[Improvotter]

From what I hear, this isn't only about repairing iPhones. In a previous court proceedings the man was ordered to remove the logos from Apple because he imported the parts from China to refurbish iPhones. These were not genuine parts and they were being sold as refurbished iPhones.

This court case bas brought on by Apple because he did not properly remove the Apple logos. He used a permanent marker to "remove" them from the parts. Apple did not agree that this was a proper way to do it.

As much as I am for the rights to repair. I would say that Apple has some grounds here.

[aeyes]

So where do I get genuine parts? Oh right, Apple doesn't sell them and even prevents OEMs from selling them.

For many, many repairs the Genius bar just tells you that it is not repairable even though it is. A 2000$ device that you just bought a couple of months ago. What right to repair do we have if Apple doesn't offer repair, even if you bought Apple Care.MacBooks are designed to fail, a drop of water kills the machine, the fuses never blow, if a sensor dies the whole machine stops working, they admitted a keyboard design flaw and if you get it replaced they replace it with the exact same one...

If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case. If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case.

[theshrike79]

> For many, many repairs the Genius bar just tells you that it is not repairable even though it is.

Repairable by a random Genius bar person and repairable by Louis Rossmann are two very different things.

Yes, if you could hire enough Rossmanns cost-effectively and get them the proper equipment and training, then the Apple Stores could fix _everything_ on site.

But it's a few orders of magnitude easier to have iFixit style guides and tools for swapping whole logic boards to fix a single component. It's also WAY cheaper for Apple.

[nerdponx]

On the other hand, if parts and repair manuals were sold to the general public, you could have more Rossmans out there.

Also there is a whole spectrum of repairs between "replace some swappable parts" and "reball a CPU".

[ksec]

>And if you get it replaced they replace it with the exact same one...

Not to mention the free replacement is only valid for three times.

Would also like to add the thin cable that makes Screen stop working, Thunderbolt charging that fries the CPU etc etc.

And yes all of these are 2016 - 2019 MacBook. Apart from Staingate, 2015 MacBook Pro is pretty damn good.

Apple could have hide all of these "flaws" with a free repair given out to customers, making them feel better without actually acknowledging it. Instead they actively tries to price gouge customers with ridiculously expensive repairs.

I still remember you could get a brand new Keyboard on MacBook Pro if you ask for a battery replacement which is much cheaper than keyboard repair.

[magnetic]

> For many, many repairs the Genius bar just tells you that it is not repairable even though it is. A 2000$ device that you just bought a couple of months ago.

If you bought your device a couple of months ago, wouldn't you still be covered by the warranty?

[colejohnson66]

Technically, it’s a limited warranty. So they can deny your claim for certain reasons. One of which is water damage. Not a really good reason; if there’s water damage, replace the other damaged parts also, but it’s what their rule is.

[reaperducer]

If it's a new Apple product, water damage repair is $99. I just went through this last week.

[preben]

Limited warranty is not the same as being repairable. Warranty is free, repairs are paid.

[Ballas]

Warranty is prepaid, not free.

[nojito]

>If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case.

Given that this case is about importing counterfeit products from China...I disagree

>If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case.

They do as long as your business is near an apple store.

>If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case.

Why should they be serviceable?

[rNadom]

>Why should they be serviceable?

Do you buy a new car every 3000 miles or do you get it serviced? Do you buy a new car when one of your tires get punctured by a nail?

>>If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case. >Given that this case is about importing counterfeit products from China...I disagree

This happens all the time in the automotive industry as well. Why are aftermarkets parts allowed to exist? What's the balance between aftermarket and counterfeits?

>>If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. >They do as long as your business is near an apple store.

Great, if they actually have properly trained/educated technicians at each store. Quoting for $1200 on a 5 year old laptop, to replace the motherboard and display, all because of a defective cable (a $15 fix).

[geomark]

"... this case is about importing counterfeit products from China..."

Seems like a stretch to call the parts counterfeit. He imported refurbished displays that were original Apple displays with broken glass that had been replaced by a third party product. The original parts of the display still had Apple logos on them. So clearly they were refurbished, not counterfeit.

