CBC Video claims Apple's repair policies are abusive, but 'proof' falls far short

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 124
    RequiemsfireRequiemsfire Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    Why would Apple one of the largest companies in the world outsourcing experienced technicians who are capable of actually fixing the problem rather than billing out the cost of basically a new computer be ludicrous especially when apple tries harder and harder to make their products to repair? Do you think that Apple customers especially those who purchase pro products don't deserve quality repairs and should get ripped off by inexperienced servicemen?
    edited October 9
  • Reply 42 of 124
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,701administrator
    Why would Apple one of the largest companies in the world outsourcing experienced technicians who are capable of actually fixing the problem rather than billing out the cost of basically a new computer be ludicrous especially when apple tries harder and harder to make their products to repair? Do you think that Apple customers especially those who purchase pro products don't deserve quality repairs and should get ripped off by inexperienced servicemen?
    Read the article again. Apple does have component-level staff. Just not at the stores, for reasons enumerated in the article.
    magman1979radarthekat
  • Reply 43 of 124
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,442member
    davgreg said:
    Full Disclosure: Longtime Apple cus
    NEXT!
    edited October 10 magman1979radarthekatdsd
  • Reply 44 of 124
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,442member
    The problem I have with “damaged screen” part of the story is that it reads like a honey trap. The water markers were tripod so that the Apple bod (who did exactly what he was told to do, so it want his fault) would take a particular course of action to make the story. 

    How is did they get the laptop into that state?  Did they drop the laptop on to grass in mildly moist weather or did they bash it against the tiles while taking a shower?

    Chances are they dismantled the laptop, loosened the connector, moistened the water markers, before sealing it back up. 

    This is a tactic that works well for politicians and football officials who are willing to take a bribe. Not sure it should be used on retail staff following company procedures. 


    magman1979chasmradarthekatwlym
  • Reply 45 of 124
    It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

    "Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

    I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

    "Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

    Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

    Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.
    obiwanbilllarrya
  • Reply 46 of 124
    AppleZulu said:
    dysamoria said:
    Also: Apple’s policies may be great for Apple and convenient for customers who need replaced devices ASAP, but they’re not good for our environment, materials usage, and the average consumer who isn’t demanding an immediate replacement (due to costs). It’s a shortcut process that makes for a lot of unnecessary waste of materials and the added impact of materials shipping.

    There was nothing wrong with having multiple Rossman-level technicians in service centers, back when it was more common in electronics repair work. Corporations making the products saw a way to increase profit margins and acted accordingly. That’s all this is about. It’s not about best serving the average customer in any way but speed. Defending the service model by saying that it’s the most efficient and cost effective for how the product is built completely misses the point.

    This business model is unsustainable and a massive level of cultural normalization of this unsustainable model has occurred. It’s being defended by people who don’t directly (or at all) reap financial benefits by supporting it, and people who argue against it are characterized as extremists, uninformed, irrational, or, like here on this forum, communist!

    Have you seen the Max Headroom TV series? A world where nothing new is made, because there aren’t enough new raw materials (or extraction of them is so wasteful and costly that society cannot tolerate it anymore)... that world is coming. It’s an inevitability, because recycling isn’t being done much at all.

    Most materials go to feeding abusively-contracted, privately owned & operated, municipally paid, toxic pollution-generating incinerators (with some of them having the gall to be called “renewable energy”), or into landfills. The regions that have banned landfilling of electronics waste have seen collection & materials-selling businesses crop up, but the waste just gets shipped out of those regions into less regulated places.

    Those “recycling robots” (the two promoted by Apple) are mere marketing curiosities that don’t actually do the real work of materials reclamation, when and where reclamation is actually done. Look outside your first-world comforts and witness the backside of the electronics waste system, operating in low-wage, low-safety workplaces. These are the places to which American corporations ship the materials and where human beings do the dangerous tear down work (or toxic incineration, once the most sellable materials have been extracted). The companies collect and ship the material for profit, not for reuse or for any environmental concern.

    The component-level refurbishment being done by electronics sellers in the USA pales in comparison to the waste they ship out of country. The material that is ultimately reclaimed is fractional.

