6 ms·

That seems like it would run in to problems in practice. What if there is no way to directly link 3rd party repair to malfunctions, but devices that had undergo

That seems like it would run in to problems in practice. What if there is no way to directly link 3rd party repair to malfunctions, but devices that had undergone third party repair malfunctioned more frequently. On the one hand, Apple shouldn't have to take on the burden of causing problems that were caused by third party repair. On the other hand, some of the devices would have malfunctioned anyway, and from the outside it appear like Apple is refusing service solely because of a 3rd party repair.

spangry 10y ago
The situation sounds remarkably similar to auto-manufacturers building cars that can only be services by 'licensed technicians' (usually their dealer network). I wonder if that is the bigger issue the ACCC has in mind (and is trying to discourage): manufacturers who sell a product that creates a subsequent and artificial 'captive market'.
- simion314 10y ago
  Exactly, so you change your built-in speaker in your car then the engine breaks and you lose your warranty because you changed the speaker at a third party.
  - culturestate 10y ago
    The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components. A better example from the automotive industry would be losing your engine warranty for having an "unauthorized" mechanic swap in an aftermarket oxygen sensor.
    - wtallis 10y ago
      > The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components. That's an obvious and important distinction, but it can't be solely left up to the manufacturer to determine what was coupled or related enough to void the entire warranty or absolve the manufacturer of all liability. If it's left up to them, they have a strong incentive to prohibit any third-party repairs of any kind. A good regulatory policy would need to ensure that the incentive is for the manufacturer to be the cheapest and easiest provider of repair services, so that poorly-executed third-party repairs are less likely to happen in the first place.
    - Someone 10y ago
      "The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine" In today's world I wouldn't bet on that always being the case. Your audio system might send audio data to your speakers over the same network your car tires uses to tell your engine that the road is slippery. Also, your car's engine in a wider sense might want to use your audio system to communicate with you, for example if your chair has detected that you are dozing of. Modern car electronics really are integrated with each other.
      - pdpi 10y ago
        Because we're talking engine and speakers — it's common practice for cars to produce a louder engine noise through the speakers than what would be heard normally. Edit: source http://www.caranddriver.com/features/faking-it-engine-sound-enhancement-explained-tech-dept http://www.caranddriver.com/features/faking-it-engine-sound-...
    - gambiting 10y ago
      Except that it can be. I have a friend who installed a rear-view dashcam by wiring it directly to the 12V line running through the back of the car, and the car would start throwing all sorts of engine errors until you removed the camera. It was basically drawing too much power on a line that was only designed for certain power draw and causing a computer error elsewhere. My point is, that cars are incredibly complex machines, and it's very hard to say with absolute certainty that "changing component X won't affect component Y".
      - douche 10y ago
        Cars are not necessarily incredibly complex. We've gone a good way down the path of making them so, but that is almost entirely a self-inflicted problem.
        simion314 10y ago
        Agree, I also heard about the issue where you remove the battery then the computer restarts and you can't start your car, I am not sure what mechanics do to have it start again. Probably some major incident needs to happen so safety laws are passed so the main function of a car does not depend on the fancy features like navigation,sensor reading for doors, things like that
        coredog64 10y ago
        My Honda did this. I replaced the battery and the passkey system got confused. Allegedly there is a VIN-tied procedure for temporarily overriding it (e.g. Turn on car, pump brakes 3 times, turn to accessory, back to on pump brakes twice, etc.). Shockingly, the dealer declined to share it with us, forcing a tow to the service center. If you are buying a new car with a passkey system, make sure to extract the code before you sign the papers.
        icantdrive55 10y ago
