all offenders here as well.
| kalleboo wrote:
| Presumably to minimize e-waste, as it's more likely
| people will hang onto their old phones (or hand them down
| or resell them) if they can revitalize them with a cheap
| battery/display swap.
|
| Things like recycling marks, appliance energy efficiency
| etc are all already regulated.
| Teever wrote:
| Are they though? Doesn't Apple just ship Lightning to USB-C
| dongles with iPhones to satisfy EU requirements?
| macinjosh wrote:
| > I think the EU is generally better at designing it's
| regulations to avoid exactly this problem.
|
| The 73rd cookie banner I've closed today begs to differ.
| realusername wrote:
| That one is the fault of the site owners though
| Macha wrote:
| At the same time, it means Americans often complain about EU
| regulations as being too vague as overly specific ones are
| too prone to workarounds. See much of the discussion about
| GDPR where it's clear many of the complainers just want to
| task their lawyers to find the right magic loophole clause to
| put in their ToS to avoid doing any of it, and get frustrated
| when the law is intended to avoid that exact behaviour
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| I look forward to seeing the new phones being sold in the EU
| complete with #0 Pozidriv screws as fasteners; ought to be
| hilarious.
| draw_down wrote:
| wrycoder wrote:
| > _The real victory will come months or years down the road,
| though. That's when Apple can tell legislators it tried to give
| right-to-repair advocates what they wanted -- but that
| consumers overwhelmingly decided Apple knows best._
| saagarjha wrote:
| This is a bad take, because Apple has shown how they do this
| with the App Store and it their behavior there was far uglier
| than providing high-quality, albeit bulk and awkward, repair
| equipment.
| danrl wrote:
| Professional tools to get the job done, like they are used in any
| halfway decent repair shop.
|
| The author seems to confuse right to repair with sloppy,
| microwave-utilizing home repairs using a $20 kit from ebay.
|
| What a badly faithed clickbait article. Expected more from The
| Verge.
| dwighttk wrote:
| Agreed with you until the last sentence. The Verge has great
| writing right alongside clickbait. It is just a coin flip.
| chadlavi wrote:
| ... you can also just ship them your very light phone to replace
| the battery for you. That's what they used to make you do.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I actually think this is a great.
|
| I like the idea of more 12 year olds getting a chance to peek at
| the innards of their tech, using the proper kit so they at least
| have a chance of not ruining everything.
|
| While I suspect Apple will lose quite a lot of money on this
| (these toolboxes will end up with most of the tools missing or
| broken very quickly!), I think from a global economic
| perspective, the educational value of tens of thousands of people
| doing this far outweighs those costs.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I do not think a lot of 12 year olds are going to put down a
| $1200 deposit. Nor will a lot of parents put down a $1200
| deposit so their 12 year old can mess with their $1000 phone.
|
| But I dunno... maybe?
| sokoloff wrote:
| I'm about to tear into my 13 year old's iPhone X and replace
| the battery when the $25 package arrives from Amazon later
| today.
|
| You bet he's going to be there watching and seeing what's
| inside the phone. (It's not that we're doing exploratory
| surgery for fun and just want to see what's inside. It's
| driven by the need to repair his phone, but has a side effect
| of cool.)
| causality0 wrote:
| _Apple also provides a set of fancy torque drivers to make sure
| you don't screw down the phone's tiny screws too tightly, but
| it's a bit of a chore. I must have dropped Apple's incredibly
| tiny fasteners a dozen times_
|
| My God this guy is insufferable. You asked for professional
| tools, you got professional tools. Between this and the How to
| Build a PC video I'm beginning to wonder if the Verge staff rode
| the short bus to school.
| [deleted]
| 7speter wrote:
| If this isn't an example of malicious compliance, I don't know
| what is. Apple doesn't actually want this program to succeed so
| of course they are going to send 79 pound repair kits to people.
| sircastor wrote:
| I repaired my washing machine this last week. An unbalanced load
| had caused some sort of break on one of the wire harness
| connectors.
|
| I found what I thought was the problem, I bought the service
| manual off a third party site, and found a replacement wire
| harness on eBay. It was a bit of work, but after getting it all
| finished, I ran the self-diagnostics and calibration, and we're
| washing clothes again.
|
| I feel like the article is pretty disingenuous, but never really
| gets to the point of what right to repair is. It's being able to
| get the components you need - not just modules. It's about
| flexibility in how you care for your property (including its
| future). It's about honesty of what really needs to be
| fixed/replaced/addressed.
