6 ms·

>Please show me a source where Apple sued someone (either an individual or a third-party repair center) simply for repairing their own device or a user's device

by ksk 9y ago

>Please show me a source where Apple sued someone (either an individual or a third-party repair center) simply for repairing their own device or a user's device on behalf of that user. You won't find it because that's not what Apple's complaint is here. That would be inefficient and a waste of their money in most cases. >People are conflating Apple's refusal to provide manuals and replacement parts without cost (and outside of their certification program) with the idea that Apple is trying to prevent people from repairing their own devices. Apple uses various methods - Updates that brick repaired phones, and copyright/patent law to block others from supplying parts. Here they can choke the repair shops much more easily. I don't want to be forced to go to Subaru to repair my car either. I prefer to have an option of which tires to buy, which oil to use, which stereo I use, etc. I also don't want the car to be welded together to the point where nobody can repair it. YMMV. Sometimes the good guys win. https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-screen/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s... http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/06/technology/apple-australia-lawsuit-error-53-iphone-brick/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/06/technology/apple-australia-l... >the idea that Apple is trying to prevent people from repairing their own devices. People don't want to repair the phones themselves. They want to use services available in almost every other consumer industry to service their phones. Apple insists that they should be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to do that. People are trying to fight Apple on that. And thats what its all about. Apple does produce some very high quality products and I have enjoyed many of them over the years. That doesn't make them a saint on all fronts. Fairs fair, Praise where praise is due, and criticism when they do something purely out of greed/control.

ubernostrum 9y ago
Your problem is that Apple is not Microsoft. Microsoft effectively has to support literally any combination of things someone might try to do to their Windows PC, because they know nobody will blame the author of the crappy driver or the manufacturer of the peripheral. They'll blame Microsoft. Apple, by tightly controlling its hardware ecosystem, avoids a lot of that. But also gets to build software that's tested for far fewer configurations, meaning that if you do step outside that configuration, you have to accept that they're not testing for it and aren't guaranteeing the next version of their software will continue to work for you. But rather than understand this, you attribute it to Tim Cook twirling his mustache and cackling over how he's going to deliberately brick all those phones that people repaired themselves! Soon, he will rule the world! BWAHAHAHA! Except you know as soon as you think about it that you have no evidence of this and that the kind of "Apple bricks your phone to punish you for repairing it" narrative you're pushing here is completely false. Apple might not like losing out on some more of your money, but figuring out ways to push updates that will break your phone while not breaking someone else's is just not worth the time and money for them. So the simplest explanation -- that they don't have staff thoroughly test every type of repair you might do to your phone with every update they push -- is the likeliest, and you know that too. This, for the record, is my problem with the "right to repair" people. You ignore real problems to peddle conspiracies.
- ksk 9y ago
  What in the world are you on about? Sorry dude, I can make no sense of anything in your rambling comment.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    You appear to be claiming that Apple deliberately develops software updates to break user- or third-party-repaired devices. This requires Apple to have a team studying how third parties repair their devices, and working on ways to modify their software to break such devices while leaving all others unaffected. That's a not-insignificant challenge. The likelier explanation is that Apple does not invest in developing updates that will deliberately break your phone as retaliation for you repairing it in ways they don't like. The likelier explanation is that Apple simply doesn't test the interaction between their updates and your repairs, and doesn't much care if your phone breaks as a result. They test for the interaction with their stock devices, and devices repaired through their advocated channels, and don't seem to want the "absolutely everything everybody might do must be supported" approach Microsoft historically took (with good reason -- one of the advantages of tight ecosystem control is getting to avoid Microsoft's nightmare).
    - ksk 9y ago
      https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-display-ambient-light-sensor-issue/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-displ... Can you explain this?
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        If you mean "can I provide you the exact reason why it happened", no. But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs. I believe this because I've worked on software teams that developed things that would only be used in-house in controlled ways, and I've seen how fragile those usually end up being and how poorly tested they usually are. But I also see that there's no possible evidence someone could present, or argument someone could make, that would change your mind, because as the quote says: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into.
dpkonofa 9y ago
>Apple insists that they should be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to do that This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here. They're not preventing anyone from doing anything but there sure as hell do want to know that the people they've authorized for repairs are doing them to their standards. If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company.
- ksk 9y ago
  >This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. False. This is getting tiring. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Apple-of-misleading-customers-about-repairs.226210.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Appl... https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repair.html https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repa... https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-screen/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s... Apple is using or was using (for above links) various ways to make it seem like third party services are illegitmate. Its one of the several tactics to maintain a monopoly. Consumers are getting wiser. Thousands of people have gotten a screen fixed or a battery replaced without paying Apple's tax. Apple sure as hell doesn't like that. But tough cookies. Its no different than the inkjet situation where they blocked third party cartriges and made it nearly impossible for you to refill ink. >To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. A Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo. >Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here. And anyone who has gotten gouged by Apple knows that a monopoly of service and parts is never going to bring about competition. >If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company. So your argument, as best as I can unpack it, since it was very confusing to me, is - Its justified because someone somewhere at somepoint in time in some cases might face some issues with their third party repair and some people might possibly sometimes mistake that as an Apple problem. Wow. Anyway, we're going around in circles. There is no point in arguing you have your opinion and I have mine. I am happy to support a positive movement that promotes less e-waste and more local jobs.

