New 'Service' battery message in iOS pushes consumers toward official replacement

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 58
    CheeseFreezeCheeseFreeze Posts: 1,247member
    This is okay, as long as Apple does battery repairs at cost - not at profit.
    If not, it is anti-competitive and this should be prohibited.
    ArianneFeldrylarryamobirdchemengin1zroger73
  • Reply 22 of 58
    Rayz2016 said:
    wanderso said:
    Replace the word “iPhone” with automobile.  Would you feel the same way about Apple’s decision if Ford, Toyota, or the like behaved in this manner? There are certain components that I would only go to a dealer for. The air bag system is an example.  Yet there are ample things I can do on my own car, using OEM or aftermarket parts that meet or exceed OEM quality. 
     So I replaced “iPhone” with “automobile” and guess what? I found that Toyota does behave in this manner. 

    Battery replacements on a Prius have to be carried out using a genuine Toyota battery and at a genuine Toyota service centre, otherwise your warranty is automatically invalidated. In order to do this, Toyota can obviously tell when you’ve gone off-piste, repairwise. 

    Also bear this in mind: the iFixit report didn’t say that installed battery doesn’t work; they just said that Apple won’t provide information on it (without the correct chip on the battery, they can’t). If the battery was installed by a non-authorised dealer then Apple doesn’t want to get stung by warranty claims for case damage, damaged touchscreens, failed waterproofing, and broken security hardware that can come from dodgy repairs. When an authorised dealer carries out the repair, the info on the phone will tell Apple engineers who carried out the repair and when. If they get a spate of damaged phones returned from the same 3rd party dealer, them they know they have a problem. Without that info, they don’t know where the problem originates. 

    But that doesn’t stop you fitting dodgy batteries to your phone to save a few quid. If it explodes in your pocket then I don’t have a problem. But replace the words “in your pocket” with “on a plane” then that’s a different matter. 
    Bad analogy.  Toyota's hybrid system warranty covers the battery for 8yrs or 100K milles.  Replacements are free under warranty.  Even if someone was crazy enough to pass up a free battery replacement and pay $2K for a replacement Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act would kick in if Toyota tried to void the warranty.  edit:  Magnusson Moss says that a company can insist on OEM parts only if the repair and parts are covered as free under warranty.  That crazy person paying for what Toyota would do for free still has the other portions of their warranty intact.  ← this is still true.  Non-OEM parts do not automatically void a warranty.

    But we can still use your Prius as a base to demonstrate the problem with Apple's stance.    Imagine if you had to use Toyota branded/approved replacement headlights or tires or window glass or door handles or...  you see where I'm going.  You don't and it doesn't void your warranty or stop your car from communicating with you.

    Your last sentence is FUD.  That same nightmare scenario you tried to build could occur with a battery supplied by Apple or an authorized repairer.   Moreover, it's a highly unlikely scenario, otherwise we'd be hearing about it happening on a regular basis. 
    edited August 2019 muthuk_vanalingambeowulfschmidtArianneFeldrychemengin1avon b7MplsPmicrobe
  • Reply 23 of 58
    wanderso said:
    Replace the word “iPhone” with automobile.  Would you feel the same way about Apple’s decision if Ford, Toyota, or the like behaved in this manner? There are certain components that I would only go to a dealer for. The air bag system is an example.  Yet there are ample things I can do on my own car, using OEM or aftermarket parts that meet or exceed OEM quality. 

    Roll back the clock a bit and we all could replace the battery in our phone in a few seconds.  Same with our laptop memory or battery. 

    Some say that the masses have no interest. I say that it is good for the masses to learn again how to fix things, with companies like Apple leading the way. It’s educational and extends the usable life of products.   
    This.  Exactly this.  If you replaced the battery in your car with an OEM part, would you be so sanguine about your car's electrical monitoring system being incapable of reading the battery health?  And yes, many cars do, in fact, monitor battery health.  Mine for instance.
    muthuk_vanalingammobirdchemengin1microbewatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 58
    Repetitive
    edited August 2019
  • Reply 25 of 58
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,112member
    zroger73 said:
    FU, Apple. This is the stuff that is going to drive me back to PC's after a 12-year run and tens of thousands of dollars donated to your organization.

    Apple has a 100% right to do this. Remember if anything is YOUR fault Apple gets blamed. Also if an aftermarket battery blows up an iPhone we get tons of articles, videos and memes mocking Apple.

