I wonder if Apple sees the writing on the wall with this, OR if there's some way they're still going to make it hard for people to fix their shit. I've not read the text of the law, but I'm hoping...
I wonder if Apple sees the writing on the wall with this, OR if there's some way they're still going to make it hard for people to fix their shit. I've not read the text of the law, but I'm hoping it includes things about using glue when it's not really necessary, or otherwise making it hard to open just for the sake of making it hard to open.
I imagine it's so they can't be labelled as the bad guy and have market share lost to people protesting the brand. They've already lost, so why not sign on and save face at this point. It's the...
I imagine it's so they can't be labelled as the bad guy and have market share lost to people protesting the brand. They've already lost, so why not sign on and save face at this point. It's the most marketable choice.
It will accomplish allowing senators and congressmen to point to apple and say "see we support this because apple is supporting it and we got them to so we're good at our job. So we can now ignore...
It will accomplish allowing senators and congressmen to point to apple and say "see we support this because apple is supporting it and we got them to so we're good at our job. So we can now ignore this issue and move on, great!".
This is what they already did with the apple repair stuff, as a way to gut the movement. Claim they meet the standard, but the standard just so happens to be extremely limiting in their favor still.
From the little I've read about this law, its requirements are basically what Apple has done already. The gist is: Companies have to provide components and tools to individuals and third party...
From the little I've read about this law, its requirements are basically what Apple has done already.
The gist is:
Companies have to provide components and tools to individuals and third party repair shops
Repair shops must divulge the source of their components (aftermarket, used or original)
Components that are part of any existing anti-theft system (like Face ID) are exempt from these rules.
For products sold for over $100, companies must make the components, tools and documentation available for at least 7 years.
Exactly, Apple got their ducks in a row and stopped holding back and started pushing it forward. I'm pretty sure they know that some of their competitors can't match the RTR legislation as it is...
Exactly, Apple got their ducks in a row and stopped holding back and started pushing it forward.
I'm pretty sure they know that some of their competitors can't match the RTR legislation as it is written and will need to hustle or pay fines.
That last bullet explains it, in my opinion. It raises the barrier to entry and maintains the status quo. Keeping components and tools available for 7 years? That's kind of a tall order for a lot...
That last bullet explains it, in my opinion.
It raises the barrier to entry and maintains the status quo. Keeping components and tools available for 7 years? That's kind of a tall order for a lot of companies, I would think. Particularly for startups, companies making budget phones, companies making handheld gaming devices (retro handhelds come to mind), etc.
I also think Apple will just profit off the parts. Perhaps they realize they can make a killing selling cheap components for way above cost?
I'm in favor of this legislation, mainly for environmental reasons. But like a lot of environmentally-friendly practices, the high cost and high barrier to entry means we are putting our necks further into the jaws of massive corporations who can afford to meet these requirements.
Apple also isn’t too far from filling that requirement already with how long they sell models using old parts. Just look at how long they manufactured the home-button-design shell of the iPhone SE...
It raises the barrier to entry and maintains the status quo. Keeping components and tools available for 7 years? That's kind of a tall order for a lot of companies, I would think.
Apple also isn’t too far from filling that requirement already with how long they sell models using old parts. Just look at how long they manufactured the home-button-design shell of the iPhone SE or how long the enclosure of the MacBook Air went unchanged. They don’t restyle their products anywhere nearly as often as many competitors do.
They used to do the opposite. My 2008 Core 2 Duo MacBook had a battery that was removable with only a coin, and you could get at the ram and hard drive by removing 1-2 screws and taking a small...
They used to do the opposite. My 2008 Core 2 Duo MacBook had a battery that was removable with only a coin, and you could get at the ram and hard drive by removing 1-2 screws and taking a small cover off; they were considered user-serviceable by Apple.
In the EU one there's a loophole if your device falls into a small set of certain high-spec water/dust-tight designs. I bet I could guess what the next iPhone will be. 😅
In the EU one there's a loophole if your device falls into a small set of certain high-spec water/dust-tight designs. I bet I could guess what the next iPhone will be. 😅
iPhones have been IP67 compliant since the iPhone 7, if memory serves. It was one of those features they implemented so they could advertise new features on an otherwise stagnant design.
iPhones have been IP67 compliant since the iPhone 7, if memory serves. It was one of those features they implemented so they could advertise new features on an otherwise stagnant design.
I think they saw the writing on the wall and fought it long enough to put themselves in a position where they are ahead of everyone else. We started seeing this with how the internals of last...
I think they saw the writing on the wall and fought it long enough to put themselves in a position where they are ahead of everyone else. We started seeing this with how the internals of last year's iPhones were redesigned. It will be interesting to see teardowns of this years products.
