[commoner]

iFixit's business incentives are more aligned with the interests of consumers than the incentives of manufacturers like Apple who obstruct the repair of the devices they sell. The negligible security difference that Apple is using as an excuse to enforce high repair charges plays a minimal role in an informed user's decision to use a third-party part.

[dpkonofa]

>interests of consumers

Clearly this isn't the case. It seems that the majority of consumers prefer the higher security posture of the iPhone as opposed to the low repairability. You claim it's a negligible security difference yet government organizations and enterprise customers choose iPhones a majority of the time for exactly the security posture used by the iPhone.

[commoner]

Someone who purchases an iPhone does not automatically endorse every single aspect of the iPhone. Many people choose iPhones because they are fashionable, and not for any security consideration.

Governments and enterprises contract with original equipment manufacturers for repairs because it is more convenient at that scale. Most phone users are not government or enterprise users, and have lower budgets. The cost difference between an Apple repair and a third-party repair is negligible for an enterprise, but much more significant for the average user.

[zepto]

A lot of people who have iPhones indeed have lower budgets. They got their phones as hand-me-downs or secondhand.

This is only possible because of the durability of iPhones.

It is in apple’s interests to extend the life of iPhones and not to make money on repairs, because it translates into more users for their services.

[commoner]

Apple also intends to make money on repairs, which is why they are charging a higher markup for parts and labor compared to independent repair shops, and implementing anti-competitive restrictions to make it more difficult for third parties to repair Apple products when they break. Many phones from other manufacturers are also bought secondhand, just check eBay for examples.

[simondotau]

Or maybe the only way independent companies can undercut Apple is to use sub-standard replacement parts, such as screen glass which isn’t toughened. In my experience this is very common. And it means that people who are prone to breaking their screen get replacement after replacement after replacement — ultimately costing them more.

This exact scenario has happened to two close friends and I’ve heard of it occurring with other people. Replacement screens break easily and the cost of the first and second repairs is more than one repair by Apple.

[commoner]

Many independent repair shops use high-quality parts, and consumers can check reviews or rely on past experiences to determine the quality of the repair before choosing a shop that works for them. Risk-averse consumers who are able to afford the higher upcharge can still choose to go to Apple for repairs if they want to. Obstructing independent repair options does a disservice to the consumers who prefer them.

[echelon]

Two observations.

1) The market has a wide range of solutions at various prices for consumers. You wouldn't prevent people from buying a cheap Kia or Ford because it'll cost them more in the long run, would you? Must they buy a BMW? And then only source their parts from the original manufacturer in licensed dealerships?

2) If Apple cared about quality so much, why do their cables fray so easily? I've had to replace all of my charging cables, even on my recent M1 Mac.

In any case, your anecdotes are not the whole marketplace. A world where we can buy only Apple is a nightmare hellscape. Pray that doesn't happen.

[dpkonofa]

This is not true. Apple doesn't make a profit off of repair services.

[dpkonofa]

>Someone who purchases an iPhone does not automatically endorse every single aspect of the iPhone.

While this is true, it does point out that that's not an important enough factor for them to not buy the phone, though. All these claims that this is in the interest of consumers is meaningless when people aren't buying the other phones but are buying iPhones. It seems Apple is nailing the "interests of consumers" pretty well, if that's the case.

[Bud]

This would be more convincing if you were not, you know, just making it up out of whole cloth in a completely lazy and unsupported way.

"Negligible security difference"? "Excuse"? Come back when you have a real argument that isn't just obvious spewing of biases.

[zepto]

> iFixit's business incentives are more aligned with the interests of consumers

A device that breaks and needs repair is the last thing consumers want.

The best thing for consumers would be for ifixit’s business to become irrelevant.

[commoner]

Until phones and other electronics become indestructible, iFixit and independent repair shops continue to serve a consumer need by offering more cost-effective repair options than Apple and other manufacturers do.

[zepto]

Sure - but of course ifixit profits from devices that break easily, whereas Apple benefits from making devices more and more indestructible, which is why they keep working on that.