[aeyes]

>>If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case.

> They do as long as your business is near an apple store.

No?

Apple Care doesn't cover liquid damaged devices. And often they claim the device was liquid damaged even when it wasn't.

And when Apple does fix your machine, how many times do you get your data back? ZERO times!

>> If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case.

> Why should they be serviceable?

Because I paid thousands of dollars for a premium machine with the tag "Pro". It is unacceptable to turn it into a paper weight if it breaks, many times without user error.

[tpmoney]

>Apple Care doesn't cover liquid damaged devices.

It does now

[harrygeez]

> Why should they be serviceable?

wow really

[thegreatpeter]

This person is a troll, please ignore

[mywacaday]

The issue here is that you cannot buy spare parts from apple, imagine if it was the same for cars and you could only go to s main dealer to replace a windscreen and if you got a guy in a van to replace it with one from a car no longer in use that guy gets sued. Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory, especially for high value and high environmental impact items like the iphone.

[kin]

Apple absolutely needs to make their official spare parts accessible. I was in a situation where my phone somehow had the water detection strip turn red on a 6S (before waterproof). It was working fine, I just wanted to get my screen replaced officially at the Apple store. No luck. They have a policy where they won't replace screens if there has been signs of water damage. I'm forced to go with 3rd party screens. I haven't been able to find a repair shop that uses screens that feel as good as the original.

[theshrike79]

What would be considered "accessible"? A web shop for every single component inside a phone? Just the main logic boards and components?

Do they need to be sold at-cost or can there be the normal brand name part mark-up on spare parts (just like in cars)?

[birdyrooster]

Third parties could get access to those parts in theory https://support.apple.com/irp-program

[rasz]

this program is a sham, few places tried signing up and its designed to make you go bankrupt

[frogpelt]

So lets say Apple put up a store of spare parts and they charge $399 for a replacement screen.

How does that look?

[Wowfunhappy]

IMO, charging as much as a new iPhone SE for just the screen doesn't fit the definition of "making their parts accessible". :)

[theshrike79]

Have you seen the markup on car spare parts? If you want to build a normal German family sedan from just the spare parts, you'll be paying 20x the cost of a full car easily.

Not even speaking of the skullduggery the VAG consortium is doing, they use the exact same parts for a large portion of their cars, just with different serial numbers.

A widget for Premium Car costs 1000, the EXACT SAME WIDGET for Budget Car costs 100. You just need to know the magic number or have a friendly salesperson behind the counter.

[kakwa_]

There are abuses. But for cars, even with the insane markups, having car parts is still a win, specially compared to tech devices like iphones.

Also, cars are 1) a bit more complex 2) a bit more granular in design, which leads to more swappable components. This result in needing to replace just a few relatively small components in case of breakdowns (a pump, a filter, etc), and even with the markup, repair is often a good solution financially vs replacing the car. By contrast, on a phone, the individually swappable components are much bigger (a whole screen, a logic board, etc), making repairs less viable.

Last point is supplying spare parts is also quite complex logistically, which explains part of the markup. But not all of it, I agree, there has been numerous cases of price fixing/abuses, for example:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-software-pricing-in...

[erichocean]

It looks like Apple is asking to be regulated.

[jacobush]

Ah, thanks I had a good laugh! An honest loud laugh. Agree 100% though.

[tcbawo]

I believe that car manufacturers in the US are required by law to produce spare parts for 10 years after a model rolls off the assembly line. A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? Maybe the FCC could be setting those guidelines for mobile phones.

[zapnuk]

> A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line?

Doesn't matter. Just draw it and adjust it later on. At some point environmentalism is more important than profits and some reasonable support timespan of ~3-8 years is fairly obvious.

[ginko]

> A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line?

Does there need to be a line? Arguably small custom electronics manufacturers may not be able to do that, but surely something similar would apply to custom car makers.

Arguably small electronics manufacturers would have an easier job fulfilling this since they usually use off-the-shelf parts anyways.

[greedo]

I'm pretty sure that Apple doesn't just use off the shelf parts in the iPhone etc.