Apple was already in a slightly better position than their competitors since they always designed their phones to be repaired in Apple stores. Now they are positioning themselves as being RTR-compliant while companies like Samsung have a bit more catching up to do.
Don't forget folks, Apple is based in the US and would only endorse this law if they thought they could make more profit this way. Is Apple getting profit bad? No, but you have to be aware that...
Don't forget folks, Apple is based in the US and would only endorse this law if they thought they could make more profit this way.
Is Apple getting profit bad? No, but you have to be aware that it's their prime motivator.
Keep an eye out for some new program related to device repair, recycling, refurbishment, or the like. Decide if the value that program offers you the consumer actually justifies whatever cost is associated with it.
Be especially cautious if it isn't immediately clear how they profit from such a program. Because have no doubt that they will.
I don't think this is directly about profit, I think this is about PR and optics. @Eji1700 says "They’ll say 'see we supported it' while undercutting every step of the way." and I think that's the...
I don't think this is directly about profit, I think this is about PR and optics.
@Eji1700 says "They’ll say 'see we supported it' while undercutting every step of the way." and I think that's the most likely rationale behind this.
This could also be a shift in strategy. If Apple believes that right to repair sentiment is increasing significantly and that their reputation is getting increasingly worse, then they may believe they need to change to survive. Look at Apple's competition; they aren't that much worse than many of the other companies, they're just the trendsetter in anti-consumer practices. It wouldn't take much for Apple to become NOT the biggest ass-hole in the industry and come out the other end of this viewed as a hero.
Agreed, and that would benefit them in more market share, leading to more profit. Like I said, it could end up leading to a better end user experience, reduced waste, etc. But unless it helps...
It wouldn't take much for Apple to become NOT the biggest ass-hole in the industry and come out the other end of this viewed as a hero.
Agreed, and that would benefit them in more market share, leading to more profit.
Like I said, it could end up leading to a better end user experience, reduced waste, etc. But unless it helps their bottom line, they wouldnt support it.
That's why government regulation when there is a failure in the free market is a good thing. It forces companies to make better decisions for the consumer so that they can continue to exist and make profit.
Regulation can change the incentive structure for a company so that exploiting the consumer is less attractive, under threat of lawsuits, fines and being shutdown.
You mean the self service repair program they started last year? I guess I’m of two minds about self-repair. On the one hand, I’m not against it. On the other, there are some types of consumer...
Keep an eye out for some new program related to device repair, recycling, refurbishment, or the like.
I guess I’m of two minds about self-repair. On the one hand, I’m not against it. On the other, there are some types of consumer goods that I think most people just aren’t going to be equipped to self service. Should the vast minority of enthusiasts really get to dictate how companies design their products? I’d much rather the trade offs favor making the devices durable enough that they require less servicing overall. If Framework (or similar) brings a smartphone to market, I’m all for that. I just don’t think the market for that kind of thing is really as big as the vocal minority makes it out to be. I also think such devices would be more expensive, at scale, to manufacture.
I think that's sort of a misrepresentation of what the entire right to repair movement is about. No one is suggesting that anything be designed in a way that literally anyone to repair. The point...
I think that's sort of a misrepresentation of what the entire right to repair movement is about. No one is suggesting that anything be designed in a way that literally anyone to repair. The point is to prevent companies from specifically designing things in a way to make third party repairs impossible. Or to engage in business practices that make repairs impossible.
If the screen on my phone is cracked or some other components fails and I have the technical expertise to change it, I should be able to do that. Apple was trying to prevent that by locking specific components together in their software. So even if I bought the exact same model iPhone and took the same exact model screen out of it, the broken iPhone would see that the screen wasn't the one the phone was shipped with and would alter it's function. There is no reason for that other than to force customers to use apple for their repairs, and it should be illegal.
Similarly, if my washing machine breaks because one small sensor has failed, I should be able to buy a replacement sensor and fix it. It should be illegal for the washing machine manufacturer to prevent the manufacturer of the sensor from selling to me.
The "reason" is that Apple devices ship with factory calibrated displays, and that calibration data is stored on the iPhone itself. Features like True Tone only work with a calibrated display. Of...
So even if I bought the exact same model iPhone and took the same exact model screen out of it, the broken iPhone would see that the screen wasn't the one the phone was shipped with and would alter it's function. There is no reason for that other than to force customers to use apple for their repairs, and it should be illegal.
The "reason" is that Apple devices ship with factory calibrated displays, and that calibration data is stored on the iPhone itself. Features like True Tone only work with a calibrated display. Of course, Apple was happy to just let this continue being a problem, rather than find a way to store that calibration data on the display assembly or let users calibrate it themselves.
On possible easy solution could be to use another iPhone as a colorimeter to perform this calibration on a new display. We know this is reasonably possible, because the Apple TV has a feature where it will color correct your TV using the Face ID sensor on your iPhone.
