I saw an interesting show a few days ago that discussed the original intent of the "Right to Repair" act. Coming from Nebraska, it's intent was to allow farmers access to diagnostic software/equipment in order to diagnose and perform crucial repairs and maintenance on gigantic John Deere farm equipment. As it stood, if a giant harvester breaks down, a farmer has to load the harvester on a flatbed and deliver it to a John Deere repair facility which could be hundreds of miles away, and take days if not weeks to perform the repairs, denying them the ability to farm during what can be a very short window of time in the season for a particular crop.
The Nebraska meeting ended up being attended my Apple and Microsoft which fought the bill, since it could technically apply to them as well.
It's interesting and complicated. For farm equipment, I can totally understand the farmer's desire for right to repair. It's stupid to deliver a 10-ton tractor possibly out of state on the farmer's dime in order to get something fixed. For highly-specialized and at times, dangerous products like iPhones, I can see Apple's point of view.
Interesting background info.
I think the question here is more one of product design philosophy.
I can see little to no valid reason to impede repair by design.
Even Apple warns you that they could break the device while attempting a battery replacement and ask you to agree to a replacement phone and it's price if that happens.
Everything is possible until you get down into nano components and then replacement is the only viable way (at the moment).
There is also another question on transparency. If you purchase a device which is unrepairable or only repairable by the manufacturer, should we be legally entitled to have that information up front and very visible together with the cost of out of warranty repairs? I think so.
What this ignores is the impact on both the integrated nature of Apple products as well as the hit to quality that the Apple products would experience from the installation of cheap replacement parts installed by poorly trained technicians...
Apple, since day one, has insisted that it doesn't sell hardware gadgets. It sells user experiences. Treating their products as mere gadgets will do irreparable harm to that product.
That said, I just might have some third party install a cheap replacement screen on my iPhone 6 because my goal is to make the phone last till September till I can replace it with the latest and greatest. Unfortunately the screen just developed a crack --but phone is not worth the price of an Apple repair. So, frankly, I have little to lose. But, that is a far cry from a one year old iPhone that I expect to work flawlessly and seamlessly under all conditions for years to come.
I don't foresee the right to repair bill leading to either cheaper repairs, better repairs or an environmental improvement. I actually don't see any real improvement for consumers at all, and likely will have the opposite effect in more expensive devices, shoddy repair works and improperly managed waste, such as that from batteries. Meanwhile common problems, such as cracked screens and battery replacements are already addressed by 3rd party repair outlets anyway.
Also this doesn't bode well for hardware security, which is specifically built in pairs to ensure that the device cannot be tinkered with for improper access.
This is plainly all about enhancing the commercial aspects of repair shops, and absolutely nothing to do with giving consumers better outcomes.
What this ignores is the impact on both the integrated nature of Apple products as well as the hit to quality that the Apple products would experience from the installation of cheap replacement parts installed by poorly trained technicians...
Apple, since day one, has insisted that it doesn't sell hardware gadgets. It sells user experiences. Treating their products as mere gadgets will do irreparable harm to that product.
That said, I just might have some third party install a cheap replacement screen on my iPhone 6 because my goal is to make the phone last till September till I can replace it with the latest and greatest. Unfortunately the screen just developed a crack --but phone is not worth the price of an Apple repair. So, frankly, I have little to lose. But, that is a far cry from a one year old iPhone that I expect to work flawlessly and seamlessly under all conditions for years to come.
Yes I can see people suing Apple in the future because they think Apple is purposely making devices that are very hard to take apart. I understand some want to tinker and some live 2hrs away from an Apple Store (I live 1.5hrs away), but it isn't just Apple Stores than can repair Apple Products. You can take them to 3rd party places that are already Apple Certified Service Centers, you can take them to Best Buy (in the US). We don't need to assume that an Apple Store is the only place to get your Apple products serviced.
I guess what Apple could do is open up the Service Center Certification. If Joe's repair shop wants to be able to fix an iPhone, it needs to become certified and there would be steps to do this. I think Apple has closed this off since Apple Stores have become the main way of getting your Apple product serviced. They could just open it back up and create a way for these little shops to do it. Once they do this, then they'll have access to Apple Certified OEM parts, tools, procedures, etc. If they get caught using generic off the shelf parts, they lose their certifications which will open up a whole new can of worms.
