When our technology devices reach the levels depicted in sci-fi — ultra small or ultra thin pieces of magic glass, will it still make sense for DIY to whine about not being able to open up the device and solder repairs or whatnot? I don’t think so. Which is why I don’t expect we’ll halt technological progress just to appease them.
It could be argued that it isn't really progress then . Stay tuned for an EU attempt to redefine 'progress'.
Although I read the wikipedia page about "right to repair," I still don't get the point. No law can stop any device owner from taking a hammer to the device (either to repair or destroy it.) What I think they mean (and want) is that a warranty cannot be voided by people taking hammers to their own device.
I think Apple could get a lot of goodwill by offering a training course, that when passed, allows individuals perform warranty-approved repairs. (And it should be available to everyone who applies, not just to Apple invitees only as it currently stands.) But this course would be both thorough and very expensive. Any vendor not willing to pay for it cannot perform authorized repairs. Wouldn't that satisfy many of the right to repair advocates? Or do they actually want untrained repair people to hack at devices without voiding the warranty? I can't figure out what they want. Are there any right to repair advocates here that can clearly explain what they want?
Selling repair tools and documentation doesn't mean anything if the warranties are not covered by repairs made with those tools. So the right to repair advocates are not really asking for these things.
It's more than that. Cars are the best comparison. Imagine that Toyota voided the warranty because you had the brakes done at an independent repair shop. Or, worse, that Ford required you to have all your repairs done at the Ford dealer and refused to make parts available to anyone else to do the repairs.
No one is expecting Apple to warranty repairs done by an outside shop, or to cover damage caused by the shop. What they want is the availability of parts to give them more options for repairs.
Cars are a bad example, but their infotainment system might be a better example. If you take a soldering iron to it or replace its screen will the car manufacturer honor its warranty? Obviously not.
What I understood from right to repair is that they want Apple to supply parts and and proprietary equipment to servicers, this will obviously add complexity to things since now they’ll need to maintain and warranty these tools and deal with investigations and lawsuits should these tools end up damaging user devices.
Why would someone try to fix the infotainment system if it is still under warranty? The desire to buy OEM parts separate from service is to make repairs on items that are out of warranty.
Why would someone try to fix the infotainment system if it is still under warranty? The desire to buy OEM parts separate from service is to make repairs on items that are out of warranty.
Actually not. The biggest thing are things like screens and other broken glass (phone backs etc). The phone is often still under warranty in some of these cases but warranty does not cover damaged items. So someone breaks their screen after 6 months. Gets a 3rd party replacement. Phone itself is still under warranty. A month later phone has a problem (not directly with the screen). How can Apple be sure the 3rd party screen replacement was done correctly and didn't cause a knock-on effect that caused the later problem? Technically the rest of the phone is still under warranty but Apple could be stuck fixing or replacing it because of a botched 3rd party screen replacement.
Why would someone try to fix the infotainment system if it is still under warranty? The desire to buy OEM parts separate from service is to make repairs on items that are out of warranty.
Actually not. The biggest thing are things like screens and other broken glass (phone backs etc). The phone is often still under warranty in some of these cases but warranty does not cover damaged items. So someone breaks their screen after 6 months. Gets a 3rd party replacement. Phone itself is still under warranty. A month later phone has a problem (not directly with the screen). How can Apple be sure the 3rd party screen replacement was done correctly and didn't cause a knock-on effect that caused the later problem? Technically the rest of the phone is still under warranty but Apple could be stuck fixing or replacing it because of a botched 3rd party screen replacement.
There are no easy answers.
There is actually a REALLY easy answer to that one. If the phone is still under warranty, Apple is legally required to repair it (but is not responsible for repairing the screen) unless Apple can prove that the 3rd party screen damaged the phone.
That's already the law in the US, Apple just chooses to ignore it.
Why would someone try to fix the infotainment system if it is still under warranty? The desire to buy OEM parts separate from service is to make repairs on items that are out of warranty.
Actually not. The biggest thing are things like screens and other broken glass (phone backs etc). The phone is often still under warranty in some of these cases but warranty does not cover damaged items. So someone breaks their screen after 6 months. Gets a 3rd party replacement. Phone itself is still under warranty. A month later phone has a problem (not directly with the screen). How can Apple be sure the 3rd party screen replacement was done correctly and didn't cause a knock-on effect that caused the later problem? Technically the rest of the phone is still under warranty but Apple could be stuck fixing or replacing it because of a botched 3rd party screen replacement.
There are no easy answers.
Then I would expect it to be just as if a person owned a car that was under warranty and had an accident. The parts that are damaged and need to be replaced are not covered by the warranty. Parts of the car not effected will still be under warranty.
Why would someone try to fix the infotainment system if it is still under warranty? The desire to buy OEM parts separate from service is to make repairs on items that are out of warranty.
Actually not. The biggest thing are things like screens and other broken glass (phone backs etc). The phone is often still under warranty in some of these cases but warranty does not cover damaged items. So someone breaks their screen after 6 months. Gets a 3rd party replacement. Phone itself is still under warranty. A month later phone has a problem (not directly with the screen). How can Apple be sure the 3rd party screen replacement was done correctly and didn't cause a knock-on effect that caused the later problem? Technically the rest of the phone is still under warranty but Apple could be stuck fixing or replacing it because of a botched 3rd party screen replacement.
There are no easy answers.
