This is such a bad article, I half suspect it's astroturfing and food intended for Apple apologists. It's focused on a single small part of the problem and unnecessarily misrepresented it.
As a reminder of the broader picture: Apple has a strong anti-repair stance, they have lobbied for this [1], have engaged in broad, deceptive strategies to remove 3rd party repair options, by confiscating legally refurbished hardware under the guise of "counterfeits" [2], attempting to confiscate grey market parts under the guise of "trademark violation" and threatening the 3rd party repair shops [3]. They profit from this continued attack by deceiving customers into expensive unnecessary part replacements, suggesting repair is not possible and generally coercing customers into buying new products instead [4].
Personally, I've replaced many components on iPhones through the ages. Often the replacement parts I've ordered have been sub-standard and that was the risk I've accepted as I was purchasing from unknown sellers. Sometimes the parts have been on par with the original components and I've been very pleased with my purchase.
The right to repair should be protected. When I am no longer able to fix my own purchases then I no longer feel I own the device.
This is especially true given Apple present themselves as an environmentally conscious brand. Often people don't have the opportunity to get parts replaced by Apple directly, or they don't have the means. Ensuring there are options for everyone promotes reuse and recycling. Additionally it limits the extent that a given company can build in planned obsolescence.
However. My opinion is that in purchasing a second hand device I want to know which components are from the OEM. This is especially important for components that are not easily validated, i.e. the battery. I can then take the risk of price vs quality at face value.
I get the impression here that people are very vocal about one side or the other, but I feel there is a balance to be made.
You stopped "owning" your device the monent you accepted locked bootloader and no root. It is weird that it is the battery replacement that triggered that feeling.
It’s not about owning. It’s having trust in the device that it will do what it says it will. Buying from Apple there is generally a trust that the device meet’s Apple’s bar and hasn’t been tempered with.
A lot of Apple defenders have the perspective that Apple isn't selling you a thing (i.e. an object), it's selling you an experience (a fashion object, a lifestyle brand). From this perspective, if Apple doesn't aggressively attack people who don't align with the brand values, they damage the brand.
People who want to economize on parts and labour damage the brand. They're poor people, or at least people not wealthy enough not to care about these things; they shouldn't be associated with the Apple brand. Apple does not aim at the bottom of the market.
People who want open hardware that they can poke at damage the brand. Apple sells an integrated, hassle-free experience. An open market is chaotic and uncontrolled, and antithetical to the brand promise.
> By activating a dormant software lock on their newest iPhones, Apple is effectively announcing a drastic new policy: only Apple batteries can go in iPhones, and only they can install them.
I really dislike the phrasing attached to this story.
It's not a lock: a third party installed battery still works, the phone isn't refusing to start up until you go to an Apple Store and have an authentic Apple(tm) battery installed. Rather, it's a warning in the "battery health" section basically saying "we don't know if your battery is any good, you might need to get it replaced".
That said, I'd prefer a clearer phrasing of their error message. It looks like it's just triggering the generic "your battery may need service" warning, which is more of a scare tactic than I'd like. "You don't have a certified Apple battery" would be completely sufficient.
Given the existence of refurbishment scams, where substandard parts are put into old phones to make them look good briefly, I can understand where Apple is coming from on this point. Someone who buys a second-hand iPhone and finds the battery dies after a month isn't going to be very happy with iPhones.
No. That's exactly what Apple are doing. Out of all the ways they could harm the consumer in this situation, that message is by far the most effective. Stop defending them. Stop giving them benefit of doubt. Stop misconstruing their malice for incompetence. Apple has repeatedly demonstrated that they'll go to extreme lengths to harm consumers and prevent 3rd party repair.
That message destroys the consumer's trust in 3rd party repair shops. It says battery health issue. Are sure you put in a real Apple battery? Did you even change my battery at all?
Outright locking the battery out would cause backlash and possible legal action. This 'technically works but will nag you forever unless you pay Apple to run a program to clear the message that they refuse to share with 3rd parties' solution is genius. Evil genius.
Imagine the car equivalent of this situation. Imagine you take your BMW to a non-BMW-authorised repair shop and they swap your battery to a perfectly good one for 1/5th the price. But now you have a permanent warning light on your dashboard that there's something wrong with your battery. This situation is actually impossible. There are laws that require carmakers to release repair manuals to 3rd party repairers and honour warranty after 3rd party repairs. Tech companies are shitting on their users because equivalent laws don't exist for electronic goods.
> Imagine you take your BMW to a non-BMW-authorised repair shop and they swap your battery to a perfectly good one for 1/5th the price. But now you have a permanent warning light on your dashboard that there's something wrong with your battery. This situation is actually impossible.
You wouldn't believe it, but that's almost exactly how it works with bmws since around 15 years. The unofficially replaced battery won't function properly until "registered /converted/(or even) programmed" [0] at the official bmw service. The difference is that the software to do that is pirated and thus available to the 3rd parties
3rd party repairers have the ability to do this for you because they have BMW-compatible programmers. Because BMW must release make that possible for them. By law.
It's also there for a reason: the charging system needs to be told that the battery was changed and what type of battery it was changed to. Otherwise it charges it the wrong way. Unlike Apple batteries, the car batteries are dumb and can't tell the car about themselves.
The warning light won't come on just because you replaced a battery. It'll come on a few days later if you replaced a battery and didn't tell the system about it so now the battery is performing poorly because it was being charged incorrectly.
3rd party manufacturers, by law, have access to the programming tools required to do this for you. Apple holds the equivalent of these programming tools away from everyone and aggressively sues anyone that manages to obtain them or reverse engineer them.
I guess a better analogy would have been '3rd party repair shops installs genuine BMW battery but is unable to register it because the tools to do so are held hostage'.
There are 3rd party tools to register the battey not only pirated software, most automotive software now uses the same interface (j-2534 passthrough) so you pay to download the needed files for programming which is totally acceptable. Apple instead have a battery ransomware.
A better metaphor would be a service warning when you go into the iDrive system, to the "CAR" submenu, scroll to the maintenance icon, go into the submenu and then ask the system to list all possible issues. Then it would show up.
Also a 1/5th of the price is not entirely fair. The difference between Apple and 3rd party shops is half at most. And even that is not a fair comparison, because the non-BMW-authorised repair station will use an OEM-equivalent battery from VARTA or BOSCH. Your iPhone repair shop will use a random battery imported from AliExpress with no know history of it being a safe battery.
I am on the fence. On one side I would love if it were possible to repair your phone whenever wherever.
On the other hand, let me tell you a personal anecdote. After my wife’s iPhone got stolen we wanted to buy another one for cheaper. We chose to buy it from a big retailer in here. The phone was marked as renewed and under warranty. It cost a bit less as a refurb from Apple would.
When we got it it was immediately apparent that the screen was changed for a non first party one. The phone was thicker than original (a case would not fit) and the colors were shit.
No warnings were displayed on the phone. I have returned it immediately for refund.
Now, if somebody who does not know how an iPhone should look and behave it is quite possible that they would pay a lot of money for a subpar product and then tell about it to people around.