    As an aside: Repairability isn’t some “communist” plot to rob you of your freedom (unless you feel you have a “right” to contribute to destroying the environment and wasting materials). It’s depressing just how entrenched and thoughtless the USA’s Cold War anti-USSR propaganda has been; entire generations of people (including those who didn’t live in the Cold War), are acculturated into slamming pro-society, pro-consumer, pro-environment ideas with rhetoric about “communism” and “anti-freedom”. The sheer amount of mindless, knee-jerk responses still coming from people out there, responding to issues like this, are frightening.

    Maybe CBC is promoting articles with sensationalism (which is bad, and I’m sick of seeing every media entity resorting to being little more than an ad space-selling agency that justifies click-baiting), but, in this situation at least, the issue isn’t a made up one; it’s actually in everyone’s best interests. Do you have children, or siblings whose children are planning to have children? It seems grandchildren are the extent to which people give a damn about the future. Beyond people’s grandchildren, few people in positions of power in public policy seem to care about the long term impact of the policies they enact or promote (in government or corporations), and even fewer seem to be motivated to vote for long-term sustainability. It’s like most people are simply incapable of thinking about it. I would suggest education is at fault here, but I know better. It’s attitude and belief. Being confronted with actual hard data and facts just tends to make “belief-motivated” people solidify their positions.
    The complexity of the devices we use makes ‘right to repair’ not so clearly the best option for the environment. Consider cars as an example. Yes, a car built in the 60s was highly user serviceable. The quality of those cars almost made that an imperative. Here’s the thing about that. While it was easy for you or your local shade-tree mechanic to climb under the car or under the hood and change the oil or pull a water pump (I’ve done both) in order to effect comparatively inexpensive maintenance or repair, it’s also true that this resulted in vast quantities of oil, antifreeze and other toxic stuff to be dumped straight onto the ground or into the storm drain. (I never did that, but collecting the oil and taking it somewhere for recycling was a pain in the ass and a significant disincentive for most people to do the right thing.) It was cheap partly because there was no accountability. Those cars were built to lower tolerances than current vehicles and therefore met their end at 100,000 miles or less, and ended up as toxic junk.

    Modern cars have twice the lifespan or more, but are far less user serviceable. Computer controls, tighter tolerance specs, and more tightly packed engine compartments make for longer life, better mileage, and greater reliability, but they also make home repair and shade-tree work largely a thing of the past. On balance, I think this is a vast improvement from an environmental perspective. Cars last longer, need fewer (but more expensive) repairs, and work done at dealers and certified shops is more expensive, but results in more responsible containment, recycling and disposal of toxic automotive wastes. 

    Why am I writing about cars? Because the same principles are at play with iPhones. Before their introduction, cell phones and PDAs came with user-replaceable batteries. Sure, that’s less expensive, but those batteries were often cheap, third-party replacements, and consumers would buy several and most assuredly not dispose of them carefully and in an environmentally sound manner. Likewise, the devices themselves had a shorter shelf life than iPhones, and weren’t particularly repairable. This was o.k., because they were cheaper and easy enough to dump in the trash when replacing them. 

    I don’t believe Apple’s recycling robots are just for PR. They appear very serious about deploying them widely to implement a disassembly and recycling regimen that will result in significantly higher recovery of usable materials than the traditional shred-and-sort-by-hand operations, and therefore be of great environmental benefit. Their phones also are more reliable than the competition and have a longer lifespan. Android refers consumers to recycling centers that undoubtedly are part of the process of shredding and shipping electronic waste to deplorable operations overseas. Non-certified electronics repair shops also use cheap aftermaket parts that can crap out and reduce the ultimate lifespan of devices, and chances are also good those shops are not being particularly careful with waste disposal, either.

