Apple's repair programs have more to do to satisfy New York Right to Repair law
Apple's repair policies aren't doing enough across the board to comply with New York's Right to Repair rules, with a new report claiming that Apple still has a lot more work to do.
Apple Self-Service Repair on an iPhone
In 2022, New York passed legislation that enshrined the Right to Repair for electronics. The intent was to make it easier for consumers to repair their hardware, by being granted access to parts, tools, and documents.
One year after the legislation came into force on hardware sold for the first time in New York, a report has attempted to determine its progress.
Scoring the hardware
Tuesday's report from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund examined user repair options for 21 products that are covered by the Right to Repair law. Of the collection, Apple is the producer with the most products listed, including an M3 MacBook Pro, an iPhone 15, and the Apple Vision Pro.
The top-scoring item of the three was the iPhone 15, which scored maximum points in the "Manual Score" and "Parts Score," earning it an A grade. The MacBook Pro managed a C grade, with 10 out of 10 for the Manual Score but zero for Parts.
The worst performing was the Apple Vision Pro, which didn't score any points at all. It was graded an F.
The Manual Score is based on whether consumers can acquire a service manual from the manufacturer's website. Only 15 out of the 21 devices surveyed had accessible manuals.
Those manuals were also scored based on whether they contained important repair information. This included a list of parts and tools, repair procedures, diagrams, and troubleshooting procedures.
Customer service confusion
While Apple did score top marks for the Manual element for two of the three devices, the report adds that it did still encounter problems.
Calls to customer service representatives sometimes resulted in the caller being told that there was no self-repair option for the iPhone 15, despite there being one available. A representative also said that "only trained Apple Technicians" could replace a phone screen or battery.
A rep said they were "bounded with Apple's policy," and that "Apple wants the best for you."
Apple does supply the parts and tools, as well as a full repair manual that can lead consumers through the repair themselves.
Apple can supply tools and parts to repair its hardware.
Company support agents for other firms also ran into trouble by not providing repair materials or information. They required a proof of purchase and a registered serial number before offering those details.
The firms caught up by product registration requirements included Canon, Amazon, Asus, and Microsoft.
Vision issues
When it comes to the relatively new technology of the Apple Vision Pro, its score was at zero. It did not have any service manual or spare parts available to use.
However, Apple isn't the only one to be tripped up with its headset. Meta scored a single point for the Manual score for the Meta Quest 3, and two for Parts, also getting a failing grade.
Meta said that it was "not offering repair as of the moment" for the headset, and that parts replacement wasn't an option either.
Recommendations to investigate
The report concludes with a list of recommendations, including proposing the New York Attorney General's office should follow up on its findings. It says a further investigation by the Attorneys General should determine whether firms who haven't provided manuals are actually out of compliance.
The results of the report cannot be used by the Attorney General's office directly, which is pointed out in the piece. It would require a whole new investigation by the office itself to proceed.
Similar laws in California and Minnesota have become enforceable, and more are looming in Oregon and Colorado. This may add more pressure to firms to bring out manuals and access to parts in cases where it isn't available.
Lastly, the report points out that the New York Right to Repair Bill has had "mixed success." While it has pushed companies towards better repair standards, other bills in the United States offer a better deal for consumers.
The New York version should therefore be updated to be more in line with others, the report declares.
Still toothless
The update request is made for good reason, as the New York legislation is pretty poor. Despite the bravado of bringing companies into account and enabling consumer repairs, it was severely watered down.
A number of amendments were made at the time, introducing massive carve-outs that allowed companies to continue as normal. For a start, a variety of electrical equipment is immune to the law, including home alarm systems, medical equipment, and e-bikes.
In the case of Apple, it already offers manuals and a self-repair program, as well as access to parts. This already exceeds the demands of New York's law, at least for its most-sold hardware.
As for parts, the law states it "allows for original equipment manufacturers may provide assemblies of parts rather than individual components when the risk of improper installation heightens the risk of injury." Apple is able to classify all of its parts under this line.
The consequence is that Apple can still require "core" returns of boards instead of enabling repairs at a component level.
Apple's habit of using device serialization for security purposes is also permitted on the law, which can continue to frustrate Right to Repair advocates.
