7 ms·

Is there a defensible argument for Apple's tactics?

by abnry 8y ago

SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
Not sure about the pricing but the counter argument I hear regarding restrictions often is that Apple doesn’t want to tarnish the brand by letting third party vendors repair devices. They don’t want the situation where the third party mucks up the screen replacement and the consumer (however right or wrong) blames Apple for it in some part. I imagine you could tie the pricing into the above argument somehow by saying you need to pay more to do the repair correctly (training technicians, buying the proper parts)
- walrus01 8y ago
  They're basically doing what BMW and Mercedes dealers have done for a long, long time. Overprice the repair labor and repair parts, market the product to people who don't particularly care how much it costs, and charge a ridiculous amount for scheduled services. There's a reason why a ten year old BMW 7 series has terrible resale value, the parts are incredibly expensive and rare/hard to find, in addition to the intentionally overcomplicated engineering of many subsystems. Using the 7 series as an example there is a steel cooling system tube that runs through the top center of the engine, with a rubber gasket on it. It's a thing that commonly fails and if you need to replace it, the "book rate" labor to do so requires something like 13 hours of labor (at $150/hour?), because it requires removing the whole engine. Even if you are willing to take it to a third party small repair shop that specializes in german cars, your repair costs are going to be a lot higher than a ten year old Lexus. Apple gluing things together in a way that can't be easily serviced (look at ifixit's repair scores and teardown photo galleries) is very similar.
  - dman 8y ago
    Apple stores as the new car dealerships - I am digging the analogy.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    your repair costs are going to be a lot higher than a ten year old Lexus Ironically, one model of Lexus engine has the starter in a location that requires disassembling most of the top of the engine (and thus incidentally also requiring the replacement of many other soft parts like gaskets) to reach it: http://www.lextreme.com/starter.html http://www.lextreme.com/starter.html That said, a lot of newer cars, not just luxury models, have seemingly been designed to make changing the simplest parts as difficult and involve removing as many other parts as possible.
    - sjg007 8y ago
      yeah, like kia having the skid cover the oil pan. Or subaru requiring that you remove a front wheel well panel to change a headlight.
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        Having a skid plate covering (read: protecting) the oil pan seems like a good design to me.
        sjg007 8y ago
        problem is that there is no access hatch, you have to remove the whole plate to get to the drain.
        sokoloff 8y ago
        That probably means the factory intended for topside oil changes. I switched to topside oil changing about 7-8 years ago and it's tremendously more convenient. I didn't trust it at first, so the first 3 I did, I did the vacuum process and then removed the plug. Never got enough oil out of the plug area to fill much more than a tablespoon, so I became a believer. I use the MityVac 07300 and can recommend it highly if you have a good sized compressor to run it. They also sell a manual pump version.
      - sjwright 8y ago
  - IBM 8y ago
    Except in Apple's case, Apple's products last longer and have higher resale value. Apple tightly controlling the supply chain and who repairs their products directly influences the secondary market value for their products. When you go on eBay to buy a used Macbook, you can be reasonably sure that what you're buying has had "complete repairs" with original parts (if it was repaired at all). Buyers can be sure that the computer they bought didn't just have a pin bent back, but has some other unresolved problem that will lead to a failure later on. That increases demand in the used market and gets better prices for sellers.
- month13 8y ago
  Problem is, they leave no avenue for good third parties to exist. Their AASP policies are restrictive, expensive and overall make shops that are trying to give a legitimate experience less competitive.
comboy 8y ago
If you don't like it, don't buy it. Seems super simple to me. Let customers vote with their wallets.
- ergothus 8y ago
  So first sale doctrine means nothing? We should all investigate the restrictions on how we use the device before buying? I'm fine if we conclude "yes", but it is worth noticing that this is not the "norm" for most of human history and so the question is entirely reasonable to ask.
  - comboy 8y ago
    Instead of going sophisticated way I would just say - read some reviews before buying. Fake reviews are a problem for a separate discussion, but they should give you some idea on probability of having some problems and difficulty of solving them. In this case I think most people who buy Apple products are not really looking for the cheapest parts and repair costs. They pay extra for the experience they want to get.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      Or instead of that, we could assert our legal rights and sue everyone who breaks them. And if the laws don't do what we want, we should change them to make such things illegal. If Apple doesn't want to lose money then they should follow the law. I'd say the same thing to a company selling poisoned food. "Just don't buy it" isn't a valid argument. The valid argument is instead "companies that break the law should be fined, sued, or people should go to jail". That's democracy for you!
