Cannot understand why some consumers are against repair/upgradability.
They are not consumers first, they are shareholders FIRST. The fact that they use Apple's products is secondary to them. Their main concern is - Apple's profits and brand image which drive the value of Apple's shares (which is very dear to them), with customer's interests being the last priority (if at all it is a priority). You will NEVER see a nuanced debate on this topic - trying to obtain a balance which serves the interests of the customers as well as Apple in this forum.
I do not own any Apple shares but I’m with not forcing Apple to have to make their devices repairable because it will reduce their quality, reliability, etc.
If you can’t see the improvements brought by soldered parts instead of socketed then you don’t know a damn thing about engineering.
Buy AppleCare FFS and make repairing anything that goes wrong with it Apple’s problem. AppleCare is now indefinite not just restricted to three years.
The company that makes the products should be the ones who decide the repair (and Store and whatever else) rules. If you don’t like the rules buy another product instead. Don’t force me to lose my choice to have more robust products that can’t be pulled apart by end users. Let the market decide. Not bloody litigation.
PS. I really like Woz and have a lot of respect for him, but obviously I disagree with him on this topic.
There is also a risk and liability insurance that goes with handling batteries etc. Have a toddler’s IPad explode on them after a shoddy repair and who will be sued?
Not Apple, unless Apple did the shoddy repair. ....
I beg to differ:
First, the headline will read: "iPad blows up in child's face. Ruins his life forever. Apple denies all responsibility"
Then, at the trial, it is doubtful the family will confess to installing a cheap battery in it instead of letting Apple do it for twice the price.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
It’s only right that Apple can terminate your warranty if you tinker with your electronic device. My old ass Commodore-64 had a little sticker on top of an access screw that read Warranty Void If Broken.
There are proprietary equipment that Apple has and the “Right to repair“ wants Apple to sell those equipment so they can repair and not void the warranty, which is a tall order since Apple has to provide warranty to those products as well.
Nobody cares about Apple warranty. I used it once maybe, but it was 15 years ago when support was far better than these days. I fixed all my Apple devices including batteries and upgrades on my own. I would think that this service could be provided by 3rd party professionals as well. What Apple is trying to do however is create hardware subscription business model that you permanently linked to their hardware including no ability to upgrade or repair. Yes it is hardware company and has always been one, but this concepts a bit too far. It is not about ecosystem anymore. I felt this way when calling support some years ago when they were shocked that I cannot use what Apple calls 2 Factor Authentication (wrongly twisting it instead of using mainstream standards like RSA code generators) and I do not have iPhone, but only Android so it will not work as they prescribe with some applications of their own. That was indicator to leave Apple altogether. In fact, I am typing this form something called MintBook Air - former MacBook Air converted to Linux Mint. Works perfectly fine... and I prefer to use Google authenticator or other RSA code generator with Amazon Web Services and other services than their locked app to their iOS hardware.
You may not use it but I’ve used several times on my Macs, iPhones. I find it to be the best and most useful warranty, I can walk into an Apple Store give them my device and wait for it to be fixed by Apple themselves, nothing beats that
IMO, would be better if Apple had on-site support, as HP, Dell and Lenovo offer for their business devices. Many of my customers have it, and the experience have been very positive.
The cases of third party repairs I have knowledge of have not been good. My daughter took her iPhone to have the screen replaced and the third party repair shop wanted £129. Apple replaced it for £69. My son-inlaw had a battery replaced by a third party and the iPhone wouldn’t last for more than two hours.
A quick look on the ifixit website shows that there are plenty of kits for replacing iPhone parts, far more than for Android phones, so where are the complaints about right to repair for android?
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
No, I answered your question about why it was not a factor. I have no interest in further questions that treat it as if it is a factor. Because it isn't, and the subject doesn't interest me.
Cannot understand why some consumers are against repair/upgradability.
