Welcome your “right to repair”. Consequently, Apple should be taken to court for not taking sufficiently all “updates” imaginable that cheap third party repairers put into the phones and iPads.... scnr.
The sooner that tech companies are forced to make materials and parts available for 3rd party the better. Can you imagine if you had to go to the dealership to get every last thing for your car? Auto companies could claim the same thing, that only their genuine parts can keep your auto running. While they are correct, people have the CHOICE to go to an aftermarket option. Some aftermarket stuff voids a warranty (if I replace certain engine parts) while others aren't (I can use any oil and filter from any brand). Tech should be the same way. Sure things will work better with the right parts done by the right people, but not everyone wants that cost or has time to deal with that.
So as an adult I should be able to accept that risk and be able to work on my own fully owned products or pay whomever I like to fix them.
Welcome your “right to repair”. Consequently, Apple should be taken to court for not taking sufficiently all “updates” imaginable that cheap third party repairers put into the phones and iPads.... scnr.
The sooner that tech companies are forced to make materials and parts available for 3rd party the better. Can you imagine if you had to go to the dealership to get every last thing for your car? Auto companies could claim the same thing, that only their genuine parts can keep your auto running. While they are correct, people have the CHOICE to go to an aftermarket option. Some aftermarket stuff voids a warranty (if I replace certain engine parts) while others aren't (I can use any oil and filter from any brand). Tech should be the same way. Sure things will work better with the right parts done by the right people, but not everyone wants that cost or has time to deal with that.
So as an adult I should be able to accept that risk and be able to work on my own fully owned products or pay whomever I like to fix them.
I am. It sure I fully agree here. As an adult I should not have to worry that when I give my car/device/whatever to some dealership/repair shop I get subpar quality back which in the worst case leads to issues further down the road and is not immediately obvious. let me give you a real example: you have an appliance that needs repair. You call a third party repair shop. They get it fixed using a cheap replacement part that unfortunately lacks a safety critical element. As a consequence, some time later the parts fails and your house burns down. I won’t be more specific but it’s a real case. Less dramatic but basically the same here: somebody “fixes” your device and a few updates later it stops working.
I am not opposed to third parties giving you choice and fostering some healthy competition and help to avoid monopoles. But I see limits to this and the options I see here are: - some official certification for spare parts / repair shops - simply limit serviceability from a manufacturer’s side to avoid risks on consumer level - live the full choice with all risks as consumer. But then don’t complain if your device gets broken/bricked/on fire if you fail to have sufficient technical knowledge yourself to correctly judge the quality of the repair
From the three choices I’d personally refrain from the last one.
Welcome your “right to repair”. Consequently, Apple should be taken to court for not taking sufficiently all “updates” imaginable that cheap third party repairers put into the phones and iPads.... scnr.
The sooner that tech companies are forced to make materials and parts available for 3rd party the better. Can you imagine if you had to go to the dealership to get every last thing for your car? Auto companies could claim the same thing, that only their genuine parts can keep your auto running. While they are correct, people have the CHOICE to go to an aftermarket option. Some aftermarket stuff voids a warranty (if I replace certain engine parts) while others aren't (I can use any oil and filter from any brand). Tech should be the same way. Sure things will work better with the right parts done by the right people, but not everyone wants that cost or has time to deal with that.
So as an adult I should be able to accept that risk and be able to work on my own fully owned products or pay whomever I like to fix them.
So manufacturers should be treated like slave labor? No!
Welcome your “right to repair”. Consequently, Apple should be taken to court for not taking sufficiently all “updates” imaginable that cheap third party repairers put into the phones and iPads.... scnr.
The sooner that tech companies are forced to make materials and parts available for 3rd party the better. Can you imagine if you had to go to the dealership to get every last thing for your car? Auto companies could claim the same thing, that only their genuine parts can keep your auto running. While they are correct, people have the CHOICE to go to an aftermarket option. Some aftermarket stuff voids a warranty (if I replace certain engine parts) while others aren't (I can use any oil and filter from any brand). Tech should be the same way. Sure things will work better with the right parts done by the right people, but not everyone wants that cost or has time to deal with that.
So as an adult I should be able to accept that risk and be able to work on my own fully owned products or pay whomever I like to fix them.
Welcome your “right to repair”. Consequently, Apple should be taken to court for not taking sufficiently all “updates” imaginable that cheap third party repairers put into the phones and iPads.... scnr.
The sooner that tech companies are forced to make materials and parts available for 3rd party the better. Can you imagine if you had to go to the dealership to get every last thing for your car? Auto companies could claim the same thing, that only their genuine parts can keep your auto running. While they are correct, people have the CHOICE to go to an aftermarket option. Some aftermarket stuff voids a warranty (if I replace certain engine parts) while others aren't (I can use any oil and filter from any brand). Tech should be the same way. Sure things will work better with the right parts done by the right people, but not everyone wants that cost or has time to deal with that.