Framework is the extreme on the other end of the spectrum, and probably not a realistic target for every manufacturer. But I think there is clear room for Apple to improve the repairability of...
Framework is the extreme on the other end of the spectrum, and probably not a realistic target for every manufacturer.
But I think there is clear room for Apple to improve the repairability of their devices without sacrificing size or features. We already saw this last year with the redesigned internals of the iPhone 14, which is easier to repair than the 12 or 13.
The big thing about RTR though isn't so much about ease of cracking open a device, it's about requiring manufacturers to provide spare parts and documentation to users and third party repair shops, and not using software trickery to banish users from doing any of their own repair work like John Deere does.
The skeptic in me wonders if this is another case of what happened in New York with the Right to Repair bill that "passed" last year. Right before it was signed, some amendments were included that...
The skeptic in me wonders if this is another case of what happened in New York with the Right to Repair bill that "passed" last year. Right before it was signed, some amendments were included that largely defanged the bill.
Two parts of their statement stand out to me. First is "to enable the repairs performed by authorised repair channels", which indicates they don't really want to make parts available to the...
Two parts of their statement stand out to me.
First is "to enable the repairs performed by authorised repair channels", which indicates they don't really want to make parts available to the average joe, and likely also hampers independent repair shops who don't want to participate in (pay for) a manufacturer programme.
Second is "repair providers disclose the use on non-genuine or used parts" which indicates they may try to continue the serialisation of parts to force the repairer to buy replacement new parts, rather than being able to swap in known-working used or non-oem bits.
Taken together, it sounds like they want you to buy new replacement parts only from them, to only repair the bits they allow you to repair, as long as you sign an authorised repair contract with them. Which doesn't seem that different to their existing authorised repair programme?
Overall I think there is some progress, but I don't think Apple is switching to be pro-RtR yet. Maybe I'm just skeptical based on their past actions, but I hope I'm wrong.
I interpreted this differently: Apple changes batteries and displays at their authorized repair centers, so they will be required to provide equipment and parts for third-parties to do battery and...
to enable the repairs performed by authorised repair channels
I interpreted this differently: Apple changes batteries and displays at their authorized repair centers, so they will be required to provide equipment and parts for third-parties to do battery and display replacements. Apple does not do component-level repairs like unsoldering and resoldering ICs, so they will not required to provide third parties with spare ICs.
repair providers disclose the use on non-genuine or used parts
This is a vital consumer protection. At the moment, when I go to a repair shop, I have no idea if new OEM components will be used or not. The repair shop doesn't know either, since without this law, they've had to source their parts from grey-market channels.
If manufacturers are required to provide OEM parts, then repair shops would know the source of their parts and it is only logical to require them provide information needed for consumers to make informed decisions.
Well said. I wouldn’t use a third party shop for repairs unless I absolutely had to for this reason. If the parts they use are gray market, they could be OEM rejects, non-OEM substitutes with poor...
This is a vital consumer protection. At the moment, when I go to a repair shop, I have no idea if new OEM components will be used or not. The repair shop doesn't know either, since without this law, they've had to source their parts from grey-market channels.
Well said. I wouldn’t use a third party shop for repairs unless I absolutely had to for this reason. If the parts they use are gray market, they could be OEM rejects, non-OEM substitutes with poor quality/QC, or sourced from stolen phones that were parted out to circumvent activation lock. There’s no way of knowing, and the former of those two impact the performance of my device and the latter helps perpetuate theft rings, neither of which I want.
From watching repair channels like Louis Rossmann, it's seems to me that individual SMD and IC repair is one of the reasons why independent repair can be cheaper and produce less e-waste. Just...
From watching repair channels like Louis Rossmann, it's seems to me that individual SMD and IC repair is one of the reasons why independent repair can be cheaper and produce less e-waste. Just because it doesn't make economic sense for Apple doesn't make it uneconomical for everyone.
If you (or a repair shop) can only repair the bits Apple allows you to repair, do you really own it? In my opinion, a RtR company should give you the ability to change many parts.
You're absolutely right that being able to use non-oem parts opens up users to being swindled, and people should be informed. But that doesn't mean non-oem parts are never appropriate - what happens when oems stop making parts? Or you think it's an acceptable trade-off to fix something cheaply? Or if non-oem parts are an upgrade (you can buy upgraded Game Boy screens, for example)?
Furthermore, shouldn't this be something the free market actually can solve? Dodgy repair places will get found out and people won't go there, meanwhile good shops will get good reviews and be profitable.
I reckon this is some crazy reverse psychology play. Now many will believe that the bill will hurt competition and consumers and vote it down, leaving apple unregulated.
