A tiny chip makes third party iPhone 13 screen repairs nearly impossible

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    jtmbin said:
    MplsP said:
    Does the screen include the FaceID module? If not, I can think of no reason to justify this. It’s another example of why we need right to repair laws. Ironically, it’s the type of move that makes an iphone less desirable. If you buy an iphone at your local store and the screen breaks, what do you do if there’s no ‘authorized’ service center near you? You’re stuck mailing it off, paying more money and waiting longer to get your phone back. There are thousands of independent repair shops that can replace a screen in less than a day, often in a few hours. If you’re trying to decide between an Android phone and an iPhone and the iphone is a pain in the ass to repair, it doesn’t make it more attractive.

    I disagree. As an Apple user and stockholder, it is not Apple’s responsibility to design their products so that other people can make money from repairing them. That’s total nonsense. They don’t need to “justify” how or why they design and build products. It’s amazing the number of people who think that Apple should be forced to help them make money, like that fool at Epic.

    There are a number of good reasons why Apple would try to protect the iPhone from 3rd party replacement parts.  But, using revenue and profit as a justification could easily land them in restraint of trade investigations and antitrust actions.

    Third party parts are seldom up to the same standards as OEM parts.  For example:  after somebody re-ended my car their insurance wanted to replace multiple parts with 3rd party knock-offs.  But, my independent body shop managed to talk Hyundai into supplying him with OEM parts for the same cost.  He didn't want to have to use third party knockoffs.
    edited November 2021
  • Reply 22 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    elijahg said:
    Again and again Apple does things that provoke the ire of regulators. It's like they *want* to be the target of regulation.
    Hmm can you elaborate on the regulations this in violation of? Hint: just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's mustache-twirling villainy.

    Shops can get authorized, and IMO they're less expensive than the non.

    Unless there is a valid reason for doing so, it could easily be construed as restraint of trade and antitrust violations.

    Personally, I am betting that there is more reason for this than to simply boost Apple's bottom line.
    MplsP
  • Reply 23 of 36
    It’s a much finer line than many are drawing; not as simple as “they’re ripping off consumers by having no repair options/killing right to repair”, or “they are intentionally reaping repair profit”. 

    Has anyone here taken an iPhone to a busy apple store for screen repair?

    I have. And in the 30 minutes waiting for my service, no less than a dozen people walked in with iPhone issues - all after a 3rd-party, unauthorized screen repair. Now, all were denied service. 

    By the measure of the “right to repair” folks, what’s your argument here? Why should apple entertain even touching a device that an unauthorized tech has handled? It’s similar to maintaining custody of evidence. Once someone other than apple tinkered with the device, it’s now the consumers problem. Would you expect apple to agree to take the phone for service? What if the battery was damaged during the 3rd party repair? What about the logic board? Apple has zero, nada, zilch legal requirement to fix the highly sophisticated pocket computer that the kid working the mall kiosk broke. It’s literally that simple. And how can they protect themselves from having to do so? Well, this can be accomplished thru design, and tech. 

    I’m not some apple fanboy, nor am I against the right to repair movement. But I sure don’t expect apple quality from a 3rd-party repair (recall, apples reputation for quality is well above average), nor should I expect apple to fix what was broken by an unauthorized tech. 

    Yes - I know the components in question can be construed as “only there to prevent third party repair”, and maybe they are. But if so, they also protect apple from having to fix the potential damage incurred by an unauthorized technician. And as a consumer and stockholder, I support this. 
    GeorgeBMacwilliamlondonstompywatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 36
    elijahg said:
    I care more about device security than right-to-unauthorized-repair-business. (Recall this is similar to how Touch ID worked -- unauthorized replaced parts disabled it, to discourage a bogus nefarious component swap.)

    Also, having recently had my iPhone screen repaired... Authorized shop (Best Buy): $280. Third-party shops: $480. Not seeing the argument for why consumers should want to bring it to a strip mall repair shop...
    And as predicted the armchair embedded EE/software engineer is here, apparently knowing enough about the hardware drivers in iOS to know device security rests upon a display being genuine. Right. You realise there are no FaceID parts in the display, which is the entire issue. TouchID was only disabled if you swapped the sensor - that is security related, it is paired to the secure enclave. The display is not.

    You are going to the wrong third party shops. I replaced my own iPhone X display with one from Amazon for $69. Works great. Cracked Apple's stupid anti-consumer disabling of TrueTone, and it's as good as new. And saved $200 to boot.
    Ah yes, lead with personal insults -- the tell-tale sign that you don't offer much else of substance. 

