[judge2020]

So Apple's take is probably: A bunch of people get mad when their iPhones stop working, start running slow, etc; research data shows that when they need a battery replaced, they're more likely to go to the local third party (non-authorized) repair shop and get it replaced. We have no idea how skilled or unskilled these repair shops are, even if they use genuine Apple batteries. Our best bet for maintaining the reputation of our product is to make sure only Genius bar or AASP staff install the batteries and run the necessary diagnostics post-install.

I don't agree that they should be doing the battery authentication thing, replacing your battery is pretty easy and simple; but you have to look at this from Apple's standpoint:

Yes, Louis Rossmann runs a repair shop that is better than the Genius bar in every way and, should he join Apple, all of their repairability issues would disappear overnight. The issue is that many (most likely a majority) of local computer repair shops that get asked "can you fix this battery error on my iPhone" aren't on par with Louis Rossmann and will make mistakes such as improper installation, not re-sealing the phone for water resistance, using non-genuine batteries, etc. Apple could, by all means, make the process easier, cheaper, and more idiot-proof, but that would require engineering efforts. The best course of action, both for making money from repairs and not losing money to engineering and possible product changes ("don't sacrifice form for function", at least under Jony Ive), is to get the software to verify that Apple had complete control over the replacement battery from factory to phone.

[temporaryvector]

We already went through all of this with cars and car mechanics. The only difference with electronics is that people have been convinced that their smartphone, laptop and electronics in general are somehow arcane magic. Nowadays, car manufacturers also seem keen to jump on this bandwagon, since it would also benefit their bottom line to keep third party mechanics from touching their cars.

Fact is, if Apple can fix their devices, then so can a third party without much problem, it's not that hard and most of it doesn't really take any skilled labor. Apple would be better served by releasing repair manuals and selling parts (like car manufacturers have been doing) if they're afraid of having their reputation ruined by third party repairmen. That, of course, is not their concern, a third party repairman ruining someone iPhone in no way affects Apple's reputation, and it's better for Apple's business since it helps their propaganda efforts against third-party repair. Apple and other electronics manufacturers of course are not going to spend any effort supporting third-party repair until they're forced to by legislation.

For what it's worth, I think the right to repair side needs to do a better job of delivering their message. While focusing dispelling the notion that electronics repair is hard is pretty important to undo decades of propaganda on the matter, currently the environment is the hot button issue, and throwing away repairable objects isn't all that great, particularly if it's an easy fix like changing a battery. Repair needs to be included explicitly into the 3 R's somehow, either by making it into 4 R's (Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Recycle, for example) or by including Repair into the umbrella of Reduce.

[mschuster91]

> We already went through all of this with cars and car mechanics. The only difference with electronics is that people have been convinced that their smartphone, laptop and electronics in general are somehow arcane magic.

With cars there is a key difference: car service people usually are required to complete a multi-year long education with proper certifications (at least in Germany), and they get proper service manuals, genuine tools, spare parts and utilities from the manufacturers (as a result of the right to repair laws mentioned in the article), and third party replacement parts have to be certified as well (at least in Europe).

With phone repair shops, you have no guarantee that the person doing the repair is actually skilled, or that the repair parts are genuine/certified in any way. The right-to-repair laws have to be extended to force manufacturers to provide genuine spare parts, the sooner the better. Lithium battery fires are a real and scary threat.

[craigsmansion]

Those key differences don't really hold up, and it's mainly dealerships that use "spare parts from the manufacturers", and they would like nothing better than customers being forced to use their services, but they can't.

The main body of car repair customers have a choice ranging from non-dealership shops to cousin Vinnie with the range of quality and cost that goes with it. It's up to the customer.

Batteries degrade and need replacement at some point. What Apple is trying to do here is fusing the tyres to the rims and claiming it's necessary and specialist work.

> Lithium battery fires are a real and scary threat.

As are cars crashes, but somehow having third party repair options hasn't had much of an impact on that.

[mschuster91]

> The main body of car repair customers have a choice ranging from non-dealership shops to cousin Vinnie with the range of quality and cost that goes with it. It's up to the customer.

> As are cars crashes, but somehow having third party repair options hasn't had much of an impact on that.