I reckon this is some crazy reverse psychology play. Now many will believe that the bill will hurt competition and consumers and vote it down, leaving apple unregulated.
Or Apple has their right to repair stuff done for the next generation (which this law will affect, I'm guessing it's not retroactive) and they're banking on their competition not being up to date.
Or Apple has their right to repair stuff done for the next generation (which this law will affect, I'm guessing it's not retroactive) and they're banking on their competition not being up to date.
What I notice: So they might just stop "selling" it, and only rent/license it to consumers.
What I notice:
Apple says it will support the bill as passed
pass the bill as currently drafted
to make available [...] service and repair facilities [...] to product owners
So they might just stop "selling" it, and only rent/license it to consumers.
I know being cynical is cheap and fun but this sort of theorising is just noise unless you back it up with some evidence, or argumentation at least. All it serves is getting people worked up and...
I know being cynical is cheap and fun but this sort of theorising is just noise unless you back it up with some evidence, or argumentation at least. All it serves is getting people worked up and angry at something that doesn’t exist.
Just a kind reminder that this isn’t Reddit and we should all try to be better.
Nah, Apple most likely has the iPhone 15 made so that it can be repaired so that it matches California and EU repair laws. They're banking on the fact that their competition's models aren't...
Nah, Apple most likely has the iPhone 15 made so that it can be repaired so that it matches California and EU repair laws.
They're banking on the fact that their competition's models aren't repairable (Like the Samsung foldables, good luck opening those at home without highly specialised equipment)
Tim Cook is a fucking moron. There, I said it. I get it. He's piggybacking off of the reputation of a deceased tech visionary who left Microsoft in the early days, founded Apple, got ousted from...
Tim Cook is a fucking moron. There, I said it.
I get it. He's piggybacking off of the reputation of a deceased tech visionary who left Microsoft in the early days, founded Apple, got ousted from Apple, came back to Apple after the corporate suits who took over damn-near sank the company, and brought them into the forefront of big tech.
We used to mock some of Steve Jobs' ideas, like the iPad, which we initially wrote off as an oversized iPhone, even to the point where Dom Joly brought out one of his old sketches from Trigger Happy TV to lampoon it. Look at the tablet market now...
For all the crap we gave Steve Jobs, he wasn't stupid enough to alienate the professionals and the developers who frequently bought Apple products. He knew how important it was to make a machine upgradeable and not solder and glue everything down, nor lock everybody in an ecosystem where they had zero choice but to upgrade every 2.5 to 3 years.
I certainly have the utmost respect for Jobs, but not Cook. He's not an innovator. He's a salesman who cannot innovate for shit.
Like... I have a friend who is a massive Apple fanboy and even he's been disillusioned with some of the new tech Apple brought out. I went to the pub with him to watch the Apple keynote where they unveiled the iPhone 14 Pro, and it was the first one where they revealed a decent camera above 13MP. My OnePlus 10 Pro which I bought a year prior literally has a 50MP camera courtesy of Hasselblad.
More recently, he complained to me about the experience he had with the beta program he normally signs up for to test the new iOS updates early. This year's one has been particularly buggy-as-shit.
I don’t know if any of that makes Cook a moron. Even if Jobs was such a visionary that he single handedly pushed Apple this far, I hiiiighly doubt this is true: Apple has always been super closed...
I don’t know if any of that makes Cook a moron.
Even if Jobs was such a visionary that he single handedly pushed Apple this far, I hiiiighly doubt this is true:
[Jobs] knew how important it was to make a machine upgradeable and not solder and glue everything down
Apple has always been super closed hardware. Apple has always alienated developers.
What you’re seeing I think isn’t the Jobs to Cook transition but the transition from Apple fighting to get to first place, to Apple BEING in first place.
The difference is... Jobs climbed to the top through innovation. He sold new Apple products through heavy hardware iterations that a mere component upgrade wouldn't be able to justify. When he...
The difference is... Jobs climbed to the top through innovation. He sold new Apple products through heavy hardware iterations that a mere component upgrade wouldn't be able to justify. When he didn't have anything better, he switched to an entirely different architecture for the benefit of all consumers, i.e. the switch from PowerPC to Intel.
Despite the iPod, iPhone and early iPad not being customisable, I don't recall Jobs doing things like soldering down every single MacBook or iMac component and doing other things to alienate the core base of design professionals who used Apple products because he understood how important they were to the Apple ecosystem. Computers are an investment, not a commodity to be shitcanned every 30 months.
Apple has programs like Final Cut Pro and arguably the best version of software like Photoshop. When they make the Mac less appealing for designers, what's stopping a designer or programmer from switching to Windows or Linux?
I grew up on Apple products (starting with the Mac Plus when I was a toddler) and I used to be completely loyal to the company, but my good will seeped away when it seemed they stopped being loyal...