It is entirely plausible for the New York legislature to beef up the Right to Repair law to match its counterparts. However, as usual for the processes of lawmakers, it could be a long time before it actually gets some teeth.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
*And even with cars, nobody insists that the electronic modules be repairable down to the level that is demanded of iPhones. When a volume control knob on your car stereo breaks, are auto manufacturers required to make that replaceable, or is just offering a replacement stereo good enough? I've had that happen to me and a replacement knob is not available, the only solution offered is to replace the whole unit. An electronic device should be repairable to the same standard as that car stereo, not to the standard applied to the whole car.
Cost? At what price?
Design? What sacrifices against what benefits?
Performance? What performance metrics?
Companies should be designing for repair.
If they think their products truly last (and are built to last) why do companies like Apple offer such poor warranties out of the gate?
Often requiring external legislation to set minimum warranty periods. The Answer is that 'price' or 'cost' falls squarely on the consumer (both in and out of warranty). 'In warranty' via Applecare or similar systems and 'out of warranty' through poor design decisions that actually impede or dissuade repair due to complexity and/or price and parts availability (lack of, that is to say).
Tradeoffs abound in any situation but things need to be re-thought to put the paying consumer centre stage.
If you think IP68 protection is necessary - then back it up under warranty. Simple. Don't say 'you should be fine if it ever happens but your on your own if it fails'. The point here is that it almost always does not happen. I think I've only ever known of two cases of water immersion personally.
IP68 ratings are questionable design choices at best. Water resistance is a better solution along with things like nano coatings which have been around for years.
User replaceable batteries should not require a special suitcase full of tools and instructions.
Thickness you say? Take a look at this folding phone (it will be released next week) and imagine how 'thick' things would be if applied to some like an iPhone:
https://www.fonearena.com/blog/427645/honor-magic-v3-launch-date-magic-vs3-magicpad-2-magicbook-art-14.html
Performance is moot. Some would argue that a repairable phone 'performs' better because it can last longer between upgrades.
And parts pairing should be authorised by the owner, not limited to Apple.
The only reasonable way to reach these goals is through 'right to repair' legislation and that is what we are seeing.
The EU directive is already making waves and surely being taken into consideration by manufacturers. Expect a lot of handwringing (and fines) if DMA compliance is anything to go by. Especially as the EU approach is actually part of a bigger initiative.
Now the usual consumer response to a product that he doesn't like is to buy something else. Your response is to demand that government pass a law that forces a company to deliver what you want.
I on the other hand believe that aside from safety considerations, governments should not be in the product design business.
Do you know that the EU parliament recently approved a directive that by 2027 all new smartphones on the EU market must have user replaceable batteries, meaning it should not require specialized tools like a heat gun or non standard screw drivers. Only off the shelve tools or tools that will be shipped with the smartphone will be allowed to replace the battery. And this will definitely impact the design of all smartphones
And definitely, the points are my personal opinions.
That isn't relevant though. What counts is that right to repair legislation is an important issue that goes far and wide beyond my personal opinion and is gaining traction all over the place. I just happen to share the opinion of those trying to tackle the issue.
Companies can cater to right to repair as opposed to the preferences of consumers, most of whom aren't aware of the issues, so it's not about not liking a product or not.
As I said, it's an industry wide problem. It won't go away for consumers who switch to a different product/manufacturer although it may well be cheaper than Apple.
To say I'm demanding that government do something isn't really representative. I'm supporting what government is already doing. The problem is that you can't cook up laws on a napkin over lunch. It's a long process and fraught with money games in some places (lobbying).
And as I said earlier, the EU has some very clear ideas as to where it wants to go.
I saw some early drafts and we're not talking about just 'repair' here. We're talking about a far reaching collection of regulations tailored to current issues.
For example, they have considered the right to downgrade firmware updates that add new functionality which may have a negative impact on performance.
Can I buy a product please where (there is a contract I can sign and) I give 100% consent, for NO RIGHT TO REPAIR (in order to purchase said item where RTR does not apply, and the company can claim no responsibility to comply with having me/or anyone else, except themselves if they so choose, to be able to do repairs, and if they want they can throw in a 'We will replace.')?
Did I fill in the/your blanks for you? Or are there more blanks you would like to discuss because I assume you understand the druthers that this nonsense can have and that this can go on and on and on...
And yes I said ASSUME.