Cannot understand why some consumers are against repair/upgradability.
They are not consumers first, they are shareholders FIRST. The fact that they use Apple's products is secondary to them. Their main concern is - Apple's profits and brand image which drive the value of Apple's shares (which is very dear to them), with customer's interests being the last priority (if at all it is a priority). You will NEVER see a nuanced debate on this topic - trying to obtain a balance which serves the interests of the customers as well as Apple in this forum.
I wonder. That’s certainly not true of me. My ownership of Apple shares over the past 18+ years allowed me to retire at a relatively young age, and they are still my biggest source of income, but I still get frustrated when the company makes decisions that don’t reflect my personal preferences and negatively impact my experience on a daily basis. The share ownership feels abstract somehow, since it’s just numbers on a screen, but dealing with all of the dongles and with phones that keep getting bigger and heavier is frustrating in a very concrete and immediate way. I know that the folks at Apple are smart, and that the decisions they make have benefited me greatly, and deep down I know that as much as I’m annoyed by the apparently senseless lack of a headphone jack on my phone, that decision probably made me a lot of money, and if I knew how much, I would probably have chosen to make that sacrifice myself. I’ve also had a lot of battery problems with laptops and phones, and I can sort of excuse it with the knowledge that Apple made the money for me that I used to buy the devices in the first place, but it’s still a big pain.
There are a couple of issues here. One is right to repair, the other is repairability. Right to repair has to do with availability of parts, equipment and technical documents as well as warranty status. The latter has more to do with product design than anything else.
It blows my mind the excuses and contortions people make to oppose right to repair laws. None of the arguments I’ve seen hold up to any logic or scrutiny, and most are simply histrionic hyperbole.
For a company that touts its environmental record, apple is being incredibly hypocritical on this. The single best thing you can do for the environment is to not buy a product in the first place since the vast majority of the environmental impact occurs with manufacture. A natural corollary to this is buying a product that will last and repairing it rather than replacing. By actively preventing repairs, Apple is simply undoing any other positive moves they may have made. Allowing repairs and designing for repair are part of being environmentally friendly (and consumer friendly.)
While I understand why Apple would like to control the result of an repair thru certified partners, on the other hand -> There’s a lot of sh*t going on in AASP’s ! At least in one unnamed country, two out of three AASPs are willfuly destroying working parts in order to receive brand new ones from Apple and to get more refund. While there are some pretty good Apple specialised experienced service guys, who would love to do it right on their own, pointless requirements (like huge starting capital) are prohibiting to get licensed. Apple Service Channel representatives are overlooking this, they wont get troubled by breaking good old order of companies they care for long years. They really dont care about negative environmental impact and some “extra little expenses” for such a big company. It’s disgusting!
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
Interesting question!
From my own background: I was supporting a million dollar piece of financial software that carried a $50K annual maintenance contract.
We insisted on getting the source code which I compiled, printed and stored. When it broke, their support team usually tried to blame it on our computer systems. So, I learned to research the problem and isolate the program and line(s) of code that were bad before I called them. When I told them what broke they would make some excuse ("It's you operating system was the usual!) so I would come back and tell them exactly which line of which program was bad and why. They hated that. But they fixed the problem!
But, the flip side of that was that I never, ever fixed it myself (which I easily could have done). If I had I would have owned that and any future problems -- so I made them fix it.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
There are a couple of issues here. One is right to repair, the other is repairability. Right to repair has to do with availability of parts, equipment and technical documents as well as warranty status. The latter has more to do with product design than anything else.
It blows my mind the excuses and contortions people make to oppose right to repair laws. None of the arguments I’ve seen hold up to any logic or scrutiny, and most are simply histrionic hyperbole.
For a company that touts its environmental record, apple is being incredibly hypocritical on this. The single best thing you can do for the environment is to not buy a product in the first place since the vast majority of the environmental impact occurs with manufacture. A natural corollary to this is buying a product that will last and repairing it rather than replacing. By actively preventing repairs, Apple is simply undoing any other positive moves they may have made. Allowing repairs and designing for repair are part of being environmentally friendly (and consumer friendly.)
There are a couple of issues here. One is right to repair, the other is repairability. Right to repair has to do with availability of parts, equipment and technical documents as well as warranty status. The latter has more to do with product design than anything else.
It blows my mind the excuses and contortions people make to oppose right to repair laws. None of the arguments I’ve seen hold up to any logic or scrutiny, and most are simply histrionic hyperbole.