They are not consumers first, they are shareholders FIRST. The fact that they use Apple's products is secondary to them. Their main concern is - Apple's profits and brand image which drive the value of Apple's shares (which is very dear to them), with customer's interests being the last priority (if at all it is a priority). You will NEVER see a nuanced debate on this topic - trying to obtain a balance which serves the interests of the customers as well as Apple in this forum.
I do not own any Apple shares but I’m with not forcing Apple to have to make their devices repairable because it will reduce their quality, reliability, etc.
If you can’t see the improvements brought by soldered parts instead of socketed then you don’t know a damn thing about engineering.
Buy AppleCare FFS and make repairing anything that goes wrong with it Apple’s problem. AppleCare is now indefinite not just restricted to three years.
The company that makes the products should be the ones who decide the repair (and Store and whatever else) rules. If you don’t like the rules buy another product instead. Don’t force me to lose my choice to have more robust products that can’t be pulled apart by end users. Let the market decide. Not bloody litigation.
PS. I really like Woz and have a lot of respect for him, but obviously I disagree with him on this topic.
There is also a risk and liability insurance that goes with handling batteries etc. Have a toddler’s IPad explode on them after a shoddy repair and who will be sued?
Not Apple, unless Apple did the shoddy repair. ....
I beg to differ:
First, the headline will read: "iPad blows up in child's face. Ruins his life forever. Apple denies all responsibility"
Then, at the trial, it is doubtful the family will confess to installing a cheap battery in it instead of letting Apple do it for twice the price.
At trial they wouldn't have to confess. There would be a forensics report detailing exactly what went wrong, supported by the chain of repair and sourcing of the parts.
The headline would undoubtedly include the word iPad and the association with Apple. No doubt some news sources would run with that as clickbait. Of course Apple would most likely use the same incident to spin things in its favour in terms of third party repair.
None of that would change the facts though. If it were a shoddy repair, it would go down in history as exactly that: a shoddy repair.
No one is immune to that. Not even Apple. We've seen far more catastrophic repairs in areas like the health and aviation industries. All undertaken by fully certified technicians.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
No, I answered your question about why it was not a factor. I have no interest in further questions that treat it as if it is a factor. Because it isn't, and the subject doesn't interest me.
Discuss it with 22july2013 if you want.
So the question was not a question because you lost interest in it. Thanks for explaining that
Cannot understand why some consumers are against repair/upgradability.
They are not consumers first, they are shareholders FIRST. The fact that they use Apple's products is secondary to them. Their main concern is - Apple's profits and brand image which drive the value of Apple's shares (which is very dear to them), with customer's interests being the last priority (if at all it is a priority). You will NEVER see a nuanced debate on this topic - trying to obtain a balance which serves the interests of the customers as well as Apple in this forum.
I do not own any Apple shares but I’m with not forcing Apple to have to make their devices repairable because it will reduce their quality, reliability, etc.
If you can’t see the improvements brought by soldered parts instead of socketed then you don’t know a damn thing about engineering.
Buy AppleCare FFS and make repairing anything that goes wrong with it Apple’s problem. AppleCare is now indefinite not just restricted to three years.
The company that makes the products should be the ones who decide the repair (and Store and whatever else) rules. If you don’t like the rules buy another product instead. Don’t force me to lose my choice to have more robust products that can’t be pulled apart by end users. Let the market decide. Not bloody litigation.
PS. I really like Woz and have a lot of respect for him, but obviously I disagree with him on this topic.
There is also a risk and liability insurance that goes with handling batteries etc. Have a toddler’s IPad explode on them after a shoddy repair and who will be sued?
Not Apple, unless Apple did the shoddy repair. ....
I beg to differ:
First, the headline will read: "iPad blows up in child's face. Ruins his life forever. Apple denies all responsibility"
Then, at the trial, it is doubtful the family will confess to installing a cheap battery in it instead of letting Apple do it for twice the price.
At trial they wouldn't have to confess. There would be a forensics report detailing exactly what went wrong, supported by the chain of repair and sourcing of the parts.