I think Apple should absolutely put in warning lights for any non genuine components or genuine components installed by non authorized repair shops.
But, the message here is off as it does not actually help to describe the problem.
The phone knows that the battery is a genuine Apple component, because the battery cryptographically identifies as one. What it's detecting is that a genuine Apple battery was installed in the phone, but not by Apple.
It displays the warning to scare the user and make them mistrust the 3rd party repairer. The only way to make that warning go away is to use a secret-sauce Apple programming tool that they withhold from 3rd party repairers and sue anyone that manages to reverse engineer it.
They are not doing this to protect you. They're doing this to make you distrust 3rd party repairers, or to make you avoid the nag warning, and go to their overpriced store instead.
I'd probably take objective measurements of physical properties over a "profile new battery" charging cycle, and not solely rely on supply-chain QA personnel, protected by DRM nonsense.
My charger for rechargeable AA (LR6) batteries can do that, recondition batteries to eke out a few more cycles, and also tell me when a battery is finally gone beyond its powers to revive.
And my charger is not a $1000 device that utterly relies on the health of its battery to function, either.
What Apple is doing is slapping an opaque cover over the report screen until someone comes along that has a company-issued "remove report cover" pass. What if someone put alkaline batteries in there, instead of metal hydride? What if they put in AAA batteries instead of AA?
The charger can detect wrong chemistry types, like alkaline and NiCd, by objectively measuring the physical properties. And it can still charge AAAs. They just have a lower capacity. The battery subsystem in the phone could analyze a new battery and report its condition, but that would require Apple to admit to itself that a battery is a 3rd-party replaceable part that will require replacement some time over the projected lifespan of the device.
How do you know? You measure. High-tech batteries have some of that capability built-in, and high-tech devices with charging circuits connected to high-powered general computing processors can certainly run automated tests after their case-intrusion sensors and/or power-interrupt sensors detect events.
Then it has a smaller capacity than a brand new battery should, but still larger than a heavily used battery. It's something the phone can report on, and android phones do. Apple can't guarantee your replacement battery was 'stored properly' either. All they can do is run their little programming tool to remove the warning regardless.
This scenario is completely outside the realm of 'new genuine Apple battery detected + no Apple warning reset = permanently harass the user with false warning'.
Let's be really clear here. The warning is 'unable to verify this iPhone has a genuine Apple battery'. Which is complete bullshit. The phone is perfectly aware that the battery is genuine because it carries a crypto signed identifier.
So if Apple rephrased this message to state, “unable to verify the health of this battery,” but still had the exact same system response, you would be happy?
I think the message could have been clearer. But to add to your point, wasn't there a case when car repair shops would rewind odometers on cars/engines to make them seem newer that they actually were?
> Now, if somebody who does not know how an iPhone should look and behave
If you don't know exactly how an iPhone should look and are not annoyed by the thickness difference, how is it a problem ? You paid less for a slightly less good product that's good enough for you, and if the product is not good enough for you (like in your case) you returned it and good a refund. That sounds pretty good for me!
No. I paid slightly less for a very inferior product (non compatible with cases due to thickness, colors off by a large margin).
In this case I knew that I got a bad product and returned it, but it makes me wonder how many times I got some shoddy fake instead of the genuine thing (e.g.: because of Amazon stocking shenanigans). My reaction to bad products is usually to distrust the seller and the manufacturer brand.
This is also why brands fight fakes, if you can get a visually extremely similar object that is sold as product made by B, but it falls apart after a few months then there is a big chance that you won't buy B anymore even though their products are actually good.
Also in my case the problems were visible. If the problem was with a badly repaired internal component, the phone would have died, I would have brought it to Apple and they would refuse to repair it under warranty because it was voided by some random technician. Had the repair been done badly by an authorized repair shop, they would take the cost of re-repair or exchange on themselves.
Apple burying a message in the battery subsection of settings is "extreme lengths" and "by far the most effective"? God help us if they discover how to log to console.app.
How is it burying when it’s probably the first thing someone would look at after a battery replacement.
Also, I bet none of the Apple defenders were phrasing the location of the battery health meter as “burying” it when Apple released it as a response to their own battery fiasco (which they liead about for months, if not years, until they were proven to have lied).
I am a cheap customer using the fifth battery in my very old Nexus 5.
What Apple says is exactly correct. Battery replacements never hold charge as well as the original battery (in my case no longer manufactured). And spare batteries are of lesser quality.
They are also very cheap, about $9, so I don't care if I have to charge the phone twice every day, until it dies.
However, knowing the sue-for-anything culture in the USA, I back Apple on this one. The message about the battery is accurate, according to my own experience.
Now, the shenanigans with their special screws and tools, the everything glued inside, and removal of the audio plug, I will always be against.
Yeah, uh, BMW sucks and so a lot of auto makers. Instead of making an additional menu in the ridiculously over-complicated dashboard computer system, I had to buy a $150 tool that can do a "battery registration" so that the smart alternator knows that there's a new battery installed and not to charge it so much. You don't have to buy BMW brand batteries, though. But Jesus BMW, get over yourselves. There could be a button right by the battery in the trunk to do this, it doesn't have to all be locked down.
>Rather, it's a warning in the "battery health" section basically saying "we don't know if your battery is any good, you might need to get it replaced".
That's not what the message is. It's really weird that everyone keeps getting this wrong given there's a screenshot of it in the iFixit post.
The damning part is that even if the repair place uses an actual Apple battery with all the circuitry exactly the same the phone treats it as a complete unknown because it hasn't been approved by Apple and authenticated. If I open up two identical iPhones and swap the batteries I shouldn't have diminished functionality, the phone should still fully report everything it knows about the battery health.
What if Apple's installer screws the same thing up? And if that was really a huge issue just locking out any battery monitoring is... worse because now there's just the meaningless 'You're battery isn't Apple approved and installed' warning.
Considering the level of psychological analysis that goes into products like this and others, I would not be surprised to learn they have selected the phrase most likely to cause distress to the owner making them want to take the product to an authorised repair centre. It seems some US manufacturers are trying to make their products a service of sorts, when you look at what other companys are doing. John Deere springs to mind with farmers.
>Considering the level of psychological analysis that goes into products like this and others
Don't need to do any analysis or anything. The mere fact that the message doesn't go away is enough to push a lot of people towards getting an authorized repair. If this truly was for consumer protection against bad batteries, they could have implemented a "Check my battery" button which returns the same message instead of having an always-on message.
Notifications that can't be dismissed or are recurring without a way to turn them off are one of the most annoying things about current operating systems, and Apple is one of the worst offenders.
On my Macbook, I currently get:
- A request to log in to Facetime every time I restart it (I've never used Facetime, and don't intend to, and have lost access to my AppleId)
- A daily recurring notification to update my OS, which again I can't do without my AppleId
- A notification that comes every ~10mins reminding me that I'm low on disk space (like I don't know it)
I haven't had any of those problems before Mojave. No Facetime bugging me, updates were no problem, and there was an easy terminal command to turn off the disk space notification.
It feels that people just love to complain about and hate on Apple. I get it, it’s trendy. But a good portion of the complaints are either disingenuous or an acute case of FTFM.