    Also, Apple has a charity?
    Would you mind terribly pointing towards any evidence supporting that theory?  Both you and @sergioz used the same claim of aftermarket batteries catching fire and Apple getting blamed.  That really doesn't happen though.  Not really sure what rights you think Apple has, but the right to force 1st party and authorized repair ain't one those rights.  

    Right to repair is focused on consumer protection and consumer choice.  I think anyone advocating against that, especially a consumer putting corporate desires above their own, needs to have their priorities adjusted.
    Allegedly. Maybe it is more focused on stocking original components to speculate on those while behind the doors dealing with the trade of counterfeit ones? It is always more effective to inspect a company instead of inspecting millions (billions!) of itty-bitty components. Which one protects the consumer better, inspecting company or inspecting components? Right to repair or right to service? Choose one, you cannot have both, the two are mutually exclusive. Right to repair or right to warranty, choose one you cannot get both. Warranty? OK take that replacement part for free and leave !
    edited August 2019 pscooter63
  • Reply 26 of 58
    zroger73 said:
    FU, Apple. This is the stuff that is going to drive me back to PC's after a 12-year run and tens of thousands of dollars donated to your organization.

    Apple has a 100% right to do this. Remember if anything is YOUR fault Apple gets blamed. Also if an aftermarket battery blows up an iPhone we get tons of articles, videos and memes mocking Apple.

    Also, Apple has a charity?
    Would you mind terribly pointing towards any evidence supporting that theory?  Both you and @sergioz used the same claim of aftermarket batteries catching fire and Apple getting blamed.  That really doesn't happen though.  Not really sure what rights you think Apple has, but the right to force 1st party and authorized repair ain't one those rights.  

    Right to repair is focused on consumer protection and consumer choice.  I think anyone advocating against that, especially a consumer putting corporate desires above their own, needs to have their priorities adjusted.
    Allegedly. Maybe it is more focused on stocking original components to speculate on those while behind the doors dealing with the trade of counterfeit ones? It is always more effective to inspect a company instead of inspecting millions (billions!) of itty-bitty components. Which one protects the consumer better, inspecting company or inspecting components? Right to repair or right to service? Choose one, you cannot have both, the two are mutually exclusive. Right to repair or right to warranty, choose one you cannot get both. Warranty? OK take that replacement part for free and leave !
    May be, you are an Apple shareholder and post your opinion from that point of view and you just DON'T CARE about consumers when you post your opinions (which is perfectly understandable). There is another point of view - that of consumer. From that point of view, both right to repair AND right to service are possible, It just has to do with "intent". If legislation is the ONLY way to achieve it, so be it.
  • Reply 27 of 58
    zroger73 said:
    FU, Apple. This is the stuff that is going to drive me back to PC's after a 12-year run and tens of thousands of dollars donated to your organization.

    Apple has a 100% right to do this. Remember if anything is YOUR fault Apple gets blamed. Also if an aftermarket battery blows up an iPhone we get tons of articles, videos and memes mocking Apple.

    Also, Apple has a charity?
    Would you mind terribly pointing towards any evidence supporting that theory?  Both you and @sergioz used the same claim of aftermarket batteries catching fire and Apple getting blamed.  That really doesn't happen though.  Not really sure what rights you think Apple has, but the right to force 1st party and authorized repair ain't one those rights.  

    Right to repair is focused on consumer protection and consumer choice.  I think anyone advocating against that, especially a consumer putting corporate desires above their own, needs to have their priorities adjusted.
    Allegedly. Maybe it is more focused on stocking original components to speculate on those while behind the doors dealing with the trade of counterfeit ones? It is always more effective to inspect a company instead of inspecting millions (billions!) of itty-bitty components. Which one protects the consumer better, inspecting company or inspecting components? Right to repair or right to service? Choose one, you cannot have both, the two are mutually exclusive. Right to repair or right to warranty, choose one you cannot get both. Warranty? OK take that replacement part for free and leave !
    Not gonna comment on your speculation.  It's too... nah, not touching that.  But your right to repair or right to warranty bit?  That's absolutely 100% wrong.  They are not mutually exclusive.  I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion.  Easy.  Take a car.  You can repair your brakes, change your oil, complete a tune up, get new tires, repair a fender... I could on for a long time.  None of those things void a warranty.  There is no choose one, and you most assuredly can have both.  Again, I'm not really sure how you reached your conclusion.  I'm kinda curious.  Where did you get that idea?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 28 of 58
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,112member
    zroger73 said:
    FU, Apple. This is the stuff that is going to drive me back to PC's after a 12-year run and tens of thousands of dollars donated to your organization.