      - comboy 8y ago
        I agree with you. It's just that I also believe that we should have as few laws as possible. Complexity of our society is not easy to capture in a strict rules and law is already so complicated that even those who devote their lives to study it find it overwhelming. So whatever rules you create (and I'd say there are too many of them already), huge legal team at Apple will work their way through them. It won't be easy for a small startup though.
threeseed 8y ago
Security/Privacy. If you look at the components that Apple has additional restrictions on e.g. Screen, TouchID they are the ones that if were comprised would enable actors to record you, capture keystrokes etc. There have been recorded incidents of state actors taking people's laptops, replacing components and then giving them back to them. Apple's position at least to my knowledge prevents this.
- userbinator 8y ago
  That's about as credible as the argument that having your car serviced by a third-party mechanic will make it more dangerous --- yes, it happens, but it's not a real concern compared to the loss of freedom imposed by these restrictions. State actors who have someone really interesting to focus on can likely defeat anything Apple does anyway.
  - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
    Third party mechanics almost always require certification, so you can expect some level and legal ramifications to shoddy workmanship. Is there something similar for electronics repair?
  - threeseed 8y ago
    > State actors who have someone really interesting to focus on can likely defeat anything Apple does anyway. I think the point is that they can't. Just like state actors do struggle against the secure communication apps like Telegram.
    - killaken2000 8y ago
      It seems as though there is always a way. With things like GreyKey and the like popping up and probably other stuff no one is talking about. In term of telegram, I'm not positive but I always thought that the encryption was in transit and if you could infect the phone you could see the messages as the intended user looks at them. An "analog problem" attack if you will. I don't know if you can see telegram messages simply by having access to the phone.
oconnor663 8y ago
A couple thoughts: - It's not quite fair to compare the service you get from some randomly chosen retail employees with the service you get from a near-celebrity repairman. - Aggressively suing people over copyright infringement is sometimes required by copyright law. If you don't do it, other people in the future can argue in court that you were implicitly giving up your enforcement rights. I don't know how often they win with that argument, but I know how Apple's lawyers feel about risking it.
- mrkstu 8y ago
  You’re confusing copyright and trademark- copyright can be as selectively enforced as wished without giving up any other or future rights.
  - oconnor663 8y ago
    Very good to know, thank you.
- sumedh 8y ago
  The issue Rossmann found was not complicated, any competent repair guy working for Apple should have known what the issue was and how to fix it instead of saying the device would need significant repairs.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    And how did the pin get on the outside of the connector? Presumably the laptop was working sometime in the past. Which means that whatever happened, it wasn't Apple's fault, nor is it their responsibility to fix it. Apple doesn't claim to offer electronic circuit diagnosis services, they offer limited repair options for a limited set of devices. Sure, it would have been nice if the Genius Bar staff could offer a disclaimer-laden advertisement for competent third party repair shops, but I'm not surprised that they don't because as Rossmann himself acknowledges, many third party repair shops are staffed with incompetent fools.
    - 8y ago
month13 8y ago
Devil's advocate here, Rossman cites that only a pin needed to be bent back in the case of the flickering display. Apple has to provide a warranty on their service, therefore they want the solution that is least likely to break again. Bending the pin may not be good until the lifespan of the device, it may break off next time the machine is dropped or put down a little hard. Of course, any sane person would have a discussion with the customer about whether or not they wanted to try a simple fix versus replace the whole damn thing, which is the crux of the overpricing argument. The other argument is cost, Apple faces massive short supply on the Genius Bar, so having more bodies that can do simpler repairs faster (ie blind part swaps) seems to have won out over having technical talent properly diagnose and repair the machine. They could have alleviated this through their authorized service providers, but hobble them with massive fees, high part prices and overall little trust (often being last in line to receive technical documents and training for new devices). Just check out Linus Sebastian's iMac Pro saga for an insight. Overall, it's a massive system orchestrated to give Apple maximum control over the entire process, and nowhere near enough supply for consumers. It's now actively hampering their experience, leaving people without the super glossy Genius Bar experience or a cheap option at all. I believe they've just put too few resources into this area and are too greedy to loosen the stranglehold of control for third parties to pick up the slack. Directly in contrast to their whole "we want these products to last" argument from the recent iPhone release keynote.