Yes, because technicians are certified and trained, and because safety relevant parts are (no matter if first party or after market!) certified and tested. The relevant list in Germany is at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvzo_2012/__22a.html.

Of course, sometimes there are problems with car parts (e.g. the airbag mass recall), but counterfeit/uncertified parts generally don't end up in cars - vs. in the mobile/electronic industry where this is more routine than absolute exception.

[Despegar]

It's not just reputation that Apple cares about. They also care about fraud. The Information had a good story about it last year [1]. At its peak, 60% of repair claims were fraudulent in China and Hong Kong. With trade-ins now, they want to make sure they get genuine Apple products back.

[1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/inside-apples-war-on...

[addicted]

Heres a simple solution to fraud.

Apple sells official batteries to 3rd party retailers, with holograms, and maybe even an online lookup which tracks sales, etc. (you don’t need the latter but it’s an idea that would not be half as expensive as all the other “fraud prevention” measures Apple puts in which conveniently makes it far more difficult to repair Apple devices).

Seriously, the vast majority of fraud concerns would disappear if Apple sold official replacement parts.

[stock_toaster]

> We already went through all of this with cars and car mechanics

From what I understand, phone batteries are far more energy dense (lithium ion) than car batteries (lead acid still?), and you carry them in your pocket. Maybe EV car batteries packs are more comparable?

Remember when samsung phones were catching fire all over just a couple years ago? Wasn't that due to some weird assembly/manufacturing issue where the batteries were being "pinched" due to tolerances?

[michaelt]

Cars generally have tanks full of gasoline, though, which is even more energy-dense than lithium ion batteries. Nonetheless, you can take your car to a third-party mechanic.

And I'd bet more people have been burned (or for that matter been killed) in car accidents than phone accidents.

[ChickeNES]

You're assuming that Apple themselves does all of these as repairs. I'd wager that many times they would just replace it and then send the returned one off for refurbishment (which is exactly what they've done when I've had issues with my phone under AppleCare).

[viraptor]

I see the reason why Apple would find limiting third parties useful, but:

> Apple could, by all means, make the process easier, cheaper, and more idiot-proof, but that would require engineering efforts.

This is a bit silly. Not only are they already spending lots of money on (purposefully) engineering in repair-hostile way, they also have very high markup on their hardware. Let's not feel bad for poor Apple in this case.

[sjwright]

Nobody is feeling bad for Apple, but I do think it's ridiculous how we talk about what Apple does as if the majority of their competitors aren't doing exactly the same things. Looked inside a Microsoft Surface product recently?

It's just like with the criticisms of working conditions at the Chinese/Foxconn iPhone factories. The same factories make Xboxes, Playstations and thousands of other devices that we all buy without such consideration.

But because Apple is an effective punching bag, they bear the brunt of the industry's collective sins.

[temporaryvector]

I agree that Apple is not the only culprit and their competitors should be equally derided, and in fact they often are. The Surface Laptop is the only laptop on ifixit with a repairability score of 0, after all.

But it's still pretty clear that Apple should get a lot of flak because they are frequently the first one to market with anti-repair features, they're pioneers in pushing design features that make repair harder, they sell products at a premium price but their first party support is often pretty bad and expensive and they have a lot of mind-share and they use that mind-share to push the "electronics are hard to repair" myth.

When it comes to bad repairability, Apple leads the way and the rest of the manufacturers follow after seeing what Apple can get away with. In general this is true for a lot of user-hostile design. On the flip-side, their position as leader does allow them to push some aspects of the industry forward, but they haven't been doing much of that lately, and when they do it's usually flawed in some way (their early push for USB-C comes to mind).

So I don't think its unfair for Apple to be the punching bag in this case. They put themselves in that position by grabbing so much mind-share and positioning themselves as leaders to be emulated by their competitors.

[sjwright]

How was Apple's push to USB-C flawed?

Isn't the drop in repairability of electronics being pushed more by the shrinking of components than by the assumption of corporate greed?

Why are competitors removing their headphone jacks?

Why are competitors copying Apple's "anti-features" as you'd describe them? Are you sure it's because they actually hate repairability? Are you sure their competitors covet the relative unrepairability of Apple devices?

There are far more variables at play here than we're ever likely to be able to canvas in short online comments.

[temporaryvector]

Corporations are optimization machines, they optimize for short-term profits, greed is no the correct term to use here.

