|
|
|
|
|
by godelski
2502 days ago
|
|
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). |
|
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.