I grew up on Apple products (starting with the Mac Plus when I was a toddler) and I used to be completely loyal to the company, but my good will seeped away when it seemed they stopped being loyal to customers like me. I think (from a consumer perspective) Apple peaked around the time that Steve Jobs started getting seriously ill. For example, they used to place a high priority on an interface design that was simultaneously intuitive for beginners and flexible for power users. Likewise, they used to offer more affordable hardware options for students and more workhorsey hardware options for professionals, and plenty in between. But as time wore on, Apple products seemed to focus more and more exclusively on wealthy casual users; they simultaneously became less accessible for newcomers/students and less suitable for doing work.
I finally got fed up and built my own computer around 2013 so that I could get the hardware I needed for a reasonable price, and so I (reluctantly) started using Windows 7. This brought me a complex mixture of strong emotions. On the one hand, I was pleasantly surprised by how much nicer the experience was than I was expecting (my previous Windows experience having been sporadic encounters with XP). On the other hand, there were a lot of things that irritated me about Windows (e.g., the difficulty in typing special characters that I used a lot, the disorganized settings, the messy installation process for third party programs, etc.).
But then I realized that the issues with Windows came primarily from older design decisions that had been grandfathered in; likewise, the better features in OS X were older designs that had been grandfathered in. When I looked at more recent changes to these operating systems, it was clear that OS X was on a downward trajectory and Windows was on an upward trajectory. (Mind you, I no longer think this pattern holds for Windows, especially with Windows 11. But at that point in time, the future looked bright for Windows.)
After I built my PC, I still used my 2011 Macbook Pro for less taxing tasks, like browsing the internet and organizing my images. But I did find myself using it less and less over time, especially with updates to OS X that made it less intuitive and powerful. I was particularly heartbroken when they scrapped iPhoto; at that point, my laptop became just a Netflix-in-bed machine. And then some minor component on the laptop failed, and since it was soldered to the motherboard, that was that. (Meanwhile, I still use the PC I built to this day. I am typing this comment on it right now. I just replace individual components as needed, and I have no plans to acquire a new desktop computer ever again.)
I used an iPhone for a few years, but when I couldn't get one that fit in my pocket anymore, I switched to Android.
I do still use an iPad and love it. It's one of the few products Apple still makes that I firmly stand behind. It's no replacement for a real computer, but it's a great replacement for both a Cintiq and a lightweight casual-use laptop; honestly, I think it exceeds them both. But I no longer feel any brand loyalty toward Apple, and I will absolutely drop them the minute that the iPad stops being the best product for my use case, whether that happens because Apple ruins it or because another company surpasses it.
I wonder if Apple sees the writing on the wall with this, OR if there's some way they're still going to make it hard for people to fix their shit. I've not read the text of the law, but I'm hoping it includes things about using glue when it's not really necessary, or otherwise making it hard to open just for the sake of making it hard to open.
It’s pointless signaling. They’ll say “see we supported it” while undercutting every step of the way. It’s not a win until it affects production
I imagine it's so they can't be labelled as the bad guy and have market share lost to people protesting the brand. They've already lost, so why not sign on and save face at this point. It's the most marketable choice.
It will accomplish allowing senators and congressmen to point to apple and say "see we support this because apple is supporting it and we got them to so we're good at our job. So we can now ignore this issue and move on, great!".
This is what they already did with the apple repair stuff, as a way to gut the movement. Claim they meet the standard, but the standard just so happens to be extremely limiting in their favor still.
From the little I've read about this law, its requirements are basically what Apple has done already.
The gist is:
Companies have to provide components and tools to individuals and third party repair shops
Repair shops must divulge the source of their components (aftermarket, used or original)
Components that are part of any existing anti-theft system (like Face ID) are exempt from these rules.
For products sold for over $100, companies must make the components, tools and documentation available for at least 7 years.
Exactly, Apple got their ducks in a row and stopped holding back and started pushing it forward.
I'm pretty sure they know that some of their competitors can't match the RTR legislation as it is written and will need to hustle or pay fines.
That last bullet explains it, in my opinion.
It raises the barrier to entry and maintains the status quo. Keeping components and tools available for 7 years? That's kind of a tall order for a lot of companies, I would think. Particularly for startups, companies making budget phones, companies making handheld gaming devices (retro handhelds come to mind), etc.
I also think Apple will just profit off the parts. Perhaps they realize they can make a killing selling cheap components for way above cost?
I'm in favor of this legislation, mainly for environmental reasons. But like a lot of environmentally-friendly practices, the high cost and high barrier to entry means we are putting our necks further into the jaws of massive corporations who can afford to meet these requirements.