There are two ways competitors are incentivized to copy Apple, the first one is because of Apple's mind-share and "fashionable" status, they might be convinced that by copying some of the features they will be able to ride on coattails of Apple's success to get some success of their own. Combined with the fact that purchasing decisions are not entirely rational and there's a lot of emotion involved, Apple and other large corporations are in a position to convince people to accept compromises that have larger effects (sacrifice repairability for slimness, sacrifice freedom for "security", sacrifice gas mileage for a bigger, more comfortable SUV, etc.). The second way is that Apple, by virtue of their mind-share and position as leader, can get away with changes that other companies would want to make but couldn't. If Apple hadn't removed the headphone jack from their iPhones, there's no way Samsung or Google would be able to get away with removing the headphone jack from their flagship phones, even if all three companies want to remove the headphone jack equally, but once Apple moves the overton window, the competitors can jump onboard with the change and implement it into their own product line. Apple has earned themselves enough of a reputation and enough of a fanatical userbase that they're able to get away with these changes because by-and-large their bad changes were balanced out by their good changes, the question is whether this reputation will last for the current Apple.

>Isn't the drop in repairability of electronics being pushed more by the shrinking of components than by the assumption of corporate greed?

Absolutely not. Shrinking components have made it possible to make more integrated ICs, but those were never user serviceable, but replacing a monolithic IC with a spare part, even with unfriendly packages like BGA, is not impossible to do for a decently equipped repair shop, and the cost of that equipment is going to likely be less than whatever car mechanics or small machine shops spend on their equipment.

For what it's worth, I don't think Apple or any other company are sitting in their board rooms wringing their hands and coming up with dastardly plans to fuck over the third-party repair shop. Third-party repair is simply not a priority for them, thus when the time comes to cut costs or to optimize the design for sleekness or profit, repairability goes out the window first. Contrast that with more professional equipment where servicing is an important consideration and you'll see design optimization producing different results.

[sjwright]

Many of Apple's customers are also fans of Apple, therefore Apple must be held to a higher standard than everyone else?

Competitors secretly really want to implement user-hostile features but Apple must jump first so they can follow like lemmings?

None of what you wrote makes any sense to me.

[viraptor]

They do price themselves higher and praise their design though. I'm all for exposing every device/company doing anti-repair stuff. But I'm also happy to start with those having most expensive devices. (if a $1200 professional laptop is not repairable, we have a problem)

[sjwright]

Apple devices are rarely more than 10-20% more expensive than its like-for-like competitors.

And it's not like they're entirely the same cheap OEM plastic crap with a different logo silkscreened on the front. Apple's investments in mobile CPU design. Apple's laptop chassis engineering. These aren't products that are ever going to compete in the budget space.

Meanwhile if you think Samsung and Microsoft and Google and Xiaomi don't praise their own designs with exactly the same level of fervour, you haven't been paying attention. The only difference is that people tend to take Apple seriously when they speak about it.

[viraptor]

You're bringing up how much Apple already spend on custom engineering. I agree - and that's why they should be called out as one of the first. And if people think Apple praises their design more - same. Repairability should be connected to good design.

Also, if I'm in the PC environment, I can get a different repairable PC. If I'm in Mac environment... ?

[sjwright]

Google is the most popular smartphone platform. That's why they should be called out first.

Samsung makes the most number of handsets. That's why they should be called out first.

Apple likes their products to look pretty. That's why they should be called out first.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. That's why they should be called out first.

Xiaomi are evil Chinese copycats. That's why they should be called out first.

We could do this all day.

[pjmlp]

Just like there are things that people punch Microsoft, Oracle or IBM for, yet everyone else on the same league dances to the same music.

[godelski]

I disagree with this sentiment. You mention Rossmann. Anyone that watches his channel knows that Apple purposefully makes things hard to repair. Things could be easier if they wanted them to be. But it's clear that Apple doesn't want devices repaired. See Rossmann talk about prices and how often the genius bar just suggests replacement.

As for third party repair, it isn't Apples fault if a third party repairs a phone incorrectly. What does this argument even mean? If your busy fixes your car wrong you don't sue the car manufacturer. If you go to a repair shop and they mess up you don't sue the manufacturer. So why would it be any different for phones or any electronic?