by ksk 9y ago

ubernostrum 9y ago

Your problem is that Apple is not Microsoft. Microsoft effectively has to support literally any combination of things someone might try to do to their Windows PC, because they know nobody will blame the author of the crappy driver or the manufacturer of the peripheral. They'll blame Microsoft. Apple, by tightly controlling its hardware ecosystem, avoids a lot of that. But also gets to build software that's tested for far fewer configurations, meaning that if you do step outside that configuration, you have to accept that they're not testing for it and aren't guaranteeing the next version of their software will continue to work for you. But rather than understand this, you attribute it to Tim Cook twirling his mustache and cackling over how he's going to deliberately brick all those phones that people repaired themselves! Soon, he will rule the world! BWAHAHAHA! Except you know as soon as you think about it that you have no evidence of this and that the kind of "Apple bricks your phone to punish you for repairing it" narrative you're pushing here is completely false. Apple might not like losing out on some more of your money, but figuring out ways to push updates that will break your phone while not breaking someone else's is just not worth the time and money for them. So the simplest explanation -- that they don't have staff thoroughly test every type of repair you might do to your phone with every update they push -- is the likeliest, and you know that too. This, for the record, is my problem with the "right to repair" people. You ignore real problems to peddle conspiracies.

ksk 9y ago
What in the world are you on about? Sorry dude, I can make no sense of anything in your rambling comment.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  You appear to be claiming that Apple deliberately develops software updates to break user- or third-party-repaired devices. This requires Apple to have a team studying how third parties repair their devices, and working on ways to modify their software to break such devices while leaving all others unaffected. That's a not-insignificant challenge. The likelier explanation is that Apple does not invest in developing updates that will deliberately break your phone as retaliation for you repairing it in ways they don't like. The likelier explanation is that Apple simply doesn't test the interaction between their updates and your repairs, and doesn't much care if your phone breaks as a result. They test for the interaction with their stock devices, and devices repaired through their advocated channels, and don't seem to want the "absolutely everything everybody might do must be supported" approach Microsoft historically took (with good reason -- one of the advantages of tight ecosystem control is getting to avoid Microsoft's nightmare).
  - ksk 9y ago
    https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-display-ambient-light-sensor-issue/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-displ... Can you explain this?
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      If you mean "can I provide you the exact reason why it happened", no. But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs. I believe this because I've worked on software teams that developed things that would only be used in-house in controlled ways, and I've seen how fragile those usually end up being and how poorly tested they usually are. But I also see that there's no possible evidence someone could present, or argument someone could make, that would change your mind, because as the quote says: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into.

dpkonofa 9y ago

>Apple insists that they should be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to do that This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here. They're not preventing anyone from doing anything but there sure as hell do want to know that the people they've authorized for repairs are doing them to their standards. If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company.

ksk 9y ago
>This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. False. This is getting tiring. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Apple-of-misleading-customers-about-repairs.226210.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Appl... https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repair.html https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repa... https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-screen/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s... Apple is using or was using (for above links) various ways to make it seem like third party services are illegitmate. Its one of the several tactics to maintain a monopoly. Consumers are getting wiser. Thousands of people have gotten a screen fixed or a battery replaced without paying Apple's tax. Apple sure as hell doesn't like that. But tough cookies. Its no different than the inkjet situation where they blocked third party cartriges and made it nearly impossible for you to refill ink. >To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. A Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo. >Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here. And anyone who has gotten gouged by Apple knows that a monopoly of service and parts is never going to bring about competition. >If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company. So your argument, as best as I can unpack it, since it was very confusing to me, is - Its justified because someone somewhere at somepoint in time in some cases might face some issues with their third party repair and some people might possibly sometimes mistake that as an Apple problem. Wow. Anyway, we're going around in circles. There is no point in arguing you have your opinion and I have mine. I am happy to support a positive movement that promotes less e-waste and more local jobs.