Apple under fire for onerous independent third-party repair terms

Posted:
in General Discussion edited February 2020
Right-to-repair advocates have taken a look at Apple's Independent Repair Provider program contract, and are calling it "perilous" and "crazy."

Apple under fire for onerous third-party service terms


In August 2019, Apple opened up its Independent Repair Provider program, offering more independent repair businesses of all sizes the same genuine parts, tools, training, repair manuals, and diagnostics as its Apple Stores and Apple Authorized Service Providers.

The program was seen as a big win for "Right to Repair" advocates, who have pushed back against Apple's rules for repairing devices. Motherboard has acquired a copy of the contract that businesses are required to sign before being admitted to the program, which is now being placed under scrutiny by repair advocates once again.

Apple's Independent Repair Provider terms

By signing the contract, Independent Repair Providers are required to agree to unannounced audits and inspections by Apple. It seems as though the audits may be designed to identify the use of repair parts that are not permitted in Apple device repairs. These products include "counterfeit Products or service parts," as well as "products or service parts that infringe on Apple's intellectual property."

If found, Apple could, in theory, impose fines onto the Independent Repair Provider. According to the contract, if Apple determines that more than two percent of a repair business' transactions involve prohibited products, the business would be obligated to pay Apple $1,000 for every transaction that occurred during the audit period. This is not dissimilar to what Apple requires of its Specialists that participate in Apple service programs.

Repair shops are also required to display "prominent and easily visible written notice," that they're not an Apple Authorized Service Provider on both their storefront and website. Additionally, they'll need to obtain consent from customers showing they understand the difference. Customers must also provide consent that shows they know that Apple does not warranty repairs made by Independent Repair Providers, either. Right-to-repair advocates state that this forces an independent repair shop to advertise against itself and is designed to scare potential customers away. Specialists have Apple-authorized branding that they can display -- and Apple typically supports their repairs.

It's also purportedly difficult to break with the program if a business decides it wants to opt out. The contract states that if a provider leaves the program, Apple reserves the right to inspect the shop for up to five years afterward. During those five years, the business must maintain records of customers it had serviced during its time as an Independent Repair Provider. This includes customers' names, addresses, and phone numbers.

It isn't clear if the five-year proviso in the contract is accurate or universal. In the process of confirming this report on Thursday morning, AppleInsider couldn't find anybody that was under the five-year requirement, nor that the clause existed at all. There is a possibility that it varies from provider to provider, however.

Motherboard had reached out to Apple for comment on the contract. In both Motherboard's questions and AppleInsider's calls, Apple so far has declined to answer any specific questions -- but didn't dispute the overall accuracy of the report, either.

Apple's Independent Repair Provider program may not the be the best choice


Right-to-repair advocates have stepped forward, urging those interested in joining the Apple Independent Repair Provider program to think twice.

"They give Apple a huge amount of discretion, impose potentially business-destroying costs and penalties on the repair shop, and require that they grant access to Apple without notice," Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Motherboard. "If you sign this agreement, then you repair non-Apple devices at your peril."

Despite the backlash from advocates, many Independent Repair Providers say they are happy to be part of the program.

"People like us are uniquely qualified to handle things that don't make Apple any money. We can keep battery repairs out of Apple stores and hopefully make a little money too," said Justin Carrol, owner of FruitFixed, a series of independent repair shops in Virginia. "That's something for me I would welcome because I know everything in our house we're selling is fine and above board."

The launch of the program on August 28, 2019, followed a pilot program launch with 20 independent repair businesses in North America, Europe and Asia. Just prior to the program roll-out, Apple extended service authorization to over 1000 Best Buy locations.

What Apple's Independent Repair Provider program is not, is distribution of circuit-level diagrams. Repair shops will still be limited to full assembly swaps, like replacing an entire motherboard. At present it still isn't clear what Apple will charge shops for parts, or the larger and more expensive equipment needed for things like a Secure Enclave calibration.

The program appears to be an evolution of the "Apple Genuine Parts Repair" program that was discovered in March 2018. The program appears to specifically allow repair shops to do things that Apple-authorized centers have been doing for years, without telling Apple. For instance, there are specific prohibitions on swapping in a "known-good" component not from Apple's stock for troubleshooting, requiring a service replacement part be ordered first.

Specifically, presentation slides discovered in 2018 say that providers can "keep doing what you're doing, with Apple genuine parts, reliable parts supply, and Apple process and training."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    That contract hardly seems "perilous" or "crazy."  Apple has excellent reason to be concerned about consumers dropping problems on Apple's lap if these firms screw up.