    So I don’t think a return to the halcyon days of third-party and consumer-serviced devices is necessarily such a great thing. I think the issue is clouded by the sort of nostalgia that only looks at the good side of the ledger. 
    That's where education comes in. I've disassembled Apple batteries (and even those crappy non-OEM fakes) by now, and I always put them in my local recycling point, just as I did back when we all used alkalines in our Game Boys. Because in my country there were strong educational campaigns and I'm not an idiot. I'm guessing a non-AASP akso has to adhere to strict waste disposal codes and ensure those materials are properly disposed of.
    edited October 10 Requiemsfiretrifid
  • Reply 47 of 124
    RequiemsfireRequiemsfire Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    Why would Apple one of the largest companies in the world outsourcing experienced technicians who are capable of actually fixing the problem rather than billing out the cost of basically a new computer be ludicrous especially when apple tries harder and harder to make their products to repair? Do you think that Apple customers especially those who purchase pro products don't deserve quality repairs and should get ripped off by inexperienced servicemen?
    Read the article again. Apple does have component-level staff. Just not at the stores, for reasons enumerated in the article.
    ;

    So that the reasons cited in the article say that Apple will lose economy of scale so what he's basically saying is they will lose money, well yes they will, the other reason disclosed is that it takes 'time' of course it might take maybe a few minutes and extra resources to fix someone's computer, but those are costs that can ultimately be passed on the consumer which I would say is downright better than being asked to pay for replacement components, labor and cleaning when the genius's themselves actually don't know what the problem is. All of that is also centered on the fact that Apple continually pushes the idea that only they may repair their own products so I really don't care for the excuses this multi-billion dollar might have when offering such meager services to its high paying consumers.
    edited October 10
  • Reply 48 of 124
    Scot1Scot1 Posts: 35member
    This doesn’t surprise me. Marketplace (a “consumer watchdog” show also made by CBC also runs highly biased shows. 
    I disagree. CBC is generally the best non partisan news because it’s not reliant on any commercial interests. Marketplace has exposed many frauds and provided consumers with valuable information over the years to make informed decisions. 
    obiwanbillwlym
  • Reply 49 of 124
    rcfa said:
    Apple e.g. refuses to even look at my MacBook Air for repair because it has “a dangerous third party battery” in it. Nothing about that battery is dangerous, the battery that’s dangerous was the Apple supplied original, that with only 32 cycles became so bloated one couldn’t close the lid properly anymore, necessitating the emergency repair with a third party battery (which was all that was available within a useful time period). 
    You are being somewhat disingenuous here. As someone pointed out in the original thread where you first made this statement (in a different article a month or so ago), you chose to use a third-party battery rather than wait for a replacement from Apple. When the subsequent problem developed and you went back to Apple, they refused to entertain you, because of the third party battery.
    radarthekatobiwanbillwlym
  • Reply 50 of 124
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,701administrator
    trifid said:
    It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

    "Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

    I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

    "Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

    Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

    Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.
    So, if I've read this right, it's "shameful" that we wrote an editorial (that it appears you didn't read) that disagrees with you.

    We aren't against Right to Repair as a whole, not are we unabashedly supporters of all of it, because there are massive security implications behind it. If you read the article, you'd know that it fully praises iFixit and Rossmann, and what they do. Most of the AI staff has been on that side of the counter.

    What we're wholeheartedly against is factually light low-quality hit-pieces -- which is precisely what the CBC article is.
    edited October 10 brucemcchasmradarthekatwlymmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 51 of 124
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,701administrator
    Why would Apple one of the largest companies in the world outsourcing experienced technicians who are capable of actually fixing the problem rather than billing out the cost of basically a new computer be ludicrous especially when apple tries harder and harder to make their products to repair? Do you think that Apple customers especially those who purchase pro products don't deserve quality repairs and should get ripped off by inexperienced servicemen?
    Read the article again. Apple does have component-level staff. Just not at the stores, for reasons enumerated in the article.
    ;

    So that the reasons cited in the article say that Apple will lose economy of scale so what he's basically saying is they will lose money, well yes they will, the other reason disclosed is that it takes 'time' of course it might take maybe a few minutes and extra resources to fix someone's computer, but those are costs that can ultimately be passed on the consumer which I would say is downright better than being asked to pay for replacement components, labor and cleaning when the genius's themselves actually don't know what the problem is. All of that is also centered on the fact that Apple continually pushes the idea that only they may repair their own products so I really don't care for the excuses this multi-billion dollar might have when offering such meager services to its high paying consumers.
    If you worked in a shop that does component-level repair, you'd know that an evaluation with that granularity doesn't take "maybe a few minutes." Try hours, per device. Then, multiply that by 20000 or so for the impact on the service queue per store.