[Brian_K_White]

"but then where do you draw the line?" wasn't asked out of concern for Apple or anyone like Apple. They obviously can afford to make their parts available. You can't draw a line anywhere that would be unsustainable for them.

The question was asked out of worry that some agressive rule targeted at a big guy, might have unintended consequences that hurt the little guys.

To which question I agree with "doesn't matter, draw it anywhere and adjust as needed" because there are easily identifiable reasonable ranges, and not knowing the final perfect answer is not a good enough excuse for not doing anything at all, and what we have now is already worse than a line that was drawn a bit off the mark. Waht we have now is a defacto line drawn 100% off the MAP.

[ogre_codes]

> I believe that car manufacturers in the US are required by law to produce spare parts for 10 years after a model rolls off the assembly line.

With a car your spare parts are typically a small fraction of the value of the vehicle even used. With an iPhone, an official replacement screen will cost more than the 4 year old device is worth. Likewise the mainboard.

Really what I'd like to see is Apple doing a re-use campaign where they recover working parts from their own recycle chain, certify and resell them.

[Brian_K_White]

Then again, why is the device worth so little? Did it actually degrade that much? Or is it largely the product of the fact that it isn't supported any more, in both software and hardware? And, is that lack of support, in either the software or hardware domains, a fact of nature, or something under some interested parties conscious control?

[erichocean]

> A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line?

I dunno, how about we start with 10 years?

[theshrike79]

There wouldn't be any $5 digital thermometers or $200 55" TVs after that.

Producing and storing spare parts for a widget that costs less than a Starbucks coffee will never be feasible. Neither is storing an unknown quantity of said widget in a warehouse somewhere for 10 years to provide people with replacements.

Also, making things serviceable is hard and requires planning and forethought on component placement etc. This incurs even more costs.

I'm all for repairability and long lived devices, but I'm in a privileged position and can afford the premium price. But is this a viable solution for the world?

[birdyrooster]

Except you and other third parties can https://support.apple.com/irp-program

[saagarjha]

Can't you get just your iPhone screen repaired?

[procinct]

I don't think so these days. I remember a little while ago, an update was pushed that bricked any phones with a third party screen (which I think included the finger print reader). The update was patched I believe but replacing the screen on a modern iPhone isn't as simple as replacing the glass anymore IIRC.

[jotm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc back glass replacement... ridiculous.

The aluminum iPhones (and other phones) were so beautiful. I have an old HTC M8 and it just looks and feels so nice compared to all glass Samsungs. Plus the front facing stereo speakers - truly practical.

[theshrike79]

Glass backs are a requirement for wireless charging, it doesn't go so well with metal.

[jamesgeck0]

IIRC anything with the fingerprint reader gets complicated because of the signing keys Apple uses to help protect the device against unlocking attacks.

[Brian_K_White]

There is nothing complicated about simply not having a fingerprint option. If the main machine knows it cannot trust the fingerprint secure enclave, then there is nothing complicated at all about simply, not trusting it. The user simply has to unlock the phone with a pin or pattern etc. This does not, in anybway, require bricking the device. That is simply a deliberate and hostile act of aggression against the user.

[theshrike79]

Yes, but how does the phone know the TouchID sensor has been switched by a Good Guy and not an attacker?

Security has drawbacks.

[saagarjha]

I think the Touch ID assembly is considered part of the screen.

[itake]

I don't think this is correct. They weren't re-using official apple parts, they were ordering fake parts directly from the manufactures. We know they are fake, because Apple would never allow their factories to re-sell extra parts to 3rd parties.

[amscanne]

Same difference. Apple won't sell the parts, and won't allow manufacturers to make & sell the parts either.

So manufacturers do it anyways, and sell them in the grey market. I wound up with these parts myself after trying to buy a high-quality replacement display for an old phone (complete with blacked-out Apple logo). There is no legal alternative. They're not "fake" parts, but the parts aren't supposed to exist. (Seems like that issue would be between Apple and the manufacturer, but I digress.)

What good is a right to repair if the major companies can just make it illegal in practice?

[ljm]

They're not exactly fake if they come from the same manufacturer. Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute and the flow of electricity gives no shit about that.