    I am an enterprise software engineer but never claimed to be an EE. But this story is an old one -- TouchID worked the same way, and as this article made clear. When certain components are removed Apple disables biometric authentication so that you're aware that your OEM part has been removed.

    Your DIY repair is not comparable to what a commercial repair shop charges, durrr. And yep, call around -- the non-authorized strip mall shops charge more than the authorized screen repair of $280. uBreakIFix is a national such shop, the price is $480, whether you like that or not.

    https://www.ubreakifix.com


    edited November 2021 williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 36
    elijahg said:
    elijahg said:
    Again and again Apple does things that provoke the ire of regulators. It's like they *want* to be the target of regulation.
    Hmm can you elaborate on the regulations this in violation of? Hint: just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's mustache-twirling villainy.

    Shops can get authorized, and IMO they're less expensive than the non.
    Here you go. Conversely, just because you're obsessed with Apple and have convinced yourself everything they do is pro-consumer, doesn't mean it is.

    https://news.softpedia.com/news/korea-s-ftc-investigated-apple-for-being-too-bossy-in-repair-policies-503265.shtml
    Obsessed with Apple? You do realize this...is...an Apple site...right?

    Sounds like you're butthurt. Who hurt you?

    Anyway, your link is to a suit in Korea, and does not backup your claim that this policy is in violation of any US regulations. More just made-up nonsense from the resident butthurt, I'm afraid.
    williamlondonasdasdwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 36
    elijahg said:
    Again and again Apple does things that provoke the ire of regulators. It's like they *want* to be the target of regulation.
    Hmm can you elaborate on the regulations this in violation of? Hint: just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's mustache-twirling villainy.

    Shops can get authorized, and IMO they're less expensive than the non.
    Unless there is a valid reason for doing so, it could easily be construed as restraint of trade and antitrust violations.

    Personally, I am betting that there is more reason for this than to simply boost Apple's bottom line.
    You could suspect that, but you'd be making the same silly mistake John Gruber routinely points out on his show -- repairs are a fraction of a fraction of Apple's bottom line. They do not make security & engineering decisions like this on the notion "Ah ha we will get MORE REPAIRS!" Believing this is ludicrous. Just as with TouchID swaps, the intent is very clearly security.

    But good to know the armchair anti-trust experts are on the case! lol
    edited November 2021 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    elijahg said:
    Again and again Apple does things that provoke the ire of regulators. It's like they *want* to be the target of regulation.
    Hmm can you elaborate on the regulations this in violation of? Hint: just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's mustache-twirling villainy.

    Shops can get authorized, and IMO they're less expensive than the non.
    Unless there is a valid reason for doing so, it could easily be construed as restraint of trade and antitrust violations.

    Personally, I am betting that there is more reason for this than to simply boost Apple's bottom line.
    You could suspect that, but you'd be making the same silly mistake John Gruber routinely points out on his show -- repairs are a fraction of a fraction of Apple's bottom line. They do not make security & engineering decisions like this on the notion "Ah ha we will get MORE REPAIRS!" Believing this is ludicrous. Just as with TouchID swaps, the intent is very clearly security.

    But good to know the armchair anti-trust experts are on the case! lol

    That's what I said -- but without all the nastiness and personal attacks.  Specifically:
    "Personally, I am betting that there is more reason for this than to simply boost Apple's bottom line."

    Are you feeling so defensive that you automatically assume everybody disagrees with you -- and your only possible retort is to respond with personal attacks?


    edited November 2021 MplsPmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 28 of 36
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,701member
    It’s a much finer line than many are drawing; not as simple as “they’re ripping off consumers by having no repair options/killing right to repair”, or “they are intentionally reaping repair profit”. 

    Has anyone here taken an iPhone to a busy apple store for screen repair?

    I have. And in the 30 minutes waiting for my service, no less than a dozen people walked in with iPhone issues - all after a 3rd-party, unauthorized screen repair. Now, all were denied service. 

    By the measure of the “right to repair” folks, what’s your argument here? Why should apple entertain even touching a device that an unauthorized tech has handled? It’s similar to maintaining custody of evidence. Once someone other than apple tinkered with the device, it’s now the consumers problem. Would you expect apple to agree to take the phone for service? What if the battery was damaged during the 3rd party repair? What about the logic board? Apple has zero, nada, zilch legal requirement to fix the highly sophisticated pocket computer that the kid working the mall kiosk broke. It’s literally that simple. And how can they protect themselves from having to do so? Well, this can be accomplished thru design, and tech. 