    This is literally the difference between "here's a swapped device" and you're out of the store in an hour with functional hardware, and every repair turning into "Yeah, come back a week from Tuesday and we might have it diagnosed."
    edited October 10 brucemcradarthekat
  • Reply 52 of 124
    majorslmajorsl Posts: 53unconfirmed, member
    Rayz2016 said:
    The problem I have with “damaged screen” part of the story is that it reads like a honey trap. The water markers were tripod so that the Apple bod (who did exactly what he was told to do, so it want his fault) would take a particular course of action to make the story. 

    How is did they get the laptop into that state?  Did they drop the laptop on to grass in mildly moist weather or did they bash it against the tiles while taking a shower?

    Chances are they dismantled the laptop, loosened the connector, moistened the water markers, before sealing it back up. 

    This is a tactic that works well for politicians and football officials who are willing to take a bribe. Not sure it should be used on retail staff following company procedures. 


    ....and your point is? It took a competent technician less than 2 minutes to find the issue and resolve it because he understands how the device works.  He's not a "technician" that slaps in a piece of software that tell him what is wrong or one that makes an assumption that red dots = bad.

    The only "trap" was highlighting everything that is wrong about the "genius bar" and the sham it is in the face of what real service providers once were.
  • Reply 53 of 124
    [quote]There are good, bad, Apple-authorized, and independent repair shops, and all the permutations of those four you can dream up. [\quote]

    Are you saying there are bad Apple-authorized repair shops?
    Yes!   My Apple Store!   (Well, rather than bad, it's inconsistent -- the answer can vary dramatically depending on who you talk to there!)

    My latest experience:   A month ago I took in my 6+ when the touch screen stopped working.  The rep diagnosed it as touchdisease and ordered a replacement phone (for $149) saying it would be in in a couple days.   After several days I hadn't heard so  stopped in and was first told it would take a couple weeks, then another told me "Oh no!  A factory would have to build a 6+, it will take months!".  When I asked which one was lying to me they bristled but I got another rep who I complained to.   He spent some time in the back and came back with an identical grey, 128Gb 6+ that they just "happened to have lying around"!  (Yeh!  Bullshit!)

    Quite obviously, I was lied to a number of times, and I strongly suspect that when my replacement phone came in, somebody decided I didn't deserve it and put it into stock instead of letting me know I could pick it up.

    Some would say that I am too cynical.   But over the years, I have had similar experiences with this store.  Namely:   Some reps are rigidly looking out for Apple, its profit and its policies.   Others are more concerned about helping the customer.

    I don't know if my Apple Store is representative of all Apple stores.  But, its employees need to be better trained and quality control needs to be improved.

    larz2112muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 54 of 124
    mainyehc said:
    AppleZulu said:
    dysamoria said:
    Also: Apple’s policies may be great for Apple and convenient for customers who need replaced devices ASAP, but they’re not good for our environment, materials usage, and the average consumer who isn’t demanding an immediate replacement (due to costs). It’s a shortcut process that makes for a lot of unnecessary waste of materials and the added impact of materials shipping.

    There was nothing wrong with having multiple Rossman-level technicians in service centers, back when it was more common in electronics repair work. Corporations making the products saw a way to increase profit margins and acted accordingly. That’s all this is about. It’s not about best serving the average customer in any way but speed. Defending the service model by saying that it’s the most efficient and cost effective for how the product is built completely misses the point.

    This business model is unsustainable and a massive level of cultural normalization of this unsustainable model has occurred. It’s being defended by people who don’t directly (or at all) reap financial benefits by supporting it, and people who argue against it are characterized as extremists, uninformed, irrational, or, like here on this forum, communist!

    Have you seen the Max Headroom TV series? A world where nothing new is made, because there aren’t enough new raw materials (or extraction of them is so wasteful and costly that society cannot tolerate it anymore)... that world is coming. It’s an inevitability, because recycling isn’t being done much at all.