For a company that touts its environmental record, apple is being incredibly hypocritical on this. The single best thing you can do for the environment is to not buy a product in the first place since the vast majority of the environmental impact occurs with manufacture. A natural corollary to this is buying a product that will last and repairing it rather than replacing. By actively preventing repairs, Apple is simply undoing any other positive moves they may have made. Allowing repairs and designing for repair are part of being environmentally friendly (and consumer friendly.)
Apple could take care of a lot of your concerns if they were just more willing and able to repair their own products. That way they get to keep the control that adds value to their product without hurting the user or environment.
But, I just took a set or Airpods that were acting up to the Apple Store -- and they couldn't even run diagnostics on them! They told me to call online support and they would send me a new pair.
Apple does in-shop battery replacements multiple times a day, but batteries are dangerous and finicky. A couple of years ago we went in to replace a battery on a device out of warranty. Prior to the battery repair they stressed doing a last minute iCloud backup. While carefully pealing the battery out of the unit one of the cells shorted and the battery immediately started heating up. Apple repair stations are setup for this possibility and the unit was immediately dumped into a secure container that would contain any potential fire or battery explosion. The tech walked back out to us with a new device in a box, apologized profusely for the inconvenience, and then proceeded to comp and expertly install a screen cover free of charge. We even got an upgrade out of the deal, the original phone was an iPhone 6 and they replaced it with a 6S.
I imagine that some repair shops would be willing to go to these lengths to satisfy a customer under the same situation, but the vast majority will not be in a position to immediately replace a customer's device if it were damaged during a repair. Sure, in this potential right-to-repair future, I as a customer would have the option of paying more to have Apple repair my gear, but a lot of people are going to have bad experiences.
Not just "right to repair", Woz is also a fan of "right to install". You should have the right to install and run any software you want on the computer devices you own. That goes all the way to the operating system. The Apple II could install the p-system, a Pascal based operating and software development system developed at UCSD. There were many other alternate operating systems you could get for that computer. That was back in the day when personal computers were all about empowering the individual. When was the last time you heard Apple talking about that as benefit of their phones or computers?
There are a couple of issues here. One is right to repair, the other is repairability. Right to repair has to do with availability of parts, equipment and technical documents as well as warranty status. The latter has more to do with product design than anything else.
It blows my mind the excuses and contortions people make to oppose right to repair laws.
If an Apple product is damaged outside of warranty, the 3rd party repair center would have to request that Apple manufactures or supplies spare parts. Apple's products don't use entirely off-the-shelf components like many cheaper PC laptops do.
Some of the right to repair laws are trying to make products repairable for 10 years. That would mean Apple has to commit to manufacturing a supply of their custom CPUs for 10 years. TSMC would still have to be able to produce M1 chips in 2030 or Apple would have to maintain an excess supply. For basic mechanical parts these laws are workable but there's no way that a company can be expected to commit to CPU manufacturing for that long. It's the same with displays, it's up to the supplier whether they will still have the supply available. Apple officially obsoletes hardware after about 7 years.
"Products are considered obsolete when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 7 years ago."
Obsolete means no software updates and no replacement hardware manufactured. Even the frequent Apple critic Louis Rossman doesn't agree with forcing 10 year part replacements on computer electronics companies:
Having access to parts would allow 3rd party shops to repair damaged laptops like broken displays inside warranty and the question then is whether the product is still under warranty after the repair. If the 3rd party isn't trained in replacing the parts and damages another part of the computer during the repair process, Apple may then have the responsibility for the damage caused during the repair.
Apple hires and trains thousands of repair staff worldwide and they recoup that investment with the repairs. If these repairs are done elsewhere, Apple loses on that investment while potentially eating additional costs of failed or poor repairs.
There are upsides to this for the consumer in being able to repair old computers but usually this isn't a problem as 3rd party parts stores have stocks of old parts by buying broken computers.
The thing about people like Woz is their thinking never moved out of the 80s and they mention things like repairing old TV sets by unscrewing the back. We don't live in these times any more and computers are much more complicated to repair. Old-school mechanics do the same with cars until they start messing with the electrical parts on modern cars and get out of their depth pretty quickly.
Right to repair laws will change very little for the consumer. Inside warranty, Apple repairs everything that's a device failure anyway so that covers 12-36 months and battery replacements are inexpensive. Accidental damage can be covered by insurance or some forms of AppleCare. After 7 years, the entire product is worth next to nothing and you can usually buy an entire replacement machine for around 1/10th the original price:
There's not many scenarios where right to repair laws will be beneficial to consumers in electronic computers. Possibly a 3rd party component repair will be cheaper than what Apple charges but that kind of thing would have been visible already in Premium Resellers and other shops and that hasn't been the case. Some laws probably make sense to prevent early obsolescence but I'd rather just see something like 3 year warranties enforced everywhere. After 3 years, repairs can be done by parts shops sourcing broken machines and salvaging parts.