    I’m not some apple fanboy, nor am I against the right to repair movement. But I sure don’t expect apple quality from a 3rd-party repair (recall, apples reputation for quality is well above average), nor should I expect apple to fix what was broken by an unauthorized tech. 

    Yes - I know the components in question can be construed as “only there to prevent third party repair”, and maybe they are. But if so, they also protect apple from having to fix the potential damage incurred by an unauthorized technician. And as a consumer and stockholder, I support this. 
    I’ve been to my apple store many times and not once have I seen or heard someone bringing their device in for repair because a 3rd party shop broke it. Maybe the 3rd party shops around me are just better? Of course, if Apple puts a chip in the screen that prevents anyone else from replacing it then that’s a guarantee that people will be coming in complaining that the shop broke their phone, but that’s by Apple’s design.

    Also, what was the point of Apple denying them service? If I take my car to my local mechanic and he messes something up or can’t fix it himself and I take it to the dealer, they still gladly fix my car and charge me for the service. Refusing to fix the phone is just punitive at that point. If they are denying service, clearly they don’t need to be “protect[ed]… from having to fix the potential damage incurred by an unauthorized technician.” 

    Here are my ‘right to repair’ stories: My daughter dropped my wife’s ipad and broke the screen. I took it to a local repair shop 5 minutes away. They looked at it and said they could fix it but gave a warning about potential problems because of the nature of the break and asked if I was ok with them trying anyway. I said yes and they had it fixed in an hour for at least $50 cheaper. My son’s school ipad broke when his backpack fell off the seat on the bus. We had the school insurance plan which contracted with a local repair shop. Same story - we brought it in and had it back the same day. Both devices work perfectly.

    A coworker bought a used BMW with several known issues. He took it to the BMW dealer for an estimate and was quoted $3-4000. He then took it to a local repair shop that specializes in German imports. They fixed everything for $1500. (To be fair, there was one item they didn’t replace; after examining the car they said it wasn’t a safety issue, would not leave him stranded anywhere and would likely last a couple of years before it needed replacing so they recommended he just wait.

    Clearly we have some time bombs here. My wife’s ipad is still working perfectly 3 years later, but i live in constant fear of it blowing up and killing my family. The same with my coworker’s car - I have to make sure I don’t ever drive at the same time he does because it’s such a danger on the road.
    edited November 2021 williamlondonGeorgeBMacmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 29 of 36
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,701member
    elijahg said:
    Again and again Apple does things that provoke the ire of regulators. It's like they *want* to be the target of regulation.
    Hmm can you elaborate on the regulations this in violation of? Hint: just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's mustache-twirling villainy.

    Shops can get authorized, and IMO they're less expensive than the non.
    Unless there is a valid reason for doing so, it could easily be construed as restraint of trade and antitrust violations.

    Personally, I am betting that there is more reason for this than to simply boost Apple's bottom line.
    You could suspect that, but you'd be making the same silly mistake John Gruber routinely points out on his show -- repairs are a fraction of a fraction of Apple's bottom line. They do not make security & engineering decisions like this on the notion "Ah ha we will get MORE REPAIRS!" Believing this is ludicrous. Just as with TouchID swaps, the intent is very clearly security.

    But good to know the armchair anti-trust experts are on the case! lol
    But how much of Apple’s bottom line is new device sales? If you can easily and inexpensively repair your device you’re not going to buy a new one and that most decidedly does affect Apple’s bottom line.
    williamlondonelijahg
  • Reply 30 of 36
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,541member
    It’s a much finer line than many are drawing; not as simple as “they’re ripping off consumers by having no repair options/killing right to repair”, or “they are intentionally reaping repair profit”. 

    Has anyone here taken an iPhone to a busy apple store for screen repair?

    I have. And in the 30 minutes waiting for my service, no less than a dozen people walked in with iPhone issues - all after a 3rd-party, unauthorized screen repair. Now, all were denied service. 

    By the measure of the “right to repair” folks, what’s your argument here? Why should apple entertain even touching a device that an unauthorized tech has handled? It’s similar to maintaining custody of evidence. Once someone other than apple tinkered with the device, it’s now the consumers problem. Would you expect apple to agree to take the phone for service? What if the battery was damaged during the 3rd party repair? What about the logic board? Apple has zero, nada, zilch legal requirement to fix the highly sophisticated pocket computer that the kid working the mall kiosk broke. It’s literally that simple. And how can they protect themselves from having to do so? Well, this can be accomplished thru design, and tech. 