Apple also isn’t too far from filling that requirement already with how long they sell models using old parts. Just look at how long they manufactured the home-button-design shell of the iPhone SE or how long the enclosure of the MacBook Air went unchanged. They don’t restyle their products anywhere nearly as often as many competitors do.
They used to do the opposite. My 2008 Core 2 Duo MacBook had a battery that was removable with only a coin, and you could get at the ram and hard drive by removing 1-2 screws and taking a small cover off; they were considered user-serviceable by Apple.
In the EU one there's a loophole if your device falls into a small set of certain high-spec water/dust-tight designs. I bet I could guess what the next iPhone will be. 😅
iPhones have been IP67 compliant since the iPhone 7, if memory serves. It was one of those features they implemented so they could advertise new features on an otherwise stagnant design.
I think they saw the writing on the wall and fought it long enough to put themselves in a position where they are ahead of everyone else. We started seeing this with how the internals of last year's iPhones were redesigned. It will be interesting to see teardowns of this years products.
Apple was already in a slightly better position than their competitors since they always designed their phones to be repaired in Apple stores. Now they are positioning themselves as being RTR-compliant while companies like Samsung have a bit more catching up to do.
Don't forget folks, Apple is based in the US and would only endorse this law if they thought they could make more profit this way.
Is Apple getting profit bad? No, but you have to be aware that it's their prime motivator.
Keep an eye out for some new program related to device repair, recycling, refurbishment, or the like. Decide if the value that program offers you the consumer actually justifies whatever cost is associated with it.
Be especially cautious if it isn't immediately clear how they profit from such a program. Because have no doubt that they will.
I don't think this is directly about profit, I think this is about PR and optics.
@Eji1700 says "They’ll say 'see we supported it' while undercutting every step of the way." and I think that's the most likely rationale behind this.
This could also be a shift in strategy. If Apple believes that right to repair sentiment is increasing significantly and that their reputation is getting increasingly worse, then they may believe they need to change to survive. Look at Apple's competition; they aren't that much worse than many of the other companies, they're just the trendsetter in anti-consumer practices. It wouldn't take much for Apple to become NOT the biggest ass-hole in the industry and come out the other end of this viewed as a hero.
Agreed, and that would benefit them in more market share, leading to more profit.
Like I said, it could end up leading to a better end user experience, reduced waste, etc. But unless it helps their bottom line, they wouldnt support it.
That's why government regulation when there is a failure in the free market is a good thing. It forces companies to make better decisions for the consumer so that they can continue to exist and make profit.
Regulation can change the incentive structure for a company so that exploiting the consumer is less attractive, under threat of lawsuits, fines and being shutdown.
You mean the self service repair program they started last year?
I guess I’m of two minds about self-repair. On the one hand, I’m not against it. On the other, there are some types of consumer goods that I think most people just aren’t going to be equipped to self service. Should the vast minority of enthusiasts really get to dictate how companies design their products? I’d much rather the trade offs favor making the devices durable enough that they require less servicing overall. If Framework (or similar) brings a smartphone to market, I’m all for that. I just don’t think the market for that kind of thing is really as big as the vocal minority makes it out to be. I also think such devices would be more expensive, at scale, to manufacture.
I think that's sort of a misrepresentation of what the entire right to repair movement is about. No one is suggesting that anything be designed in a way that literally anyone to repair. The point is to prevent companies from specifically designing things in a way to make third party repairs impossible. Or to engage in business practices that make repairs impossible.
If the screen on my phone is cracked or some other components fails and I have the technical expertise to change it, I should be able to do that. Apple was trying to prevent that by locking specific components together in their software. So even if I bought the exact same model iPhone and took the same exact model screen out of it, the broken iPhone would see that the screen wasn't the one the phone was shipped with and would alter it's function. There is no reason for that other than to force customers to use apple for their repairs, and it should be illegal.
Similarly, if my washing machine breaks because one small sensor has failed, I should be able to buy a replacement sensor and fix it. It should be illegal for the washing machine manufacturer to prevent the manufacturer of the sensor from selling to me.
The "reason" is that Apple devices ship with factory calibrated displays, and that calibration data is stored on the iPhone itself. Features like True Tone only work with a calibrated display. Of course, Apple was happy to just let this continue being a problem, rather than find a way to store that calibration data on the display assembly or let users calibrate it themselves.
On possible easy solution could be to use another iPhone as a colorimeter to perform this calibration on a new display. We know this is reasonably possible, because the Apple TV has a feature where it will color correct your TV using the Face ID sensor on your iPhone.
Framework is the extreme on the other end of the spectrum, and probably not a realistic target for every manufacturer.
But I think there is clear room for Apple to improve the repairability of their devices without sacrificing size or features. We already saw this last year with the redesigned internals of the iPhone 14, which is easier to repair than the 12 or 13.