| antonpirker wrote:
| I am just flabbergasted that anyone would think of this process
| to change a battery as "ok". I mean batteries have a pretty short
| life time. And iPhones are really expensive. A LOT of resources
| are used to build an iPhone. And then this process for changing
| the battery.
|
| The product, the battery changing process, the whole company,
| everything feels like it is the 1980s, it feels like a tech
| dinosaur.
|
| If this is the way that most people think that things should work
| in 2022, than we are all doomed.
|
| Sorry, but this makes me so sad... It is unbelievable...
| Krisjohn wrote:
| Does this effectively mean they're selling the official repair
| kit for $1,200?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Won't be much use without the official parts, the hotline to
| validate them, etc.
| phoehne wrote:
| Please keep in mind that my comments come from someone who bought
| a Framework laptop precisely because of their right to repair
| stand. I've also experimented with alternate phones like the Pine
| Phone, looking for something that could be more open. However,
| like many criticisms of Apple's phone, this one is also largely
| bogus.
|
| This person wants a phone that's less than 8mm thick, with a high
| resolution screen, high quality camera, holes for speakers, a
| hole for a charger, smooth and tight tolerances all the way
| around, etc., that can mostly be taken under-water. (I regularly
| forget I have my iPhone in my pocket when I get in the pool and
| never once put it in a bed of rice.). Then it's surprising that
| it has to be fixed or disassembled with machinery to ensure that
| it correctly seals, doesn't break, bend, or warp during
| disassembly or assembly? Or that maybe it requires some degree of
| training to develop the confidence to use correctly?
|
| Could Apple design a phone that can be repaired at home with a
| hair dryer, plastic spudger, gasket kit, and a set of jeweler's
| screw drivers? Could Apple design a phone with an easily
| replaceable battery? Could it work with any PoS battery you order
| off Ali express because the Chinese knock-offs on Amazon are too
| expensive? Absolutely. It just wouldn't be 7mm this, largely
| water tight, non-exploding, etc. etc. And wouldn't be supported
| by the manufacturer for 5+ years. You would have something like
| my Pine phone. I can do anything I want to my Pine phone and
| that's what makes it cool. It's just not my "daily driver."
|
| I like my iPhone. After learning how to make some of my own
| electronic stuff I recognize the engineering that goes into it a
| little better. I'll continue to use my Xr until Apple stops
| updating it, which based on their track record, will likely be
| around 2024. At that point I'll get an iPhone whatever. I'm
| hoping it's sealed even tighter, better screen, camera, etc. The
| USB-C would be nice, but not anything that I stress over. In
| fact, it would be nice if it were even more sealed up by only
| wireless charging.
| randallsquared wrote:
| I'm actually surprised that this kit costs only $1200. Seems low
| for a bunch of very specialized tools and a presumably very small
| production run.
| ezconnect wrote:
| Battery has DRM now, wow.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Battery has an identifier which, if mismatched, causes the
| phone to work but present a warning that the battery may not be
| genuine and does not report battery health.
|
| Honestly, that sounds pretty fair/reasonable to me. (It would
| be outrageous if it had "DRM fail: phone shuts off". "DRM
| detects possible non-genuine battery and works but reports
| battery as possibly non-genuine" is a lot more reasonable,
| possibly totally reasonable.)
| ezconnect wrote:
| Acts like a DRM to me. Changing battery now needs internet
| connection? A remote system to control your phone just to
| tell it to function normally after changing battery? Next on
| the horizon is we need to plugin our peanut butter to an
| internet connection so we can open it to eat it.
| cyral wrote:
| I'm sure it has something to do with their liability. With
| no warning, shops would be incentivized to use cheap knock-
| off batteries. (Which could perform worse, explode, etc.
| and damage their brand)
| can16358p wrote:
| It is a device that every millimeter-cube counts so it's highly
| optimized in many ways and packagef tightly, well, because of
| battery life competition (to fit more battery at every bit).
|
| Now Apple has been obliged to provide repair tools, and they are
| simply providing what they probably provide to authorized repair
| shops, and people are still complaining.
|
| What's wrong with that? It's not a device that's designed to have
| it's battery replaced by the user anyway, and if you really want
| to, this is the kit. Simple as that.
|
| It's impossible to make some people happy these days.
| ineedasername wrote:
| I know the 70lb of equipment seems extreme here, but the push to
| make phones smaller, lighter, water tight, etc. means there's no
| easy way around thale problem of getting these phones open.
|
| If people were given general instructed about a heatgun and given
| wedges and such to pry up the screen... It would be a disaster. I
| don't think you can make sleek flag ship phones the way customers
| want without making their repair somewhat specialized and
| requiring specialized precision tools.
