FTC concludes manufacturer repair restrictions harm consumers
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday issued a report on the so-called "right to repair" debate, suggesting repair restrictions put in place by companies like Apple negatively impact consumers and small businesses.
The report, "Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions (PDF link)," was fulfilled at the direction of Congress and takes an in-depth look at the right to repair issue with a concentration on phone manufacturers and carmakers. Findings were issued to Congress with unanimous consent from the FTC.
"Many consumer products have become harder to fix and maintain," the report reads. "Repairs today often require specialized tools, difficult-to-obtain parts, and access to proprietary diagnostic software. Consumers whose products break then have limited choices. Furthermore, the burden of repair restrictions may fall more heavily on communities of color and lower-income communities. Many Black-owned small businesses are in the repair and maintenance industries, and difficulties facing small businesses can disproportionately affect small businesses owned by people of color."
Through a repair rights workshop, public comments, responses to a Request for Empirical Research and Data, and independent research, the commission found "there is scant evidence to support manufacturers' justifications for repair restrictions." As the FTC notes, there are certain provisions protecting consumer rights to repair without voiding warranty, but restrictions put in place by manufacturers have made it difficult to exercise those rights.
Specifically named in the report are physical restrictions like specialized nuts and bolts (such as Apple's "pentalobe" screws), use of glue to seal devices and soldering of components like RAM and storage onto motherboards.
Unavailability of parts, repair manuals, and diagnostic software and tools is also highlighted. Apple does not provide such material to facilities or individuals outside of its authorized repair network.
Other issues include designs that make independent repairs less safe (lithium-ion batteries), telematics, application of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks, disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair, software locks, digital rights management and technical protection measures, and end user license agreements.
Apple utilizes a number of the above mentioned strategies to thwart unauthorized repairs, including the use of software locks. For example, current iPhones pair parts like the screen and biometric hardware with onboard logic, meaning certain functions are made inoperable if a component is replaced without access to the correct diagnostics tools -- even with OEM parts.
The FTC notes consumers, especially owners of expensive equipment like iPhone, show an interest in repairing their products over replacing them with a new model. As an example, the report points to a 2017 battery replacement program Apple rolled out in response to public outcry over an iOS update that artificially reduced processor performance on handsets with aging cells. In early 2019, Apple CEO Tim Cook revealed the company replaced 11 million batteries, some 9 million more than expected, and partially blamed a slowdown in iPhone sales on the program's success.
Other areas of the report cover antitrust and monopolization concerns, and the Magnuson-Moss warranty Act.
For its part, Apple maintains that expanded right to repair laws would expose industry secrets and could create security and safety issues for existing customers. The company contends its products should only be serviced by qualified technicians, a stance that irks third-party repair firms.
Conducting repairs through authorized outlets like Apple stores and vetted shops provides customers with a consistent experience, while an authorized repair network helps the company control and protect its various hardware platforms, Apple has said.
On the topic of quality of service, the FTC concludes that manufacturer claims are unfounded, as none could provide "empirical evidence to support their concerns about reputational harm or potential liability resulting from faulty third party repairs."
The FTC promises to "pursue appropriate law enforcement and regulatory options," foster consumer education and work with legislators on relevant issues.
Apple faces a number of state-level right to right to repair bills and has aggressively lobbied against such legislation. So far, none have been successful. Most recently, a Colorado bill was shot down in April for being too broad.
The report, "Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions (PDF link)," was fulfilled at the direction of Congress and takes an in-depth look at the right to repair issue with a concentration on phone manufacturers and carmakers. Findings were issued to Congress with unanimous consent from the FTC.
"Many consumer products have become harder to fix and maintain," the report reads. "Repairs today often require specialized tools, difficult-to-obtain parts, and access to proprietary diagnostic software. Consumers whose products break then have limited choices. Furthermore, the burden of repair restrictions may fall more heavily on communities of color and lower-income communities. Many Black-owned small businesses are in the repair and maintenance industries, and difficulties facing small businesses can disproportionately affect small businesses owned by people of color."
Through a repair rights workshop, public comments, responses to a Request for Empirical Research and Data, and independent research, the commission found "there is scant evidence to support manufacturers' justifications for repair restrictions." As the FTC notes, there are certain provisions protecting consumer rights to repair without voiding warranty, but restrictions put in place by manufacturers have made it difficult to exercise those rights.
Specifically named in the report are physical restrictions like specialized nuts and bolts (such as Apple's "pentalobe" screws), use of glue to seal devices and soldering of components like RAM and storage onto motherboards.
Unavailability of parts, repair manuals, and diagnostic software and tools is also highlighted. Apple does not provide such material to facilities or individuals outside of its authorized repair network.
Other issues include designs that make independent repairs less safe (lithium-ion batteries), telematics, application of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks, disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair, software locks, digital rights management and technical protection measures, and end user license agreements.
Apple utilizes a number of the above mentioned strategies to thwart unauthorized repairs, including the use of software locks. For example, current iPhones pair parts like the screen and biometric hardware with onboard logic, meaning certain functions are made inoperable if a component is replaced without access to the correct diagnostics tools -- even with OEM parts.
