Apple's Self Repair Program was never going to be what repair advocates wanted

2»

Comments

  • Reply 22 of 36
    streams06streams06 Posts: 2member
    doggone said:
    I, for one, would get Apple to repair it, especially if buying third party parts would disable features like FaceID. 
    FaceID is disabled because Apple wants it to be. The whole point of right to repair is that Apple would stop purposely sabotaging it. IMHO it's one thing to refuse to provide extensive tools and documentation, and something completely different to use software to sabotage someone's own device.
    edited May 2022 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 23 of 36
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,719member
    streams06 said:
    doggone said:
    I, for one, would get Apple to repair it, especially if buying third party parts would disable features like FaceID. 
    FaceID is disabled because Apple wants it to be. The whole point of right to repair is that Apple would stop purposely sabotaging it. IMHO it's one thing to refuse to provide extensive tools and documentation, and something completely different to use software to sabotage someone's own device.
    On the other hand, tinkering with FaceID would be a fine way to force access to a phone. A “poison pill” for those who try is okay by me. 
  • Reply 24 of 36
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 598member
    “Car repairs happen all the time.”

    And so cars are like Apple phones…
    with the same safety history?

    Are you gonna self-repair a Tesla??
    edited May 2022
  • Reply 25 of 36
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 598member
    “…Anyone can do it.”

    If you want to do it.
    That’s one of the reasons we made a choice to buy Apple. I think one audience heavily outweighs the other.
    edited May 2022
  • Reply 26 of 36
    loquiturloquitur Posts: 134member
    What all of these advocates for, "right to repair," leave out is just how damn difficult it is to repair a modern Apple device especially an iPhone. I worked for Apple in an Apple retail store and I HATED repairing iPhones, especially ones with cracked screens. Everything is tiny and fragile. Even for experienced and trained technicians repairing an iPhone is not fun. The danger of destroying a cable or connector if you use the wrong amount of force or apply force in the wrong direction is ever present. It is delicate work. Despite training, it was common for new Apple technicians to break the first iPhone or two they worked on.A

    And I haven't had to repair an iPhone much past the iPhone 6.

    If I had the choice of saving $200 repairing an iPhone or paying Apple $200 to fix an iPhone, I would gladly hand my credit card over to Apple for a trained, experienced technician with ALL of the proper equipment to do the job right.
    Since repairing iPhones is parts & labor intensive (especially in the US vs China), why does Apple even try to repair vs. replace at all?
    Because Apple has access to inventory wholesale, why don't they just substitute in a reasonable facsimile (color + memory is about it
    for choices)?

    Or is it because folks don't always automatically have iPhones backed up to the cloud, so need to get at the (encrypted) content
    on the old physical device due to not having a recent backup?
    edited May 2022
  • Reply 27 of 36
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,488member
    mfryd said:
    What happens when my 5 year old iPhone, Mac or iPad is declared "obsolete" by Apple.  At that point they will no longer sell parts, issue software upgrades, or offer support for the device.

    As it stands, the iPhone will refuse to fully work with replacement parts unless Apple blesses the replacement.  That won't happen once Apple drops support.

    At some point, Apple will stop issuing software updates to fix crucial security issues.  That wouldn't be an issue except that Apple prevents me from installing a third party OS (for example Linux or Android).   

    I would be much happier if Apple opened up repairs and software once they stopped supporting a device.

    Remember, Apple Silicon Macs, iPhones, and iPads are all tied to the owner's Apple ID.  At the very least, they should allow the registered Apple ID to approve pairing of replacement parts.   I'm OK with it giving a warning if someone swaps the fingerprint sensor, or makes hardware/software alternations without my approval.  However, as the registered Apple ID for the device, I should be able to approve those changes.
    1. You already can install Android on old iPhones. Apple doesn't support that, but you can jailbreak the device and do it.

    2. No manufacturer provides OEM parts and support into perpetuity. Just head over to your local Chevrolet dealer and try to get parts for your 1973 Vega. They don't have them. 

    3. Unlike your 1973 Vega, you're expecting your iPhone to remain secure from malware and data theft. If you want to install aftermarket replacement parts, Apple can't be expected to continue engineering your data security. They're not going to bless those parts, and if you're replacing bits that are part of that engineering designed to protect your data, they aren't going to "bless" it, and you're going to have a problem.

    4. Apple knows that all the talk about Apple including mechanisms to let users approve breaching the security of their device would just come back to bite them. There would inevitably be class action lawsuits where users who "approved" janky replacement parts claim that because Apple sanctioned such user approvals, they're still responsible for the suboptimal results. So, go back to #1. You can jailbreak your device and turn it into whatever sort of Frankephone you'd like, but you can't expect the manufacturer to enable or sanction it. 


  • Reply 28 of 36
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,739member
    crowley said:
    rob53 said:
    I find it interesting that people and governments continue to demand that Apple build their products a certain way. What gives anyone the right to tell Apple how to create and manufacture their products? There’s certain standards that are required for every product but not the level demanded of Apple. Many products are glued together with no option for repair yet nobody is going after these products. Many products are design for single use. Why aren’t these required to be repairable? Look at cars. Get in an accident and most are considered totaled or beyond repair but unless they’re flattened they could be repaired. Where are the tools, parts and manuals to rebuild the front end of a new car? Oh wait, it’s not economically feasible to repair them. Computers are getting so small that repairing them to their original state just doesn’t make economic cents (pun intended).
    What Michael Bay universe are you living in where most cars that get into accidents are considered “totaled”?