Third party, shoddy repairs already exist. Anyone who’s gone through one of those repairs knows it’s a better idea to go through Apple
Quite arrogant to suggest that the third party repair centers are shoddy.
My nearest Apple store is 2 hours driving, while I have an excellent repair shop in the neighbourhood, that has repaired several laptops and phones for my company in the past. And it did it quite professionally. I am pretty sure that my local repair shop could do an excellent iPhone repair (which it does not for the moment) if it got access to the right components.
So the choice for me is not about price or quality but about convenience.
I will also add that not every 3rd party repair shop is shoddy, they all are not quite professional and handle repairs like your repair shop. I am all for giving the local small guy business, but I have seen some shoddy cheap repair places that did half assed repairs in my local area. A laptop screen replacement or ram and memory upgrades are one thing...even repairs to older non Apple phones, or pre Touch ID iPhones is still something I would be ok with a shop fixing ( if I couldn’t get it done myself ). No way in hell I would take my 8 plus to a local guy/girl to open and repair. I would mail my phone to Apple for repair ( if I had a 2hr ride to the nearest Genius Bar ) and use something else for a few days; just to have the piece of mind that my device is coming back properly fixed. Others may feel different, but that’s just me.
Third party, shoddy repairs already exist. Anyone who’s gone through one of those repairs knows it’s a better idea to go through Apple
I disagree. I had my battery in my 6s replaced bij a good-but-not-Apple-repair-shop. I did this after Apple would not replace my battery. Quick, fast, not expensive, and I’m looking to an other two years of happy use of my phone.
Apple and others will have to make available the tools it uses to repair. If the item is in fact unrepairable, then they don't. All this law will result in is more glue, more cast in parts, more sealed devices. In the end this law will be counterproductive. It will result in more throwaway items.
The security argument is a silly one, as every cloud operator will roll over with with a law enforcement warrant. Most phone users are on social media, use a search engine that stores ones data, an ISP that tracks all use, a mobile phone operator that tracks all use, and/or a mapping app that stores and tracks all use.
There is NO reason that phone manufacturers shouldn't permit either end users or third party folks to at minimum easily swap out a battery. Or make a battery replacement available for less than $50. Same goes for an easily replaceable display.
I do have to credit Apple, as Apple at least has authorized repair centers in most major cities. Samsung for instance doesn't have an authorized repair center anywhere in the state of CO for starters.
Most tech companies wave the environmental flag every chance they get. Making it easier for consumers to swap screens and batteries gives them more of an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.
I’ve read some possible ramifications that may be caused by these laws. Mandating user replaceable batteries is one, back to the old days of the back of your phone falling off. Another possibility is that manufacturers will be forced to abandon water-resistance and water-proofing so that devices are easier to take apart for repair.
Bottom line is when government gets into the design business and mandates how a product is to be manufactured there is no end to it. There will always be “activists” who want more and more control.
This is a well-intentioned bill but unfortunately misguided. Technicians repairing Apple devices in a substandard way will reflect badly on Apple’s user experience, and Apple being forced to assist in that is ridiculous. Additionally, Apple being required to release detailed information about proper assembly and repairs could most certainly reveal industry secrets they have spent a lot of resources developing.
Exactly. This isn't a "right to repair" bill (which might say something like "companies won't void warranty's just because someone else opened the device, as long as it wasn't damaged in the process"). This is a "you must help other companies service stuff you make" bill.
I’ve read some possible ramifications that may be caused by these laws. Mandating user replaceable batteries is one, back to the old days of the back of your phone falling off. Another possibility is that manufacturers will be forced to abandon water-resistance and water-proofing so that devices are easier to take apart for repair.
Bottom line is when government gets into the design business and mandates how a product is to be manufactured there is no end to it. There will always be “activists” who want more and more control.
Only poorly designed backs ever fell off. 'sealing' of components is not a necessity. Than can be nano-coated. Even headphone jacks can be waterproofed.
Either way, your chances of having to use a phone after 30 minutes submerged in water are far less than having to replace a battery.
If the 3rd party repair isn't done properly and I have an issue after leaving the store would they be responsible for fixing their mistake? What if the 3rd party can't fix their mistake, would they give me a new iPhone?
Will Apple be responsible for production of parts for these 3rd parties?
