[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.

[heretoo]

> Security has drawbacks.

Not really an argument for saying an implementation isn't possible.

[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.

[em-bee]

well, it depends on how that protection is implemented. sure, if the government is blocking certain deals then it better be sure that those are actually a bad deals. i agree with you on the downside of that

but the government doesn't need to know that something is a bad deal if instead it provides for ways to revert the deal once it's discovered to be bad.

for example in the EU any online purchase can be reverted within 14 days without requiring any explanation, because it is assumed that bad deals may not become aparent until after the purchase.