    Car repairs happen all the time.

    In the US.

    In the US, the average age of the average car on the road is about 12 years. The "average" car loses 50% of it's value when new, in about 5 years.



    By "totaled", this means that the cost to repair exceeds it's blue book resale value. It's a common auto insurance term and does not mean that the car is non-repairable. Not sure if the term is used in the UK.

    For instance. If an older car that have a blue book resale value of $5K gets into an accident that will require $5K or more to repair, the insurer will "total" the car. They will give the owner $5K and take possession of the car. Then they will sell the car to a auto scavenger for maybe $500, who will strip it for parts and sell to recover their cost to buy the car from the insurance company and have it towed to their yard. With most older cars, the selling its parts fetches more than selling the whole drivable car. Either way, the car was repairable, but wasn't repaired because the insurance company "totaled" it. 

    The insurer has the right to pay the owner the full blue book value of the car, rather than to pay to repair it. Why would the auto scavenger repair the car that they can't sell for more that what it will cost to repair? And when one buy a "totaled" car, it carries a scavenger title for life on the car registration. This alone will reduce the resale value of the car by 30%. Plus in order to register a scavenged car so it can be driven on the public road again, it has to pass a State road safety inspection. Which can cost couple of  hundred dollars just for the inspection. Even it the accident only caused body damage. 

    So even if most cars under 5 years old are repaired in most accidents, it's not far fetch to say that most cars over 15 years old are "totaled" in most accidents. Even minor ones that only caused body damage. So having 51% of the cars in accidents in the US considered "totaled", is not even out of our planet, let alone out of the Universe.

    This has nothing to do with .......  "car repairs happen all the time". Cars that are not considered "totaled", are repaired.  
    tht
  • Reply 29 of 36
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    rob53 said:
    I find it interesting that people and governments continue to demand that Apple build their products a certain way. What gives anyone the right to tell Apple how to create and manufacture their products? There’s certain standards that are required for every product but not the level demanded of Apple. Many products are glued together with no option for repair yet nobody is going after these products. Many products are design for single use. Why aren’t these required to be repairable? Look at cars. Get in an accident and most are considered totaled or beyond repair but unless they’re flattened they could be repaired. Where are the tools, parts and manuals to rebuild the front end of a new car? Oh wait, it’s not economically feasible to repair them. Computers are getting so small that repairing them to their original state just doesn’t make economic cents (pun intended).
    What Michael Bay universe are you living in where most cars that get into accidents are considered “totaled”?

    Car repairs happen all the time.

    In the US.

    In the US, the average age of the average car on the road is about 12 years. The "average" car loses 50% of it's value when new, in about 5 years.



    By "totaled", this means that the cost to repair exceeds it's blue book resale value. It's a common auto insurance term and does not mean that the car is non-repairable. Not sure if the term is used in the UK.

    For instance. If an older car that have a blue book resale value of $5K gets into an accident that will require $5K or more to repair, the insurer will "total" the car. They will give the owner $5K and take possession of the car. Then they will sell the car to a auto scavenger for maybe $500, who will strip it for parts and sell to recover their cost to buy the car from the insurance company and have it towed to their yard. With most older cars, the selling its parts fetches more than selling the whole drivable car. Either way, the car was repairable, but wasn't repaired because the insurance company "totaled" it. 

    The insurer has the right to pay the owner the full blue book value of the car, rather than to pay to repair it. Why would the auto scavenger repair the car that they can't sell for more that what it will cost to repair? And when one buy a "totaled" car, it carries a scavenger title for life on the car registration. This alone will reduce the resale value of the car by 30%. Plus in order to register a scavenged car so it can be driven on the public road again, it has to pass a State road safety inspection. Which can cost couple of  hundred dollars just for the inspection. Even it the accident only caused body damage. 

    So even if most cars under 5 years old are repaired in most accidents, it's not far fetch to say that most cars over 15 years old are "totaled" in most accidents. Even minor ones that only caused body damage. So having 51% of the cars in accidents in the US considered "totaled", is not even out of our planet, let alone out of the Universe.

    This has nothing to do with .......  "car repairs happen all the time". Cars that are not considered "totaled", are repaired.  
    Please get over this compulsion to explain things that are obvious.  I know what totaled means, which should have been abundantly clear from what I said.

    I find it very hard to believe that "most" accidents cause so much damage that a car is written off, even at a 5 year deprecated value.  Most accidents are minor.  Scratches, dents, and replacement work rarely runs to thousands of dollars.

    I had a 20 old car when I was younger.  I had a significant accident in bad weather that required a new bumper, hood, wing mirror, two new tyres, and a whole lot of spit and shine.  Still worth repairing.  I find it a very dubious "most".