I am all for taking my products or car to a 3rd party as long as they have the expertise.I think there is going to be too many hacks that do a piss poor repair jobs and we will new hills of destroyed iPhone to ski down.
If the 3rd party repair isn't done properly and I have an issue after leaving the store would they be responsible for fixing their mistake? What if the 3rd party can't fix their mistake, would they give me a new iPhone?
Will Apple be responsible for production of parts for these 3rd parties?
I am all for taking my products or car to a 3rd party as long as they have the expertise.I think there is going to be too many hacks that do a piss poor repair jobs and we will new hills of destroyed iPhone to ski down.
This would be the same as with any other repair shop and would hinge on local legislation.
Normal situations would call for the shop to repair any extra damage caused during the repair and of course for the repair to be guaranteed.
There is an element of someone's word against someone else's word but that is true for all situations. There are also mechanisms to avoid some or the more common cases. For example Apple will evaluate a phone prior to it having the battery changed and ask you to sign conformity. The evaluation includes scuffed paintwork, diagnostics, screen and water damage etc.
The best option for out of warranty repair (other than Apple itself) is through an authorized repair centre. Security shouldn't be an issue in these cases. If banks can have secure cash machines in the middle of nowhere, Apple can easily install terminals that connect with the mothership for pairing, theft information etc.
In a worst case scenario you could try an independent dealer.
In all cases, people will choose based on the reputation of the dealer.
I think the issue really revolves around quality assurance and security. I am sure if non-aiuthorized repairs done then Apple will be expected to repair the repair. The customer will get a subpar experience and no access to Apple refurb replacements. I have had an iPhone, MacBook, and iPad replaced with refurbished in lieu of repair.
The cost issue s due is a red herring, replacing a phone invariable costs a lot more money (even with monthly payments) and the non-authorized repaIr device resale value is very low and will figure into resale value.
Finally, and probably most importantly, the risk of security of device being compromised rises enormously since antitamper protections are breached and security assurance protocols compromised.
While i have done iFixit repairs from their excellent instructions and tools the highly integrated waterproof and mechanically robust build yet gracile form and experience of mobile and soon desktop devices simply are not practical for most repairs. Do we require use of transisters, multiple chips, plug in sockets on circuit boards to improve ease of repair while loosing capabilities and technological progress?
This sounds good and plays against the evil empire view/narrative of Apple, but fails with any hard evidence or experience.
Next legislate sustaining old technology and drive away innovation.
Few important points which are not being considered by people who are commenting on this topic.
1. This is a law for ALL companies, not just Apple.
2. It is NOT MANDATORY for everyone to use "third party" repair shops. You are NOT forced to use "third party" repair shops. If you trust ONLY OEM authorized repairs, well and good. No one is forcing you to go to a third party for repair.
3. This is an "additional option" for those who need it. For example, the authorized repair center is FAR AWAY from your home/work location, does NOT even exist in your area (true for many of Android OEMs)
You’ll have a “right to repair” using a third party service, but it will still invalidate your warranty.
True. But a person whose device is under warranty is "most likely" going to choose "OEM repair" option only. This law will help those people whose device is "out of warranty" AND OEM is quoting a HUGE amount for repair which makes it economically not viable.
In Android world, I know of "plenty" of cases where repair was unviable just due to the OEM repair costs involved and components not being available with third parties for repair. This law is going to hit Android OEMs lot harder than Apple.
I’m not sure if this would be a good move. It could create a parts shortage.
Also, would Apple have to allow the exchanged parts, because most parts are much cheaper if you send the old part back to Apple.
Also, any non-Apple authorized repair facility should have to make clear that they are not Apple authorized.
Some third party repair centers do things that an Apple authorized repair shop would never do like glue batteries into laptops. I’ve seen where laptops have been made unrepairable by non-Apple repair shops.
Hopefully, this will go through legislative hearings and allow Apple authorized repair shops an opportunity to testify.
I’m not sure if this would be a good move. It could create a parts shortage.
Also, would Apple have to allow the exchanged parts, because most parts are much cheaper if you send the old part back to Apple.
Also, any non-Apple authorized repair facility should have to make clear that they are not Apple authorized.
Some third party repair centers do things that an Apple authorized repair shop would never do like glue batteries into laptops. I’ve seen where laptops have been made unrepairable by non-Apple repair shops.
Hopefully, this will go through legislative hearings and allow Apple authorized repair shops an opportunity to testify.