If you read the comments there, you will see that this doesn't work for Mojave. I've run those commands on High Sierra (or what the previous version was), but Mojave made them unusable. All related and linked answers also don't work for Mojave.
> FaceTime issue: FaceTime menu > Turn FaceTime Off
Funnily that option is greyed out if you are not logged in, and I guess doesn't do what you think it does.
> Software update without Apple ID
My main problem there is that I don't want to update (because how the fuck do I know that Apple won't brick other features I'm used to), and can't silence the notification for forever.
This kind of nit picking seems so petty, I don’t understand why people are getting boiled up about it. You can still get non official batteries, the phone still works.
Legitimate parts that fail quality control testing in China have a way of "falling off the truck" onto the loading dock of the fulfillment center used by unscrupulous third party vendors instead of being destroyed.
Cool story. But when I get a replacement battery pulled from a brand new iphone with the 3rd party repairer providing warranty on their work, I still have no way to make that message go away other than to pay Apple's extortion fees.
Fun local fact: unless you order your battery at iFixit and DIY, it’s cheaper to go to the Apple Store to change an iPhone battery than any of the repair shops nearby.
Fun reality check: for many people, going to an Apple store means driving several hours, or even purchasing a plane ticket. Any reasonable accounting of that would massively inflate the cost of 1st party repair.
.. not if you go to an authorized Apple repair center. Unless you live in some wilderness area, there is almost certainly an authorized repair center near you — and those repairs are backed by Apple. Going to some sketchy shop that cannibalizes new phones to sell a replacement battery? That is bizarre. I am starting to understand why Apple has apparent hostility towards unauthorized third party repair. Someone is likely going to go buy one of those “new” phones and think Apple is crap. Meanwhile, the repair shop made money selling you the battery from a new iPhone, then money selling a fake-new iPhone with a garbage battery to someone else.
You're seriously living in an urban bubble if you think either an Apple store or a certified repair center will be readily available and convienent for everybody. Let me remind you, the alternative is Apple sends me a new battery in the mail and I insert it into my phone myself. Zero downtime or travel.
The last time I got a battery replacement for an Apple product was a few months ago, when I was living in Seattle a mere 30 minutes away from the University Village Apple store. From the time of my first phonecall to schedule the appointment to me walking out of the store with a new battery, three and a half weeks elapsed. I had to go to the store three times, the first time they merely "confirmed" what I had already told them on the phone and said they'd need to order the battery and it would take a week. What a fucking disaster, why didn't they order it when I called? Why did they give me an appointment when they knew they couldn't help me that day? Imagine if I was living an hour or two out of town, that would have been three afternoons of my short live wasted. Unacceptable.
It's shit. Unmitigated shit. With my old thinkpad I had new batteries mailed to me and it took mere seconds for me to swap them. I am never buying another computer from these shitheads. People who continue to support Apple have either gotten lucky, or they're nuts.
Why would a repair shop rip a battery from a brand new phone to sell the battery to you? They ruin a new phone to sell you a $20 replacement battery? Now what will they put into the formerly new phone without a battery? Third party junk that some unsuspecting buyer is going to buy thinking it’s a “new” phone?
As per the iFixit report, the Apple chip that identifies it as an 'Apple Battery' can be moved to another battery from any/dubious source. Given this, how can software KNOW that it's truly an Apple original battery.
Therefore, Apple is only 'vouching' for the battery health of batteries replaced via a confirmed 'chain-of-custody'.
Could the message allow the health to be shown anyway? Sure... but it's not like a message pops up every time you wake your phone.
> As per the iFixit report, the Apple chip that identifies it as an 'Apple Battery' can be moved to another battery from any/dubious source. Given this, how can software KNOW that it's truly an Apple original battery.
Doesn't that work against your argument? If you put in the effort to move the chip, the phone will never know you replaced the battery at all.
It's no riskier to trust the chip post-replacement than it is to trust the chip any other day of the year.
> Given the existence of refurbishment scams, where substandard parts are put into old phones to make them look good briefly, I can understand where Apple is coming from on this point.
Last I checked apple did not make parts available to third party repairers, at least without signing on to some draconian anti-consumer agreements. If they were really interested in protecting consumers from counterfeits then they'd be doing more to make genuine apple parts available and doing less to limit third party repairs.
>"You don't have a certified Apple battery" would be completely sufficient.
The whole point is more towards the fact that it actually means:
"We don't know (or don't care) if you have a certified Apple battery or a (crappy) third part one, all we know is that it has been changed by non-Apple-Authorized personnel, so we are giving you this warning message as a lesson"
> Remember that old iPhones are frequently resold. You're going to want to know if it has OEM parts.
I think this is lost on the HN audience. There's a lot of people out there being scammed by counterfeit parts, recycled parts, shoddy repair jobs, and straight up cobbled together FrankenPhones. Not to mention the danger in using lithium batteries from unknown provenance.
...which is caused by making batteries irreplaceable to start with. If a phone's battery is user-repleacable, the user could buy it from Apple or any other reliable manufacturer. Now they have to go to either Apple or some third-party show who may use problematic batteries.
If the battery was user replaceable, how would that improve the issue? If anything, it would make it worse from the standpoint of Apple’s customers getting a subpar product.
Batteries are the worst possible offender when it comes to counterfeits. If you’re not getting them straight from the source, it’s basically the wild west. I don’t order them online any more because it’s a 50/50 chance of getting a significantly worse product, even from reputable vendors (ahem amazon)
I think Apple is nudging their consumers towards getting an official replacement and honestly it makes perfect sense why they would do that in light of the market offerings.
Imagine an iPhone with a user replaceable battery. 30% of customers are gonna order the replacement from Apple anyway. 20% are going to order a mid high priced good battery from Anker. And 50% are gonna get swindled by an Alibaba drop shipper. The end result: the iPhone winds up behaving like a commodity android phone to the consumer.
We in the geek community tend to forget that Apple is in the business of making reliable things with a long life cycle.
We tend to forget that Apple is the company that made the original mass-produced open platform. We forget that Apple's closed ecosystem is a response to the failures of that original experience.
Supporting the wide variety of hardware and software restricted the speed at which they could introduce new hardware and software features while simultaneously increasing their customer support costs and decreasing the perceived reliability of their products.
We forget that abandoning that open ethic is what allowed them to repeatedly capture the most lucrative portion of the consumer market for high technology products.
>You're going to want to know if it has OEM parts.
But the message is triggered even if you insert an Apple part. So you would want to know if the phone was blessed by an apple genius when you buy/sell ? It's surprising the lengths people go through to defend these asinine decisions. I don't even care about Apple, but the problem is that everyone will follow suit since the rest of the industry lacks any sort of vision/spine.
>Would you want to know if the home you were buying was wired by a licensed electrician
No, not really. I'd want it inspected, of course, but that's about it. Same with buying used cars. If the house wiring or my used car fucks ups, I'm safe in the knowledge that I can just hire someone to fix it for a reasonable price, and I can be reasonably confident that they'll do a decent job because the knowledge and the parts to fix it are freely available to anyone.