I mean, even the use of the word 'fake' here is questionable. A replacement considered fake is not expected to work the same way the legit version does. It stubs that functionality out or makes it worse. If the chip does the same work and performs the same way it's not a fake, it's an alternative or a competitor. And if Apple are short-changing their Chinese sweatshops to produce these chips (and they absolutely are), then it's no surprise they try to seek a profit in the grey market.

[jbay808]

I think "unlicensed" or "unofficial" might be better terms. I agree that the term "fake" seems inappropriate for surplus parts coming from the same production line, or even if they're factory rejects. (Those might be defective or flawed, but not fake).

[saagarjha]

> Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute

This is why I'm somewhat annoyed that this case is being paraded as something to support right-to-repair…

[theshrike79]

The "fakes" are usually off pieces that didn't go through the official quality control.

The easiest way for you to demonstrate this is to get some official Legos. Then go on Aliexpress and order some no-brand knockoffs (Lepin or whatever they're called now). Both work as building blocks, both connect to themselves and each other.

But you can just feel that the knockoffs haven't been produced to the same exact standard as the officials, they're just a little bit off and squeaky and wonky.

Now if someone sold you the knockoffs as officials, it would affect the Lego brand. And this is why companies go to court for.

[jethro_tell]

That's the point, if you won't produce parts to the public, you shouldn't have ground to sue people for using after market parts.

[t-writescode]

Then you need to go after Apple in that way. That's a more powerful case than what happened here.

[simion314]

>they are fake

Refurbished parts are not fake. You can have an original screen that only the top layer is cracked, that top layer can be replaced or fixed, the people that fixed the screen did not erased the existing Apple logo.

Anyway this would not happen if Apple would allow selling of parts to third party.

[dwild]

They were using refurbished part, which contained original partx, which contained the Apple logo.

It's like changing a windshield for a third party one and then getting sued once you try to sell your car because there still the logo on the car.

[golergka]

> Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory

I find the situation where the state dictates private companies what to sell much more ludicrous.

To clarify, I don't think that it's a good practice, and it's one of the reasons I don't buy iPhones anymore. But as I would vote against company doing this idiotic thing with my wallet, I would still defend it's legal right to do that idiotic thing.

It's not the government place nor responsibility to solve such trivial problems, especially with products on very competitive markets that are almost a luxury item and in no way a basic neccessity. Consumers can figure it out on their own.

[ssivark]

Well, “copyright” is a government regulation that interferes with a market-driven “free trade” in parts. If the government can stop third-parties from selling replacement/refurbished parts (especially give the doctrine of first-sale, etc), then I don’t see why it cannot equally well demand that Apple sell spare parts at fair rates. Both or nothing makes most sense.

[jethro_tell]

I disagree, the government shouldn't require apple to produce parts, but their ability to sue should also be reduced if they don't produce spare parts.

[jay_kyburz]

I think consumer protections should provide nice long warranty periods that ensure you get what you paid for.

Phones are designed to be held in your hands, and hands occasionally drop things, so phones should be designed to withstand being dropped. You should be able to get a warranty replacement / repair for your phone if you drop it.

We would have stronger phones that last longer, and produce less waste.

[em-bee]

i think the european union now has a warranty period of one or two years on electronics

[Brian_K_White]

Then you agree, not disagree. Both or nothing, the important point was, you can't just have one without the other.

[golergka]

That's taking away somebody's property, justifying it by misuse. Which means that it wasn't really property in full sense of a word in the first place.

[inapis]

Not necessarily. This trivial stuff can blow up into big things for society. This unavailability of spare parts translates into a lot of devices ending up in the landfill. That is an unmitigated environmental disaster. Free markets will not solve this problem without govt intervention.

The economic costs are not the only costs in a capitalist society. The other costs just don’t show up on the paper.

P.S and I’ll argue that smartphones are necessary in today’s world. They are the primary form of computing, communication and fulfilling bureaucratic work for large sections of the population on the planet. In India, you’ll have a tough time in life if you don’t have a smartphone. You can survive? Yes. But it will be a PITA to communicate with others, deal with govt, banking or utilities etc

[pmlnr]

The very purpose of a governing body, by greek idea, is to protect citizens. That includes protrcting from bad companies.