    Most materials go to feeding abusively-contracted, privately owned & operated, municipally paid, toxic pollution-generating incinerators (with some of them having the gall to be called “renewable energy”), or into landfills. The regions that have banned landfilling of electronics waste have seen collection & materials-selling businesses crop up, but the waste just gets shipped out of those regions into less regulated places.

    Those “recycling robots” (the two promoted by Apple) are mere marketing curiosities that don’t actually do the real work of materials reclamation, when and where reclamation is actually done. Look outside your first-world comforts and witness the backside of the electronics waste system, operating in low-wage, low-safety workplaces. These are the places to which American corporations ship the materials and where human beings do the dangerous tear down work (or toxic incineration, once the most sellable materials have been extracted). The companies collect and ship the material for profit, not for reuse or for any environmental concern.

    The component-level refurbishment being done by electronics sellers in the USA pales in comparison to the waste they ship out of country. The material that is ultimately reclaimed is fractional.

    As an aside: Repairability isn’t some “communist” plot to rob you of your freedom (unless you feel you have a “right” to contribute to destroying the environment and wasting materials). It’s depressing just how entrenched and thoughtless the USA’s Cold War anti-USSR propaganda has been; entire generations of people (including those who didn’t live in the Cold War), are acculturated into slamming pro-society, pro-consumer, pro-environment ideas with rhetoric about “communism” and “anti-freedom”. The sheer amount of mindless, knee-jerk responses still coming from people out there, responding to issues like this, are frightening.

    Maybe CBC is promoting articles with sensationalism (which is bad, and I’m sick of seeing every media entity resorting to being little more than an ad space-selling agency that justifies click-baiting), but, in this situation at least, the issue isn’t a made up one; it’s actually in everyone’s best interests. Do you have children, or siblings whose children are planning to have children? It seems grandchildren are the extent to which people give a damn about the future. Beyond people’s grandchildren, few people in positions of power in public policy seem to care about the long term impact of the policies they enact or promote (in government or corporations), and even fewer seem to be motivated to vote for long-term sustainability. It’s like most people are simply incapable of thinking about it. I would suggest education is at fault here, but I know better. It’s attitude and belief. Being confronted with actual hard data and facts just tends to make “belief-motivated” people solidify their positions.
    The complexity of the devices we use makes ‘right to repair’ not so clearly the best option for the environment. Consider cars as an example. Yes, a car built in the 60s was highly user serviceable. The quality of those cars almost made that an imperative. Here’s the thing about that. While it was easy for you or your local shade-tree mechanic to climb under the car or under the hood and change the oil or pull a water pump (I’ve done both) in order to effect comparatively inexpensive maintenance or repair, it’s also true that this resulted in vast quantities of oil, antifreeze and other toxic stuff to be dumped straight onto the ground or into the storm drain. (I never did that, but collecting the oil and taking it somewhere for recycling was a pain in the ass and a significant disincentive for most people to do the right thing.) It was cheap partly because there was no accountability. Those cars were built to lower tolerances than current vehicles and therefore met their end at 100,000 miles or less, and ended up as toxic junk.

    Modern cars have twice the lifespan or more, but are far less user serviceable. Computer controls, tighter tolerance specs, and more tightly packed engine compartments make for longer life, better mileage, and greater reliability, but they also make home repair and shade-tree work largely a thing of the past. On balance, I think this is a vast improvement from an environmental perspective. Cars last longer, need fewer (but more expensive) repairs, and work done at dealers and certified shops is more expensive, but results in more responsible containment, recycling and disposal of toxic automotive wastes. 

    Why am I writing about cars? Because the same principles are at play with iPhones. Before their introduction, cell phones and PDAs came with user-replaceable batteries. Sure, that’s less expensive, but those batteries were often cheap, third-party replacements, and consumers would buy several and most assuredly not dispose of them carefully and in an environmentally sound manner. Likewise, the devices themselves had a shorter shelf life than iPhones, and weren’t particularly repairable. This was o.k., because they were cheaper and easy enough to dump in the trash when replacing them. 