The headline would undoubtedly include the word iPad and the association with Apple. No doubt some news sources would run with that as clickbait. Of course Apple would most likely use the same incident to spin things in its favour in terms of third party repair.
None of that would change the facts though. If it were a shoddy repair, it would go down in history as exactly that: a shoddy repair.
No one is immune to that. Not even Apple. We've seen far more catastrophic repairs in areas like the health and aviation industries. All undertaken by fully certified technicians.
That could happen if the phone simply stopped working and could be examined -- but then without personal harm involved that would probably never go to trial.
But I'm not so sure about that in the hypothetical case I sited: There it is not nearly as likely that Apple could identify and prove that not only did the phone that self destructed receive a third party repair but that that's what caused it to blow up in the child's face.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
No, I answered your question about why it was not a factor. I have no interest in further questions that treat it as if it is a factor. Because it isn't, and the subject doesn't interest me.
Discuss it with 22july2013 if you want.
So the question was not a question because you lost interest in it. Thanks for explaining that
No George. I've never said there wasn't a question, there were several, but I'm under no obligation to answer any of them, and I decline to be engaged on your final one. Please pay attention instead of trying to stir up an argument. f you really want to discuss this then please direct your comments at 22july2013, or someone else. You don't have to snipe at me.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
No, I answered your question about why it was not a factor. I have no interest in further questions that treat it as if it is a factor. Because it isn't, and the subject doesn't interest me.
Discuss it with 22july2013 if you want.
So the question was not a question because you lost interest in it. Thanks for explaining that
No George. I've never said there wasn't a question, there were several, but I'm under no obligation to answer any of them, and I decline to be engaged on your final one. Please pay attention instead of trying to stir up an argument. f you really want to discuss this then please direct your comments at 22july2013, or someone else. You don't have to snipe at me.
OK.... Next time though please pay attention. And, if you don't wan to engage in a discussion then don't engage.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
No, I answered your question about why it was not a factor. I have no interest in further questions that treat it as if it is a factor. Because it isn't, and the subject doesn't interest me.
Discuss it with 22july2013 if you want.
So the question was not a question because you lost interest in it. Thanks for explaining that
No George. I've never said there wasn't a question, there were several, but I'm under no obligation to answer any of them, and I decline to be engaged on your final one. Please pay attention instead of trying to stir up an argument. f you really want to discuss this then please direct your comments at 22july2013, or someone else. You don't have to snipe at me.
OK.... Next time though please pay attention. And, if you don't wan to engage in a discussion then don't engage.
Pay attention to what?
I didn’t engage. You repeatedly tried to imply I’d dodged a question or had contradicted myself, neither of which is true, so I just defended myself.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
No, I answered your question about why it was not a factor. I have no interest in further questions that treat it as if it is a factor. Because it isn't, and the subject doesn't interest me.
Discuss it with 22july2013 if you want.
So the question was not a question because you lost interest in it. Thanks for explaining that
No George. I've never said there wasn't a question, there were several, but I'm under no obligation to answer any of them, and I decline to be engaged on your final one. Please pay attention instead of trying to stir up an argument. f you really want to discuss this then please direct your comments at 22july2013, or someone else. You don't have to snipe at me.
OK.... Next time though please pay attention. And, if you don't wan to engage in a discussion then don't engage.
Pay attention to what?
I didn’t engage. You repeatedly tried to imply I’d dodged a question or had contradicted myself, neither of which is true, so I just defended myself.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
No, I answered your question about why it was not a factor. I have no interest in further questions that treat it as if it is a factor. Because it isn't, and the subject doesn't interest me.
Discuss it with 22july2013 if you want.
So the question was not a question because you lost interest in it. Thanks for explaining that
No George. I've never said there wasn't a question, there were several, but I'm under no obligation to answer any of them, and I decline to be engaged on your final one. Please pay attention instead of trying to stir up an argument. f you really want to discuss this then please direct your comments at 22july2013, or someone else. You don't have to snipe at me.