>designed by a licensed engineer, etc?
Maybe, but then designing a product is different than repairing an already designed product. We also have regulations for that kind of thing, so even if I have no idea who designed the house, I can be fairly confident that it's going to be fine because the house was built in the first place, and as before, I can also have it inspected and repaired if something is wrong.
Nothing of this is new, people have been going through the same shit for a couple of centuries now, we went through it with cars and appliances earlier in the last century. Don't let Apple and other electronic manufactures convince you that they're somehow special or different. It's not arcane magic and these problems are not unsolvable. They're just not willing to solve them in a way that's not user-hostile because they have not real incentive to do so.
I think you miss my point. The average person just wants their phone fixed, not to be able to fix it themselves. And they want to have confidence it was done right.
Also, a fun fact: an iPhone XR replacement battery is $80USD from iFixit (the only vendor I'd trust) vs $69 for out-of-warranty replacement from Apple themselves, labor included.
I specifically avoided mentioning anything about people doing repairs themselves because that's not the most important consequence of right-to-repair.
Also, good luck finding an Apple store or getting your battery replaced in reasonable time anywhere outside the major cities, and especially anywhere outside the US.
> Also, good luck finding an Apple store or getting your battery replaced in reasonable time anywhere outside the major cities, and especially anywhere outside the US.
No need! That's why Apple has certified third-party affiliates, including Best Buy in the US [1]. Prices are identical to service from the Apple Store.
Being able to fix a battery used to be as simple as popping it open and putting in a new battery, rather than having an Apple "Genius" hold my hand and whisper sweet nothings while they charge me an exorbitant amount for the most basic of fixes.
The bigger issue is when Ford put the motor inside the car. Now I need a mechanic to replace the motor. Horrible. Use to be anyone could just switch it out.
Yes but almost no one needs an xr battery yet. They are still all new and under warranty. In two years when people actually need new batteries they will be much cheaper, as are the older iPhone batteries today.
>That's to prevent people from taking old batteries and modifying them to appear new.
But the phone is old. That is known. You are buying/selling an old phone which has old parts. Whether the old part was genius blessed or not is of little concern as long as it is a genuine part. It is common knowledge that batteries age and that is implied when you buy an old device. If you are unhappy with that, ask for user replaceable batteries, not more DRM in batteries. I don't get this warped logic at all. Some amount of risk is assumed whenever you buy anything used. That's just life.
>Whether the old part was genius blessed or not is of little concern as long as it is a genuine part.
How do you know it's a genuine part? Maybe even the seller truly believes it is a genuine battery, but counterfeits getting into a supply chain is common unless very tightly controlled.
Battery and other checks have existed forever. Even my ancient thinkpad does it, and lenovo/ibm are kings of whitelists. They've been nickle and diming people for a few decades now. Long before the iphone existed. That's not what is being discussed. This goes a step further and requires an apple store employee to sell and insert the battery. That's how your freedoms erode. Slowly, and in the name of safety/security.
I have no use for conspiratorial ramblings. Again, how do you propose protecting consumers from faulty batteries? This goes beyond Apple to other devices, for example vaporizers, which have caused burns and even deaths from improper use of batteries not designed for end-user replacement.
You can implement genuineness checks for equipment without requiring a stooge to install the equipment for you. The car industry does it, and cars are much more likely to kill you. Other electronics with batteries do it too. Nothing about a phone is unique. Again, this is mostly a problem of education. If it takes me 5 comments on HN to explain that you are capabale of replacing a battery, it's a lost cause.
You're far less likely to find a cheap counterfeit aftermarket battery than you would Kirkland or Bosch or something, which comes with way more assurance than a random no-name lithium ion battery that has been hacked to appear new and healthy and which is capable of exploding while firmly placed near your waist.
It's literally cheaper to pay Apple to replace an iPhone XR battery than it is to buy a trustworthy replacement from iFixit, and a modest (~$25 at worst, though I'm not including shipping cost from iFixit, and labor would eat most of that margin IMO) premium for phones dating back to the iPhone 6.
> Remember that old iPhones are frequently resold. You're going to want to know if it has OEM parts.
That's something they could display without disabling the entire battery monitoring screen though. They could do that for every single part of the phone but instead they remove functionality if you don't do things the apple approved way. If I open two identical iPhones and swap their batteries there shouldn't be any degradation in the phone but Apple has decided there should be and that I can't see the battery info any more under any circumstances unless I go through them.
How can they accurately monitor a non-Apple battery? Are they to test their systems against every possible junk battery?
For those complaining, you’ve never dealt with airplane repairs. If you want a draconian system, try using non-Garmin SD cards in Garmin avionics. A blank Garmin SD card costs $300 and your avionics won’t work without it.
The batteries have chips in them that do most of the reporting and for capacity Apple can monitor how much is being added during charge and use that to evaluate the capacity on an ongoing basis so there's no need to even trust the provided capacity 100%.
That's also a terrible system. The existence of a worse company doesn't excuse any company that does slightly better.
(At least with Garmin I could see a regulatory liability reason for it, Garmin's equipment is certified with a particular configuration so if we're being blindly legalistic it's not the same equipment with a different card. What's the card used for? To be clear I don't think they should be doing it the Garmin is just the GPS right? Every pilot should be 100% able to fly and navigate without it.)
It's not an excuse for Apples policy to fight "the right to repair" etc. but it's less worse than I thought.
Of course if you own new Apple products you are completely screwed when in need of repairs and no store is in sight.
That's why I still like to use the MBP from 2012 (the one with all the great ports that can be repaired still).
They've done a really shitty job in the development of their devices and lost a lot of pro-users like me who won't buy the new series of devices anymore.
When they don't act on this they'll lose a fair amount of customers completely, once their cool old devices aren't usable anymore. It's their decision while governments are too afraid to do the right thing and force all companies to allow people to repair and use resources efficiently.
It should be mandatory in a world that counts it's remaining days because their ancestors just burned through the resources we have without thinking about consequences.
But we'll see if there are enough smart people who are powerful enough to fight this crap. Mother Earth won't care if we'll be here in some centuries and it will recover without us.
1. GPUs can be used as external devices did you know that?
2. I don't.
3. If I would, there are plenty other computers to buy that I can still repair way easier than this crap from Apple.
it doesn't display a message that it's not a genuine apple part though, it displays a message that the battery might need be servicing, even though there is no technical indication that the battery needs servicing. it's a deceptive message.
You are wrong. The message doesn't read anything like that. It says that the battery needs replacement and they explain it like this:
> "When a battery gets closer to the end of its lifespan, the amount of charge and the ability to provide power reduces. As a result, a battery may need to be charged more and more frequently and your iPhone might experience unexpected shutdowns."
This is dishonest. Because you put in a battery from a third party, you are making the user believe that it is near the end of its lifespan. I know the language says "may" but then most users are not language lawyers. Any layman is gonna read this as: Oh shit, my battery is almost completely degraded... I need to replace this.