    And that makes your point rather moot.  If cars are worth repairing, they get repaired.  If you damage an iPhone so much that the cost of parts and labour make it more economical to replace the phone, then replace it.  I haven't seen anyone demanding that such phones must be repaired.  It's a made up argument.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 36
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,500member
    I'm not so sure about this bit.

    "Design is a balance. To placate arguments that are vague, undefined, and, in some cases, unrealistic, Apple is never going to make an iPhone with a casually removable battery like a 2006 Nokia." 

    Stay tuned for some very non-vague requirements on batteries. 

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220304IPR24805/new-rules-on-batteries-meps-want-more-environmental-and-social-ambition
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 31 of 36
    Twice in the seven years that I have owned my iMac I have had to take it to the Apple store for problems related to the SSD portion of the fusion drive. On both occasions the Apple technician broke my display, necessitating they provide a brand new display. 

    I am a competent individual when it comes to repairing computers, iPad, and iPhones. But, after finding that the cost of tools from iFixit or other similar places cost half the price of the labor for the Apple store to do my repair, I was quite content to let Apple bear the risk of breaking my display for the low, low price of $35 in difference between my own labor and amateur tools or their expert labor and tools. 

    If even the Apple Store technicians have a hard time getting into these machines without breaking things, can you imagine “right to repair” being a thing with the iMac? People would be up in arms all over the place when they broke their displays, governments would intervene, and Apple would be forced to build iMacs that are 5 inches thick. 
    edited May 2022
  • Reply 32 of 36
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,500member
    Twice in the seven years that I have owned my iMac I have had to take it to the Apple store for problems related to the SSD portion of the fusion drive. On both occasions the Apple technician broke my display, necessitating they provide a brand new display. 

    If even the Apple Store technicians have a hard time getting into these machines without breaking things, can you imagine “right to repair” being a thing with the iMac? People would be up in arms all over the place when they broke their displays, governments would intervene, and Apple would be forced to build iMacs that are 5 inches thick. 
    Then that is a classic case of bad design from a repair perspective. 

    Something that should be changed IMO. 

    In my case, having to remove the front glass and entire screen display to remove a hard drive on a 27" iMac showed that repair wasn't high up on the list when it came to design.

    It also required a special dust removal kit to eliminate/reduce specs getting between the glass and the panel on reassembly. 


    edited May 2022 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 33 of 36
    Then that is a classic case of bad design from a repair perspective. 

    Something that should be changed IMO. 

    In my case, having to remove the front glass and entire screen display to remove a hard drive on a 27" iMac showed that repair wasn't high up on the list when it came to design.

    It also required a special dust removal kit to eliminate/reduce specs getting between the glass and the panel on reassembly. 


    I don’t disagree. It is obviously difficult to repair these 27 inch iMacs. Apple clearly took a calculated risk: cost of botched in-house repairs versus increased sales due to a sleek, futuristic design. I’ve been inside the guts of not a few of the old G5 iMac machines, as well as many an older iMac, iBook, MacBook, and PowerBook, but I think that I shall limit my interactions with the innards of any 27 inch Intel iMac to RAM replacement. However, I’m personally ok with the trade off in design improvements from the older iMac to the 27”, and even to the new 24” iMac. 
    edited May 2022
  • Reply 34 of 36
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,566administrator
    avon b7 said:
    I'm not so sure about this bit.

    "Design is a balance. To placate arguments that are vague, undefined, and, in some cases, unrealistic, Apple is never going to make an iPhone with a casually removable battery like a 2006 Nokia." 

    Stay tuned for some very non-vague requirements on batteries. 

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220304IPR24805/new-rules-on-batteries-meps-want-more-environmental-and-social-ambition
    This is still pretty vague. I suspect that the repair tool rental that Apple is supplying here will be pointed to, and Apple will say "See? Easier."

    Still no chance that they make it casually removable like in that old Nokia.
  • Reply 35 of 36
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,500member
    avon b7 said:
    I'm not so sure about this bit.

    "Design is a balance. To placate arguments that are vague, undefined, and, in some cases, unrealistic, Apple is never going to make an iPhone with a casually removable battery like a 2006 Nokia." 

    Stay tuned for some very non-vague requirements on batteries. 

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220304IPR24805/new-rules-on-batteries-meps-want-more-environmental-and-social-ambition
    This is still pretty vague. I suspect that the repair tool rental that Apple is supplying here will be pointed to, and Apple will say "See? Easier."

    Still no chance that they make it casually removable like in that old Nokia.
    Yes. It's still only a draft and there will be industry pushback (or an attempt to do so) but perhaps more telling is that, as the draft has developed over time, it has become harder hitting in terms of goals. 

    The bottom part of the page from my original link contains a list of documents as click through references. From those we can come across snippets like this:

    "By 2024, portable batteries in appliances, such as smartphones, and batteries for LMT must be designed for easy and safe removal and replacement by consumers or independent operators."

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220202IPR22435/meps-want-to-strengthen-new-eu-rules-for-batteries

    Parallel to the revision of the batteries directive there is also the long running effort to establish firmer legislation on 'durability' and 'repairability' through design.

    I believe the textile industry will be the first to see that with regulations on the quality of clothing. No more 'three washes and throw away' items for example. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.