    I don’t believe Apple’s recycling robots are just for PR. They appear very serious about deploying them widely to implement a disassembly and recycling regimen that will result in significantly higher recovery of usable materials than the traditional shred-and-sort-by-hand operations, and therefore be of great environmental benefit. Their phones also are more reliable than the competition and have a longer lifespan. Android refers consumers to recycling centers that undoubtedly are part of the process of shredding and shipping electronic waste to deplorable operations overseas. Non-certified electronics repair shops also use cheap aftermaket parts that can crap out and reduce the ultimate lifespan of devices, and chances are also good those shops are not being particularly careful with waste disposal, either.

    So I don’t think a return to the halcyon days of third-party and consumer-serviced devices is necessarily such a great thing. I think the issue is clouded by the sort of nostalgia that only looks at the good side of the ledger. 
    That's where education comes in. I've disassembled Apple batteries (and even those crappy non-OEM fakes) by now, and I always put them in my local recycling point, just as I did back when we all used alkalines in our Game Boys. Because in my country there were strong educational campaigns and I'm not an idiot. I'm guessing a non-AASP akso has to adhere to strict waste disposal codes and ensure those materials are properly disposed of.
    In my country, environmental education gets a political counter argument, because “Freedom!” Likewise, strict enforcement of waste disposal codes against a small business could easily be painted as government overreach. As such, more people out there doing electronics repair will equal increased environmental damage. 
  • Reply 55 of 124
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,368member
    The generally pro-Apple Philip Elmer Dewitt has this take:

    Angela Ahrendts, you've got a problem.

    In the first 6:30 minutes of this Canadian Broadcast Corporation investigative report, an Apple Store "genius" is caught on hidden camera giving spectacularly bad advice. He estimates $1,200 worth of repairs are required on a MacBook Pro that a shop on First Avenue was able to fix with tweezers for free. A new backlight cable, if it had been necessary, would have cost $15. Bad genius, bad.

    https://www.ped30.com/2018/10/10/bad-genius-bar-apple/

    GeorgeBMacobiwanbillmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 56 of 124
    trifid said:
    It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

    "Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

    I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

    "Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

    Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

    Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.
    So, if I've read this right, it's "shameful" that we wrote an editorial (that it appears you didn't read) that disagrees with you.

    We aren't against Right to Repair as a whole, not are we unabashedly supporters of all of it, because there are massive security implications behind it. If you read the article, you'd know that it fully praises iFixit and Rossmann, and what they do. Most of the AI staff has been on that side of the counter.

    What we're wholeheartedly against is factually light low-quality hit-pieces -- which is precisely what the CBC article is.

    CBS showed BOTH iFixit's founder and Rossman receiving legal threats when they share schematics or repair manuals from Apple, and how they were collaborating with lawmakers to push for right to repair legislation. CBS spends a LARGE part of the documentary showing iFixit and Rossman explain how important the right to repair is so that they can keep helping others repair their devices. You acknowledge iFixit and Rossman but then you state "CBC's implication that Apple should source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent is ludicrous" I went back to the CBS video and could not find that conclusion ANYWHERE after rewatching it. CBS shows extensively how important right to repair is, I don't see supporting evidence of your claim that CBS was trying to imply something else. If anything it seems very disingenuous from you that even after you cite iFixit and Rossman's stance, that you don't acknowledge the real conclusion/implication, which is more transparency, and even Rossman's own wishes shown in the CBS video is that Apple just stops suing him when he shares technical documentation. Neither Rossman nor iFixit even remotely hint and the ridiculous idea of to "source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent"
    obiwanbill
  • Reply 57 of 124
    trifid said:
    trifid said:
    It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

    "Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

    I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

    "Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

    Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

    Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.
    So, if I've read this right, it's "shameful" that we wrote an editorial (that it appears you didn't read) that disagrees with you.

    We aren't against Right to Repair as a whole, not are we unabashedly supporters of all of it, because there are massive security implications behind it. If you read the article, you'd know that it fully praises iFixit and Rossmann, and what they do. Most of the AI staff has been on that side of the counter.

    What we're wholeheartedly against is factually light low-quality hit-pieces -- which is precisely what the CBC article is.