A better thing to do would be to say "This battery is not a genuine battery installed by an authorized technician and may not perform as well"
(1) They deliberately design new proprietary adapters, eschewing already popular and capable standards, in new devices - to sell you more shit
(2) They remove support for existing standards (e.g. headphone jacks) - to sell you more shit
(3) They file lawsuits against third-party repair providers who do a demonstrably better job than first-party repairs - to sell you more shit
(4) They add software checks which attempts to subvert the same third-party repair providers after their lawsuits fail - to sell you more shit
Apple consistently, at every step, serves their bottom line ahead of your interests. Quit letting tribalism blind you, Apple users - this behavior is unacceptable.
> They deliberately design new proprietary adapters, eschewing already popular and capable standards, in new devices
They have one proprietary connector across all of their products that they sell, and that’s Lightning. Lightning is seven years old, was launched at a time when the alternative would be the god-awful microUSB connector, and all rumours point towards it being phased out completely for USB-C in the next couple of years.
Lightning, sure. How about firewire, and thunderbolt, and the 30-pin connectors for the iPod? Have you also forgotten their proprietary SSD connectors - SATA compatible but with a non-M.2 socket. Or ADC, a proprietary pinout for what's effectively a DVI cable? Or AAUI? Mini-VGA and Mini-DVI?
Apple has been doing this for longer than I've been alive. I'm happy that they're phasing it out in favor of USB-C - this is a positive step - but their past definitely helps damns them when fanboys come to their defense over right to repair.
FireWire was very much standardised (IEEE 1394), and was co-developed by other companies. It wasn’t some obscure thing that only existed on Apple stuff. They also haven’t shipped a computer with FireWire in about six years I think?
> thunderbolt
Again, Thunderbolt isn’t even a primarily Apple-developed technology, it’s Intel. Plenty of computers ship with Thunderbolt 3 ports today, and a couple of years ago Intel dropped the royalty that used to be required.
> proprietary SSD connectors
Agreed that this one sucks.
> 30-pin connectors for the iPod, ADC, AAUI, Mini-VGA, Mini DVI
Nothing on that list has shipped for years, in some cases decades. The comment I replied to says they do this “in new devices”, but that is just not the case and hasn’t been for a good while now.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending their practices over repair. I strongly disagree with their actions to politically extinguish the types of law that would force them to make it easier for people to repair their stuff.
To my knowledge those described have some distinct advantage over what was available on the market at the time. Firewire was way faster, ADC carries USB, Thunderbolt is connected to PCIe, mini-vga and mini-dvi are self explanatory and their proprietary SATA like connection was, again, way faster.
Their proprietary SATA was just SATA with a wrong connector. It was not faster. Firewire was faster at the expense of massive security holes. A practical reason for having Thunderbolt connected to PCIe never materialized. Don't kid yourself - Apple made these calls for one reason and one reason only.
There are external GPUs now that use thunderbolt, prior to this you could run external displays at a greater resolution than was available via HDMI at the time.
Firewire was mostly not used because people were content to endure USB, and USB had a larger availability on consumer hardware. Apple gained nothing by spending money to add the port to their computers so I find it hard to buy that they had a secret malevolent purpose in doing so. In this case they rolled the dice on a superior solution and it didn’t pay off.
Apple was on the design group for USB-C. They didn't need to launch lightning and stick with it for this long, with pointlessly incompatible cables between product lines.
Right, which they gave you for free out of the grace of their hearts. It came out of the sticker price and will cost you when you lose or have to replace them or decide you don't like them (which you won't, because to Apple fans it's a status symbol more than anything of practical value).
So Apple's take is probably: A bunch of people get mad when their iPhones stop working, start running slow, etc; research data shows that when they need a battery replaced, they're more likely to go to the local third party (non-authorized) repair shop and get it replaced. We have no idea how skilled or unskilled these repair shops are, even if they use genuine Apple batteries. Our best bet for maintaining the reputation of our product is to make sure only Genius bar or AASP staff install the batteries and run the necessary diagnostics post-install.
I don't agree that they should be doing the battery authentication thing, replacing your battery is pretty easy and simple; but you have to look at this from Apple's standpoint:
Yes, Louis Rossmann runs a repair shop that is better than the Genius bar in every way and, should he join Apple, all of their repairability issues would disappear overnight. The issue is that many (most likely a majority) of local computer repair shops that get asked "can you fix this battery error on my iPhone" aren't on par with Louis Rossmann and will make mistakes such as improper installation, not re-sealing the phone for water resistance, using non-genuine batteries, etc. Apple could, by all means, make the process easier, cheaper, and more idiot-proof, but that would require engineering efforts. The best course of action, both for making money from repairs and not losing money to engineering and possible product changes ("don't sacrifice form for function", at least under Jony Ive), is to get the software to verify that Apple had complete control over the replacement battery from factory to phone.
We already went through all of this with cars and car mechanics. The only difference with electronics is that people have been convinced that their smartphone, laptop and electronics in general are somehow arcane magic. Nowadays, car manufacturers also seem keen to jump on this bandwagon, since it would also benefit their bottom line to keep third party mechanics from touching their cars.
Fact is, if Apple can fix their devices, then so can a third party without much problem, it's not that hard and most of it doesn't really take any skilled labor. Apple would be better served by releasing repair manuals and selling parts (like car manufacturers have been doing) if they're afraid of having their reputation ruined by third party repairmen. That, of course, is not their concern, a third party repairman ruining someone iPhone in no way affects Apple's reputation, and it's better for Apple's business since it helps their propaganda efforts against third-party repair. Apple and other electronics manufacturers of course are not going to spend any effort supporting third-party repair until they're forced to by legislation.
For what it's worth, I think the right to repair side needs to do a better job of delivering their message. While focusing dispelling the notion that electronics repair is hard is pretty important to undo decades of propaganda on the matter, currently the environment is the hot button issue, and throwing away repairable objects isn't all that great, particularly if it's an easy fix like changing a battery. Repair needs to be included explicitly into the 3 R's somehow, either by making it into 4 R's (Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Recycle, for example) or by including Repair into the umbrella of Reduce.
> We already went through all of this with cars and car mechanics. The only difference with electronics is that people have been convinced that their smartphone, laptop and electronics in general are somehow arcane magic.
With cars there is a key difference: car service people usually are required to complete a multi-year long education with proper certifications (at least in Germany), and they get proper service manuals, genuine tools, spare parts and utilities from the manufacturers (as a result of the right to repair laws mentioned in the article), and third party replacement parts have to be certified as well (at least in Europe).
With phone repair shops, you have no guarantee that the person doing the repair is actually skilled, or that the repair parts are genuine/certified in any way. The right-to-repair laws have to be extended to force manufacturers to provide genuine spare parts, the sooner the better. Lithium battery fires are a real and scary threat.
Those key differences don't really hold up, and it's mainly dealerships that use "spare parts from the manufacturers", and they would like nothing better than customers being forced to use their services, but they can't.
The main body of car repair customers have a choice ranging from non-dealership shops to cousin Vinnie with the range of quality and cost that goes with it. It's up to the customer.
Batteries degrade and need replacement at some point. What Apple is trying to do here is fusing the tyres to the rims and claiming it's necessary and specialist work.