|
| Of course the way Apple has done all this doesn't show a real
| commitment to right-to-repair. Of course they just want people to
| buy a new device, or at least pay a premium for Apple repair. But
| what would real commitment to right to repair look like? Probably
| replacement parts that aren't sold for a profit (I suppose a
| reasonable markup is fine) but also not requiring genuine parts.
| A car warranty isn't invalid if you use non manufacturer parts.
| Apple could publish specs and have a reasonable certification
| process for parts providers. They could still sell the full
| toolkits to anyone who wants to buy them so repair shops would
| have access to purpose-built tools to make their own repairs more
| reliable. I'm sure there's more they could do too.
|
| They aren't really committed to this, but I think people have to
| recognize that device repair especially for flagships is no
| longer reasonably within reach for end user consumers
| withoitnrelevant experience. The best google-fu in the world
| isn't going to fill in for a lack of specialized tools and
| experience when a small mistake means a failed repair and broken
| phone.
| grumple wrote:
| So many comments here seem to miss the point. It should not (and
| in fact, does not) require these massive, industrial tools to
| safely replace a battery, which 100% of phones will need to
| replace if they aren't otherwise damaged. You do need some tools,
| but you don't need those tools.
|
| Worse than that, the tools that the writer received seemed to be
| both more difficult to use AND worse at the job than the $25
| battery replacement kits you can find on Amazon. It's not like
| these tools made it a breeze, it's still just as difficult as
| using a cheap kit. But the cheap kit costs $25 for the battery
| and reusable tools, while this setup costs $118 and puts a $1200
| hold on your card. If a brute like me can repair a phone with a
| $25 kit, anybody can.
|
| This seems like malicious compliance by Apple. You have the
| "right to repair" your phone, but at huge cost and risk.
| zenexer wrote:
| I just want to point out this gem from their agreement that
| covers the use of purchased--not rented--tools. Purchased. You
| paid the full price, you own the tools, _and you agree not to use
| them on anything other than an Apple product._ You're the proud
| new owner of $300 in expensive screwdrivers that you can't use.
|
| From https://www.selfservicerepair.com/terms-of-use:
|
| > You agree to use the Self Service Repair Products to repair the
| Repaired Apple Product in a manner consistent with these terms
| and conditions. Self Service Repair Products are for use in the
| repair for which they were purchased, and may not be resold or
| otherwise transferred.
|
| Ah, but maybe they only mean the replacement parts, right? Surely
| they wouldn't have such a requirement if you pay $100 for a
| generic Wera screwdriver.
|
| But no, it includes the tools:
|
| > Self Service Repair Parts" and "Self Service Repair Tools" are
| collectively referred to as "Self Service Repair Products."
|
| Is that even legally enforceable? I suspect it's not. If I buy a
| generic screwdriver, it's mine. It doesn't have DRM, and I will
| do with it as I please. If I want to use it to repair an Android
| phone, I will. If I want to sell it on eBay or lend it to my
| neighbor, who's going to stop me?
| dathinab wrote:
| > resold or otherwise transferred
|
| how is that even legal
|
| that's just absurd
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| So, 50 bucks for renting an 80 pound workstation (worth 1200
| bucks), for one week, with shipping included?
|
| Doesn't seem bad.
| marban wrote:
| There's no difference to buying a Porsche or Leica -- There is
| one official way to repair them and there's a cheap way. If
| you're not prepared for the more expensive way, don't buy the
| thing in the first place.
| [deleted]
| kappuchino wrote:
| Interesting how the discussion weighted to the tools part where
| the real kicker is: You have to greenlight the battery online.
| Seriously, none of you is bothered by this?
| techwiz137 wrote:
| Honestly, this actually looks cool. Even I would feel like a
| professional with these behemoths. I'd definitely assume the
| risk.
| laerus wrote:
| boycott Apple then
| endisneigh wrote:
| One thing I don't understand is why don't people just buy a phone
| with removable batteries to begin with?
|
| Or buy a morphine power back or equivalent. If Apple made an
| equivalent would that be sufficient?
| aulin wrote:
| Do phones like that still exist?
| endisneigh wrote:
| Plenty, just not flagship as far as I know, check out the
| Samsung Xcover or FairPhone for a couple examples
| nicbou wrote:
| Because this is hardly an option anymore
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| I'm not sure the right to repair should have to mean that
| companies have to magically circumvent the effects of economy of
| scale.
|
| Surely the important thing is that they don't act anti-
| competitively towards independent repair shops, so they can
| actually have one of these kits on their desks to replace
| batteries all day long without being gouged.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-21 23:01 UTC)