[qppo]

This may be controversial (or maybe not, this is HN and not reddit), but there's a question I've never seen answered.

I don't really care about how easy it is to repair my phone, or at least not as much as I care about using iOS. I knew if my iPhone were to break I'd have to take it to Apple, so I pay for Apple Care (like I pay for iCloud for my backups).

I don't feel like I've been swindled. I feel like I made the purchasing decisions that reflect my budget and concerns.

Similarly for laptops. I had a Macbook Pro that died from a burnt out reverse voltage protection diode (probably cost less than a penny). Apple quoted me the cost of the entire main board. My next laptop was not a Mac, it was a device that was easier to repair and upgrade because that reflected what I valued in a personal laptop.

Why should companies not be allowed to compete along this axis of features? Why do we need to kneecap one business model in favor of another, and limit engineers ability to make design decisions because that business model is not viable?

Surely the markets have spoken. Apple's customers don't care about having a right to repair. If they did, Apple would be selling machines that could be repaired by anyone.

[zakki]

Because there is other issues like e-waste. With repair we expect less e-waste. As you know Apple repair tends to replace the whole things instead of the broken part.

[ghostwriter]

Could you show numvers regarding difference in e-waste amounts with repairable parts and without them? Repair tooling and components generate waste too, including waste in logistics.

[def_true_false]

Taxing pollution is the ideal way to solve this.

[nojokes]

Thinkpad customers want a laptop with a 16:10 screen. Has Lenovo given it to them? No. Will they go and buy a Macbook with a 16:10 screen? No. So Lenovo can screw them ad infinitum.

[stale2002]

> Why should companies not be allowed to compete along this axis of features?

They can be allowed to compete in those features. That's fine. But people should also be allowed to do whatever they want with devices that they own.

Including getting it fixed by a 3rd party.

> Surely the markets have spoken

No, the market has not spoken. Because Apple will sue you if you try to do independent repairs, without going through them.

[ghostwriter]

> No, the market has not spoken. Because Apple will sue you if you try to do independent repairs, without going through them.

can't you just avoid Apple and buy phones that are easier to repair? That's how market works.

[stale2002]

> can't you just avoid Apple and buy phones that are easier to repair? That's how market works.

It is absolutely not a market if Apple is suing people for engaging in voluntary trade.

You can feel free to not support markets, if you don't like. It sounds to me like you do not support free markets.

But please do not pretend that it is a free market, when Apple is literally suing people, for engaging in voluntary trade regarding devices that they own.

[ghostwriter]

> But please do not pretend that it is a free market, when Apple is literally suing people, for engaging in voluntary trade regarding devices that they own.

In a free market, if a company acts inadequately, you stop any interaction with it, you stop providing service to its customers, and go to its competitor or create your own competing platform, and try to get as many customers with you as you can.

Please do not pretend that the market is Apple alone, and that you have no other choice but to demand the government to take an action against the company whose policies and actions you don't approve of, it's a very infantile position to hold and it hurts the free market that you seem to care about. Free market has never meant "expect a fair play from everyone", it means that there's enough economic clout and capital out there to drive unfair competitors out. And if you appeal to the government's monopoly on physical coercion, you are not acting as a proponet of free markets.

[stale2002]

> In a free market, if a company acts inadequately, you stop any interaction with it, you stop providing service to its customers

No, actually. Those customers should have the right to deal with whoever they want. That is how free markets work. They work by not having the government go after people.

> and go to its competitor or create your own competing platform

Or, instead of that, those customers, who own their own devices, should be allowed to do whatever they want with things that they own. That is a free market. Get government out of the way, and don't allow Apple's lawsuits against people.

> that you have no other choice but to demand the government to take an action

It is not me who wants the government to do something. Instead, that is Apple. Apple is the one who is using the government to engage in physical coercion against people.

I want Apple to not have the right to sue people. Government needs to get out of the way, and Apple needs to stop using to government to fight against free markets.

A free market would be the government ignoring Apple's lawsuits against other people.

> And if you appeal to the government's monopoly on physical coercion

Lets get rid of that government monopoly and coercion by removing Apple's ability to sue these people then!

I agree. Lets not use physical coercion. And the way that we do that, is to not allow Apple to use the government to go after people.

> Free market has never meant "expect a fair play from everyone"

I don't want fair play from Apple. Instead, I just want them to not have the ability to use physical coercion against others, by them using government backed forced against others, through their lawsuits.

> it hurts the free market that you seem to care about.

You are the one who is trying very hard to ignore the real physical coercion that Apple is using against others, through their government backed, and government supported lawsuits.

Lets get rid of that. All of the lawsuit and physical coercion that Apple is using against other people should be thrown out, and the lawsuits that Apple is using should be completely ignored by the government.

[ghostwriter]

> No, actually. Those customers should have the right to deal with whoever they want.

They shouldn't, a notion of rights does not include any material implementation of these rights for you by other people. If you disagree, then please make sure that I deal with Tesla and SpaceX on my terms next week, because I definitely want it.

If you find that Apple acts as an abuser in an abusive relationship, you just cut all ties with the abuser. I've never heard of anyone suggesting a victim that "they should have a right to continue living with that person" or that "there's a right to coerce the abuser into the comfortable co-living with the victim".

Again, free market doesn't imply absence of unfair practices. It implies that there's no force that is able to chain you to the abuser.

[notwhereyouare]

So, I’m feeling the swindled part just a little bit. I had an iPhone 8+. Had a charging issue, apple care replaced it free of charge.

The refurbish iPhone I got, lasted ~100 days before the screen broke. Had to get a new phone. Now maybe I could have gotten apple care on that refurbished phone, but it was new and I didn’t expect to have issues like that

[sushicat]

I think now you can buy Apple Care if inside one year of purchase. https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/17/apple-expanding-60-day-applec...

[CogitoCogito]

> Why do we need to kneecap one business model in favor of another, and limit engineers ability to make design decisions because that business model is not viable?

That is what _every_ business-related regulation is designed to do so the general rhetorical question is a bit odd. As to why, well honestly there are many reasons. User control, business competition, e-waste, etc. Look into the reasoning behind similar sorts of regulations involving cars in the US for the last couple generations.

You may not agree with the reasoning, but acting like this sort of regulation is somehow odd doesn't make much sense. There's enormous precedence and lots of reasoning behind it.

[sushicat]

I agree you with this one, it's not one way is better than the other. Personally I care about the design or portability much more than the repairability; I'm totally fine with them swap the whole logic board to repair one tiny chip, or even give me a new one instead; this "reflect my budget and concerns".

The "right to repair" act seems will hurt consumers like me, which prefer a slimmer design than if it's repairable or not. How much repair does it want to push? Repair individual CPU cores?

The free market lets companies make stuff for their targeted consumer groups, which is great. Everyone has a choice, based on individual "budget and concerns".

[ben-schaaf]

Right to repair isn't about forcing companies to develop repairable devices. It's about removing the monopoly companies like Apple and John Deere have on their repair business.

Almost any device is repairable, Apple repairs devices themselves. When Apple does component level board repair, they do so with schematics and manuals they don't publish and parts you can't buy.

A free market would allow competing with Apple's repair business.