Apple now displays iPhone and Mac repairability scores in France

AppleInsider

Apple this week posted repairability scores for flagship iPhone and Mac products in France, a measure mandated by the country's government in January.

The listings, known as repair indexes, are now displayed on official Apple Store app purchase pages and on Apple's website, reports MacGeneration. Current-generation flagship devices including the iPhone 12, iPhone 11 and iPhone SE series, as well as MacBook Pro and MacBook Air models, carry the informational mark designed to offer insight into a product's life cycle.

Separately, Apple has posted a dedicated webpage on its French website with links to detailed repair index reports covering documentation; disassembly, access and tools; parts availability; parts pricing; and software and services support. Indexes are self-reported and assigned based on cumulative scores in a range of sub-categories.

All models in the current iPhone 12 series were assigned a score of 6 out of 10. The iPhone 11 and 11 Pro received a 4.6, while their larger stablemate, the iPhone 11 Pro Max, came in with a score of 4.5. Apple rated its iPhone SE 2 at 6.2. On the Mac side, the 2020 MacBook Air ranked the highest with a score of 6.5 out of 10, followed by the 2020 16-inch MacBook Pro at 6.3, and the 2020 13-inch MacBook Pro M1 at 5.6.

Apple has generated repair indexes for iPhone 12 Pro Max, iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max, iPhone SE (second-generation), iPhone XR, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS, iPhone X, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 7. MacBook Pro and MacBook Air models manufactured in 2018, 2019 and 2020 are also included.

France's repairability index mandate went live on Jan. 1, and applies to manufacturers of smartphones, laptops, TVs, washing machines, and lawnmowers. The legislation was enacted to reduce waste and promote a circular economy. While producers assign their own scores, those claims can be refuted by competitors and officially scrutinized by the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control.

The development arrives as the European Union pushes to install consumer right to repair laws that could require companies like Apple to introduce product labels detailing device durability.

22july2013

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

MplsP

22july2013 said:

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

Yeah, I wondered about the scores, too. If every manufacturer assigns their own score, they're essentially meaningless.

As far as right to repair, I think you are raising a bunch of red herrings. Trade secrets have not been an issue in the auto industry, nor have all the supposed safety and reliability issues that everyone cries about. how would allowing someone to swap parts out in their phone reveal any more trade secrets than are already revealed by fixit? And I find it laughable that people are concerned with consumers injuring themselves by repairing an iPhone but have absolutely no problem with somebody doing a brake job in their driveway.

22july2013

MplsP said:

22july2013 said:

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

Yeah, I wondered about the scores, too. If every manufacturer assigns their own score, they're essentially meaningless.

As far as right to repair, I think you are raising a bunch of red herrings. Trade secrets have not been an issue in the auto industry, nor have all the supposed safety and reliability issues that everyone cries about. how would allowing someone to swap parts out in their phone reveal any more trade secrets than are already revealed by fixit? And I find it laughable that people are concerned with consumers injuring themselves by repairing an iPhone but have absolutely no problem with somebody doing a brake job in their driveway.

The issues I quoted came from a respectable legal website, and were not my own concerns.

iPhones manufactured up until about 2014 were made with benzene and n-hexane. "Benzene can cause leukemia, a blood cancer, and leukopenia, a dangerously low white blood cell count. The chemical n-hexane is a neurotoxicant that can cause nerve damage and paralysis." Under pressure form an anti-China group, Apple agreed to remove these chemicals from the assembly process, which were dangerous especially to the assembly workers but potentially to the end user also. I don't think Apple's competitors have removed these dangerous chemicals yet from their manufacturing processes. How do you know all dangerous chemicals have been removed from all smartphones?