> Lithium battery fires are a real and scary threat.
As are cars crashes, but somehow having third party repair options hasn't had much of an impact on that.
> The main body of car repair customers have a choice ranging from non-dealership shops to cousin Vinnie with the range of quality and cost that goes with it. It's up to the customer.
> As are cars crashes, but somehow having third party repair options hasn't had much of an impact on that.
Yes, because technicians are certified and trained, and because safety relevant parts are (no matter if first party or after market!) certified and tested. The relevant list in Germany is at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvzo_2012/__22a.html.
Of course, sometimes there are problems with car parts (e.g. the airbag mass recall), but counterfeit/uncertified parts generally don't end up in cars - vs. in the mobile/electronic industry where this is more routine than absolute exception.
It's not just reputation that Apple cares about. They also care about fraud. The Information had a good story about it last year [1]. At its peak, 60% of repair claims were fraudulent in China and Hong Kong. With trade-ins now, they want to make sure they get genuine Apple products back.
Apple sells official batteries to 3rd party retailers, with holograms, and maybe even an online lookup which tracks sales, etc. (you don’t need the latter but it’s an idea that would not be half as expensive as all the other “fraud prevention” measures Apple puts in which conveniently makes it far more difficult to repair Apple devices).
Seriously, the vast majority of fraud concerns would disappear if Apple sold official replacement parts.
> We already went through all of this with cars and car mechanics
From what I understand, phone batteries are far more energy dense (lithium ion) than car batteries (lead acid still?), and you carry them in your pocket. Maybe EV car batteries packs are more comparable?
Remember when samsung phones were catching fire all over just a couple years ago? Wasn't that due to some weird assembly/manufacturing issue where the batteries were being "pinched" due to tolerances?
Cars generally have tanks full of gasoline, though, which is even more energy-dense than lithium ion batteries. Nonetheless, you can take your car to a third-party mechanic.
And I'd bet more people have been burned (or for that matter been killed) in car accidents than phone accidents.
You're assuming that Apple themselves does all of these as repairs. I'd wager that many times they would just replace it and then send the returned one off for refurbishment (which is exactly what they've done when I've had issues with my phone under AppleCare).
I see the reason why Apple would find limiting third parties useful, but:
> Apple could, by all means, make the process easier, cheaper, and more idiot-proof, but that would require engineering efforts.
This is a bit silly. Not only are they already spending lots of money on (purposefully) engineering in repair-hostile way, they also have very high markup on their hardware. Let's not feel bad for poor Apple in this case.
Nobody is feeling bad for Apple, but I do think it's ridiculous how we talk about what Apple does as if the majority of their competitors aren't doing exactly the same things. Looked inside a Microsoft Surface product recently?
It's just like with the criticisms of working conditions at the Chinese/Foxconn iPhone factories. The same factories make Xboxes, Playstations and thousands of other devices that we all buy without such consideration.
But because Apple is an effective punching bag, they bear the brunt of the industry's collective sins.
I agree that Apple is not the only culprit and their competitors should be equally derided, and in fact they often are. The Surface Laptop is the only laptop on ifixit with a repairability score of 0, after all.
But it's still pretty clear that Apple should get a lot of flak because they are frequently the first one to market with anti-repair features, they're pioneers in pushing design features that make repair harder, they sell products at a premium price but their first party support is often pretty bad and expensive and they have a lot of mind-share and they use that mind-share to push the "electronics are hard to repair" myth.
When it comes to bad repairability, Apple leads the way and the rest of the manufacturers follow after seeing what Apple can get away with. In general this is true for a lot of user-hostile design. On the flip-side, their position as leader does allow them to push some aspects of the industry forward, but they haven't been doing much of that lately, and when they do it's usually flawed in some way (their early push for USB-C comes to mind).
So I don't think its unfair for Apple to be the punching bag in this case. They put themselves in that position by grabbing so much mind-share and positioning themselves as leaders to be emulated by their competitors.
Isn't the drop in repairability of electronics being pushed more by the shrinking of components than by the assumption of corporate greed?
Why are competitors removing their headphone jacks?
Why are competitors copying Apple's "anti-features" as you'd describe them? Are you sure it's because they actually hate repairability? Are you sure their competitors covet the relative unrepairability of Apple devices?
There are far more variables at play here than we're ever likely to be able to canvas in short online comments.
Corporations are optimization machines, they optimize for short-term profits, greed is no the correct term to use here.
There are two ways competitors are incentivized to copy Apple, the first one is because of Apple's mind-share and "fashionable" status, they might be convinced that by copying some of the features they will be able to ride on coattails of Apple's success to get some success of their own. Combined with the fact that purchasing decisions are not entirely rational and there's a lot of emotion involved, Apple and other large corporations are in a position to convince people to accept compromises that have larger effects (sacrifice repairability for slimness, sacrifice freedom for "security", sacrifice gas mileage for a bigger, more comfortable SUV, etc.). The second way is that Apple, by virtue of their mind-share and position as leader, can get away with changes that other companies would want to make but couldn't. If Apple hadn't removed the headphone jack from their iPhones, there's no way Samsung or Google would be able to get away with removing the headphone jack from their flagship phones, even if all three companies want to remove the headphone jack equally, but once Apple moves the overton window, the competitors can jump onboard with the change and implement it into their own product line. Apple has earned themselves enough of a reputation and enough of a fanatical userbase that they're able to get away with these changes because by-and-large their bad changes were balanced out by their good changes, the question is whether this reputation will last for the current Apple.
>Isn't the drop in repairability of electronics being pushed more by the shrinking of components than by the assumption of corporate greed?
Absolutely not. Shrinking components have made it possible to make more integrated ICs, but those were never user serviceable, but replacing a monolithic IC with a spare part, even with unfriendly packages like BGA, is not impossible to do for a decently equipped repair shop, and the cost of that equipment is going to likely be less than whatever car mechanics or small machine shops spend on their equipment.
For what it's worth, I don't think Apple or any other company are sitting in their board rooms wringing their hands and coming up with dastardly plans to fuck over the third-party repair shop. Third-party repair is simply not a priority for them, thus when the time comes to cut costs or to optimize the design for sleekness or profit, repairability goes out the window first. Contrast that with more professional equipment where servicing is an important consideration and you'll see design optimization producing different results.
They do price themselves higher and praise their design though. I'm all for exposing every device/company doing anti-repair stuff. But I'm also happy to start with those having most expensive devices. (if a $1200 professional laptop is not repairable, we have a problem)
Apple devices are rarely more than 10-20% more expensive than its like-for-like competitors.
And it's not like they're entirely the same cheap OEM plastic crap with a different logo silkscreened on the front. Apple's investments in mobile CPU design. Apple's laptop chassis engineering. These aren't products that are ever going to compete in the budget space.
Meanwhile if you think Samsung and Microsoft and Google and Xiaomi don't praise their own designs with exactly the same level of fervour, you haven't been paying attention. The only difference is that people tend to take Apple seriously when they speak about it.
You're bringing up how much Apple already spend on custom engineering. I agree - and that's why they should be called out as one of the first. And if people think Apple praises their design more - same. Repairability should be connected to good design.