The big thing about RTR though isn't so much about ease of cracking open a device, it's about requiring manufacturers to provide spare parts and documentation to users and third party repair shops, and not using software trickery to banish users from doing any of their own repair work like John Deere does.
The skeptic in me wonders if this is another case of what happened in New York with the Right to Repair bill that "passed" last year. Right before it was signed, some amendments were included that largely defanged the bill.
See Louis Rossman (YouTuber who helped bring this bill to life) discuss how it was killed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xGBB-717AI
I wonder if something is similar here is happening that makes Apple feel comfortable supporting this.
edit: kileed -> killed
Two parts of their statement stand out to me.
First is "to enable the repairs performed by authorised repair channels", which indicates they don't really want to make parts available to the average joe, and likely also hampers independent repair shops who don't want to participate in (pay for) a manufacturer programme.
Second is "repair providers disclose the use on non-genuine or used parts" which indicates they may try to continue the serialisation of parts to force the repairer to buy replacement new parts, rather than being able to swap in known-working used or non-oem bits.
Taken together, it sounds like they want you to buy new replacement parts only from them, to only repair the bits they allow you to repair, as long as you sign an authorised repair contract with them. Which doesn't seem that different to their existing authorised repair programme?
Overall I think there is some progress, but I don't think Apple is switching to be pro-RtR yet. Maybe I'm just skeptical based on their past actions, but I hope I'm wrong.
I interpreted this differently: Apple changes batteries and displays at their authorized repair centers, so they will be required to provide equipment and parts for third-parties to do battery and display replacements. Apple does not do component-level repairs like unsoldering and resoldering ICs, so they will not required to provide third parties with spare ICs.
This is a vital consumer protection. At the moment, when I go to a repair shop, I have no idea if new OEM components will be used or not. The repair shop doesn't know either, since without this law, they've had to source their parts from grey-market channels.
If manufacturers are required to provide OEM parts, then repair shops would know the source of their parts and it is only logical to require them provide information needed for consumers to make informed decisions.
Well said. I wouldn’t use a third party shop for repairs unless I absolutely had to for this reason. If the parts they use are gray market, they could be OEM rejects, non-OEM substitutes with poor quality/QC, or sourced from stolen phones that were parted out to circumvent activation lock. There’s no way of knowing, and the former of those two impact the performance of my device and the latter helps perpetuate theft rings, neither of which I want.
From watching repair channels like Louis Rossmann, it's seems to me that individual SMD and IC repair is one of the reasons why independent repair can be cheaper and produce less e-waste. Just because it doesn't make economic sense for Apple doesn't make it uneconomical for everyone.
If you (or a repair shop) can only repair the bits Apple allows you to repair, do you really own it? In my opinion, a RtR company should give you the ability to change many parts.
You're absolutely right that being able to use non-oem parts opens up users to being swindled, and people should be informed. But that doesn't mean non-oem parts are never appropriate - what happens when oems stop making parts? Or you think it's an acceptable trade-off to fix something cheaply? Or if non-oem parts are an upgrade (you can buy upgraded Game Boy screens, for example)?
Furthermore, shouldn't this be something the free market actually can solve? Dodgy repair places will get found out and people won't go there, meanwhile good shops will get good reviews and be profitable.
I reckon this is some crazy reverse psychology play. Now many will believe that the bill will hurt competition and consumers and vote it down, leaving apple unregulated.
Or Apple has their right to repair stuff done for the next generation (which this law will affect, I'm guessing it's not retroactive) and they're banking on their competition not being up to date.
What I notice:
So they might just stop "selling" it, and only rent/license it to consumers.
There's probably an amendment buried deep inside that says "except for Apple" now.
I know being cynical is cheap and fun but this sort of theorising is just noise unless you back it up with some evidence, or argumentation at least. All it serves is getting people worked up and angry at something that doesn’t exist.
Just a kind reminder that this isn’t Reddit and we should all try to be better.
Nah, Apple most likely has the iPhone 15 made so that it can be repaired so that it matches California and EU repair laws.
They're banking on the fact that their competition's models aren't repairable (Like the Samsung foldables, good luck opening those at home without highly specialised equipment)
So Apple figured out how to turn a profit off "right-to-repair"?
Tim Cook is a fucking moron. There, I said it.
I get it. He's piggybacking off of the reputation of a deceased tech visionary who left Microsoft in the early days, founded Apple, got ousted from Apple, came back to Apple after the corporate suits who took over damn-near sank the company, and brought them into the forefront of big tech.
We used to mock some of Steve Jobs' ideas, like the iPad, which we initially wrote off as an oversized iPhone, even to the point where Dom Joly brought out one of his old sketches from Trigger Happy TV to lampoon it. Look at the tablet market now...