Not just "right to repair", Woz is also a fan of "right to install". You should have the right to install and run any software you want on the computer devices you own. That goes all the way to the operating system. The Apple II could install the p-system, a Pascal based operating and software development system developed at UCSD. There were many other alternate operating systems you could get for that computer. That was back in the day when personal computers were all about empowering the individual. When was the last time you heard Apple talking about that as benefit of their phones or computers?
Yes, but that's not new: Reportedly Woz was developing great systems and showing and demonstrating them to anybody who would listen -- and showing them how to build their own. It was Steve who had to convince him to stop giving it all away and start a business with him -- something called "Apple"
It’s only right that Apple can terminate your warranty if you tinker with your electronic device. My old ass Commodore-64 had a little sticker on top of an access screw that read Warranty Void If Broken.
There are proprietary equipment that Apple has and the “Right to repair“ wants Apple to sell those equipment so they can repair and not void the warranty, which is a tall order since Apple has to provide warranty to those products as well.
Nobody cares about Apple warranty. I used it once maybe, but it was 15 years ago when support was far better than these days. I fixed all my Apple devices including batteries and upgrades on my own. I would think that this service could be provided by 3rd party professionals as well. What Apple is trying to do however is create hardware subscription business model that you permanently linked to their hardware including no ability to upgrade or repair. Yes it is hardware company and has always been one, but this concepts a bit too far. It is not about ecosystem anymore. I felt this way when calling support some years ago when they were shocked that I cannot use what Apple calls 2 Factor Authentication (wrongly twisting it instead of using mainstream standards like RSA code generators) and I do not have iPhone, but only Android so it will not work as they prescribe with some applications of their own. That was indicator to leave Apple altogether. In fact, I am typing this form something called MintBook Air - former MacBook Air converted to Linux Mint. Works perfectly fine... and I prefer to use Google authenticator or other RSA code generator with Amazon Web Services and other services than their locked app to their iOS hardware.
You may not use it but I’ve used several times on my Macs, iPhones. I find it to be the best and most useful warranty, I can walk into an Apple Store give them my device and wait for it to be fixed by Apple themselves, nothing beats that
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
As DAalseth pointed out "Woz is a hardware guy". Well, I'm a software guy.
But, I admit that I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate: with hardware, generally, you go in, replace a part and, if it works less well than the part you pulled, you just revert back. But software is generally more complicated: it can work like the game of "pick up sticks" where changing one thing can have, as IBM phrased it, "Unpredictable results".
But, that being said, there's a few things in iOS I would love to change.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Cannot understand why some consumers are against repair/upgradability.
They are not consumers first, they are shareholders FIRST. The fact that they use Apple's products is secondary to them. Their main concern is - Apple's profits and brand image which drive the value of Apple's shares (which is very dear to them), with customer's interests being the last priority (if at all it is a priority). You will NEVER see a nuanced debate on this topic - trying to obtain a balance which serves the interests of the customers as well as Apple in this forum.
I do not own any Apple shares but I’m with not forcing Apple to have to make their devices repairable because it will reduce their quality, reliability, etc.
If you can’t see the improvements brought by soldered parts instead of socketed then you don’t know a damn thing about engineering.
Buy AppleCare FFS and make repairing anything that goes wrong with it Apple’s problem. AppleCare is now indefinite not just restricted to three years.
The company that makes the products should be the ones who decide the repair (and Store and whatever else) rules. If you don’t like the rules buy another product instead. Don’t force me to lose my choice to have more robust products that can’t be pulled apart by end users. Let the market decide. Not bloody litigation.
PS. I really like Woz and have a lot of respect for him, but obviously I disagree with him on this topic.
There is also a risk and liability insurance that goes with handling batteries etc. Have a toddler’s IPad explode on them after a shoddy repair and who will be sued?
Not Apple, unless Apple did the shoddy repair.
There is a chain of elements and actions here.
You go to a place with qualified repair technicians. The repair place sources the battery from a reputable dealer. The battery is certified and meets requirements. The customer pays for the repair and pays the taxes.
This is consumer electronics. Not every component is necessarily individually stress tested for its final working environment.
But we have traceability.
If you, as a consumer, take your device to a repair shop and they include the service you need, the shoddinessnof the repair (or not) has little to do with 'right to repair'.
