[gjsman-1000]

This actually really upset me when Apple first released their Self Service Repair program.

Apple said it was the exact same tools their repair technicians use, and offered all the tools for a $49 rental (which, honestly, probably doesn't even cover shipping for 77 lbs. of equipment). The Verge, iFixit, Ars Technica, and others claimed Apple deliberately designed and priced their repair program to make self-service repair not worth it, even if there wasn't the part serialization.

Which... what malarkey. Of course repairs are cheaper when you don't need to rent the toolkit every time and can reuse tools. According to Apple, the parts are the same cost the Apple Stores and their repair partners get, and according to congressional testimony this is not a profitable program, so what do you expect? Apple to sell parts publicly for cheaper than they get themselves? Do you want Apple to send you the repair tools for free and have cheaper parts? That's what they were saying - the parts should be cheaper and the tools should be less complicated even though that is what Apple literally uses. You think Apple repairs screens with guitar picks and are upset Apple doesn't ship those instead? It was really disappointing.

Imagine if Apple was a car company. They wanted the ability to repair their cars, so Apple agreed to loan them for $249 hundreds of pounds of equipment for repairing just about anything on their cars. Then imagine if people cried this made car repair too complicated by design. Right to Repair does not encompass right to simple, idiot-proof, no-tools repair.

[giobox]

The problem is the Verge's arguments do hold some water. Its not just a 49 dollar rental - its 49 dollars with a mandatory hold on a credit card of the full replacement value.

Many iPhone owners will not have a credit card (especially in Europe), let alone a credit card with a credit limit capable of holding thousands of dollars even if it's temporary. It's also a risk some people on lower incomes simply will not want to take. The tools Apple send are so over-engineered for the task at hand, the replacement value is enormous relative to the task.

> https://www.selfservicerepair.com/tool-kit-rental

When NYT tried, 49 dollar rental fee, 1210 dollar hold. 1210 dollar CC hold just to replace a battery is crazy when independent stores across the USA do it with third party tools costing a fraction of this just fine every day. Apple's right to repair efforts arguably verges on a parody of a right to repair at times - cellphones should not need a holding deposit significantly larger than renting a car for the same period of time to replace a $79 battery. If Apple's motivations are genuine, the full replacement hold could arguably become a lower insurance hold fee just like a car rental often does.

If you want to look to a company renting for 7 days expensive, heavy, complex technical equipment - I think lensrentals.com does a great job renting equipment costing tens of thousands of dollars and Apple's repair program could learn a lot.

> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/technology/personaltech/a....

> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/faq/

[GekkePrutser]

The underlying idea of the right to repair program is for companies to start designing their stuff with self-repair in mind. It's not only about making spare parts available. So that you don't need hundreds of dollars of equipment to open up your phone. Then the whole buying/rental thing is a non-issue because all you'll need is a Philips #0. Or torx even (I love torx because it doesn't skip and damage the screw head)

Fairphone for example does a great job showing us what what would look like.

But this is the criticism I have with Apple's program. Technically they comply here but not in spirit. It's clear to me they don't actually want this to happen. They didn't invent pentalobe because it looks cool like a little flower. But to keep people out.

Of course existing products can't be improved but upcoming products should take be easier to repair.

[gjsman-1000]

This is a different definition of Right to Repair entirely. iFixit and others fall into this definition, while people like Louis Rossmann believe R2R simply means Right to Repair, and not Right to a Repairable Design. This is another issue with R2R - some define it as just getting parts and tools; others as mandatory design guidelines and requirements.

Pay attention carefully and watch different videos about what R2R means. There's a significant schism in the R2R movement over whether R2R means repairable design or not. The most successful branch legislatively (New York, Rossmann, EU proposals) says that it does not include repairable design; and that Right to Repair only encompasses the right to have manuals and parts, not that the manufacturer has to make specific design choices (other than, like, USB-C but that's not repair-related).

Edit: Another issue that comes up is how granular is a "part". Louis Rossmann sees a part as being on the level of a specific microchip and is upset he can't order parts at that level of granularity. Apple, and other R2R activists, view a part as a much larger finished item, such as a PCB or a Battery (rather than, say, the specific resistor on the inside of a Battery). Legislators for R2R in EU currently are trying to define R2R as being "if the manufacturer sells a part, they must sell it to everyone," not "the manufacturer must individually sell all pieces of a product until they are no longer divisible" - but the Louis Rossmann crowd views as being insufficient R2R. So... another loose R2R schism.

[HPsquared]

It's a problem with politics in general: that of some slogan going around which gains traction among a wide range of people, but different people have different interpretations of what the slogan actually means. They support their chosen definition, not that of others.

In fact, I would propose this kind of ambiguous slogan has, as a memetic advantage over more well -defined ideas, precisely because of this "broad appeal" which is actually the broad appeal of a slogan, not a policy.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Legislators for R2R in EU currently are trying to define R2R as being "if the manufacturer sells a part, they must sell it to everyone," not "the manufacturer must individually sell all pieces of a product until they are no longer divisible" - but the Louis Rossmann crowd views as being insufficient R2R. So... another loose R2R schism.