So as an adult I should be able to accept that risk and be able to work on my own fully owned products or pay whomever I like to fix them.
I am. It sure I fully agree here. As an adult I should not have to worry that when I give my car/device/whatever to some dealership/repair shop I get subpar quality back which in the worst case leads to issues further down the road and is not immediately obvious. let me give you a real example: you have an appliance that needs repair. You call a third party repair shop. They get it fixed using a cheap replacement part that unfortunately lacks a safety critical element. As a consequence, some time later the parts fails and your house burns down. I won’t be more specific but it’s a real case. Less dramatic but basically the same here: somebody “fixes” your device and a few updates later it stops working.
I am not opposed to third parties giving you choice and fostering some healthy competition and help to avoid monopoles. But I see limits to this and the options I see here are: - some official certification for spare parts / repair shops - simply limit serviceability from a manufacturer’s side to avoid risks on consumer level - live the full choice with all risks as consumer. But then don’t complain if your device gets broken/bricked/on fire if you fail to have sufficient technical knowledge yourself to correctly judge the quality of the repair
From the three choices I’d personally refrain from the last one.
Your example carries more applicability here if the reason the the part is defective and not found to be so is because the appliance manufacturer refuses to release information that would allow me to properly test the parts usefulness and diagnose the overall status of the appliance.
Welcome your “right to repair”. Consequently, Apple should be taken to court for not taking sufficiently all “updates” imaginable that cheap third party repairers put into the phones and iPads.... scnr.
The sooner that tech companies are forced to make materials and parts available for 3rd party the better. Can you imagine if you had to go to the dealership to get every last thing for your car? Auto companies could claim the same thing, that only their genuine parts can keep your auto running. While they are correct, people have the CHOICE to go to an aftermarket option. Some aftermarket stuff voids a warranty (if I replace certain engine parts) while others aren't (I can use any oil and filter from any brand). Tech should be the same way. Sure things will work better with the right parts done by the right people, but not everyone wants that cost or has time to deal with that.
So as an adult I should be able to accept that risk and be able to work on my own fully owned products or pay whomever I like to fix them.
So manufacturers should be treated like slave labor? No!
No part of what I said and you quoted said that or implied that.
Are these folks unable to mail a device to Apple for repair?
And how long does that take for Apple to repair a phone? I don't know about you, but I can't be without my phone for days on end. I need it for personal/business reasons. Going to a third-party shop that may be down the street and having them take 30 mins to an hour to repair is a lot better than mailing off your phone and being without for a few days to a week (again, I don't know Apple's turnaround time).
Like rogifan said, not everyone lives within earshot of an Apple Store. The closest one to me is 35 mins away. The next closest one is 50 mins away. Some others don't have that luxury. Now, there's a third-party repair shop about 5 mins dow the road, but I've never had to use them (fortunately).
My only problem with this whole thing is that the phones were working perfectly fine beforehand, and then an update kills them out of the blue.
I am not sure exactly how the mail in works, but any time I have had an to leave my phone overnight, or for multiple days with Apple, they gave me a loaner phone. I had an issue last year with my 6s Plus being in device lock and it took the reps and engineers days to figure out what happened. I was given a iPhone 6 to use until everything was sorted out. I understood what Rogifan said and realize not everyone lives close to a store.
Here is the loaner agreement from Apple.. I am not sure how it works with mail in repair, but there is an option if you need to be without your phone.
Were they working perfectly? Can you attest to that? It also mentions that the "chips' in these phones were upgraded? Why would this need to be replaced to fix a screen? This isn't a simple case of my iPhone worked perfectly since I bought it and then 11.3 killed the touch screen..
Michael Oberdick, an Ohio repair shop technician quoted in Motherboard's
story, said that the "repair community" believes a certain microchip is
responsible for powering the screens. Repair shops have figured out how
to fix the phones, by opening them and "upgrading" the chips, the story
said.
Welcome your “right to repair”. Consequently, Apple should be taken to court for not taking sufficiently all “updates” imaginable that cheap third party repairers put into the phones and iPads.... scnr.
The sooner that tech companies are forced to make materials and parts available for 3rd party the better. Can you imagine if you had to go to the dealership to get every last thing for your car? Auto companies could claim the same thing, that only their genuine parts can keep your auto running. While they are correct, people have the CHOICE to go to an aftermarket option. Some aftermarket stuff voids a warranty (if I replace certain engine parts) while others aren't (I can use any oil and filter from any brand). Tech should be the same way. Sure things will work better with the right parts done by the right people, but not everyone wants that cost or has time to deal with that.
So as an adult I should be able to accept that risk and be able to work on my own fully owned products or pay whomever I like to fix them.