    The right to audit terms of compliance is pretty standard.  How else is Apple to know if people are complying with the agreement?  Would I expect Apple to audit firms regularly?  Not at all.  If they use that as a hammer then people would have a right to complain.

    Maintaining records for 5 years is a "crazy" burden?  Hardly.

    Making customers sign a statement that they realize that it's not Apple performing the repair?  Big deal.

    $1000 per instance of the service provider violating the policy and specifically being caught by Apple during an audit?  Sounds reasonable.  Don't like those terms?  Then don't sign up to get genuine Apple parts and then use knock-off parts.  Problem solved.
    mknelsonbaconstangearlygeekGeorgeBMacjony0LeoMC1stwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 25
    These all sound like protections to the consumer from businesses/individuals who may set out to deceive customers. While additionally providing protection for authorised repair providers.
    earlygeekGeorgeBMacchasmwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 25
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    "the audits may be designed to identify the use of repair parts that are not prohibited in Apple device repairs" - do you mean parts that are prohibited?

    I have to agree that these requirements seem pretty stringent. Does Ford reserve the right to inspect every mechanic's shop for 5 years afterwards? When I get my brakes done, they ask me if I want OEM parts or 3rd party parts. No one assumes that Ford is liable for a problem with the aftermarket parts you buy, so this is really a BS argument on Apple's part.

    As for the statement, "Repair shops will still be limited to full assembly swaps," Was anyone actually swapping out individual components on a logic board? (well, aside from the FBI and Israeli intelligence agency.)




    muthuk_vanalingamdbolandergatorguyCloudTalkinchemengin1
  • Reply 4 of 25
    Being unhappy with a contract is way different than it being illegal. The good thing for people who want to be an Indy repair shop - they don’t have to be. They have the freedom to NOT be an Indy shop that works on Apple devices. They can fix android devices. Displaying the fact that their repairs are not Apple guaranteed and customers are told seems like it is a legal issue as in - there should be a law that forces them to do this. I’m sorry they are not happy with the contract but with so much freedom to not be an Indy shop that works on Apple devices their choices are unlimited.
    randominternetpersondewmeGeorgeBMacLeoMC
  • Reply 5 of 25
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    That contract hardly seems "perilous" or "crazy."  Apple has excellent reason to be concerned about consumers dropping problems on Apple's lap if these firms screw up.

    The right to audit terms of compliance is pretty standard.  How else is Apple to know if people are complying with the agreement?  Would I expect Apple to audit firms regularly?  Not at all.  If they use that as a hammer then people would have a right to complain.

    Maintaining records for 5 years is a "crazy" burden?  Hardly.

    Making customers sign a statement that they realize that it's not Apple performing the repair?  Big deal.

    $1000 per instance of the service provider violating the policy and specifically being caught by Apple during an audit?  Sounds reasonable.  Don't like those terms?  Then don't sign up to get genuine Apple parts and then use knock-off parts.  Problem solved.
    Submitting to inspections (and fines) 5 years after leaving is reasonable? What about prohibiting swapping out 'known good' parts to diagnose a problem before ordering a part?

    What about giving customers a choice - "The certified Apple part costs $70, the aftermarket part costs $50 but will void your warranty. Which do you want me to put in?" then just include the appropriate language on the form when you sign to authorize the service.
    muthuk_vanalingamCloudTalkinchemengin1
  • Reply 6 of 25
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    Thank you AI for posting this story. I suppose people bring their devices in for repair when the warranty has expired therefore how does Apple get off telling anyone that they have to repair it according to Apple's regulations? At that point in the products lifespan the customer / owner should be able to choose where and how that device is repaired fully understanding that Apple has no obligation to that product. 
  • Reply 7 of 25
    MplsP said:
    That contract hardly seems "perilous" or "crazy."  Apple has excellent reason to be concerned about consumers dropping problems on Apple's lap if these firms screw up.

    The right to audit terms of compliance is pretty standard.  How else is Apple to know if people are complying with the agreement?  Would I expect Apple to audit firms regularly?  Not at all.  If they use that as a hammer then people would have a right to complain.

    Maintaining records for 5 years is a "crazy" burden?  Hardly.

    Making customers sign a statement that they realize that it's not Apple performing the repair?  Big deal.

    $1000 per instance of the service provider violating the policy and specifically being caught by Apple during an audit?  Sounds reasonable.  Don't like those terms?  Then don't sign up to get genuine Apple parts and then use knock-off parts.  Problem solved.
    Submitting to inspections (and fines) 5 years after leaving is reasonable? What about prohibiting swapping out 'known good' parts to diagnose a problem before ordering a part?