    Apple has a 100% right to do this. Remember if anything is YOUR fault Apple gets blamed. Also if an aftermarket battery blows up an iPhone we get tons of articles, videos and memes mocking Apple.

    Also, Apple has a charity?
    Would you mind terribly pointing towards any evidence supporting that theory?  Both you and @sergioz used the same claim of aftermarket batteries catching fire and Apple getting blamed.  That really doesn't happen though.  Not really sure what rights you think Apple has, but the right to force 1st party and authorized repair ain't one those rights.  

    Right to repair is focused on consumer protection and consumer choice.  I think anyone advocating against that, especially a consumer putting corporate desires above their own, needs to have their priorities adjusted.
    Allegedly. Maybe it is more focused on stocking original components to speculate on those while behind the doors dealing with the trade of counterfeit ones? It is always more effective to inspect a company instead of inspecting millions (billions!) of itty-bitty components. Which one protects the consumer better, inspecting company or inspecting components? Right to repair or right to service? Choose one, you cannot have both, the two are mutually exclusive. Right to repair or right to warranty, choose one you cannot get both. Warranty? OK take that replacement part for free and leave !
    May be, you are an Apple shareholder and post your opinion from that point of view and you just DON'T CARE about consumers when you post your opinions (which is perfectly understandable). There is another point of view - that of consumer. From that point of view, both right to repair AND right to service are possible, It just has to do with "intent". If legislation is the ONLY way to achieve it, so be it.
    I am not a shareholder. Here is my consumer point of view: companies are easier to inspect than the components. If we want to protect consumers we need to put the repair charge on the company not on the consumer. This is why a lot of class actions are filed and mostly win. Right to repair would allow the company to evade and all of those class actions would end. Putting the repair charge on the consumer does not protect the consumer, on the opposite that removes the most powerful protection of the consumer: right to service. In fact right to repair is an oxymoron, the consumer as the owner of the product has already the ultimate power to do anything including repair, stemming from the possession, which is a human right in all jurisdictions. What is claimed under the meme “right to repair” is actually “right” to get original components. Once those components become freely circulating goods protecting consumers against market speculation is just one of the issues that will occur. Will you protect speculators or consumers? Your call... 

    Try to sue Apple (or any company) for the “excessive repair charge” (part or labor) you claim: companies will win almost all cases because the costs of the part and labor are tangible, those can be measured, calculated, evaluated. Most courts will find those charges within reasonable limits. If you have any court order that proves the opposite then I am ready to be falsified.

    Besides, you cannot force a company to license its components to third parties, as you cannot force anybody to sell something. There is no such law and no such free market. All you can do is to charge a company with servicing its products.
    edited August 2019 FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 29 of 58
    pscooter63pscooter63 Posts: 1,080member
    May be, you are an Apple shareholder and post your opinion from that point of view and you just DON'T CARE about consumers when you post your opinions (which is perfectly understandable). There is another point of view - that of consumer. From that point of view, both right to repair AND right to service are possible, It just has to do with "intent". If legislation is the ONLY way to achieve it, so be it.
    Maybe, it's possible to be BOTH a shareholder AND a consumer at the same time.
    As both, I have no problems with how Apple is conducting itself here.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 58
    zroger73zroger73 Posts: 787member
    zroger73 said:
    FU, Apple. This is the stuff that is going to drive me back to PC's after a 12-year run and tens of thousands of dollars donated to your organization.
    You want to install random fourth-grade batteries into your expensive computer equipment? Go ahead. Have at. But spare us the pontification about it.
    I have no desire to install "fourth-grade" anything - I prefer OE parts.

    I can order a new set of $10 genuine DeWalt motor brushes from DeWalt for my $200 DeWalt drill and install them myself without paying someone else to do it. An exploded parts diagram with part numbers is provided on their website for free.

    I can order a new $100 genuine Honda brake caliper from any Honda dealer for my $40,000 Honda and install it myself without paying someone else to do it. I can even buy a factory scan tool and rent the software for a very reasonable price and perform the same level of diagnostics and repair that I can get from a dealership.