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  It's good argument, but maybe they are saying that most, (or maybe "some"), people would be fine with a repair that is understood to have drawbacks where usable lifespan is concerned? Maybe it's like a car? You can get the mechanical issue really fixed, or you can have a less expensive repair. Most people understand almost immediately that there is going to be a drawback if you select the less expensive repair.
  - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
    Or maybe very few people, who knows? Shouldn't the number be quantified before we assume what people want? > You can get the mechanical issue really fixed, or you can have a less expensive repair. Does it qualify as a repair if it's not actually a repair? I'd imagine the same people who are happy with these kind of repairs with Apple would be the same ones to complain about planned obsolescence...
mishurov 8y ago
Apple uses bells and whistles to attract NPCs and cucks, they'll pay anyway. The red pill of Linux/BSD is hard to swallow because it requires intensive cognitive activity.
jordanthoms 8y ago
Sort of - the reality is that with the scale Apple is at, they aren't able to hire enough people anywhere near as smart as Rossmann to work in their stores repairing laptops - he's easily a 100x technician. Absent that, the only way to provide a reliable service is to make it very process-based - Run this procedure to find which of these 5-6 components in the device is most likely faulty, replace it with a new one by following this standard procedure, then run this automated QA test and if it doesn't pass, replace the next most likely component until it passes. It probably costs Apple a lot less to do their warranty/applecare repairs in this way, replacing whole boards at a time, than to try and hire enough people who could do board-level repairs. It does suck for people who are out-of-warranty and have a minor fault like in this case though - and Apple should have a better solution for them. Arguably if it's a minor fault, they should charge a minor fee to fix it even if their solution is replacing a whole component. Apple also seems to be trying to restrict third party repairers (and not just for security-critical components), which is indefensible IMO.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  How is it indefensible? They're protecting their brand and serving their customers; this approach has actual measurable business value AND value to the customer. I use Apple products (and in turn services) because I can be fairly certain that an aftermarket unit (Macbook) is going to work well. If I didn't know that I'd look for other brands that do exactly what Apple does now - and then I'd buy their phone and use their cloud so it works well with my main device. If Apple stopped doing what they do, a lot of people will start to experience weird issues that didn't happen before - and they will attribute these issues to Apple. Additionally the resale value of Apple gear would go substantially lower and Apple would probably also stop offering free OS. Since I assume that the cost of new device would remain the same, this could actually substantially negatively affect poorer people (to which right to repair would be relevant) - much more than this Apple policy does. As Apple customer, I prefer their approach. Why should anyone else stop me from consuming a service/product however I and the company I buy from like it (and it doesn't hurt anyone) just because it doesn't suit them? Why don't they buy a Lenovo?
  - 8y ago
liftbigweights 8y ago
Yes. They are a private company charged with making money for their shareholders. They are supposed to be greedy and get as much money for the shareholders. That's their only reason for existence. Actually, that's the reason for every company's existence. There are laws against price gouging and egregious behavior, especially if a company has a monopoly position. Is Apple price gouging or being egregious? Is it a monopoly? It's hard to say. In a capitalist society, we are supposed to have competition which naturally guards against such behaviors. If one store charges $100 for a bottle of water, you can go to another that charges a reasonable price. But the modern capitalist system seems to want large conglomerates dominating markets. In agriculture, supermarkets and tech, it all seems to be merging and converging to a few market players. Apple is interesting in that they are somewhat monopolistic but not completely. They seem to be overcharging, but not price gouging. They collect tons of your data, but only for themselves and don't sell it to others ( at least as far as we know ). They seem to be walking a very thin line where it's hard to attack them as easily as you can facebook or google.