OK.... Next time though please pay attention. And, if you don't wan to engage in a discussion then don't engage.
Pay attention to what?
I didn’t engage. You repeatedly tried to imply I’d dodged a question or had contradicted myself, neither of which is true, so I just defended myself.
Give it up George, stop trying to pick fights.
I think your memory may be failing too.
You really don't know when to stop do you? No sense in this whatsoever. Just shut up. I will now.
Because of “freedom” we will have: - Smartphone without basic apps, and we will forced to download third party apps
This has nothing to do with Right to Repair, but God Forbid you have to download the Mail app from the App Store and realize there's better products while you're doing it.
ikir said: - Devs desperate for all pirated and modded softwares thanks to sideloading.. for freeeeedom, Android style!
Again this has nothing to do with Right to Repair, but you can have your sideloading and your walled garden at the same time. Apple just doesn't want to.
ikir said: - terrible repairs with third party low quality parts, more bulky phone since manufacture will need to make things to replace easier without paying a certified shop. Sure user will blame Apple for iPhone without water resistance after a repair, for audio working badly, ghost touch on tablets and go on.. but we will really free and we would saved 10 dollars on repair!
You know, if Right to Repair was a thing, you could buy parts straight FROM APPLE and utilize OEM parts to repair your devices. And shops could advertise that they only use OEM Apple parts for their repairs. But those are third party low quality parts?
Stop being a shareholder and be a consumer for a hot second.
Does "right to repair" imply that the software can be modified in any way? I.e., is this just a back door attempt to install third party software stores?
No
Why not?
(Actually, I'm not so much disagreeing as wondering why you say that. For further context see my post above -- where I lay out the rationale either way)
Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification.
True!
But if hardware is 'Open Source", shouldn't software be too?
You can make that argument if you want, but that wasn't the question.
Somebody said: "Because the right to repair laws being proposed do not talk about or imply anything about software modification."
I did. I was answering your "Why not" follow on from 22july2013's original question. I don't have any interest in discussing the subject further, I don't consider it relevant. Talk about it with someone else if you want to.
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
No, I answered your question about why it was not a factor. I have no interest in further questions that treat it as if it is a factor. Because it isn't, and the subject doesn't interest me.
Discuss it with 22july2013 if you want.
So the question was not a question because you lost interest in it. Thanks for explaining that
No George. I've never said there wasn't a question, there were several, but I'm under no obligation to answer any of them, and I decline to be engaged on your final one. Please pay attention instead of trying to stir up an argument. f you really want to discuss this then please direct your comments at 22july2013, or someone else. You don't have to snipe at me.
OK.... Next time though please pay attention. And, if you don't wan to engage in a discussion then don't engage.
Pay attention to what?
I didn’t engage. You repeatedly tried to imply I’d dodged a question or had contradicted myself, neither of which is true, so I just defended myself.
Give it up George, stop trying to pick fights.
I think your memory may be failing too.
You really don't know when to stop do you? No sense in this whatsoever. Just shut up. I will now.
Comments
LOL.... So it was a question that you were answering -- and now say that it was never a question. Got it.
Discuss it with 22july2013 if you want.
The headline would undoubtedly include the word iPad and the association with Apple. No doubt some news sources would run with that as clickbait. Of course Apple would most likely use the same incident to spin things in its favour in terms of third party repair.
None of that would change the facts though. If it were a shoddy repair, it would go down in history as exactly that: a shoddy repair.
No one is immune to that. Not even Apple. We've seen far more catastrophic repairs in areas like the health and aviation industries. All undertaken by fully certified technicians.
So the question was not a question because you lost interest in it. Thanks for explaining that
OK.... Next time though please pay attention. And, if you don't wan to engage in a discussion then don't engage.
Give it up George, stop trying to pick fights.
I think your memory may be failing too.