    CBS showed BOTH iFixit's founder and Rossman receiving legal threats when they share schematics or repair manuals from Apple, and how they were collaborating with lawmakers to push for right to repair legislation. CBS spends a LARGE part of the documentary showing iFixit and Rossman explain how important the right to repair is so that they can keep helping others repair their devices. You acknowledge iFixit and Rossman but then you state "CBC's implication that Apple should source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent is ludicrous" I went back to the CBS video and could not find that conclusion ANYWHERE after rewatching it. CBS shows extensively how important right to repair is, I don't see supporting evidence of your claim that CBS was trying to imply something else. If anything it seems very disingenuous from you that even after you cite iFixit and Rossman's stance, that you don't acknowledge the real conclusion/implication, which is more transparency, and even Rossman's own wishes shown in the CBS video is that Apple just stops suing him when he shares technical documentation. Neither Rossman nor iFixit even remotely hint and the ridiculous idea of to "source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent"
    CBS is an American TV network, the “Columbia Broadcasting System.” The piece referenced in the article at the top of this thread was created by the CBC, or “Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.” This is something made clear in the original article, and repeatedly throughout this discussion thread. Nonetheless in your comments, you repeatedly refer to CBS, even as you include quotes from Mr. Wuerthele that reference the CBC. It would seem reasonable, therefore, to conclude that you are inattentive or don’t know what you’re going on about, or both, and subsequently that the value of your thoughts on the matter should be significantly discounted.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 58 of 124
    AppleZulu said:
    trifid said:
    trifid said:
    It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

    "Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

    I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

    "Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

    Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

    Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.
    So, if I've read this right, it's "shameful" that we wrote an editorial (that it appears you didn't read) that disagrees with you.

    We aren't against Right to Repair as a whole, not are we unabashedly supporters of all of it, because there are massive security implications behind it. If you read the article, you'd know that it fully praises iFixit and Rossmann, and what they do. Most of the AI staff has been on that side of the counter.

    What we're wholeheartedly against is factually light low-quality hit-pieces -- which is precisely what the CBC article is.

    CBS showed BOTH iFixit's founder and Rossman receiving legal threats when they share schematics or repair manuals from Apple, and how they were collaborating with lawmakers to push for right to repair legislation. CBS spends a LARGE part of the documentary showing iFixit and Rossman explain how important the right to repair is so that they can keep helping others repair their devices. You acknowledge iFixit and Rossman but then you state "CBC's implication that Apple should source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent is ludicrous" I went back to the CBS video and could not find that conclusion ANYWHERE after rewatching it. CBS shows extensively how important right to repair is, I don't see supporting evidence of your claim that CBS was trying to imply something else. If anything it seems very disingenuous from you that even after you cite iFixit and Rossman's stance, that you don't acknowledge the real conclusion/implication, which is more transparency, and even Rossman's own wishes shown in the CBS video is that Apple just stops suing him when he shares technical documentation. Neither Rossman nor iFixit even remotely hint and the ridiculous idea of to "source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent"
    CBS is an American TV network, the “Columbia Broadcasting System.” The piece referenced in the article at the top of this thread was created by the CBC, or “Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.” This is something made clear in the original article, and repeatedly throughout this discussion thread. Nonetheless in your comments, you repeatedly refer to CBS, even as you include quotes from Mr. Wuerthele that reference the CBC. It would seem reasonable, therefore, to conclude that you are inattentive or don’t know what you’re going on about, or both, and subsequently that the value of your thoughts on the matter should be significantly discounted.
    I apologize for referencing the wrong name. It seems quite spiteful or convenient to dismiss my argument due to such trivial mistake though. I think you are choosing this because there is merit in the argument but it's easier to attack the trivial mistake.
    gatorguyobiwanbillmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 59 of 124
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,701administrator
    trifid said:
    trifid said:
    It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

    "Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

    I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

    "Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

    Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

    Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.
    So, if I've read this right, it's "shameful" that we wrote an editorial (that it appears you didn't read) that disagrees with you.

    We aren't against Right to Repair as a whole, not are we unabashedly supporters of all of it, because there are massive security implications behind it. If you read the article, you'd know that it fully praises iFixit and Rossmann, and what they do. Most of the AI staff has been on that side of the counter.

    What we're wholeheartedly against is factually light low-quality hit-pieces -- which is precisely what the CBC article is.