Is there a defensible argument for Apple's tactics?

by abnry 8y ago

Is there a defensible argument for Apple's tactics?

Not sure about the pricing but the counter argument I hear regarding restrictions often is that Apple doesn’t want to tarnish the brand by letting third party vendors repair devices. They don’t want the situation where the third party mucks up the screen replacement and the consumer (however right or wrong) blames Apple for it in some part. I imagine you could tie the pricing into the above argument somehow by saying you need to pay more to do the repair correctly (training technicians, buying the proper parts)

walrus01 8y ago
They're basically doing what BMW and Mercedes dealers have done for a long, long time. Overprice the repair labor and repair parts, market the product to people who don't particularly care how much it costs, and charge a ridiculous amount for scheduled services. There's a reason why a ten year old BMW 7 series has terrible resale value, the parts are incredibly expensive and rare/hard to find, in addition to the intentionally overcomplicated engineering of many subsystems. Using the 7 series as an example there is a steel cooling system tube that runs through the top center of the engine, with a rubber gasket on it. It's a thing that commonly fails and if you need to replace it, the "book rate" labor to do so requires something like 13 hours of labor (at $150/hour?), because it requires removing the whole engine. Even if you are willing to take it to a third party small repair shop that specializes in german cars, your repair costs are going to be a lot higher than a ten year old Lexus. Apple gluing things together in a way that can't be easily serviced (look at ifixit's repair scores and teardown photo galleries) is very similar.
- dman 8y ago
  Apple stores as the new car dealerships - I am digging the analogy.
- userbinator 8y ago
  your repair costs are going to be a lot higher than a ten year old Lexus Ironically, one model of Lexus engine has the starter in a location that requires disassembling most of the top of the engine (and thus incidentally also requiring the replacement of many other soft parts like gaskets) to reach it: http://www.lextreme.com/starter.html http://www.lextreme.com/starter.html That said, a lot of newer cars, not just luxury models, have seemingly been designed to make changing the simplest parts as difficult and involve removing as many other parts as possible.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    yeah, like kia having the skid cover the oil pan. Or subaru requiring that you remove a front wheel well panel to change a headlight.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Having a skid plate covering (read: protecting) the oil pan seems like a good design to me.
      - sjg007 8y ago
        problem is that there is no access hatch, you have to remove the whole plate to get to the drain.
        sokoloff 8y ago
        That probably means the factory intended for topside oil changes. I switched to topside oil changing about 7-8 years ago and it's tremendously more convenient. I didn't trust it at first, so the first 3 I did, I did the vacuum process and then removed the plug. Never got enough oil out of the plug area to fill much more than a tablespoon, so I became a believer. I use the MityVac 07300 and can recommend it highly if you have a good sized compressor to run it. They also sell a manual pump version.
    - sjwright 8y ago
- IBM 8y ago
  Except in Apple's case, Apple's products last longer and have higher resale value. Apple tightly controlling the supply chain and who repairs their products directly influences the secondary market value for their products. When you go on eBay to buy a used Macbook, you can be reasonably sure that what you're buying has had "complete repairs" with original parts (if it was repaired at all). Buyers can be sure that the computer they bought didn't just have a pin bent back, but has some other unresolved problem that will lead to a failure later on. That increases demand in the used market and gets better prices for sellers.
month13 8y ago
Problem is, they leave no avenue for good third parties to exist. Their AASP policies are restrictive, expensive and overall make shops that are trying to give a legitimate experience less competitive.

comboy 8y ago

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Seems super simple to me. Let customers vote with their wallets.