The FTC notes consumers, especially owners of expensive equipment like iPhone, show an interest in repairing their products over replacing them with a new model. As an example, the report points to a 2017 battery replacement program Apple rolled out in response to public outcry over an iOS update that artificially reduced processor performance on handsets with aging cells. In early 2019, Apple CEO Tim Cook revealed the company replaced 11 million batteries, some 9 million more than expected, and partially blamed a slowdown in iPhone sales on the program's success.
Other areas of the report cover antitrust and monopolization concerns, and the Magnuson-Moss warranty Act.
For its part, Apple maintains that expanded right to repair laws would expose industry secrets and could create security and safety issues for existing customers. The company contends its products should only be serviced by qualified technicians, a stance that irks third-party repair firms.
Conducting repairs through authorized outlets like Apple stores and vetted shops provides customers with a consistent experience, while an authorized repair network helps the company control and protect its various hardware platforms, Apple has said.
On the topic of quality of service, the FTC concludes that manufacturer claims are unfounded, as none could provide "empirical evidence to support their concerns about reputational harm or potential liability resulting from faulty third party repairs."
The FTC promises to "pursue appropriate law enforcement and regulatory options," foster consumer education and work with legislators on relevant issues.
Apple faces a number of state-level right to right to repair bills and has aggressively lobbied against such legislation. So far, none have been successful. Most recently, a Colorado bill was shot down in April for being too broad.
Comments
Then these “right to repair” idiots will blame Apple for Uncle Joe’s failures.
We'll see what comes of it but it is about time that manufacturers began improving their designs to make things easier to repair or upgrade.
However, it is ridiculous how much companies such as Apple charge for parts and repairs, for things that can already be easily swapped. That is what the authorities should focus on, making sure that people have access to affordable repairs and wide availability of repair shops... not nitpicking on design decisions like they would know better.
Today, you can buy a used iPhone and pretty much know that what you get is what you see. Any previous repairs would have put the device back into perfect condition.
Be careful what you wish for, Right to Repair advocates. Be VERY careful.
Thats when you can see it’s agenda based conclusions, the document is written to fit a predetermined narrative.
(We don’t patch security holes by waiting to see how badly they can be exploited. I.E we don’t wait for
empirical evidence to justify it.)
Most people will try Apple as a logical first step for repair.
If Apple fails to offer a solution or a competitive price, that would impact satisfaction ratings more than anything else.
There are endless examples out there of Apple refusing to repair, refusing to include under warranty repair, quoting exorbitant prices, damaging phones in repair and not admitting to it and damaging phones while getting into them (screen damage) and leaving the consumer up the creak without a paddle.
When I had an iPhone battery replaced, they wouldn't even touch it until I had signed acceptance of potential damage and their proposed solution (getting back a damaged phone or the option of a substitute equivalent refurbished phone at xxx price).
With sales of AppleCare and Apple's own first or third party services only a tiny fragment of total iPhone users will ever set foot in an independent repair shop and if they are adequately licenced and monitored and have access to parts, most people will see them as lifesavers.
Of course this issue is closely related to other issues like warranty length and privacy. For as long as I can remember, Apple (and others) have required stock failed storage media to go back to them. Anything that fails with private information on it should be left in the hands of users so that they can decide what to do with it.
Manufacturers had the perfect opportunity to set out their stall here but the article makes it clear that the FTC believes no one could produce decent evidence to support their stances.
The opposite is true. Manufacturers have acted to harm consumer interests in the name of profits.
If Uncle Joe's is authorised to carry out warranty repairs, Where's the problem?
As a side note to the open-software debate: open software increases the security of a program exponentially. Linux is open software and has virtually no bugs whatsoever. Linux can run on a device for years without having to be rebooted because it has so many eyes and minds constantly searching to fix and improve it.
Anyways, I made my case. Apple needs to reform their repair policies, either by amending the pricing or by not locking down every component they can any chance they get.
In those circumstances, you probably put more priority into getting access to your data than third party privacy concerns.
My phone has a Repair Mode that can be activated prior to repair specifically to encrypt and protect your content while the device is serviced.
Several of their laptops now have the USB-C ports on daughtercards connected by cables to the logic board. Same for Lightning ports on their phones. If a port breaks, it's possible to replace without involving surface-mount soldering. They retain their batteries with adhesive, but they have tabs to pull to release it, and the battery cable isn't soldered to the board. iPhone displays are as easy to replace as they have ever been.
The weird custom screw heads are a pain, absolutely. We already had Torx. Pentalobe is just insulting. Combining security-critical parts (which justifiably need more scrutiny to replace) like the user-facing camera with parts which commonly fail like the screen is definitely bad. I don't see a good way to make it possible to swap cameras without making the screen significantly thicker, though.
Soldered flash is the biggest issue I have with Apple's lineup. SSDs last much longer than people think, but they are still wear components, just like the battery. Replaceable flash would eat into battery space, but with the M1 machines especially, I don't think it would reduce capacity enough for users to care.
RAM very rarely becomes faulty, so calls to move back to SO-DIMMs are about upgrades, not repairs.