    What about giving customers a choice - "The certified Apple part costs $70, the aftermarket part costs $50 but will void your warranty. Which do you want me to put in?" then just include the appropriate language on the form when you sign to authorize the service.
    Yes, Apple having the right to review records for 5 years is reasonable.  It's a bit long, but not particularly onerous.  The inspections and fines are only for the repairs done when they were in the program.  What contract doesn't include terms that talks about obligations after the agreement ends?  The fines are for "counterfeit Products or service parts," as well as "products or service parts that infringe on Apple's intellectual property."  I'm not shedding any tears for anyone getting in trouble for that.

    As for the rest of your comments, that's not part of the contract terms that are the core of this article.  I'm just saying the contract as written seems pretty standard and reasonable.  Of course, as with any contract, the other party is free to propose changes before signing it.
    1st
  • Reply 8 of 25
    spice-boy said:
    Thank you AI for posting this story. I suppose people bring their devices in for repair when the warranty has expired therefore how does Apple get off telling anyone that they have to repair it according to Apple's regulations? At that point in the products lifespan the customer / owner should be able to choose where and how that device is repaired fully understanding that Apple has no obligation to that product. 
    An "easy" first step solution would be anything on the vintage/obsolete list automatically has the no obligation "clause" but I'm sure people would still be up in arms about that.  I'm personally more concerned about this current generation of computer systems with soldered SSD and T2 security.  What happens in 10 years when Apple no longer makes those parts and there are no authorized centers to perform the repair and SSD replacement with T2 handshake authorization.  It's the doomsday scenario several have been pointing out about the MP7,1 when trying to justify not purchasing.

    Overall, I think we need to implement an advertised overall supported lifespan for products from the date of purchase.  That includes all components, including the CPU with microcode updates from manufacturer like Intel.  As of right now, they can just stop supporting/updating for security vulnerabilities in 5 years.  Nothing is stopping them.  
  • Reply 9 of 25
    MplsP said:
    "the audits may be designed to identify the use of repair parts that are not prohibited in Apple device repairs" - do you mean parts that are prohibited?

    I have to agree that these requirements seem pretty stringent. Does Ford reserve the right to inspect every mechanic's shop for 5 years afterwards? When I get my brakes done, they ask me if I want OEM parts or 3rd party parts. No one assumes that Ford is liable for a problem with the aftermarket parts you buy, so this is really a BS argument on Apple's part.

    As for the statement, "Repair shops will still be limited to full assembly swaps," Was anyone actually swapping out individual components on a logic board? (well, aside from the FBI and Israeli intelligence agency.)




    Point taken. The repair shop doesn’t have to join the program if they don’t agree with Apple. 

    Ford doesn’t usually just let anyone use their new parts without their knowledge. If you go to a mechanic and they are using genuine ford parts, they came from a ford dealer. Ford has the records on what shop bought the parts and can usually trace them back if there is a problem. 

    Regarding component repairs, it was an independent repair shop that exposed the touch disease of the 6+. The issue was discovered by Jessa Jones from iPad Rehab. 
    This issue uncovered a re-occurring theme of Apple hiding a known flaw and then relenting after being exposed. 
    The biggest outrage for this issue was Apple blaming the customer for dropping the device when there were cases of the replacement device from Apple doing the same thing out of the box. 

    So 3rd party repair shops are a double edged sword. Some use very dangerous knock off parts, and don’t practice esd safety and cut corners when making sure screws are not loose inside the device and some are very good and can tell you in detail why your device failed and can see if there is a trend with a particular failure. That could actually help Apple since only Apple’s repair facility does logic board replacements.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 25
    Pretty common in automotive.

    For example, BMW will audit dealers and go through several ROs (repair orders). If they find an issue they will extrapolate back to the total number of ROs you’ve done with the same specific repair and then fine you. A single fraudulent RO of $1,000 could end up netting you a fine of $50K or more. They will assume all the repairs you’ve done were fraudulent (for that specific repair).
    randominternetpersonpscooter63GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 11 of 25
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    spice-boy said:
    Thank you AI for posting this story. I suppose people bring their devices in for repair when the warranty has expired therefore how does Apple get off telling anyone that they have to repair it according to Apple's regulations? At that point in the products lifespan the customer / owner should be able to choose where and how that device is repaired fully understanding that Apple has no obligation to that product. 
    Therein lies the problem. In many people’s minds Apple HAS an obligation to everything. We see it constantly in the Apple discussion forums where people expect Apple to make sure their third party app continues to work, not the developer. It’s always Apple’s fault when something goes wrong, always Apple’s fault when they lose data, always Apple’s fault when anything happens. People are not rational when it comes this. Apple is NOT telling customers anything. They are telling independent repair shops if they want Apple’s blessing on their operation they have to play by Apple’s rules.