Except Apple now repairs out of warranty devices even if they have a non-OEM display. In-warranty I’m not sure, but to use another car analogy; car manufacturers can’t prevent warranty repairs on things other than the part that’s been unofficially repaired. A blown head gasket will still be fixed under warranty even if the owner hasn’t used the authorised garage to fit new tyres, for example. Tech companies seem to think they should honour warranties differently than the rest of the industry, and it’s time that changed.
I think Apple could get a lot of goodwill by offering a training course, that when passed, allows individuals perform warranty-approved repairs. (And it should be available to everyone who applies, not just to Apple invitees only as it currently stands.) But this course would be both thorough and very expensive. Any vendor not willing to pay for it cannot perform authorized repairs.
They do, and it's not only for "Apple invitees". If you pass the qualifications, you are an authorized repair center.
Where did you read/here that it was only available to "Apple invitees"? Citation?
Unless you can cite Apple saying that it welcomesallapplicants to these courses, it's proper to assume that Apple has a veto over them. If you are saying that Apple doesn't exercise a veto over applicants, then you need to prove that by citing Apple. Perhaps if you show the web page where I can apply, that might possibly prove your claim. By default services can be refused, and you have to prove that these services are open, whereas I don't have to prove they aren't.
I'm glad my post spawned so much discussion. I don't always have a chance to follow-up.
I think Apple could get a lot of goodwill by offering a training course, that when passed, allows individuals perform warranty-approved repairs. (And it should be available to everyone who applies, not just to Apple invitees only as it currently stands.) But this course would be both thorough and very expensive. Any vendor not willing to pay for it cannot perform authorized repairs.
They do, and it's not only for "Apple invitees". If you pass the qualifications, you are an authorized repair center.
Where did you read/here that it was only available to "Apple invitees"? Citation?
Unless you can cite Apple saying that it welcomesallapplicants to these courses, it's proper to assume that Apple has a veto over them. If you are saying that Apple doesn't exercise a veto over applicants, then you need to prove that by citing Apple. Perhaps if you show the web page where I can apply, that might possibly prove your claim. By default services can be refused, and you have to prove that these services are open, whereas I don't have to prove they aren't.
I'm glad my post spawned so much discussion. I don't always have a chance to follow-up.
You made the claim/accusation that only those invited by Apple can become authorized repair centers. You must provide the evidence.
I'm all for Apple making it absolutely impossible for "3rd party" repairs on iPhone.
In my home town we have a Facebook community group.
Last summer, several people "lost" their iPhones at local beaches, and community members helped them track them down with "find my" (why people find this so hard I don't know).
Last known location - a "phone repair shop" some 40km away. (and no, the police won't investigate, but I've no idea why)
iPhone's are stolen regularly, and yet they are pretty useless to a pawn shop - so this is pretty much the only use for them. And iPhone parts are expensive. So I guess someone can spend a morning "collecting" iPhones and by the afternoon have a few dollars in their pocket.
After iPhone's - the next most common thing stolen here are BMW's - and again, it's for parts. If BMW could stop 3rd party repairs, they absolutely would, because folk around here actively campaign now "don't buy a BMW", which I doubt BMW are very happy about.
You do realize that the market for ‘genuine’ apple parts is inflated because of Apple prohibiting suppliers from selling them, right? If there was a viable source for ‘genuine’ parts the market would be different.
You can buy BMW parts as "genuine" or "compatible", but it doesn't stop people stealing BMW's for parts. Having "3rd party" suppliers for Apple parts is also not prevent the theft of iPhone's for parts. Making the device irreparable (except by Apple) and/or the parts unuseful (as described here: the display can be replaced but it breaks Face ID) are significantly more effective strategies for combatting theft.
I'm all for Apple making it absolutely impossible for "3rd party" repairs on iPhone.
In my home town we have a Facebook community group.
Last summer, several people "lost" their iPhones at local beaches, and community members helped them track them down with "find my" (why people find this so hard I don't know).
Last known location - a "phone repair shop" some 40km away. (and no, the police won't investigate, but I've no idea why)
iPhone's are stolen regularly, and yet they are pretty useless to a pawn shop - so this is pretty much the only use for them. And iPhone parts are expensive. So I guess someone can spend a morning "collecting" iPhones and by the afternoon have a few dollars in their pocket.
After iPhone's - the next most common thing stolen here are BMW's - and again, it's for parts. If BMW could stop 3rd party repairs, they absolutely would, because folk around here actively campaign now "don't buy a BMW", which I doubt BMW are very happy about.
You do realize that the market for ‘genuine’ apple parts is inflated because of Apple prohibiting suppliers from selling them, right? If there was a viable source for ‘genuine’ parts the market would be different.
You can buy BMW parts as "genuine" or "compatible", but it doesn't stop people stealing BMW's for parts. Having "3rd party" suppliers for Apple parts is also not prevent the theft of iPhone's for parts. Making the device irreparable (except by Apple) and/or the parts unuseful (as described here: the display can be replaced but it breaks Face ID) are significantly more effective strategies for combatting theft.
Except most 3rd party repair are buying their screens from the same places that make them for Apple, in fact IFixit just did a screen swap from a brand new IPHONE 13 to another IPHONE 13 and found the face ID to not work, Apple has serialized the screens so they can keep charging excess dollars to fix it while good 3rd party repair shops are no longer competition so prices go up and consumers are forced to go only to Apple for repairs.
Comments
There are no easy answers.
I'm glad my post spawned so much discussion. I don't always have a chance to follow-up.
Here's Apple site and the requirements: Apple Authorized Service Provider Program.
It says nothing about only invitees can apply.