Did you know many smartphones currently contain "lead, bromine, chlorine, mercury and cadmium"? Did you know outdoor furniture like park benches are still treated with arsenic? Did you know arsenic is poisonous? Did you know that the EPA is currently studying whether "children who repeatedly come in contact with the preservative -- known as chromated copper arsenate or CCA -- face a heightened risk of developing cancer of the lungs, bladder or skin"? Do you know how dangerous it is to breathe fumes form burning park benches? Or even from burning painted wood? The point is there are dangers that average people like you and I don't know about. 

In this era of COVID we should let science be telling us what is safe and what is not safe, not use logic like "I can repair my brakes, so I should be allowed to repair my smartphone."

cropr

In this era of COVID we should let science be telling us what is safe and what is not safe, not use logic like "I can repair my brakes, so I should be allowed to repair my smartphone."

Indeed, science decide what safe is,  but every individual must have to right to ignore that decision as long as others are not impacted by the consequences.  The right to repair is a fundamental aspect as freedom, taking into account that freedom also brings responsibility with it.

crowley

MplsP said:

22july2013 said:

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

Yeah, I wondered about the scores, too. If every manufacturer assigns their own score, they're essentially meaningless.

"While producers assign their own scores, those claims can be refuted by competitors and officially scrutinized by the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control."

I'm not sure if there's any penalty for getting it wrong wrong in the self-declarations, but the fact that they're open to challenge and scrutinized by an authority means that they're not exactly meaningless, or not long term at least.  One would hope the authority has a playbook for how these things should go, and egregiously deceptive self-reporting would be punished, or censured.

avon b7

These may be baby steps and open to modification down the line but information is always good to have access to and and if it is structured in a uniform manner and open to scrutiny, then there are many upsides to these kinds of measures.

It is logical for the general public to gradually have a greater interest in these aspects and possibly play a bigger role in the purchasing decisions going forward.

While companies probably wouldn't make this information very accessible to consumers without legislation obliging them to do so, they will definitely react to sways in public opinion that pertain to repairability. And very quickly. 

avon b7

22july2013 said:

MplsP said:

22july2013 said:

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

Yeah, I wondered about the scores, too. If every manufacturer assigns their own score, they're essentially meaningless.

As far as right to repair, I think you are raising a bunch of red herrings. Trade secrets have not been an issue in the auto industry, nor have all the supposed safety and reliability issues that everyone cries about. how would allowing someone to swap parts out in their phone reveal any more trade secrets than are already revealed by fixit? And I find it laughable that people are concerned with consumers injuring themselves by repairing an iPhone but have absolutely no problem with somebody doing a brake job in their driveway.

The issues I quoted came from a respectable legal website, and were not my own concerns.

iPhones manufactured up until about 2014 were made with benzene and n-hexane. "Benzene can cause leukemia, a blood cancer, and leukopenia, a dangerously low white blood cell count. The chemical n-hexane is a neurotoxicant that can cause nerve damage and paralysis." Under pressure form an anti-China group, Apple agreed to remove these chemicals from the assembly process, which were dangerous especially to the assembly workers but potentially to the end user also. I don't think Apple's competitors have removed these dangerous chemicals yet from their manufacturing processes. How do you know all dangerous chemicals have been removed from all smartphones?

Did you know many smartphones currently contain "lead, bromine, chlorine, mercury and cadmium"? Did you know outdoor furniture like park benches are still treated with arsenic? Did you know arsenic is poisonous? Did you know that the EPA is currently studying whether "children who repeatedly come in contact with the preservative -- known as chromated copper arsenate or CCA -- face a heightened risk of developing cancer of the lungs, bladder or skin"? Do you know how dangerous it is to breathe fumes form burning park benches? Or even from burning painted wood? The point is there are dangers that average people like you and I don't know about. 

In this era of COVID we should let science be telling us what is safe and what is not safe, not use logic like "I can repair my brakes, so I should be allowed to repair my smartphone."

There are lots of factors in play here but the biggest industrial changes came about via EU legislation like WEEE and RoHS which led to other countries passing similar laws. 

GeorgeBMac

22july2013 said:

 Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags?