ergothus 8y ago
So first sale doctrine means nothing? We should all investigate the restrictions on how we use the device before buying? I'm fine if we conclude "yes", but it is worth noticing that this is not the "norm" for most of human history and so the question is entirely reasonable to ask.
- comboy 8y ago
  Instead of going sophisticated way I would just say - read some reviews before buying. Fake reviews are a problem for a separate discussion, but they should give you some idea on probability of having some problems and difficulty of solving them. In this case I think most people who buy Apple products are not really looking for the cheapest parts and repair costs. They pay extra for the experience they want to get.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Or instead of that, we could assert our legal rights and sue everyone who breaks them. And if the laws don't do what we want, we should change them to make such things illegal. If Apple doesn't want to lose money then they should follow the law. I'd say the same thing to a company selling poisoned food. "Just don't buy it" isn't a valid argument. The valid argument is instead "companies that break the law should be fined, sued, or people should go to jail". That's democracy for you!
    - comboy 8y ago
      I agree with you. It's just that I also believe that we should have as few laws as possible. Complexity of our society is not easy to capture in a strict rules and law is already so complicated that even those who devote their lives to study it find it overwhelming. So whatever rules you create (and I'd say there are too many of them already), huge legal team at Apple will work their way through them. It won't be easy for a small startup though.

threeseed 8y ago

Security/Privacy. If you look at the components that Apple has additional restrictions on e.g. Screen, TouchID they are the ones that if were comprised would enable actors to record you, capture keystrokes etc. There have been recorded incidents of state actors taking people's laptops, replacing components and then giving them back to them. Apple's position at least to my knowledge prevents this.

userbinator 8y ago
That's about as credible as the argument that having your car serviced by a third-party mechanic will make it more dangerous --- yes, it happens, but it's not a real concern compared to the loss of freedom imposed by these restrictions. State actors who have someone really interesting to focus on can likely defeat anything Apple does anyway.
- ntsplnkv2 8y ago
  Third party mechanics almost always require certification, so you can expect some level and legal ramifications to shoddy workmanship. Is there something similar for electronics repair?
- threeseed 8y ago
  > State actors who have someone really interesting to focus on can likely defeat anything Apple does anyway. I think the point is that they can't. Just like state actors do struggle against the secure communication apps like Telegram.
  - killaken2000 8y ago
    It seems as though there is always a way. With things like GreyKey and the like popping up and probably other stuff no one is talking about. In term of telegram, I'm not positive but I always thought that the encryption was in transit and if you could infect the phone you could see the messages as the intended user looks at them. An "analog problem" attack if you will. I don't know if you can see telegram messages simply by having access to the phone.

oconnor663 8y ago

A couple thoughts: - It's not quite fair to compare the service you get from some randomly chosen retail employees with the service you get from a near-celebrity repairman. - Aggressively suing people over copyright infringement is sometimes required by copyright law. If you don't do it, other people in the future can argue in court that you were implicitly giving up your enforcement rights. I don't know how often they win with that argument, but I know how Apple's lawyers feel about risking it.

mrkstu 8y ago
You’re confusing copyright and trademark- copyright can be as selectively enforced as wished without giving up any other or future rights.
- oconnor663 8y ago
  Very good to know, thank you.
sumedh 8y ago
The issue Rossmann found was not complicated, any competent repair guy working for Apple should have known what the issue was and how to fix it instead of saying the device would need significant repairs.
- sjwright 8y ago
  And how did the pin get on the outside of the connector? Presumably the laptop was working sometime in the past. Which means that whatever happened, it wasn't Apple's fault, nor is it their responsibility to fix it. Apple doesn't claim to offer electronic circuit diagnosis services, they offer limited repair options for a limited set of devices. Sure, it would have been nice if the Genius Bar staff could offer a disclaimer-laden advertisement for competent third party repair shops, but I'm not surprised that they don't because as Rossmann himself acknowledges, many third party repair shops are staffed with incompetent fools.
  - 8y ago

month13 8y ago

Devil's advocate here, Rossman cites that only a pin needed to be bent back in the case of the flickering display. Apple has to provide a warranty on their service, therefore they want the solution that is least likely to break again. Bending the pin may not be good until the lifespan of the device, it may break off next time the machine is dropped or put down a little hard. Of course, any sane person would have a discussion with the customer about whether or not they wanted to try a simple fix versus replace the whole damn thing, which is the crux of the overpricing argument. The other argument is cost, Apple faces massive short supply on the Genius Bar, so having more bodies that can do simpler repairs faster (ie blind part swaps) seems to have won out over having technical talent properly diagnose and repair the machine. They could have alleviated this through their authorized service providers, but hobble them with massive fees, high part prices and overall little trust (often being last in line to receive technical documents and training for new devices). Just check out Linus Sebastian's iMac Pro saga for an insight. Overall, it's a massive system orchestrated to give Apple maximum control over the entire process, and nowhere near enough supply for consumers. It's now actively hampering their experience, leaving people without the super glossy Genius Bar experience or a cheap option at all. I believe they've just put too few resources into this area and are too greedy to loosen the stranglehold of control for third parties to pick up the slack. Directly in contrast to their whole "we want these products to last" argument from the recent iPhone release keynote.