I am. It sure I fully agree here. As an adult I should not have to worry that when I give my car/device/whatever to some dealership/repair shop I get subpar quality back which in the worst case leads to issues further down the road and is not immediately obvious. let me give you a real example: you have an appliance that needs repair. You call a third party repair shop. They get it fixed using a cheap replacement part that unfortunately lacks a safety critical element. As a consequence, some time later the parts fails and your house burns down. I won’t be more specific but it’s a real case. Less dramatic but basically the same here: somebody “fixes” your device and a few updates later it stops working.
I am not opposed to third parties giving you choice and fostering some healthy competition and help to avoid monopoles. But I see limits to this and the options I see here are: - some official certification for spare parts / repair shops - simply limit serviceability from a manufacturer’s side to avoid risks on consumer level - live the full choice with all risks as consumer. But then don’t complain if your device gets broken/bricked/on fire if you fail to have sufficient technical knowledge yourself to correctly judge the quality of the repair
From the three choices I’d personally refrain from the last one.
Your example carries more applicability here if the reason the the part is defective and not found to be so is because the appliance manufacturer refuses to release information that would allow me to properly test the parts usefulness and diagnose the overall status of the appliance.
That’s not the point. The point is that a manufacturer is liable for his product. The less control he has about what is being done to the product by third parties, the more difficult it is to prove that a certain subpar replacement part or repair caused a defect. Especially, when it’s not immediately obvious after the repair.
Lets ts say you develop and produce sports cars. A key technology is a specific calibration of software and hardware regarding your vehicles’ performance while driving (e.g. ESP). Your REP is specific and a competitive advantage your want to protect from a business POV. How would you feel if you were ordered to publish specifically this tech to put others into the position of repairing the ESP? Furthermore, how would you feeling knowing that you cannot assure whoever repairs it does it properly and a failure to do so leads to a safety critical condition? Finally, how would you feel knowing that I sich a case you are the first a court will look at?
i believe that the producer of goods has a right to ensure the quality he intended is being maintained. As said apart from liability reasons simply for reputation. And at the same time I don’t agree to a request of consumers of full “openness” regarding repairs and at the same time not accepting the consequences - which is taking connected risks. And if you don’t like this stance maybe you should choose not to buy the product. That’s a choice you always have.
My wifes iPhone8 bricked two days ago when the upgrade installed overnight. Yes I had replaced the screen with an aftermarket one. worked flawlessly until upgrade. Of course Apple has already unsigned 11.2.6 as of last week.
We had to pull out an 5S spare for now until we decide to cough up $$$ for Apple glass.
More Frustrated that I cannot downgrade only days after 11.3 was roiled out!
Comments
So as an adult I should be able to accept that risk and be able to work on my own fully owned products or pay whomever I like to fix them.
I am not opposed to third parties giving you choice and fostering some healthy competition and help to avoid monopoles. But I see limits to this and the options I see here are:
- some official certification for spare parts / repair shops
- simply limit serviceability from a manufacturer’s side to avoid risks on consumer level
- live the full choice with all risks as consumer. But then don’t complain if your device gets broken/bricked/on fire if you fail to have sufficient technical knowledge yourself to correctly judge the quality of the repair
From the three choices I’d personally refrain from the last one.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage
AFAIK Apple still has a court date in Australia over the issue of denying warranties over 3rd-party screen repairs.
Here is the loaner agreement from Apple.. I am not sure how it works with mail in repair, but there is an option if you need to be without your phone.
https://www.apple.com/legal/sales-support/applecare/iphoneloancaen/
Were they working perfectly? Can you attest to that? It also mentions that the "chips' in these phones were upgraded? Why would this need to be replaced to fix a screen? This isn't a simple case of my iPhone worked perfectly since I bought it and then 11.3 killed the touch screen..
Michael Oberdick, an Ohio repair shop technician quoted in Motherboard's story, said that the "repair community" believes a certain microchip is responsible for powering the screens. Repair shops have figured out how to fix the phones, by opening them and "upgrading" the chips, the story said.
Lets ts say you develop and produce sports cars. A key technology is a specific calibration of software and hardware regarding your vehicles’ performance while driving (e.g. ESP). Your REP is specific and a competitive advantage your want to protect from a business POV. How would you feel if you were ordered to publish specifically this tech to put others into the position of repairing the ESP? Furthermore, how would you feeling knowing that you cannot assure whoever repairs it does it properly and a failure to do so leads to a safety critical condition? Finally, how would you feel knowing that I sich a case you are the first a court will look at?
i believe that the producer of goods has a right to ensure the quality he intended is being maintained. As said apart
from liability reasons simply for reputation. And at the same time I don’t agree to a request of consumers of full “openness” regarding repairs and at the same time not accepting the consequences - which is taking connected risks. And if you don’t like this stance maybe you should choose not to buy the product. That’s a choice you always have.