Rossman appears to want the same as you say the EU want, the actual manufacturer to sell parts freely rather than being locked up by that manufacturer's downstream buyers (eg Apple) preventing repairers like Rossman from going to the chip factory to get the supplies to do repairs, in the same way that Apple go to the factory to get supplies when manufacturing boards, etc.

[wiseleo]

For everyone who says "it's too hard" to repair tiny parts, it's not. It requires special tools and surgical hand precision, but the tooling is affordable. You can outfit a lab for less than $1000 non-recurring cost. We should have schematics and boardviews available because they _are_ in effect the product repair manual. We should have ability to order individual chips. Limiting repair to field-replaceable units is IBM's business model.

When I don't have schematics and boardviews, I have to spend time generating them in my head.

[GekkePrutser]

> Pay attention carefully and watch different videos about what R2R means.

I don't do videos. If someone actually takes the time to write it down I'll read it :)

But for me right to repair simply doesn't work when the design itself is repair-hostile like Apple's.

[Terretta]

Please do not legislate to screw up my devices' durability and reliability so some wing nuts can, well, disassemble them with wing nuts.

I prefer indestructible and long lasting devices-as-tools. I want more appliances, fewer janky assemblies of parts more likely to fall apart or fail me when I need them most.

Put another way, the goal is not "easier to repair", the goal is net fewer devices requiring repair, net fewer repairs.

One of those is actually better for the environment than the other, and it's not the one that churns through parts for people who want to repair or tosses more devices in the trash for people who prefer to just buy a new one.

The thing that's good for the planet is devices that last. That's the goal.

TL;DR:

If you want to legislate something, legislate lifetime warranties.

[pbhjpbhj]

So, I've to iPhones, one with a broken camera and one with a donor camera (for whatever reason, battery problem, mainboard, whatever). I can swap the camera module, or take up a repair shop. But Some make sure the repaired device won't work fully even though all of the parts are Apple originals.

Tell me how Apple not doing that shit would make the slightest iota of difference to their ability to make devices that last?

How would them not attacking 3rd party repairers make a difference.

Why not mandated warranties and repairability?

[GekkePrutser]

> Please do not legislate to screw up my devices' durability and reliability so some wing nuts can, well, disassemble them with wing nuts.

But rugged devices are generally much more easily disassembled and often even have replaceable batteries. Like Xcovers. We use them in work and they can be easily taken apart with torx screws, battery replaced etc, all while being much more rugged than normal phones and waterproof.

The only reason I don't really use them is that Samsung keeps putting midrange CPUs and mediocre LCD screens in them. I really wish the S-active range was still around. The last one was the S8 active sadly.

But these things don't have to be mutually exclusive at all.

> The thing that's good for the planet is devices that last. That's the goal.

That's your goal. Not mine. Upgradability for example makes devices last longer. Having the user decide what is repairable instead of a company also.

> If you want to legislate something, legislate lifetime warranties.

Lifetime limited warranties is what this will turn out to be.

There's no point in a lifetime warranty if a supplier can simply refuse it because there's an unrelated scratch on the side so they can claim it to be user damage.

I don't think trusting corporations is ever the answer.

[Terretta]

> Having a user decide what is repairable instead of a company

Users do not know better.

As soon as you have aftermarket repairs, next thing you know, users are suing makers because some aftermarket nonsense burned a hole in their leg, or more recently, because their entire multi-family dwelling burned down.

It's been interesting how fast the same places passing laws giving right to repair pass jump to pass laws that you can't use repaired things so people don't die.

[mqus]

> As soon as you have aftermarket repairs, next thing you know, users are suing makers because some aftermarket nonsense burned a hole in their leg, or more recently, because their entire multi-family dwelling burned down.

Those poor companies. Give them a few wrongful lawsuits and they fall over. /s

If only it were so simple to bring companies down. I think the odds are heavily against something like this being a big issue. Companies have more money to prove you wrong and also pay better lawyers to present proof. Sure, there could be a few of such cases. But they probably happen anyways.

That said, you sure can "fix" your John Deere easier to increase the horsepower while also unlawfully increasing exhaust fumes. But this is an individual issue then, not the problem of the company (John Deere). Right to repair does make some things more tricky. But the payoff is worth it imho.

[labcomputer]

> Fairphone for example does a great job showing us what what would look like.

Which is to say that it makes a trade off of improved repairability by sacrificing water resistance and battery life compared to Apple’s phones. TANSTAAFL

[GekkePrutser]

Fairphone is only one example. There are many repairable designs that are waterproof.

For example Samsung's XCover series can be opened, have removable batteries and are waterproof. It's a matter of priorities, waterproofing just wasn't one for Fairphone.

I know XCover isn't meant to be repairable as such but it's obviously a lot more repairable than a glued up phone.

[dzhiurgis]

iPhone 13 lasted me this whole year without any major damage with 2 small children - multiple times in water, countless drops on tiles all without a case.

Would FairPhone would even remotely be so robust?