Also, if I'm in the PC environment, I can get a different repairable PC. If I'm in Mac environment... ?
Then please do. Instead of doing this in comments about one company releasing anti-repair tech, post your information about the others. List their issues. Summarise why their products are hostile to third party support. Help people make informed decisions.
"There are other companies just as bad" is whataboutism, not informative.
> "There are other companies just as bad" is whataboutism
As someone who specifically polices whataboutism in a fairly large online community, I plead for you to not dilute the importance of that word. Asserting a double standard is not whataboutism.
It would have been whataboutism if I was saying "Stop criticising Apple because Company X is just as bad!" Rather I'm suggesting we be more aware of inconsistencies in dishing out criticism where it is warranted.
Apple didn't invent unrepairable electronics and they're not even the best at it—they just so happened to combine their weak efforts with aggressive miniturisation, giving the appearance of being more repair-hostile than they really are. Meanwhile Nintendo's use of the tri-wing predates Apple's pentalobe by decades. And the latest iPhones get a repairability score of 6 out of 10 by iFixit.
To be clear Apple is repair-hostile, but it's because of their non-existent parts supply chain—not because of "purposefully repair-hostile" engineering.
I disagree with this sentiment. You mention Rossmann. Anyone that watches his channel knows that Apple purposefully makes things hard to repair. Things could be easier if they wanted them to be. But it's clear that Apple doesn't want devices repaired. See Rossmann talk about prices and how often the genius bar just suggests replacement.
As for third party repair, it isn't Apples fault if a third party repairs a phone incorrectly. What does this argument even mean? If your busy fixes your car wrong you don't sue the car manufacturer. If you go to a repair shop and they mess up you don't sue the manufacturer. So why would it be any different for phones or any electronic?
> As for third party repair, it isn't Apples fault if a third party repairs a phone incorrectly. What does this argument even mean?
It's 100% not their fault if someone else gets it wrong, it's true. But modern phones are complicated devices -- if you get your battery replaced poorly, and a month later your phone dies because the case was resealed incorrectly which compromised the water resistance and something got damaged as a result, is the consumer likely to think "oh, I bet that was a poor third party repair" or "ugh, iPhones suck, they're so unreliable"?
That said, I don't think this battery change is particularly tied to the personal repair issue. I think this is a shot at the resale / refurb market. Companies buying up old phones, "refreshing" them with crappy components, and selling them on to customers who don't realize that the phone is going to need a battery replacement in three months. In that case the customer didn't have the information available to tell that they'd been sold something shoddy, whereas now they can check the battery health and see this new warning.
The basis of your argument is that repair is too complicated and requires extremely specific and specialized training. Repairing a phone isn't more complicated than repairing a car (I'd argue a car is harder to repair). So unless you think otherwise AND you think that it is so complicated that only Apple can teach it, then your argument doesn't hold. If people CAN learn the skill of repair (seriously, give me a good reason why they can't) then it doesn't make sense for Apple to require authorized repairs (assuming they value repair over replacement). That doesn't mean they can't have certified repair (just like cars do), but the issue here is of force. All this forcing does is create anti-competitiveness and harm the market as a whole (though it probably helps Apple. But that's what anti-competitive behavior generally does. Just doesn't benefit the consumer).
For the record, it is not like car repair is made "easy" by the manufacturers, I have seen over the years quite a few cases where the "original" (issued by manufacturer only to official dealers) ODB2 connected software was needed to reset an alarm on the car computer.
It may be that the "third party" program missed at the time the particular feature (AFAIK it is all revolving about reverse engineering the "original" and that later releases had it.
And another "trend" in the car world is that of only selling as spare "non-serviceable assemblies", and regularly some smart guy manages to find out that the assembly is actually serviceable and that replacing (say) a small o-ring or gasket and/or with a couple solderings an used assembly can be reconditioned and work again for years at a fraction of the cost.
A good example is the "navigating wheel" on many BMW's, dealers will tell you that it is a €300-400 job to replace it, whilst 99% of the time is half an hour top including disassembling it, soldering a couple broken tin joints and re-assembling it.
Specifically: Apple isn’t requiring authorized repairs. It’s displaying a warning fairly deep in the Settings app if your phone has received unauthorized repairs. That’s the consumer benefit I spoke of — being able to check for that.
I’d be very opposed if Apple was actually implementing a “lock”. You should be free to get your device repaired wherever you want.
I’d also like it if Apple adjusted this warning a bit. It’s currently the generic “your battery may need service” message. A more specific message detailing the not-an-authorized-repair situation would be more apt. Still, for now it works — if you’re getting your phone repaired yourself then the shop can warn you about it so you won’t be misled, and if you’re buying a used phone then you can know it’s not-mint.
It's not that, look at the timing. New iPhone sales are drying up. The old phones are good enough except for battery wear. So, why not force them into Apple Stores to try and upsell them, especially when getting the phone company to finance it?
$60-100 for a battery replacement today, or... $20 (a month) for a shiny new phone.
I disagree with your sentiment, because it assumes that Rossmann can read the minds of Apple product designers and warranty service managers.
The "Rossmann" method of device repair might be useful for short term disaster recovery, consumer asset loss mitigation and data recovery, but how reliable are his repairs long term? We never know. How scalable is this method of repair across thousand of cities? Probably very poor.
Rossmann probably has no idea what percentage of his repairs fail within 12 months. Whereas Apple probably has a very good idea how (im)practical it would be to deploy this approach at global scale, and how reliable bodge repairs are compared to simply fitting a new board straight from the factory.
Apple's job is to get the device through warranty, at minimum. They look better if they last longer though. Remember how Apple used to be known for a computer that lasted 5 years instead of 2 years? The problem now is that they aren't made that much higher quality than other products (if at all). But if we look at Rossmann he frequently does jobs like retinning connectors. I wouldn't call this disaster recovery since this kind of repair is quite common in electronics in general.
We could probably guesstimate repair failures by looking at industry averages. He could also guesstimate from returning customers. This is how you get an idea of repair failure rates in the first place.
And no, you can't repair at global scale. But why would you need to? There's a reason Toyota doesn't repair every single one of their cars. Or more apt to the conversation: there's a reason Toyota doesn't require you go to a Toyota dealership to get an oil change. It doesn't make sense to. The scale would be ridiculous. There's no reason that electronics needs to be more convoluted than repairing a car. There's no reason a simple fix like a battery swap needs to be more complicated than changing your oil.
Oil changes—Apple devices don't need equivalent routine hardware maintenance.
Warranty repairs/recalls—Whether Toyota or Apple, the manufacturer is obliged to perform (or pay a third party to perform) the rectification.
Smash repairs—Neither Apple nor Toyota is responsible for impact damage that wasn't caused by manufacturer negligence. In both cases you'd go to a third party repair shop to mitigate asset loss.
> As for third party repair, it isn't Apples fault if a third party repairs a phone incorrectly.
It's not even their fault if authorised shops repairs it wrong.
I got a failing key after a battery replacement, but it's after warranty, so they won't touch it. (how will you prove it's from the replacement?)