    I can order a new $40 genuine Sony speaker from Sony for my $2,000 Sony television and install it myself without paying someone else to do it. Sony will also sell me a complete service manual so I can diagnose problems myself instead of paying them to do it.

    And, none of these products will complain or cripple themselves should I decided to use an aftermarket repair part. The drill won't turn off its work light if I use aftermarket brushes. The automobile won't disable its anti-lock braking system if I use a brake caliper obtained from a salvage Honda. The television won't prevent me from adjusting the brightness if I use an aftermarket speaker.

    Apple, however, will not sell me a logic board for my four year-old MacBook Pro that suddenly died without warning or obvious cause last week. They will, however, replace the logic board for $680.
    microbeFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 31 of 58
    larryalarrya Posts: 606member
    This certainly feels sinister to me, and I don't like it.  Without writing a bunch of crap about leaving the ecosystem, I'll just say this is another straw that adds to my restlessness.  I love my Xr and Watch, but I have to remind myself periodically that I can go back to Galaxies and Garmins easily and also save a few bucks.
    chemengin1microbeprismatics
  • Reply 32 of 58
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,112member
    zroger73 said:
    FU, Apple. This is the stuff that is going to drive me back to PC's after a 12-year run and tens of thousands of dollars donated to your organization.

    Apple has a 100% right to do this. Remember if anything is YOUR fault Apple gets blamed. Also if an aftermarket battery blows up an iPhone we get tons of articles, videos and memes mocking Apple.

    Also, Apple has a charity?
    Would you mind terribly pointing towards any evidence supporting that theory?  Both you and @sergioz used the same claim of aftermarket batteries catching fire and Apple getting blamed.  That really doesn't happen though.  Not really sure what rights you think Apple has, but the right to force 1st party and authorized repair ain't one those rights.  

    Right to repair is focused on consumer protection and consumer choice.  I think anyone advocating against that, especially a consumer putting corporate desires above their own, needs to have their priorities adjusted.
    Allegedly. Maybe it is more focused on stocking original components to speculate on those while behind the doors dealing with the trade of counterfeit ones? It is always more effective to inspect a company instead of inspecting millions (billions!) of itty-bitty components. Which one protects the consumer better, inspecting company or inspecting components? Right to repair or right to service? Choose one, you cannot have both, the two are mutually exclusive. Right to repair or right to warranty, choose one you cannot get both. Warranty? OK take that replacement part for free and leave !
    Not gonna comment on your speculation.  It's too... nah, not touching that.  But your right to repair or right to warranty bit?  That's absolutely 100% wrong.  They are not mutually exclusive.  I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion.  Easy.  Take a car.  You can repair your brakes, change your oil, complete a tune up, get new tires, repair a fender... I could on for a long time.  None of those things void a warranty.  There is no choose one, and you most assuredly can have both.  Again, I'm not really sure how you reached your conclusion.  I'm kinda curious.  Where did you get that idea?
    Simple. “User repairability” is an attribute of the car. A car is already sold with this option. Some products are just not user-repairable. How will you repair the crashed read/write head of a hard disk? Are you qualified enough to refill a lithium ion battery or is the lithium ion battery filler is unregulated to freely circulate without any security concern? Once you understand that replacing a battery is not similar to refilling the inkjet cartridge of a printer you will come close to my point. I hope...

    For Apple, and almost all industrial companies it is trivial to prove before the court that their product is not user-repairable if the product really isn’t. Try to sue the manufacturer or the importer of the Li-ion battery for right to “refill” a consumed battery!..