Woz is very cool and well respected, in the same sense as is the USS Constitution. Each one needs to get pulled away from its mooring every once in a while and put in drydock to scrape off the barnacles and replace any rotting timbers. A quick 10 minute sail, then back to the dock.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
Comments
It blows my mind the excuses and contortions people make to oppose right to repair laws. None of the arguments I’ve seen hold up to any logic or scrutiny, and most are simply histrionic hyperbole.
For a company that touts its environmental record, apple is being incredibly hypocritical on this. The single best thing you can do for the environment is to not buy a product in the first place since the vast majority of the environmental impact occurs with manufacture. A natural corollary to this is buying a product that will last and repairing it rather than replacing. By actively preventing repairs, Apple is simply undoing any other positive moves they may have made. Allowing repairs and designing for repair are part of being environmentally friendly (and consumer friendly.)
There’s a lot of sh*t going on in AASP’s ! At least in one unnamed country, two out of three AASPs are willfuly destroying working parts in order to receive brand new ones from Apple and to get more refund.
While there are some pretty good Apple specialised experienced service guys, who would love to do it right on their own, pointless requirements (like huge starting capital) are prohibiting to get licensed.
Apple Service Channel representatives are overlooking this, they wont get troubled by breaking good old order of companies they care for long years. They really dont care about negative environmental impact and some “extra little expenses” for such a big company. It’s disgusting!
Interesting question!
I imagine that some repair shops would be willing to go to these lengths to satisfy a customer under the same situation, but the vast majority will not be in a position to immediately replace a customer's device if it were damaged during a repair. Sure, in this potential right-to-repair future, I as a customer would have the option of paying more to have Apple repair my gear, but a lot of people are going to have bad experiences.
Some of the right to repair laws are trying to make products repairable for 10 years. That would mean Apple has to commit to manufacturing a supply of their custom CPUs for 10 years. TSMC would still have to be able to produce M1 chips in 2030 or Apple would have to maintain an excess supply. For basic mechanical parts these laws are workable but there's no way that a company can be expected to commit to CPU manufacturing for that long. It's the same with displays, it's up to the supplier whether they will still have the supply available. Apple officially obsoletes hardware after about 7 years.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
"Products are considered obsolete when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 7 years ago."
Obsolete means no software updates and no replacement hardware manufactured. Even the frequent Apple critic Louis Rossman doesn't agree with forcing 10 year part replacements on computer electronics companies:
Another aspect is in-warranty replacements:
https://www.cnet.com/news/ftc-warns-companies-about-shady-warranty-terms/
Having access to parts would allow 3rd party shops to repair damaged laptops like broken displays inside warranty and the question then is whether the product is still under warranty after the repair. If the 3rd party isn't trained in replacing the parts and damages another part of the computer during the repair process, Apple may then have the responsibility for the damage caused during the repair.
Apple hires and trains thousands of repair staff worldwide and they recoup that investment with the repairs. If these repairs are done elsewhere, Apple loses on that investment while potentially eating additional costs of failed or poor repairs.
There are upsides to this for the consumer in being able to repair old computers but usually this isn't a problem as 3rd party parts stores have stocks of old parts by buying broken computers.
The thing about people like Woz is their thinking never moved out of the 80s and they mention things like repairing old TV sets by unscrewing the back. We don't live in these times any more and computers are much more complicated to repair. Old-school mechanics do the same with cars until they start messing with the electrical parts on modern cars and get out of their depth pretty quickly.
Right to repair laws will change very little for the consumer. Inside warranty, Apple repairs everything that's a device failure anyway so that covers 12-36 months and battery replacements are inexpensive. Accidental damage can be covered by insurance or some forms of AppleCare. After 7 years, the entire product is worth next to nothing and you can usually buy an entire replacement machine for around 1/10th the original price:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/224524591885
There's not many scenarios where right to repair laws will be beneficial to consumers in electronic computers. Possibly a 3rd party component repair will be cheaper than what Apple charges but that kind of thing would have been visible already in Premium Resellers and other shops and that hasn't been the case. Some laws probably make sense to prevent early obsolescence but I'd rather just see something like 3 year warranties enforced everywhere. After 3 years, repairs can be done by parts shops sourcing broken machines and salvaging parts.
There is a chain of elements and actions here.
You go to a place with qualified repair technicians. The repair place sources the battery from a reputable dealer. The battery is certified and meets requirements. The customer pays for the repair and pays the taxes.
Mistakes happen. Everywhere.
Faults occur. It's unavoidable.
Both can be attributed to Apple repairs too.
This is consumer electronics. Not every component is necessarily individually stress tested for its final working environment.
But we have traceability.
If you, as a consumer, take your device to a repair shop and they include the service you need, the shoddinessnof the repair (or not) has little to do with 'right to repair'.
"Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."