        Thanks. I've been looking at new cars, and a bit scared. I've been to automotive school, and never needed to bring my vechicles to the dealership. If things don't change, I might be forced into going into those $225/hr. dens of mystery. When I'm doing the negotiations; I do plan on insisting a shop manual, but even a shop manual can only do so much. It's that closed computer that scares me. Taking out a battery and the car won't start is unacceptable. (I understand a vechicle needs to relearn the pulse widths of the EFI system, after a power interrupt. Actually--I don't even understand that. The computer should have a rechargeable battery that remembers the last data points? Or, go into "open loop" until the computer relearns? I find any vechicle that won't start after taking a battery out just wrong.)
    - mikeash 10y ago
      The fact that a semi-trained person manning a mall kiosk can successfully replace the component in question for $80 would seem to indicate that it's not actually very tightly coupled.
- axoltl 10y ago
  You bring up an interesting point. I'll let the actual car part be what it is (I should totally be able to change a simple mechanical part on my car). Instead, I'll ask the question if I should be able to swap out the LiDAR on my (partially) self-driving car. There are complicated calibration steps needed in order to ensure that the LiDAR is operating correctly and meets safety standards. If you replace safety critical (and in Apple's case, security critical) functionality on your car and it causes bodily harm, who do you think is going to end up in the news with a negative headline? Furthermore, should a car manufacturer be able to implement measures to prevent this from happening?
  - greggman 10y ago
    Just thinking out loud but the car one seems solvable by moving the responsibility for accidents. It starts with the manufacture and transfers to the modifer. Although like above the issue gets complicated quickly since modifying one thing might be unrelated to the accident. I guess if it can be proven it was because of the mod then responsibility should transfer to the modder.
    - microcolonel 10y ago
      This is the kinda hilarious thing about self-driving cars. Either the manufacturers are held responsible for nearly all accidents, in which case it is probably impossible to make money on them; or we accept that sometimes consumer electronics kill people in the street.
    - rickycook 10y ago
      that's all well and good, but regardless of who is to blame, the headline will likely read that the fault is with the manufacturer because it's more likely to generate readers
      - brianwawok 10y ago
        We can't make laws to protect you from buzzfeed
Radle 10y ago
Apple gives a guarantee. Not an "Your system might run for x months." But an "Your system WILL run for x months." Even if the error is not caused by apple, they take in 99% of the profits that comes with selling and repairing the devices. They can take some responsibility for third party fails, in cases where they can't proof that other people actually failed. That's a very limited scope.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  No, they guarantee that where proper care is taken the device will run for x months. If you try to use it underwater they won't repair it for free, and if you have it repaired by a non approved party they won't repair it for free. Both represent "misuse"
  - mikeash 10y ago
    That's probably how they want to do it, but it's not how the law requires them to do it. They must still repair it for free unless the underwater use or third-party repair caused the problem. They cannot say, "somebody else touched this, so tough luck." If they can demonstrate that your problem is a result of someone else touching it, then they can say tough luck. If they can't, then they have to fix it even if you didn't do things the way they want you to. I think it's important to remember that these consumer protections aren't some random government overreach. They were put in place as a reaction to abuses by manufacturers. Without them, we'd probably have Apple charging $50 for a charger, with the threat of voiding your warranty if you use an unapproved charger, or similar tactics. To bring it into another realm where the problem might be more obvious, imagine if your car manufacturer could void your warranty if you installed unapproved (and un-overpriced) tires or brake pads. Again, if those tires or brake pads cause your problem then they don't have to fix it, but they can't just void your warranty because of their mere presence.
    - Ntrails 10y ago
      Oh, I agree, my point was that the guarantee of "free repair" is contingent on terms not just a blanket statement. They are required to take it in under guarantee to look at it but when they open it up and water starts leaking out they're going to stop and send you a bill. The interesting part of it is how hard it would be to prove them wrong if they say it could have been caused by behaviour x. Eg, if I chip my car and run it at non stock settings - the manufacturer can probably attribute almost any issue at all to that and I'd be hard pressed to disprove that assertion.