Surely Apple is under no legal obligation to supply parts to third parties? Forcing a business to sell something would be a violation of the commandeering clause and the commerce clauses of the Tenth Amendment.
Here's an example why I support right to repair—a musician friend with a 27" iMac from 2009 (core i7, 16 GB RAM, SSD conversion, nVidia GPU) started seeing graphics glitches. He hauled it 2 hours to Apple where they diagnosed a failing GPU (a later model with the same known nVidia GPU issues would have been under extended warranty but not this model). The estimated GPU repair bill was $600 which was more than the value of the iMac. He declined, hauled it back home, asked me to get the data off the SSD, and then bought a new top-of-the line $3000 iMac online from Apple Store. As part of the deal he gave me the old iMac. I disassembled it, gave him the SSD for use in an external and removed the GPU assembly. A call to Apple confirmed they would not sell me the GPU board and wanted $600 for a repair. A search on ebay revealed that a part pulled from a dead iMac would be $480. (S/H Mac parts are kept massively expensive because Apple prohibits sales of new genuine Apple parts in the open market.) I took the board to a professional reflow facility that does a lot of reflow work for Sony where they X-rayed it and could see cracks in the BGA. They removed the old nVidia chip and reflowed in a new one for $60. Two hours later I had the GPU mounted back on its now clean and not plugged heat sink and installed in the iMac. It has run like a champion for the last 3 years and is still in daily use on 10.13.3. Apple would have scrapped it, but a little repair TLC kept it out of landfill. Notwithstanding that it had a bad thermal design where the cooling air for the GPU heat sink was already hot after being pulled through other hot components, and that nVidia had used a known bad high-tin solder alloy prone to cracking under high thermal load cycling, instead of doing the right thing by having a GPU recall on this model, Apple made it impossible for a customer to do anything other than spend $3000 on a new iMac so he could continue working. Right to repair with access to Apple parts, etc., would stop this and provide some customers with fairer and cheaper alternatives.
Comments
I think the question here is more one of product design philosophy.
I can see little to no valid reason to impede repair by design.
Even Apple warns you that they could break the device while attempting a battery replacement and ask you to agree to a replacement phone and it's price if that happens.
Everything is possible until you get down into nano components and then replacement is the only viable way (at the moment).
There is also another question on transparency. If you purchase a device which is unrepairable or only repairable by the manufacturer, should we be legally entitled to have that information up front and very visible together with the cost of out of warranty repairs? I think so.
Apple, since day one, has insisted that it doesn't sell hardware gadgets. It sells user experiences. Treating their products as mere gadgets will do irreparable harm to that product.
That said, I just might have some third party install a cheap replacement screen on my iPhone 6 because my goal is to make the phone last till September till I can replace it with the latest and greatest. Unfortunately the screen just developed a crack --but phone is not worth the price of an Apple repair. So, frankly, I have little to lose. But, that is a far cry from a one year old iPhone that I expect to work flawlessly and seamlessly under all conditions for years to come.
Meanwhile common problems, such as cracked screens and battery replacements are already addressed by 3rd party repair outlets anyway.
Also this doesn't bode well for hardware security, which is specifically built in pairs to ensure that the device cannot be tinkered with for improper access.
This is plainly all about enhancing the commercial aspects of repair shops, and absolutely nothing to do with giving consumers better outcomes.
I guess what Apple could do is open up the Service Center Certification. If Joe's repair shop wants to be able to fix an iPhone, it needs to become certified and there would be steps to do this. I think Apple has closed this off since Apple Stores have become the main way of getting your Apple product serviced. They could just open it back up and create a way for these little shops to do it. Once they do this, then they'll have access to Apple Certified OEM parts, tools, procedures, etc. If they get caught using generic off the shelf parts, they lose their certifications which will open up a whole new can of worms.
There is NO reason that phone manufacturers shouldn't permit either end users or third party folks to at minimum easily swap out a battery. Or make a battery replacement available for less than $50. Same goes for an easily replaceable display.
I do have to credit Apple, as Apple at least has authorized repair centers in most major cities. Samsung for instance doesn't have an authorized repair center anywhere in the state of CO for starters.
Most tech companies wave the environmental flag every chance they get. Making it easier for consumers to swap screens and batteries gives them more of an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.