    You have right to return. The manual states that it is not user-repairable. If you learn that after purchase then you just return the product. Nothing in this universe forces you to use a product your very capable and talented self cannot repair.
    edited August 2019 FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 33 of 58
    jslovejslove Posts: 12member
    If you put in a non-genuine part, there's a reasonable chance that the battery-health indicator will be wrong. That is, calibrated incorrectly, and then relying on that incorrect information could cause you problems. This is more likely than avoiding liability for catching fire, but the lawyers would probably have more influence. If you get a third-party battery that has the same controller chip, it's at least more plausible that it would work as expected, but is there firmware? Is it close enough? Better to deny access to information they do not know to be valid, or put in a different screen where they report raw statistics (e.g., voltage) but decline to interpret them. The issue is when you (or your repair shop) buy a genuine part but because the installer is not Apple it still won't accept it. THAT is where right-to-repair laws could come into play and squash Apple's defense. With these caveats, I'm in favor of right-to-repair. A genuine or compliant part must be able to identify itself as such or come with instructions to conduct the repair properly. If genuine part installed improperly, report that. More corporate deafness because they feel entitled (in this case, to consider all their customers idiots and thieves, but consider that having Battery Health at all was an outcry about similar thinking).
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 34 of 58
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    If Apple wasn't screwing users with $1000+ repair jobs when you can bring it someplace and they'll fix it for $100 or even FREE in some cases as it's a simple fix and yet Apple says you need to replace all this stuff for whatever reason, Ya, Right to Repair should be the rule. There is no need for Apple to do this with battery's. This is Apple just trying to scare people and forced to go to Apple. You can tell this when you use even Apple's own batteries and it still does this message.





    Stop with the excuses. This is why Apple has been getting away with locking their stuff down just so only THEY can fix things. Or really up sell you to new hardware. How about you buy a new car, it's time to replace the tires, you go to a 3rd party tire shop, get new tires put on, start to drive away and a Warning Service light pops up on the dash? Oh no!!! Find out you have to go back to the Ford Dealer Ship, and get Official Ford Tires that are keyed for your car. If you took those FORD tires and put them on Another Ford, the same warning message would pop up. This is what Apple is doing!!!! Wake up.

    Watch some of the other videos from Louis Rossmann, including one about Apple's T2 chip.

    chemengin1zroger73muthuk_vanalingammicrobeelijahg
  • Reply 35 of 58
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 651member
    cygnus23 said:
    “When installing a third-party battery, or a genuine replacement” yeah, so what’s the reasoning for not supporting battery info with a genuine part? Because a 50 year old with 40 years of electronic experience can’t follow the same procedures as a 20 yr old to replace a freaking battery? It either works or it doesn’t. Typing in a code or connecting to some Apple hardware after making the swap doesn’t make the physical act of replacement error-free on the Apple employee’s part, or error-prone on the end user’s part. THIS kind of crap is how Apple is going to have problems down the road with governments re: right to repair, monopoly. I’ve been a supporter since the Apple ][ integer machine with cassette deck, but come on, this is a bunch of BS. I’m sure the argument is going to be that they can’t guarantee that the battery will blah, blah, blah, but a freaking disclaimer solves the issue on their end. EULAs are full of them, mostly in their favor anyhow. 
    See, that part makes me wonder if it's just the phone's way of reporting it hasn't had enough time to see the battery's capacity yet. Maybe it isn't differentiating between "I'm getting no information from the battery" (faulty actives in the battery or cheap third-party replacement without actives) as opposed to "I'm getting information I don't expect from the battery" (the phone is suddenly getting reports of better health than it expects). In both cases, it isn't getting sane responses which let it show the battery health, so maybe "Service" is just the response to that lack of sane responses.
  • Reply 36 of 58
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,753member
    I have a non-Apple battery in my 6s, and it's fine on iOS13 beta 6. I had a replacement Apple one at the end of 2017 and it didn't even last a year.
    edited August 2019 chemengin1
  • Reply 37 of 58
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    PART of the trouble here is, in fact, the fault of Apple:
    While they "encourage" people to get repairs & upgrades done at an authorized center they neither enforce the policy nor (critically) publicize it up front.   Instead they use a sorta passive - aggressive approach where, when there is a problem they say:  "See, you didn't follow directions.   It is your fault".

    I think Apple and its customers would be best served by making it very clear up front that, while they won't block you from getting third party repairs that all bets, warranties, guarantees, assurances and everything is gone if you do.   They need to do that BEFORE somebody buys an Apple product, not after they get the third party repair that impacts their product.

    (I don't mean to absolve the person of responsibility for their actions.  But that we will continue to have these debates and discussions until  Apple makes their policy very clear UP FRONT.)
    edited August 2019 muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 38 of 58
    PART of the trouble here is, in fact, the fault of Apple:
    While they "encourage" people to get repairs & upgrades done at an authorized center they neither enforce the policy nor (critically) publicize it up front.   Instead they use a sorta passive - aggressive approach where, when there is a problem they say:  "See, you didn't follow directions.   It is your fault".