[golergka]

"Protecting" a person from a bad deal that he enters voluntarily is not protection, it's taking away that person's freedom.

[em-bee]

only if the person can reasonably be expected to know that this is bad deal, which in most cases they can't

[golergka]

This may be true; however, it's also implied in your statement that government does.

Never assume that government knows better than it's citizens. It's made out of the worst of them.

[symkat]

> As Huseby puts it, Apple uses copyright law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce copyright.

[paxys]

Why does the grey market put Apple logos at all in the first place if not to deceive buyers?

[tssva]

The grey market didn't put the logos on. The parts in question were screens where the glass had been broken but the display panels were still functional. The glass was replaced and the units are sold as refurbished. The Apple logos on them were on the display panels and placed there when originally manufactured for Apple.

[monocasa]

This. A lot of these "counterfeit" parts are just official parts that have been refurbished.

Take a broken iPhone, part it, replace the glass, now you have a refurbished screen to go in someone's broken iPhone.

[jccooper]

They don't. Apple puts logos on their parts and then someone uses them in a "refurbished" part and doesn't scrub the logos. It's not a problem in China, because they don't care, but in more legally-observant parts of the world it becomes a trademark issue, because you have a part that isn't entirely from Apple (and is thus not an official Apple product) but has their logos on it.

[thoraway1010]

It's to deceive buyers.

I bought a new apple battery with the apple logo from online vendor - turned out to be total junk. Amazon used to be filled with these junk apple parts - I tried so hard to buy a real apple charger etc and you just get junk (with an apple logo).

Despite the claims here that all this trash is "refurbished" real apple product it is not.

Apple has some lawsuits going about this issue. 90% of the items they bought from amazon that were "genuine" turned out to be fakes.

Apple has tried to crack down a bit. You used to be able to drop a crappy third party battery into a used iphone and the buyer would see that battery had no degradation (it often died months later). Now if a bogus battery is installed you get some kind of warning.

[lostmsu]

After reading this, I believe using permanent marker is a reasonable workaround, as long as he did not also claim the parts were original.

Especially if the whole thing is about internal parts.

[Brian_K_White]

It at the very least shows "good faith" as in, no one can claim they were trying to misrepresent something as a new Apple part or product, when they not only didn't create an unauthorized logo themselves, but even took an active measure to obscure a logo that already existed that Apple put there THEMselves.

[remexre]

article explains this later; sounds like the logos are from apple-mfred parts that end up in larger (overall refurb) parts. unless you were contradicting the article's saying so, in which case "yeah probably unideal, but the lower court said he wasn't advertising them as genuine apple anyway"

[nojito]

You still have to shutdown bringing of parts with Apple's logo across countries for obvious reasons.

[Brian_K_White]

You do not, for obvious reasons.

[harwoodleon]

Whether they have grounds or not, this is a PR disaster for Apple. Lots of people who love technology will see this as a monopoly move against a little guy by a huge company with more cash reserves than a small country.

Not surprised that the top comment on HN is a comment defending Apple either.

[jrochkind1]

if you repair an apple part, you should be required to, like, sand off the apple logos? this makes sense to you, really?

[messe]

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable judgement. It sounds like he was passing off non-apple parts as actual apple parts (by not properly removing the logo), which would fall under (at least) trademark law (in my layman opinion), if not fraud.

Disclaimer: I'm an Apple fan, and have previously interviewed there, but I am quite critical of many of their actions like the lockdown on iOS (although I am a huge fan of the mandatory sandboxing)

[rlpb]

> It sounds like he was passing off non-apple parts as actual apple parts (by not properly removing the logo)

From the article, it doesn't sound like that to me at all. It sounds like Apple deliberately put the logo on individual parts to try and make this claim later. But the logo on the part itself presumably isn't visible on the finished product. Even if it were, it would still not be passing off because the part did originally come from Apple!

[nojito]

>Even if it were, it would still not be passing off because the part did originally come from Apple!

This isn't true.