[kemayo]

> As for third party repair, it isn't Apples fault if a third party repairs a phone incorrectly. What does this argument even mean?

It's 100% not their fault if someone else gets it wrong, it's true. But modern phones are complicated devices -- if you get your battery replaced poorly, and a month later your phone dies because the case was resealed incorrectly which compromised the water resistance and something got damaged as a result, is the consumer likely to think "oh, I bet that was a poor third party repair" or "ugh, iPhones suck, they're so unreliable"?

That said, I don't think this battery change is particularly tied to the personal repair issue. I think this is a shot at the resale / refurb market. Companies buying up old phones, "refreshing" them with crappy components, and selling them on to customers who don't realize that the phone is going to need a battery replacement in three months. In that case the customer didn't have the information available to tell that they'd been sold something shoddy, whereas now they can check the battery health and see this new warning.

[godelski]

The basis of your argument is that repair is too complicated and requires extremely specific and specialized training. Repairing a phone isn't more complicated than repairing a car (I'd argue a car is harder to repair). So unless you think otherwise AND you think that it is so complicated that only Apple can teach it, then your argument doesn't hold. If people CAN learn the skill of repair (seriously, give me a good reason why they can't) then it doesn't make sense for Apple to require authorized repairs (assuming they value repair over replacement). That doesn't mean they can't have certified repair (just like cars do), but the issue here is of force. All this forcing does is create anti-competitiveness and harm the market as a whole (though it probably helps Apple. But that's what anti-competitive behavior generally does. Just doesn't benefit the consumer).

[jaclaz]

For the record, it is not like car repair is made "easy" by the manufacturers, I have seen over the years quite a few cases where the "original" (issued by manufacturer only to official dealers) ODB2 connected software was needed to reset an alarm on the car computer.

It may be that the "third party" program missed at the time the particular feature (AFAIK it is all revolving about reverse engineering the "original" and that later releases had it.

And another "trend" in the car world is that of only selling as spare "non-serviceable assemblies", and regularly some smart guy manages to find out that the assembly is actually serviceable and that replacing (say) a small o-ring or gasket and/or with a couple solderings an used assembly can be reconditioned and work again for years at a fraction of the cost.

A good example is the "navigating wheel" on many BMW's, dealers will tell you that it is a €300-400 job to replace it, whilst 99% of the time is half an hour top including disassembling it, soldering a couple broken tin joints and re-assembling it.

[kemayo]

I think you’re overstating Apple’s actions here.

Specifically: Apple isn’t requiring authorized repairs. It’s displaying a warning fairly deep in the Settings app if your phone has received unauthorized repairs. That’s the consumer benefit I spoke of — being able to check for that.

I’d be very opposed if Apple was actually implementing a “lock”. You should be free to get your device repaired wherever you want.

I’d also like it if Apple adjusted this warning a bit. It’s currently the generic “your battery may need service” message. A more specific message detailing the not-an-authorized-repair situation would be more apt. Still, for now it works — if you’re getting your phone repaired yourself then the shop can warn you about it so you won’t be misled, and if you’re buying a used phone then you can know it’s not-mint.

[lallysingh]

It's not that, look at the timing. New iPhone sales are drying up. The old phones are good enough except for battery wear. So, why not force them into Apple Stores to try and upsell them, especially when getting the phone company to finance it?

$60-100 for a battery replacement today, or... $20 (a month) for a shiny new phone.

[sjwright]

I disagree with your sentiment, because it assumes that Rossmann can read the minds of Apple product designers and warranty service managers.

The "Rossmann" method of device repair might be useful for short term disaster recovery, consumer asset loss mitigation and data recovery, but how reliable are his repairs long term? We never know. How scalable is this method of repair across thousand of cities? Probably very poor.

Rossmann probably has no idea what percentage of his repairs fail within 12 months. Whereas Apple probably has a very good idea how (im)practical it would be to deploy this approach at global scale, and how reliable bodge repairs are compared to simply fitting a new board straight from the factory.

[godelski]

Apple's job is to get the device through warranty, at minimum. They look better if they last longer though. Remember how Apple used to be known for a computer that lasted 5 years instead of 2 years? The problem now is that they aren't made that much higher quality than other products (if at all). But if we look at Rossmann he frequently does jobs like retinning connectors. I wouldn't call this disaster recovery since this kind of repair is quite common in electronics in general.