This is a little off topic, but in the name of trying to be helpful... :D
If you're talking about MacBooks, there's currently a pretty expansive keyboard replacement program going on for many models since 2015, which naturally includes ones which are now out of warranty.
So, they may have told you that before, but there's decent odds they'll have changed their tune now.
a few problems with your argument:
Apple technicians are often worse at repairing devices.
Apple policies are often the root cause of this, as they prevent technicians from doing reasonable repair work in order to justify replacing entire parts which do not actually need replacing in order to repair the issue.
The the problem is folks inexperienced with repairing devices like yourself have been convinced by apple that "many (most likely the majority) ... will make mistakes".
That's like saying every 3rd party auto repair shop should be shut down in favor of dealer mechanic shops. When in reality, the corporate greed policy based on making money - not repair electronics or cars - are often the driving decision makers in repair work. That is to say, they actually do worse work at authorized shops. A lack of competition tends to do that.
I have another, more simple theory: Money. They want the aftermarket service business to themselves for that reason first, and control over the quality of repairs secondary.
I’d like to second the take on water resistance/ waterproofing. I overheard someone at a pool yesterday who bought a used iPhone that died after getting in the water with it. He mentioned buying it used. From my experience the water resistance is a very thin line of sticky black stuff that is easy to mess up after opening an iPhone. Im assuming the better repair shops use sticker sheets of new seal whenever a phone is opened.
> Im assuming the better repair shops use sticker sheets of new seal whenever a phone is opened.
This is my point at the end, a fair amount of repair shops do care about the phone, the customer, and doing things right, but there are probably a good amount that don't care and will cut as many corners as possible to increase profit.
Yeah. The ideal could be for repair shops to have a provably diligent repair process (e.g. imagine repair shops doing repair under a camera akin to a Rossmann stream). (Insert visions of blockchainy contract stuff here). Think the question is whether it’d be practical - perhaps it could be regulated into existence over certification/nda programs but even then the value of the object itself may need to be higher. The startup Mattereum comes to mind, seemingly theyre starting out in high value areas (vintage violins, collectibles, real estate)
I'm done with Apple. How can a computer company knowingly ship a product with a keyboard that breaks within a few months for three whole generations?
Mine lasted just 4 months and I was advised to invest in a silicone cover for it. Which is absurd for a $1500 laptop. And they made it sound like it was just a minor issue - "oh everything works great except the keyboard". As if a laptop without a keyboard isn't practically useless.
My wife's Macbook Air developed an issue last week after installing the latest OS update. The computer would just freeze randomly making it impossible to use. Apple Support said that it was a known issue with the update. A known issue that was still released?!
I moved to Apple because I was frustrated with Windows. But even the $400 Windows I've owned in the past gave me at least 2 years with their keyboards. And Windows has been painfully slow and error prone, but no update has ever crippled my laptop as the last macOS update did my wife's Macbook Air.
If you're going to charge me a massive premium for a product, at least make sure that it works.
Sorry for ranting here, but these two issues happened within a week of each other and I've just been angry and disappointed
It's put a big stain on them in the last few years thats for sure. That being said, at least the keyboard replacement program is basically a free extended warranty on the keyboard if they didn't have that I think the situation would be far more aggravating. I'm more pissed that they dropped USB-A about 5-7 years too soon.
The keyboard replacement program just forestalls the class action that will force Apple to do right by affected customers in about 20 years. They will fight hard for their expressed right to knowingly sell faulty hardware, or lemons as they're sometimes called in consumer laws prohibiting that. They will devote millions to preserving the option to ignore and lie about hardware faults for the first 1 - 2 years.
Maybe, but it hasn't happened to me. Two of my other laptops are Window and while they've glitched and hung, nothing has been as bad as the freezing issue.
But that's besides the point: Apple's hardware and software are closed. Apple knows exactly what hardware the software had to deal with.
Plus, Apple charges a massive premium over Windows (especially in my local market).
Lots of people here to defend Apple in-spite of their outright anti-consumer stance against right to repair. In this case they could have shown a warning with option to permanently choose to remove/ignore, Instead of scary permanent "service" Message.
People hasn't understood yet that even if they pay over $1500 for a phone, they're still not the owner of that hardware. And this concept is already deep integrated in Smart TVs or all other IoT gadgets around there.
Fortunately, we have still some choices, concerning PCs, but on the Apple side, the war is lost
The irony is this is such a big issue because iphones are one of the few products they make that are both easily repairable and expensive enough to be worth repairing. Nimble fingers and the right screwdriver and it all comes apart and back together again unlike many rival sealed glued products.
If a message displayed by the first-party software is an intentional message that obfuscates the true status of the device for the benefit of the manufacturer, is this not fraud?
> but I’ve never really encountered a reason to care about Right to Repair...
The Right to Repair is MUCH more than your right to fix your broken electronic as a hobbyist. It is largely about large companies participating in anti-competitiveness. The frequent example given is with John Deer tractors. Lots of John Deer equipment has lock downs and require authorization to do anything but the most basic repairs. This is a big change for your average farmer who is frequently repairing their own equipment (it is essentially a requirement to be a mechanic to be a farmer). They frankly don't even have access to authorized repair shops within hundreds of miles. This is why Apple sends lawyers out to fight court cases in small towns in Nebraska and Arkansas. But this kind of behavior is not limited to Apple and John Deer, it is highly prolific and affects things that are in the background.
You should care about the right to repair not because you want to fix your own stuff. You should care because it is about large companies abusing their power and acting in anti-competitive ways. This is about anti-trust.
This argument sounds like "I don't care about cancer research because I don't get sick". It should matter to you for many reasons that have nothing to do with whether you're affected or not. I don't want to see the hostility towards customers you see e.g. from tractor companies creep into my computing devices.
I use Hacker News mostly to avoid vapid responses like yours.
However, I should say that the right to repair a device like a tractor is something I very much support. But that's a $100k+ piece of equipment that someone's livelihood depends on and should last in excess of 10yrs.
Apple devices and phone toys... please...
The issue with apple devices is that they're intended to be discarded and replaced, not that they're "unable to be repaired". Have you seen how poorly most people treat their phones and computers? There's a reason Apple doesn't engineer products to last that long - because a majority of their customers will manage to break them anyway and inevitably will buy a new one because they want to be "cool" like all their other friends (an societal and consumerist trend I honestly take more of an issue with).
I understand your point, but I hope this has helped you understand my point of view a bit better :)
As a reminder of the broader picture: Apple has a strong anti-repair stance, they have lobbied for this [1], have engaged in broad, deceptive strategies to remove 3rd party repair options, by confiscating legally refurbished hardware under the guise of "counterfeits" [2], attempting to confiscate grey market parts under the guise of "trademark violation" and threatening the 3rd party repair shops [3]. They profit from this continued attack by deceiving customers into expensive unnecessary part replacements, suggesting repair is not possible and generally coercing customers into buying new products instead [4].
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180126/07355539089/apple...
[2] https://boingboing.net/2018/10/20/louis-rossman.html
[3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-inde...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns