Apple to oppose 'Right to Repair' legislation in Nebraska, report says
A report on Tuesday claims Apple is planning to send a representative to testify against a proposed "Right to Repair" bill in Nebraska that would require the company provide consumers and third-party repair shops access to service manuals and parts.
Citing a source within Nebraska's legislature, Motherboard reports Apple intends to send a representative, staffer or lobbyist to present against the proposed bill in a hearing slated to take place in Lincoln on March 9.
Apple will be joined by AT&T, and at least one of the companies plans to argue the passage of Nebraska's bill, and others like it, could harm consumers. Specifically, device owners or independent shops performing unauthorized repairs might unintentionally cause lithium batteries to catch fire.
The use of high density lithium batteries in portable devices like iPhone and iPad has become a talking point after Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 fiasco last year. Shortly after the phablet launched in August, users began reporting problems of exploding or combusting handsets thought to be associated with device charging or the product's battery.
After halting sales and discontinuing the Note 7 line, Samsung last month concluded an investigation into the fires, confirming battery manufacturing issues were to blame.
It remains to be seen how Apple or AT&T plan to tie lithium battery fires with unauthorized repairs, or whether the argument will move Nebraska's legislature. The state is one of eight considering the adoption of "Right to Repair" bills that would force OEMs like Apple to make parts and service manuals available to those interested in servicing electronic devices. Other states mulling similar legislation include Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee and Wyoming. So far, Nebraska is the only district to hold hearings on the matter.
For Apple, the move is unsurprising given the company's longstanding view that its products should only be serviced by qualified technicians. Offering repairs through authorized outlets like Apple stores and vetted shops provide customers with a consistent experience, Apple contends. Further, an authorized repair network helps the company control and protect its various hardware platforms.
Apple has gone so far as to develop proprietary screws to thwart unauthorized repairs. More recently, Apple was sued over the integration of Touch ID security protocols that rendered iOS devices with unauthorized fingerprint modules, like those installed by out of network repair shops, useless.
Citing a source within Nebraska's legislature, Motherboard reports Apple intends to send a representative, staffer or lobbyist to present against the proposed bill in a hearing slated to take place in Lincoln on March 9.
Apple will be joined by AT&T, and at least one of the companies plans to argue the passage of Nebraska's bill, and others like it, could harm consumers. Specifically, device owners or independent shops performing unauthorized repairs might unintentionally cause lithium batteries to catch fire.
The use of high density lithium batteries in portable devices like iPhone and iPad has become a talking point after Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 fiasco last year. Shortly after the phablet launched in August, users began reporting problems of exploding or combusting handsets thought to be associated with device charging or the product's battery.
After halting sales and discontinuing the Note 7 line, Samsung last month concluded an investigation into the fires, confirming battery manufacturing issues were to blame.
It remains to be seen how Apple or AT&T plan to tie lithium battery fires with unauthorized repairs, or whether the argument will move Nebraska's legislature. The state is one of eight considering the adoption of "Right to Repair" bills that would force OEMs like Apple to make parts and service manuals available to those interested in servicing electronic devices. Other states mulling similar legislation include Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee and Wyoming. So far, Nebraska is the only district to hold hearings on the matter.
For Apple, the move is unsurprising given the company's longstanding view that its products should only be serviced by qualified technicians. Offering repairs through authorized outlets like Apple stores and vetted shops provide customers with a consistent experience, Apple contends. Further, an authorized repair network helps the company control and protect its various hardware platforms.
Apple has gone so far as to develop proprietary screws to thwart unauthorized repairs. More recently, Apple was sued over the integration of Touch ID security protocols that rendered iOS devices with unauthorized fingerprint modules, like those installed by out of network repair shops, useless.
Comments
It doesn't make sense for something like an iPhone, which is an intricate piece of electronic hardware.
For example: the technician messed up the repair - is that now apple's fault for not making the instructions clear enough/the device easy enough to repair?
Or some more obvious issues: sometimes a repair (to apple) is just a replacement - should 3rd parties be able to repair items that apple would just recycle entirely?
A cracked case, is that something that should be repairable? In the context of rapidly advancing technologies, who gets to define what is repairable? When does something go from being broken to repaired, how would that even be testable?
What mom and pop shop would actually have the tools and expertise (or the money to develop/buy those tools and expertise) to fix a sealed Apple 7+ phone and reseal it properly?
"Presents more issues than it solves"? If your auto repair isn't correct, there is no recourse with the original manufacturer even though the shop owner bought a service manual from that manufacturer. This isn't really any different.
I would have a lot more respect for Apple's position if they didn't have to resort to battery scare tactics.
Phones on the other hand, particularly with the crypto element should probably be left to the manufacturer to handle. They'll probably put DRM in all the components now just to make it a real PITA. Apple are keen to control the whole customer experience which is admirable but there's a reason why 3rd party repairers exist - cost and flexibility. Of course someone will pipe up and say if you can't afford to get it fixed you shouldn't buy one. That's a stupid argument.
Right to Repair is kind of related to the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act in that a company can't void a warranty if the customer has a product repaired at a third party facility.
However, people mistake this to mean that you can have your product repaired just about anywhere and retain your warranty, or that they have a "right to repair". This simply isn't true. A manufacturer has the right to define specifications and procedures for repairing a product to ensure quality standards.
So if Apple somehow loses this case they can still demand minimum standards for repairs. Like only allowing screens that meet a minimum quality standard for brightness or color accuracy. Or having anyone who replaces a screen to use a calibration device afterwards to ensure colors are accurate. This would scare away most independent repair shops (especially the shady ones). It would also add credibility to authorized repair shops who would have this equipment.
Personally I don't see this case going anywhere.
With that said, I support "right to repair" legislation in all 50 states.
I would never repair an iPhone myself because it is too hard. But what if it is out of warranty and/or in-warranty but Apple wants to charge me a lot to fix it? There are third part repair shops with specialty equipment that can repair these devices with relative ease (made even easier for them if they have access to the Apple parts and repair guides). So I want these repair shops to have access to that information from Apple in order to make repairs faster, cheaper, and better -- so long as the security of the device isn't compromised as a result. But honestly, even without the manuals, these repair shops have microscopes that can see things the human eye cannot. So it may be hard to say whether releasing private documentation to them would decrease security any lower than it is now.
I'm talking about repair folks like these guys:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPjp41qeXe1o_lp1US9TpWA/videos
I believe in repairability but through certified technicians. I believe in replaceable batteries too but also certified.
As someone said, design should also deal with accessibility and repairability.
Just because we can slim things down and make them lighter by using glue, it doesn't mean we should go there if we lose other capabilities in the process.
In the case of Apple and the US (12 month standard warranty) the issue is more pronounced but with every step the company takes to seal everything inside its products, it makes them 'disposable' by design if they need repair out of warranty.
If you are paying almost 1000€ for a premium product (much, much more for the latest MBP) it should come with a corresponding warranty out of the box. That is to say 12 months standard is way too little.
In the case of technology that holds user data. Repairs (or as seems to be ever increasing, replacement units) should see the storage elements handed back to the user or explicitly (and voluntarily) signed over to Apple on the condition of correct destruction of data. Apple should not be allowed to claim it needs the part for accountability.
It's a complex issue but legislation is the only way to lay the groundwork for the future.
There's likely very good reason any glued components are glued. Phone get jostled, dropped, creating impacts that might shift internal components. And that could create exactly the tolerance issues that Samsung cited as causing battery fires.
An issue, which I haven't heard the commenters or article authors address, is the issue of brand reputation. Brand image is another reason why there's a servicer authorization process, so that Apple can ensure that its brand doesn't take a hit from shoddy repairs in a world where anyone can service the products and therefore there's no perceived differentiation between authorized servicers and everyone else. Plus, consumers could be hurt, as there would be less incentive for any servicer to endure Apple's authorization process. Even current authorized servicere may neglect to bother to continue to become certified on new Apple products as they are released. And so, the service quality, overall, may deteriorate, and with it, Apple's brand image. These are arguments I'd make to the legislature.
People are forever complaining about being 'locked out' of their phones due to proprietary screws but a complete set of screwdrivers for iPhone 4 to 5 is available on eBay for $2.
Beyond that people in this thread act as if an Apple computer or cell phone is some mysterious device that good oke Americans cant understand. Frankly this is no different than a watch repair, some people can do it some cant. You don't make watch repairs illegal just because there are a few idiots in the business.
As far as something like a home button well that's a security issue there because it has the finger print reader on it. I wouldn't want some $2 home button that looks just like the OEM one but works like shit, and could present itself to be a major security issue. You don't know where the sensor was made, how well it works, what data its recording, etc, etc. Again, I'd much rather have Apple do the repair.
Just because you buy something doesn't mean you have the right to get it repaired wherever you want under warranty. Apple isn't alone with this. One example I can think of is if you get a Dodge Charger or Challenger Hellcat the supercharger is a a sealed unit. If you open it, you void the warranty and as soon as a dealer sees it was opened they'll flag your VIN an no dealership can perform warranty work on it.