bilbo0s 8y ago
It's good argument, but maybe they are saying that most, (or maybe "some"), people would be fine with a repair that is understood to have drawbacks where usable lifespan is concerned? Maybe it's like a car? You can get the mechanical issue really fixed, or you can have a less expensive repair. Most people understand almost immediately that there is going to be a drawback if you select the less expensive repair.
- ntsplnkv2 8y ago
  Or maybe very few people, who knows? Shouldn't the number be quantified before we assume what people want? > You can get the mechanical issue really fixed, or you can have a less expensive repair. Does it qualify as a repair if it's not actually a repair? I'd imagine the same people who are happy with these kind of repairs with Apple would be the same ones to complain about planned obsolescence...

mishurov 8y ago

Apple uses bells and whistles to attract NPCs and cucks, they'll pay anyway. The red pill of Linux/BSD is hard to swallow because it requires intensive cognitive activity.

jordanthoms 8y ago

Sort of - the reality is that with the scale Apple is at, they aren't able to hire enough people anywhere near as smart as Rossmann to work in their stores repairing laptops - he's easily a 100x technician. Absent that, the only way to provide a reliable service is to make it very process-based - Run this procedure to find which of these 5-6 components in the device is most likely faulty, replace it with a new one by following this standard procedure, then run this automated QA test and if it doesn't pass, replace the next most likely component until it passes. It probably costs Apple a lot less to do their warranty/applecare repairs in this way, replacing whole boards at a time, than to try and hire enough people who could do board-level repairs. It does suck for people who are out-of-warranty and have a minor fault like in this case though - and Apple should have a better solution for them. Arguably if it's a minor fault, they should charge a minor fee to fix it even if their solution is replacing a whole component. Apple also seems to be trying to restrict third party repairers (and not just for security-critical components), which is indefensible IMO.

TomMarius 8y ago
How is it indefensible? They're protecting their brand and serving their customers; this approach has actual measurable business value AND value to the customer. I use Apple products (and in turn services) because I can be fairly certain that an aftermarket unit (Macbook) is going to work well. If I didn't know that I'd look for other brands that do exactly what Apple does now - and then I'd buy their phone and use their cloud so it works well with my main device. If Apple stopped doing what they do, a lot of people will start to experience weird issues that didn't happen before - and they will attribute these issues to Apple. Additionally the resale value of Apple gear would go substantially lower and Apple would probably also stop offering free OS. Since I assume that the cost of new device would remain the same, this could actually substantially negatively affect poorer people (to which right to repair would be relevant) - much more than this Apple policy does. As Apple customer, I prefer their approach. Why should anyone else stop me from consuming a service/product however I and the company I buy from like it (and it doesn't hurt anyone) just because it doesn't suit them? Why don't they buy a Lenovo?
- 8y ago

liftbigweights 8y ago

Yes. They are a private company charged with making money for their shareholders. They are supposed to be greedy and get as much money for the shareholders. That's their only reason for existence. Actually, that's the reason for every company's existence. There are laws against price gouging and egregious behavior, especially if a company has a monopoly position. Is Apple price gouging or being egregious? Is it a monopoly? It's hard to say. In a capitalist society, we are supposed to have competition which naturally guards against such behaviors. If one store charges $100 for a bottle of water, you can go to another that charges a reasonable price. But the modern capitalist system seems to want large conglomerates dominating markets. In agriculture, supermarkets and tech, it all seems to be merging and converging to a few market players. Apple is interesting in that they are somewhat monopolistic but not completely. They seem to be overcharging, but not price gouging. They collect tons of your data, but only for themselves and don't sell it to others ( at least as far as we know ). They seem to be walking a very thin line where it's hard to attack them as easily as you can facebook or google.