For all the crap we gave Steve Jobs, he wasn't stupid enough to alienate the professionals and the developers who frequently bought Apple products. He knew how important it was to make a machine upgradeable and not solder and glue everything down, nor lock everybody in an ecosystem where they had zero choice but to upgrade every 2.5 to 3 years.
I certainly have the utmost respect for Jobs, but not Cook. He's not an innovator. He's a salesman who cannot innovate for shit.
Like... I have a friend who is a massive Apple fanboy and even he's been disillusioned with some of the new tech Apple brought out. I went to the pub with him to watch the Apple keynote where they unveiled the iPhone 14 Pro, and it was the first one where they revealed a decent camera above 13MP. My OnePlus 10 Pro which I bought a year prior literally has a 50MP camera courtesy of Hasselblad.
More recently, he complained to me about the experience he had with the beta program he normally signs up for to test the new iOS updates early. This year's one has been particularly buggy-as-shit.
I don’t know if any of that makes Cook a moron.
Even if Jobs was such a visionary that he single handedly pushed Apple this far, I hiiiighly doubt this is true:
Apple has always been super closed hardware. Apple has always alienated developers.
What you’re seeing I think isn’t the Jobs to Cook transition but the transition from Apple fighting to get to first place, to Apple BEING in first place.
The difference is... Jobs climbed to the top through innovation. He sold new Apple products through heavy hardware iterations that a mere component upgrade wouldn't be able to justify. When he didn't have anything better, he switched to an entirely different architecture for the benefit of all consumers, i.e. the switch from PowerPC to Intel.
Despite the iPod, iPhone and early iPad not being customisable, I don't recall Jobs doing things like soldering down every single MacBook or iMac component and doing other things to alienate the core base of design professionals who used Apple products because he understood how important they were to the Apple ecosystem. Computers are an investment, not a commodity to be shitcanned every 30 months.
Apple has programs like Final Cut Pro and arguably the best version of software like Photoshop. When they make the Mac less appealing for designers, what's stopping a designer or programmer from switching to Windows or Linux?
I grew up on Apple products (starting with the Mac Plus when I was a toddler) and I used to be completely loyal to the company, but my good will seeped away when it seemed they stopped being loyal to customers like me. I think (from a consumer perspective) Apple peaked around the time that Steve Jobs started getting seriously ill. For example, they used to place a high priority on an interface design that was simultaneously intuitive for beginners and flexible for power users. Likewise, they used to offer more affordable hardware options for students and more workhorsey hardware options for professionals, and plenty in between. But as time wore on, Apple products seemed to focus more and more exclusively on wealthy casual users; they simultaneously became less accessible for newcomers/students and less suitable for doing work.
I finally got fed up and built my own computer around 2013 so that I could get the hardware I needed for a reasonable price, and so I (reluctantly) started using Windows 7. This brought me a complex mixture of strong emotions. On the one hand, I was pleasantly surprised by how much nicer the experience was than I was expecting (my previous Windows experience having been sporadic encounters with XP). On the other hand, there were a lot of things that irritated me about Windows (e.g., the difficulty in typing special characters that I used a lot, the disorganized settings, the messy installation process for third party programs, etc.).
But then I realized that the issues with Windows came primarily from older design decisions that had been grandfathered in; likewise, the better features in OS X were older designs that had been grandfathered in. When I looked at more recent changes to these operating systems, it was clear that OS X was on a downward trajectory and Windows was on an upward trajectory. (Mind you, I no longer think this pattern holds for Windows, especially with Windows 11. But at that point in time, the future looked bright for Windows.)
After I built my PC, I still used my 2011 Macbook Pro for less taxing tasks, like browsing the internet and organizing my images. But I did find myself using it less and less over time, especially with updates to OS X that made it less intuitive and powerful. I was particularly heartbroken when they scrapped iPhoto; at that point, my laptop became just a Netflix-in-bed machine. And then some minor component on the laptop failed, and since it was soldered to the motherboard, that was that. (Meanwhile, I still use the PC I built to this day. I am typing this comment on it right now. I just replace individual components as needed, and I have no plans to acquire a new desktop computer ever again.)
I used an iPhone for a few years, but when I couldn't get one that fit in my pocket anymore, I switched to Android.
I do still use an iPad and love it. It's one of the few products Apple still makes that I firmly stand behind. It's no replacement for a real computer, but it's a great replacement for both a Cintiq and a lightweight casual-use laptop; honestly, I think it exceeds them both. But I no longer feel any brand loyalty toward Apple, and I will absolutely drop them the minute that the iPad stops being the best product for my use case, whether that happens because Apple ruins it or because another company surpasses it.
I am very interested in Mint! Unfortunately, for work-related reasons, I do still need to use Windows or OS X.
The little guy finally has won.