    I think Apple and its customers would be best served by making it very clear up front that, while they won't block you from getting third party repairs that all bets, warranties, guarantees, assurances and everything is gone if you do.   They need to do that BEFORE somebody buys an Apple product, not after they get the third party repair that impacts their product.

    (I don't mean to absolve the person of responsibility for their actions.  But that we will continue to have these debates and discussions until  Apple makes their policy very clear UP FRONT.)
    Apple can't do that, because it would be against the law.  Warranties are covered by the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act.  What you're advocating is expressly forbidden.  Apple can only insist on OEM or Authorized repair/parts if 1. They are offering the repair for free under warranty or 2.  They can prove the repair can only be done with certified parts or via certified tech.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 39 of 58
    zroger73 said:
    FU, Apple. This is the stuff that is going to drive me back to PC's after a 12-year run and tens of thousands of dollars donated to your organization.

    Apple has a 100% right to do this. Remember if anything is YOUR fault Apple gets blamed. Also if an aftermarket battery blows up an iPhone we get tons of articles, videos and memes mocking Apple.

    Also, Apple has a charity?
    Would you mind terribly pointing towards any evidence supporting that theory?  Both you and @sergioz used the same claim of aftermarket batteries catching fire and Apple getting blamed.  That really doesn't happen though.  Not really sure what rights you think Apple has, but the right to force 1st party and authorized repair ain't one those rights.  

    Right to repair is focused on consumer protection and consumer choice.  I think anyone advocating against that, especially a consumer putting corporate desires above their own, needs to have their priorities adjusted.
    Allegedly. Maybe it is more focused on stocking original components to speculate on those while behind the doors dealing with the trade of counterfeit ones? It is always more effective to inspect a company instead of inspecting millions (billions!) of itty-bitty components. Which one protects the consumer better, inspecting company or inspecting components? Right to repair or right to service? Choose one, you cannot have both, the two are mutually exclusive. Right to repair or right to warranty, choose one you cannot get both. Warranty? OK take that replacement part for free and leave !
    Not gonna comment on your speculation.  It's too... nah, not touching that.  But your right to repair or right to warranty bit?  That's absolutely 100% wrong.  They are not mutually exclusive.  I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion.  Easy.  Take a car.  You can repair your brakes, change your oil, complete a tune up, get new tires, repair a fender... I could on for a long time.  None of those things void a warranty.  There is no choose one, and you most assuredly can have both.  Again, I'm not really sure how you reached your conclusion.  I'm kinda curious.  Where did you get that idea?
    Simple. “User repairability” is an attribute of the car. A car is already sold with this option. Some products are just not user-repairable. How will you repair the crashed read/write head of a hard disk? Are you qualified enough to refill a lithium ion battery or is the lithium ion battery filler is unregulated to freely circulate without any security concern? Once you understand that replacing a battery is not similar to refilling the inkjet cartridge of a printer you will come close to my point. I hope...

    For Apple, and almost all industrial companies it is trivial to prove before the court that their product is not user-repairable if the product really isn’t. Try to sue the manufacturer or the importer of the Li-ion battery for right to “refill” a consumed battery!..

    You have right to return. The manual states that it is not user-repairable. If you learn that after purchase then you just return the product. Nothing in this universe forces you to use a product your very capable and talented self cannot repair.
    I gonna let you have that bud.  Everything you wrote is so out there that it's...  yeah.  Imma let someone else try to... yeah.  Wow.  I am now regretting that curiosity.
    elijahg
  • Reply 40 of 58
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    Interesting that this comes out right as ‘right to repair’ is behind debated in D.C. This could very easily (and justifiably) be viewed as an attempt to prevent 3rd party repair.

    For all the people blindly claiming this is necessary for safety reasons, can you verify that the brake pads in your car are genuine OEM parts? How about the oil? Or the battery? Or the timing belt? Claiming that all 3rd party parts compromise quality or safety is patently wrong and if that’s the only argument you have, you should re-think your position. Beyond that, how do you justify Apple refusing to even sell the parts? My mechanic can easily get OEM Ford parts and install them. The ‘required technical expertise’ argument totally fails here, too. As for liability, Apple is no more liable for problems caused by a 3rd party repair than Ford is if I put in an aftermarket alternator.

    Edit: for a company that touts its environmental policies, this is an incredibly hypocritical move. The single best way to save resources and the environmental is to keep using what you have instead of buying new.
    edited August 2019 microbemuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.