Bottom line is when government gets into the design business and mandates how a product is to be manufactured there is no end to it. There will always be “activists” who want more and more control.
Either way, your chances of having to use a phone after 30 minutes submerged in water are far less than having to replace a battery.
Normal situations would call for the shop to repair any extra damage caused during the repair and of course for the repair to be guaranteed.
There is an element of someone's word against someone else's word but that is true for all situations. There are also mechanisms to avoid some or the more common cases. For example Apple will evaluate a phone prior to it having the battery changed and ask you to sign conformity. The evaluation includes scuffed paintwork, diagnostics, screen and water damage etc.
The best option for out of warranty repair (other than Apple itself) is through an authorized repair centre. Security shouldn't be an issue in these cases. If banks can have secure cash machines in the middle of nowhere, Apple can easily install terminals that connect with the mothership for pairing, theft information etc.
In a worst case scenario you could try an independent dealer.
In all cases, people will choose based on the reputation of the dealer.
The cost issue s due is a red herring, replacing a phone invariable costs a lot more money (even with monthly payments) and the non-authorized repaIr device resale value is very low and will figure into resale value.
Finally, and probably most importantly, the risk of security of device being compromised rises enormously since antitamper protections are breached and security assurance protocols compromised.
While i have done iFixit repairs from their excellent instructions and tools the highly integrated waterproof and mechanically robust build yet gracile form and experience of mobile and soon desktop devices simply are not practical for most repairs. Do we require use of transisters, multiple chips, plug in sockets on circuit boards to improve ease of repair while loosing capabilities and technological progress?
This sounds good and plays against the evil empire view/narrative of Apple, but fails with any hard evidence or experience.
Next legislate sustaining old technology and drive away innovation.
Few important points which are not being considered by people who are commenting on this topic.
1. This is a law for ALL companies, not just Apple.
2. It is NOT MANDATORY for everyone to use "third party" repair shops. You are NOT forced to use "third party" repair shops. If you trust ONLY OEM authorized repairs, well and good. No one is forcing you to go to a third party for repair.
3. This is an "additional option" for those who need it. For example, the authorized repair center is FAR AWAY from your home/work location, does NOT even exist in your area (true for many of Android OEMs)
True. But a person whose device is under warranty is "most likely" going to choose "OEM repair" option only. This law will help those people whose device is "out of warranty" AND OEM is quoting a HUGE amount for repair which makes it economically not viable.
In Android world, I know of "plenty" of cases where repair was unviable just due to the OEM repair costs involved and components not being available with third parties for repair. This law is going to hit Android OEMs lot harder than Apple.
I’m not sure if this would be a good move. It could create a parts shortage.
Also, would Apple have to allow the exchanged parts, because most parts are much cheaper if you send the old part back to Apple.
Also, any non-Apple authorized repair facility should have to make clear that they are not Apple authorized.
Some third party repair centers do things that an Apple authorized repair shop would never do like glue batteries into laptops. I’ve seen where laptops have been made unrepairable by non-Apple repair shops.
Hopefully, this will go through legislative hearings and allow Apple authorized repair shops an opportunity to testify.
As part of the deal he gave me the old iMac. I disassembled it, gave him the SSD for use in an external and removed the GPU assembly. A call to Apple confirmed they would not sell me the GPU board and wanted $600 for a repair. A search on ebay revealed that a part pulled from a dead iMac would be $480. (S/H Mac parts are kept massively expensive because Apple prohibits sales of new genuine Apple parts in the open market.)
I took the board to a professional reflow facility that does a lot of reflow work for Sony where they X-rayed it and could see cracks in the BGA. They removed the old nVidia chip and reflowed in a new one for $60. Two hours later I had the GPU mounted back on its now clean and not plugged heat sink and installed in the iMac.
It has run like a champion for the last 3 years and is still in daily use on 10.13.3.
Apple would have scrapped it, but a little repair TLC kept it out of landfill.
Notwithstanding that it had a bad thermal design where the cooling air for the GPU heat sink was already hot after being pulled through other hot components, and that nVidia had used a known bad high-tin solder alloy prone to cracking under high thermal load cycling, instead of doing the right thing by having a GPU recall on this model, Apple made it impossible for a customer to do anything other than spend $3000 on a new iMac so he could continue working.
Right to repair with access to Apple parts, etc., would stop this and provide some customers with fairer and cheaper alternatives.