    CBS showed BOTH iFixit's founder and Rossman receiving legal threats when they share schematics or repair manuals from Apple, and how they were collaborating with lawmakers to push for right to repair legislation. CBS spends a LARGE part of the documentary showing iFixit and Rossman explain how important the right to repair is so that they can keep helping others repair their devices. You acknowledge iFixit and Rossman but then you state "CBC's implication that Apple should source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent is ludicrous" I went back to the CBS video and could not find that conclusion ANYWHERE after rewatching it. CBS shows extensively how important right to repair is, I don't see supporting evidence of your claim that CBS was trying to imply something else. If anything it seems very disingenuous from you that even after you cite iFixit and Rossman's stance, that you don't acknowledge the real conclusion/implication, which is more transparency, and even Rossman's own wishes shown in the CBS video is that Apple just stops suing him when he shares technical documentation. Neither Rossman nor iFixit even remotely hint and the ridiculous idea of to "source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent"
    You're welcome to believe what you want, but -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but I don't feel like you've ever worked at a high-volume service center. And, we do talk about transparency, twice. Once about the lack thereof about the Home button error 53 thing and the secure enclave on iFixit's part, and once on the battery issue in the piece.

    CBC is absolutely implying they should have multiple Rossman-grade techs at every store. Detail work like that is how the "bent pin" gets found, versus following the repair procedure that Apple promulgates -- and has to, given the size of the repair effort as a whole -- which starts with "check the moisture sensors for indication."
    edited October 10 brucemcwlym
  • Reply 60 of 124
    trifid said:
    trifid said:
    It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

    "Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

    I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

    "Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

    Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

    Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.
    So, if I've read this right, it's "shameful" that we wrote an editorial (that it appears you didn't read) that disagrees with you.

    We aren't against Right to Repair as a whole, not are we unabashedly supporters of all of it, because there are massive security implications behind it. If you read the article, you'd know that it fully praises iFixit and Rossmann, and what they do. Most of the AI staff has been on that side of the counter.

    What we're wholeheartedly against is factually light low-quality hit-pieces -- which is precisely what the CBC article is.

    CBS showed BOTH iFixit's founder and Rossman receiving legal threats when they share schematics or repair manuals from Apple, and how they were collaborating with lawmakers to push for right to repair legislation. CBS spends a LARGE part of the documentary showing iFixit and Rossman explain how important the right to repair is so that they can keep helping others repair their devices. You acknowledge iFixit and Rossman but then you state "CBC's implication that Apple should source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent is ludicrous" I went back to the CBS video and could not find that conclusion ANYWHERE after rewatching it. CBS shows extensively how important right to repair is, I don't see supporting evidence of your claim that CBS was trying to imply something else. If anything it seems very disingenuous from you that even after you cite iFixit and Rossman's stance, that you don't acknowledge the real conclusion/implication, which is more transparency, and even Rossman's own wishes shown in the CBS video is that Apple just stops suing him when he shares technical documentation. Neither Rossman nor iFixit even remotely hint and the ridiculous idea of to "source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent"
    You're welcome to believe what you want, but -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but I don't feel like you've ever worked at a high-volume service center.

    CBC is absolutely implying they should have multiple Rossman-grade techs at every store. That's how the "bent pin" gets found, versus following the repair procedure that Apple promulgates, which starts with "check the moisture sensors for indication."
    First of all I appreciate staff for replying to feedback, many publications don't do it or care about it. With regards to the bent pin, the reason Rossman was able to find it is because there is documentation pointing out that it's the backlight pin. This supports the argument they are pushing for, getting documentation and not being sued for it, so that shops or individuals outside of Apple can make these types of repairs.

    If I may humbly point out that if Appleinsider is boldly going to call out CBC for lack of 'proof', it seems to me you are also being scrutinized when you are so dismissive by rounding up iFixit's and Rossman's testimony and concluding something that you think to be 'implied' but I honestly can't see any evidence supporting that. In fact there is such a large segment of them talking about right to repair, being sued for technical documents, Apple using proprietary screws/glue etc, and other details which is actually the 'proof' that the real focus of CBC's piece is right to repair, and accountability, and not the implication that Appleinsider is referring to.


    obiwanbilllarrya
Sign In or Register to comment.