spangry 10y ago

The situation sounds remarkably similar to auto-manufacturers building cars that can only be services by 'licensed technicians' (usually their dealer network). I wonder if that is the bigger issue the ACCC has in mind (and is trying to discourage): manufacturers who sell a product that creates a subsequent and artificial 'captive market'.

simion314 10y ago
Exactly, so you change your built-in speaker in your car then the engine breaks and you lose your warranty because you changed the speaker at a third party.
- culturestate 10y ago
  The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components. A better example from the automotive industry would be losing your engine warranty for having an "unauthorized" mechanic swap in an aftermarket oxygen sensor.
  - wtallis 10y ago
    > The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components. That's an obvious and important distinction, but it can't be solely left up to the manufacturer to determine what was coupled or related enough to void the entire warranty or absolve the manufacturer of all liability. If it's left up to them, they have a strong incentive to prohibit any third-party repairs of any kind. A good regulatory policy would need to ensure that the incentive is for the manufacturer to be the cheapest and easiest provider of repair services, so that poorly-executed third-party repairs are less likely to happen in the first place.
  - Someone 10y ago
    "The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine" In today's world I wouldn't bet on that always being the case. Your audio system might send audio data to your speakers over the same network your car tires uses to tell your engine that the road is slippery. Also, your car's engine in a wider sense might want to use your audio system to communicate with you, for example if your chair has detected that you are dozing of. Modern car electronics really are integrated with each other.
    - pdpi 10y ago
      Because we're talking engine and speakers — it's common practice for cars to produce a louder engine noise through the speakers than what would be heard normally. Edit: source http://www.caranddriver.com/features/faking-it-engine-sound-enhancement-explained-tech-dept http://www.caranddriver.com/features/faking-it-engine-sound-...
  - gambiting 10y ago
    Except that it can be. I have a friend who installed a rear-view dashcam by wiring it directly to the 12V line running through the back of the car, and the car would start throwing all sorts of engine errors until you removed the camera. It was basically drawing too much power on a line that was only designed for certain power draw and causing a computer error elsewhere. My point is, that cars are incredibly complex machines, and it's very hard to say with absolute certainty that "changing component X won't affect component Y".
    - douche 10y ago
      Cars are not necessarily incredibly complex. We've gone a good way down the path of making them so, but that is almost entirely a self-inflicted problem.
      - simion314 10y ago
        Agree, I also heard about the issue where you remove the battery then the computer restarts and you can't start your car, I am not sure what mechanics do to have it start again. Probably some major incident needs to happen so safety laws are passed so the main function of a car does not depend on the fancy features like navigation,sensor reading for doors, things like that
        coredog64 10y ago
        My Honda did this. I replaced the battery and the passkey system got confused. Allegedly there is a VIN-tied procedure for temporarily overriding it (e.g. Turn on car, pump brakes 3 times, turn to accessory, back to on pump brakes twice, etc.). Shockingly, the dealer declined to share it with us, forcing a tow to the service center. If you are buying a new car with a passkey system, make sure to extract the code before you sign the papers.
        icantdrive55 10y ago
        Thanks. I've been looking at new cars, and a bit scared. I've been to automotive school, and never needed to bring my vechicles to the dealership. If things don't change, I might be forced into going into those $225/hr. dens of mystery. When I'm doing the negotiations; I do plan on insisting a shop manual, but even a shop manual can only do so much. It's that closed computer that scares me. Taking out a battery and the car won't start is unacceptable. (I understand a vechicle needs to relearn the pulse widths of the EFI system, after a power interrupt. Actually--I don't even understand that. The computer should have a rechargeable battery that remembers the last data points? Or, go into "open loop" until the computer relearns? I find any vechicle that won't start after taking a battery out just wrong.)
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The fact that a semi-trained person manning a mall kiosk can successfully replace the component in question for $80 would seem to indicate that it's not actually very tightly coupled.
axoltl 10y ago
You bring up an interesting point. I'll let the actual car part be what it is (I should totally be able to change a simple mechanical part on my car). Instead, I'll ask the question if I should be able to swap out the LiDAR on my (partially) self-driving car. There are complicated calibration steps needed in order to ensure that the LiDAR is operating correctly and meets safety standards. If you replace safety critical (and in Apple's case, security critical) functionality on your car and it causes bodily harm, who do you think is going to end up in the news with a negative headline? Furthermore, should a car manufacturer be able to implement measures to prevent this from happening?
- greggman 10y ago
  Just thinking out loud but the car one seems solvable by moving the responsibility for accidents. It starts with the manufacture and transfers to the modifer. Although like above the issue gets complicated quickly since modifying one thing might be unrelated to the accident. I guess if it can be proven it was because of the mod then responsibility should transfer to the modder.
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    This is the kinda hilarious thing about self-driving cars. Either the manufacturers are held responsible for nearly all accidents, in which case it is probably impossible to make money on them; or we accept that sometimes consumer electronics kill people in the street.
  - rickycook 10y ago
    that's all well and good, but regardless of who is to blame, the headline will likely read that the fault is with the manufacturer because it's more likely to generate readers
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      We can't make laws to protect you from buzzfeed

Radle 10y ago

Apple gives a guarantee. Not an "Your system might run for x months." But an "Your system WILL run for x months." Even if the error is not caused by apple, they take in 99% of the profits that comes with selling and repairing the devices. They can take some responsibility for third party fails, in cases where they can't proof that other people actually failed. That's a very limited scope.

Ntrails 10y ago
No, they guarantee that where proper care is taken the device will run for x months. If you try to use it underwater they won't repair it for free, and if you have it repaired by a non approved party they won't repair it for free. Both represent "misuse"
- mikeash 10y ago
  That's probably how they want to do it, but it's not how the law requires them to do it. They must still repair it for free unless the underwater use or third-party repair caused the problem. They cannot say, "somebody else touched this, so tough luck." If they can demonstrate that your problem is a result of someone else touching it, then they can say tough luck. If they can't, then they have to fix it even if you didn't do things the way they want you to. I think it's important to remember that these consumer protections aren't some random government overreach. They were put in place as a reaction to abuses by manufacturers. Without them, we'd probably have Apple charging $50 for a charger, with the threat of voiding your warranty if you use an unapproved charger, or similar tactics. To bring it into another realm where the problem might be more obvious, imagine if your car manufacturer could void your warranty if you installed unapproved (and un-overpriced) tires or brake pads. Again, if those tires or brake pads cause your problem then they don't have to fix it, but they can't just void your warranty because of their mere presence.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    Oh, I agree, my point was that the guarantee of "free repair" is contingent on terms not just a blanket statement. They are required to take it in under guarantee to look at it but when they open it up and water starts leaking out they're going to stop and send you a bill. The interesting part of it is how hard it would be to prove them wrong if they say it could have been caused by behaviour x. Eg, if I chip my car and run it at non stock settings - the manufacturer can probably attribute almost any issue at all to that and I'd be hard pressed to disprove that assertion.