We could probably guesstimate repair failures by looking at industry averages. He could also guesstimate from returning customers. This is how you get an idea of repair failure rates in the first place.

And no, you can't repair at global scale. But why would you need to? There's a reason Toyota doesn't repair every single one of their cars. Or more apt to the conversation: there's a reason Toyota doesn't require you go to a Toyota dealership to get an oil change. It doesn't make sense to. The scale would be ridiculous. There's no reason that electronics needs to be more convoluted than repairing a car. There's no reason a simple fix like a battery swap needs to be more complicated than changing your oil.

[sjwright]

Your Toyota analogy doesn't make sense.

Oil changes—Apple devices don't need equivalent routine hardware maintenance.

Warranty repairs/recalls—Whether Toyota or Apple, the manufacturer is obliged to perform (or pay a third party to perform) the rectification.

Smash repairs—Neither Apple nor Toyota is responsible for impact damage that wasn't caused by manufacturer negligence. In both cases you'd go to a third party repair shop to mitigate asset loss.

[sumedh]

> but how reliable are his repairs long term?

So the alternative is to listen to Apple's advice and buy a new device just because they think the device cannot be repaired?

[sjwright]

I didn't say that individuals shouldn't seek such repairs. I'm just talking about whether it makes sense for Apple to offer them.

[viraptor]

> As for third party repair, it isn't Apples fault if a third party repairs a phone incorrectly.

It's not even their fault if authorised shops repairs it wrong. I got a failing key after a battery replacement, but it's after warranty, so they won't touch it. (how will you prove it's from the replacement?)

[kemayo]

This is a little off topic, but in the name of trying to be helpful... :D

If you're talking about MacBooks, there's currently a pretty expansive keyboard replacement program going on for many models since 2015, which naturally includes ones which are now out of warranty.

So, they may have told you that before, but there's decent odds they'll have changed their tune now.

Details: https://support.apple.com/keyboard-service-program-for-mac-n...

[viraptor]

This was actually the last-good-keyboard model. :-(

[rimliu]

  > Anyone that watches his channel knows that Apple
  > purposefully makes things hard to repair.

Anyone that watches his channel knows _that he claims_ that Apple purposefully makes things hard to repair.

Not the most trustworthy person anyway.

[johnmarcus]

a few problems with your argument: Apple technicians are often worse at repairing devices. Apple policies are often the root cause of this, as they prevent technicians from doing reasonable repair work in order to justify replacing entire parts which do not actually need replacing in order to repair the issue.

The the problem is folks inexperienced with repairing devices like yourself have been convinced by apple that "many (most likely the majority) ... will make mistakes".

That's like saying every 3rd party auto repair shop should be shut down in favor of dealer mechanic shops. When in reality, the corporate greed policy based on making money - not repair electronics or cars - are often the driving decision makers in repair work. That is to say, they actually do worse work at authorized shops. A lack of competition tends to do that.

[pentae]

I have another, more simple theory: Money. They want the aftermarket service business to themselves for that reason first, and control over the quality of repairs secondary.

[seltzered_]

I’d like to second the take on water resistance/ waterproofing. I overheard someone at a pool yesterday who bought a used iPhone that died after getting in the water with it. He mentioned buying it used. From my experience the water resistance is a very thin line of sticky black stuff that is easy to mess up after opening an iPhone. Im assuming the better repair shops use sticker sheets of new seal whenever a phone is opened.

[judge2020]

> Im assuming the better repair shops use sticker sheets of new seal whenever a phone is opened.

This is my point at the end, a fair amount of repair shops do care about the phone, the customer, and doing things right, but there are probably a good amount that don't care and will cut as many corners as possible to increase profit.

[seltzered_]

Yeah. The ideal could be for repair shops to have a provably diligent repair process (e.g. imagine repair shops doing repair under a camera akin to a Rossmann stream). (Insert visions of blockchainy contract stuff here). Think the question is whether it’d be practical - perhaps it could be regulated into existence over certification/nda programs but even then the value of the object itself may need to be higher. The startup Mattereum comes to mind, seemingly theyre starting out in high value areas (vintage violins, collectibles, real estate)