    Because I guarandamntee you the customer will blame Apple is their Home button stops working after a third party repair.
    edited February 2020 randominternetpersonearlygeekLeoMC
  • Reply 12 of 25
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 611member
    I have no problem with any of it. If you want to repair someone else's products and have access to their tools, manuals and other items it:
    -Can't be free or price you want to pay.
    -Needs to be crystal clear the product is not being repaired by Apple and Apple will not provide any type of warranty on third party repairs.

    The bigger point is that if you don't like any of the terms then do not sign the contract.
  • Reply 13 of 25
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    jimh2 said:
    I have no problem with any of it. If you want to repair someone else's products and have access to their tools, manuals and other items it:
    -Can't be free or price you want to pay.
    -Needs to be crystal clear the product is not being repaired by Apple and Apple will not provide any type of warranty on third party repairs.

    The bigger point is that if you don't like any of the terms then do not sign the contract.
    But that’s not what the “right to repair” advocates want. They want what amounts to an AutoZone, a third party manufacturer of iPhone parts. They want no input from Apple. They want free technical manuals. They want to make money off of Apple customers without any strings attached, just like your neighborhood auto repair shop. They want to use third party parts so they can inflate the prices along with the hourly labor rates, just like independent auto repair shops do. 
    DancingMonkeys
  • Reply 14 of 25
    MplsP said:
    "the audits may be designed to identify the use of repair parts that are not prohibited in Apple device repairs" - do you mean parts that are prohibited?

    I have to agree that these requirements seem pretty stringent. Does Ford reserve the right to inspect every mechanic's shop for 5 years afterwards? When I get my brakes done, they ask me if I want OEM parts or 3rd party parts. No one assumes that Ford is liable for a problem with the aftermarket parts you buy, so this is really a BS argument on Apple's part.

    As for the statement, "Repair shops will still be limited to full assembly swaps," Was anyone actually swapping out individual components on a logic board? (well, aside from the FBI and Israeli intelligence agency.)




    Point taken. The repair shop doesn’t have to join the program if they don’t agree with Apple. 

    Ford doesn’t usually just let anyone use their new parts without their knowledge. If you go to a mechanic and they are using genuine ford parts, they came from a ford dealer. Ford has the records on what shop bought the parts and can usually trace them back if there is a problem. 

    This is not true.  You can get OEM parts for almost any brand of car from a local autoparts store.  We should stop comparing cars in this thread because their processes don't lend credence to anyone's arguments about independent repair.  OEM parts typically don't come from manufacturers like Ford, BMW, or Chevy.  OEM parts come from component suppliers like Bosch, Denso, Brembo, and the like.  Those component suppliers also supply alternatives to OEM parts in a good, better, best format.  Typically OEM falls in the better category.
    Pretty common in automotive.

    For example, BMW will audit dealers and go through several ROs (repair orders). If they find an issue they will extrapolate back to the total number of ROs you’ve done with the same specific repair and then fine you. A single fraudulent RO of $1,000 could end up netting you a fine of $50K or more. They will assume all the repairs you’ve done were fraudulent (for that specific repair).
    Dealers are a part of the car company's network.  They are a virtual proxy for the company. They are subject to different rules and regulations from an independent repair shop, which is why none of the things you wrote about dealers apply here.  If we continue with automotive analogies, we're going to get bogged down focused on the wrong things.  
    lkrupp said:
    Because I guarandamntee you the customer will blame Apple is their Home button stops working after a third party repair.

    I double guarandamntee you're wrong.  3rd party repairs have been around almost as long as Apple products have existed.  There has never been any massive outrage against Apple caused by a 3rd party repair issue.  There hasn't even been a minor outrage.  As with any company that has a sufficient volume of product movement, there will be sporadic misdirected complaints.  No amount of Apple enforced stipulations - stringent or lenient - is going to change that.  
    muthuk_vanalingamMplsPchemengin1FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 15 of 25
    luroluro Posts: 6member
    As an Apple Authorized repair center for years, all I can say is "Welcome to the Club".  Apple won't authorize you unless you agree and sign their stuff.
    randominternetpersonGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 16 of 25
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,069member
    Apples conditions sound just fine to me. 
  • Reply 17 of 25
    TheStemGroupTheStemGroup Posts: 7unconfirmed, member
    For all those defending Apple here, you know nothing of us 3rd party repair businesses. This program was supposed to FINALLY be Apple working WITH us to ensure customers were had options and where properly taken care of. It was SUPPOSED to provide us the OPTION of providing customers original OEM parts as well as maintaining our various options such as 3rd party parts.