    I’m not some apple fanboy, nor am I against the right to repair movement. But I sure don’t expect apple quality from a 3rd-party repair (recall, apples reputation for quality is well above average), nor should I expect apple to fix what was broken by an unauthorized tech. 

    Yes - I know the components in question can be construed as “only there to prevent third party repair”, and maybe they are. But if so, they also protect apple from having to fix the potential damage incurred by an unauthorized technician. And as a consumer and stockholder, I support this. 
    I’ve witnessed the exact same thing. A person brought in a messed up iPhone whose spouse had the phone “repaired on the cheap” at a unqualified repair shop. The person was expecting Apple to repair the messed up phone - for free! When the Apple associate explained that they’d have to undo the faulty repair, use authorized service parts to fix the damage, and thoroughly verify the repair, all of which would take days and dollars, the person threw a total hissy fit like an 8-year old child and stormed out of the store, muttering obscenities all along the way about Apple and its employees. Unfortunately, that’s the world we live in today - a world of adult sized babies who are no longer shamed by their own childish behaviors. 
    williamlondonmailmeofferswatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 36
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,429member
    jtmbin said:
    MplsP said:
    Does the screen include the FaceID module? If not, I can think of no reason to justify this. It’s another example of why we need right to repair laws. Ironically, it’s the type of move that makes an iphone less desirable. If you buy an iphone at your local store and the screen breaks, what do you do if there’s no ‘authorized’ service center near you? You’re stuck mailing it off, paying more money and waiting longer to get your phone back. There are thousands of independent repair shops that can replace a screen in less than a day, often in a few hours. If you’re trying to decide between an Android phone and an iPhone and the iphone is a pain in the ass to repair, it doesn’t make it more attractive.

    I disagree. As an Apple user and stockholder, it is not Apple’s responsibility to design their products so that other people can make money from repairing them. That’s total nonsense. They don’t need to “justify” how or why they design and build products. It’s amazing the number of people who think that Apple should be forced to help them make money, like that fool at Epic.
    There is talk of a repairability score within the EU and the possibility of taxes or other measures to dissuade manufacturers from making it difficult to repair. Apple could be affected. 

    No doubt as a shareholder your opinion may change if it came to that and Apple was forced to place a visible rating on its phones. 


    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 32 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    MplsP said:
    elijahg said:
    Again and again Apple does things that provoke the ire of regulators. It's like they *want* to be the target of regulation.
    Hmm can you elaborate on the regulations this in violation of? Hint: just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's mustache-twirling villainy.

    Shops can get authorized, and IMO they're less expensive than the non.
    Unless there is a valid reason for doing so, it could easily be construed as restraint of trade and antitrust violations.

    Personally, I am betting that there is more reason for this than to simply boost Apple's bottom line.
    You could suspect that, but you'd be making the same silly mistake John Gruber routinely points out on his show -- repairs are a fraction of a fraction of Apple's bottom line. They do not make security & engineering decisions like this on the notion "Ah ha we will get MORE REPAIRS!" Believing this is ludicrous. Just as with TouchID swaps, the intent is very clearly security.

    But good to know the armchair anti-trust experts are on the case! lol
    But how much of Apple’s bottom line is new device sales? If you can easily and inexpensively repair your device you’re not going to buy a new one and that most decidedly does affect Apple’s bottom line.

    That argument has a lot of logic to it.
    But the fact that Apple effectively extended the life of a device out till it is declared (what's their word?) "obsolete" by enabling AppleCare+ to be extended indefinitely says that pushing new sales is not the reason.

    If it were, they just shot themselves in the foot with extended AppleCare+
  • Reply 33 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    dewme said:
    It’s a much finer line than many are drawing; not as simple as “they’re ripping off consumers by having no repair options/killing right to repair”, or “they are intentionally reaping repair profit”. 

    Has anyone here taken an iPhone to a busy apple store for screen repair?

    I have. And in the 30 minutes waiting for my service, no less than a dozen people walked in with iPhone issues - all after a 3rd-party, unauthorized screen repair. Now, all were denied service. 

    By the measure of the “right to repair” folks, what’s your argument here? Why should apple entertain even touching a device that an unauthorized tech has handled? It’s similar to maintaining custody of evidence. Once someone other than apple tinkered with the device, it’s now the consumers problem. Would you expect apple to agree to take the phone for service? What if the battery was damaged during the 3rd party repair? What about the logic board? Apple has zero, nada, zilch legal requirement to fix the highly sophisticated pocket computer that the kid working the mall kiosk broke. It’s literally that simple. And how can they protect themselves from having to do so? Well, this can be accomplished thru design, and tech. 