That is a simple little question that has a very complex and large answer.

The simple answer is:   It depends.

In the example you give, my car's horn stopped working and one possibility was that the button had stopped working.  But, the horn button that you push is embedded in the airbag module.   So, to repair the horn I would have had to replace the airbag module.  It's a fairly straight forward repair that most fairly competent people could undertake.  (The problem though turned out to be in the clock spring)

But, an iPhone is both a safety device people rely on as well as a gateway into a person's most private, personal information -- from pictures to messages to bank accounts.

Opening up the security features to DIY'rs could have nasty side effects -- both for the person and for the company whose reputation was hammered because their phones become easily hacked or unstable and unreliable.

GeorgeBMac

I applaud this effort -- although its success will depend on execution as much as anything.

But, informing people of a device's repair-ability will allow them to make better decisions.

For myself, I like my ThinkPad T530 because I can repair pretty much every part on it myself fairly quickly, easily and cheaply.  If the SSD goes bad or fills up I can replace it in about a minute or two using a philips head screw driver.  Memory takes a little longer -- about 5 or 10 minutes.  Replacing the CPU would take under a half hour and the screen about the same.  And, since Lenovo posts detailed instructions on how to do each (all the way down to which screw goes where), it is not a game of trial and error or guesswork.

Essentially, the machine was designed from the ground up to be repairable.

While that tends to add bulk, weight and cost to the machine, the ability to repair ut out weighs those drawbacks for me.

But, without the knowledge of its repair-ability, I would only see the drawbacks.

applguy

Why not also have a reliability score? Useful to understand how likely a device may need to be repaired. 

avon b7

applguy said:

Why not also have a reliability score? Useful to understand how likely a device may need to be repaired. 

That's possible but would be ascertained by lab conditions only, and therefore of little practical value. 

StrangeDays

applguy said:

Why not also have a reliability score? Useful to understand how likely a device may need to be repaired. 

Oh, and how about a "Good value" score? And a "Sweet device" score? All self-reported, of course.

dysamoria

Self scoring is meaningless. Yet again, an effort at regulating an arrogant industry results in toothless requirements that can be used for that industry’s own marketing. 

avon b7

dysamoria said:

Self scoring is meaningless. Yet again, an effort at regulating an arrogant industry results in toothless requirements that can be used for that industry’s own marketing. 

If it's required by law and there is a referral process to government bodies for cases of misrepresentation, it is very unlikely to be toothless and even it were (and was abused by manufacturers) you can be sure that a subsequent revision of the legislation would make formal certification a requirement, like it already is for all manner of situations (hazardous materials, CE, RoHS, radio frequency usage etc) 

exceptionhandler

cropr said:

In this era of COVID we should let science be telling us what is safe and what is not safe, not use logic like "I can repair my brakes, so I should be allowed to repair my smartphone."

Indeed, science decide what safe is,  but every individual must have to right to ignore that decision as long as others are not impacted by the consequences.  The right to repair is a fundamental aspect as freedom, taking into account that freedom also brings responsibility with it.

Science cannot “decide” for us.  It is a tool for gaining knowledge, and thus WE can then act upon that knowledge.  It is also a fallacy to blindly accept what scientists say, as they often bring their own biases to the table, despite any efforts to eliminate bias.  This is the fallacy of appealing to an authority.  That is not to say that what scientists say cannot be useful as the information gained by their hard work can and does help us make wise decisions.  I posit that we need to be critical thinkers, making informed decisions and weighing the pros and cons of particular actions.

exceptionhandler

22july2013 said:
In this era of COVID we should let science be telling us what is safe and what is not safe,

cropr said:

Indeed, science decide what safe is,

This is also an example of the reification fallacy, attributing human characteristics to inanimate,  ethereal or otherwise obviously non-human things.

22july2013 said:
not use logic like "I can repair my brakes, so I should be allowed to repair my smartphone."

I don’t disagree here, this logic is a non sequitur.