    It was never going to allow us to provide warranty care, it was never intended to make us into an Authorized Apple Repair facility, it was supposed to give us options that only helped Apple and their customers.

    Being able to access custom tools wasn't a big thing as they are readily available everywhere, but having access to genuine software tools is a boon, and only helps customers in the end.

    This clauses basically strip EVERYTHING this program was supposed to be. As stated in the contact, even though we are supposed to be independent, we aren't allowed to provide 3rd party parts... which is how this industry works, period. Having to provide records of customers is a privacy violation, and fines for doing what we do? Come on!

    I myself have 25 years repairing Apple equipment, I've been an Apple Certified Tech, I've worked at a number of dealerships, I've OWNED my own Value Added Dealership... I know how suffocating Apples rules can be... and this is no different.

    I chose to open a 3rd party repair place because of those oppressive rules, it allows me to serve customers in much better ways then Apple does. Don't get me wrong... I tell all customers under warranty to go to Apple, I'm upfront to customers about their choice using 3rd party parts.

    But, being able to repair 10-12 year old computers and devices, replace screens for customers that were denied by Apple because of a dent in the case, makes me very happy, and allows me to provide the proper level of customer support.

    Great example, a year ago, a custom walked in with a 20 minute old iPhone 8... his SIM card go stuck in the phone... Apple refused to do anything about it, gave him the option of a $800 replacement for his 10 minute old phone. I opened it, popped out the SIM card inside of 5 minutes....

    THAT is the kind of customer service Apple is trying to prevent companies like mind from doing!

    www.thestemsupport.com
    Rick Gold - Owner
    edited February 2020 MplsPmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 18 of 25
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,328member
    MplsP said:
    That contract hardly seems "perilous" or "crazy."  Apple has excellent reason to be concerned about consumers dropping problems on Apple's lap if these firms screw up.

    The right to audit terms of compliance is pretty standard.  How else is Apple to know if people are complying with the agreement?  Would I expect Apple to audit firms regularly?  Not at all.  If they use that as a hammer then people would have a right to complain.

    Maintaining records for 5 years is a "crazy" burden?  Hardly.

    Making customers sign a statement that they realize that it's not Apple performing the repair?  Big deal.

    $1000 per instance of the service provider violating the policy and specifically being caught by Apple during an audit?  Sounds reasonable.  Don't like those terms?  Then don't sign up to get genuine Apple parts and then use knock-off parts.  Problem solved.
    Submitting to inspections (and fines) 5 years after leaving is reasonable? What about prohibiting swapping out 'known good' parts to diagnose a problem before ordering a part?

    What about giving customers a choice - "The certified Apple part costs $70, the aftermarket part costs $50 but will void your warranty. Which do you want me to put in?" then just include the appropriate language on the form when you sign to authorize the service.
    I agree about the customer choice option with the stipulation about the warranty being voided. A common problem with this today is that the third party repair agent does not inform their customers of this stipulation. When the third party repair causes a negative side effect, for example Touch ID is broken, the customer shows up at the Apple Store and is told by a genius that the third party repair broke a feature of their iPhone and voided their phone’s warranty. I bet you can guess who the customer is going to start screaming at when this happens. I’ve seen it and heard it firsthand. Suddenly Apple’s the bad guy and Mr Third Party repair guy doesn’t want to get involved between the customer and Apple or points the finger of blame at Apple and their “onerous” service requirements. 
    randominternetpersonearlygeek
  • Reply 19 of 25
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    Right to repair advocates won’t be happy until every mellonhead with a screwdriver gets to try to fix Apple products with Apple on the hook for warranty replacement if they accidentally drop their Coke into the system while it’s running.
    DancingMonkeys
  • Reply 20 of 25
    DAalseth said:
    Right to repair advocates won’t be happy until every mellonhead with a screwdriver gets to try to fix Apple products with Apple on the hook for warranty replacement if they accidentally drop their Coke into the system while it’s running.
    I've never seen a right to repair advocate express any expectation that the OEM is on the hook for a warranty replacement.  But just so you know, 3rd party repair does not automatically void the warranty.  That would be illegal. Magnuson-Moss. Certain conditions have to be met for that 3rd party repair voids a warranty.
    FileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.