    I’m not some apple fanboy, nor am I against the right to repair movement. But I sure don’t expect apple quality from a 3rd-party repair (recall, apples reputation for quality is well above average), nor should I expect apple to fix what was broken by an unauthorized tech. 

    Yes - I know the components in question can be construed as “only there to prevent third party repair”, and maybe they are. But if so, they also protect apple from having to fix the potential damage incurred by an unauthorized technician. And as a consumer and stockholder, I support this. 
    I’ve witnessed the exact same thing. A person brought in a messed up iPhone whose spouse had the phone “repaired on the cheap” at a unqualified repair shop. The person was expecting Apple to repair the messed up phone - for free! When the Apple associate explained that they’d have to undo the faulty repair, use authorized service parts to fix the damage, and thoroughly verify the repair, all of which would take days and dollars, the person threw a total hissy fit like an 8-year old child and stormed out of the store, muttering obscenities all along the way about Apple and its employees. Unfortunately, that’s the world we live in today - a world of adult sized babies who are no longer shamed by their own childish behaviors. 

    Had they taken out AppleCare+ that scene would have never happened.

    AppleCare+ changes all  the rules.  It basically insures that you will have a working phone at a reasonably low cost.   I consider it part of the cost of the product.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 36
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    jtmbin said:
    MplsP said:
    Does the screen include the FaceID module? If not, I can think of no reason to justify this. It’s another example of why we need right to repair laws. Ironically, it’s the type of move that makes an iphone less desirable. If you buy an iphone at your local store and the screen breaks, what do you do if there’s no ‘authorized’ service center near you? You’re stuck mailing it off, paying more money and waiting longer to get your phone back. There are thousands of independent repair shops that can replace a screen in less than a day, often in a few hours. If you’re trying to decide between an Android phone and an iPhone and the iphone is a pain in the ass to repair, it doesn’t make it more attractive.

    I disagree. As an Apple user and stockholder, it is not Apple’s responsibility to design their products so that other people can make money from repairing them. That’s total nonsense. They don’t need to “justify” how or why they design and build products. It’s amazing the number of people who think that Apple should be forced to help them make money, like that fool at Epic.
    There is talk of a repairability score within the EU and the possibility of taxes or other measures to dissuade manufacturers from making it difficult to repair. Apple could be affected. 

    No doubt as a shareholder your opinion may change if it came to that and Apple was forced to place a visible rating on its phones. 


    I would back a "repairability score" as a way to better inform consumers on just what they're getting into.  But, when used as a minimum standard mandate, it could cause more problems than it solves.

    For instance, I'm typing this right now on an older Lenovo Thinkpad.  I can repair this beast cheaply regardless of what happens to it -- all the way down to replacing the motherboard.  It's like a model T for reliability and repairability.  BUT, it's thick and heavy and a real pain to lug around.

    Conversely, a MacBook Air is thin and very light and is very easily moved around.  But it is not anywhere as reliable or repairable as the Thinkpad.

    For me, the thick heavy but reliable Thinkpad is best.
    For my grandson, a thin & light MacBook Air is best -- even if it is not as reliable or repairable.

    I am decidedly not against government regulations, but in this case I think information is better.
    An analogy might be the "expected energy charges" on appliances or "expected fuel efficiency" on a car.

    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 35 of 36
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    jtmbin said:
    MplsP said:
    Does the screen include the FaceID module? If not, I can think of no reason to justify this. It’s another example of why we need right to repair laws. Ironically, it’s the type of move that makes an iphone less desirable. If you buy an iphone at your local store and the screen breaks, what do you do if there’s no ‘authorized’ service center near you? You’re stuck mailing it off, paying more money and waiting longer to get your phone back. There are thousands of independent repair shops that can replace a screen in less than a day, often in a few hours. If you’re trying to decide between an Android phone and an iPhone and the iphone is a pain in the ass to repair, it doesn’t make it more attractive.

    I disagree. As an Apple user and stockholder, it is not Apple’s responsibility to design their products so that other people can make money from repairing them. That’s total nonsense. They don’t need to “justify” how or why they design and build products. It’s amazing the number of people who think that Apple should be forced to help them make money, like that fool at Epic.
    If they're not going to justify it, and there's no other obvious reason, then everyone will assume the worst, that it is about profit and control.

    People don't like companies that are overly greedy and controlling.  As an Apple user and stockholder I really wish they'd cut this shit out, it only makes them look bad.
    muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.