4 ms·

This is exactly why I think it's disingenuous for people to say that Apple doesn't support "Right to Repair" laws. Apple doesn't support the current, proposed l

This is exactly why I think it's disingenuous for people to say that Apple doesn't support "Right to Repair" laws. Apple doesn't support the current, proposed laws because they don't actually protect consumers and they aren't fair for Apple. The current laws being proposed require Apple to provide access to parts and manuals/repair guides to third parties at no cost. That means Apple has to provide the means to do this without having any say in the quality of the repairs or without being able to guarantee some kind of standard of repair. You've pretty succinctly summarized why I'm on Apple's side for this. It's also why I hate when people bring up Louis Rossman as some kind of argument against Apple's position. The exact problem is that not everyone is as talented or capable as Louis. I'd be find if Louis was fixing my MacBook because he's shown time and again that he has the knowledge and talent. Other repair shops, though, don't necessarily have those talents or standards.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Apple has a right to sell hermetic, unmaintainable boxes. They should have no say on their customers using alternative means to fix these boxes unless it wants to bind them in a contract.
- mlindner 7y ago
  Until Apple has to foot the bill when someone brings one of the broken(repaired) phones into the apple store.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Auto dealers can't void a warranty due to functional third party parts. Apple can do the same. Anything broken will just be charged as a cost of repair.
    - dpkonofa 7y ago
      Apple does do the same. You're misrepresenting what Apple is doing and what their policy is for devices with third-party repairs present.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    Apple doesn't foot the bill.. they just refuse to support, or charge full price for the repair, they aren't losing money on this.
  - alluro2 7y ago
    Umm, how does Apple foot the bill in such case? They charge exorbitant amounts to replace (not repair) parts and it was shown time and time again that they try to overcharge by replacing more than just the undamaged parts...
- dpkonofa 7y ago
  And they don't. Apple does not, in any way, try to prevent people from using alternative means to fix those boxes. Please give any single example of them doing that. You can't because they don't.
  - aspenmayer 7y ago
    DHS Seizes Aftermarket iPhone Screens From Prominent Right-to-Repair Advocate [1] Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost [2] [1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-screens-jessa-jones https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-... [2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-independent-iphone-repair-shop-owner-and-lost https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-inde... Edit: One more - Apple & Customs STOLE my batteries, that they won't even provide to AASPs https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw
    - dpkonofa 7y ago
      Do you know anything about any of those cases you just linked? None of them show that Apple prevented someone from trying to get their device repaired. All 3 of them are copyright issues, not having anything to do with the repair of devices. 1. DHS seized the screens from Jessa because they came from China and beared Apple logos. Apple doesn't sell any display parts so their copyright extends to the parts that bear their logo. Apple wasn't involved in seizure in any way except for holding legal protections for their products and logo. The article linked even says that she bought them from "grey market" shops in China. 2. Apple did not lose the case. That's misrepresenting what happened. The lawsuit alleged that the repair shop owner was advertising using genuine OEM Apple parts. According to the archive.org archive of their site, this is true and the archive is still up so you can see it. The court did not rule in favor of the store, it dismissed the case because it determined that the logos that would mistakenly identify the parts as "genuine" Apple parts would be on the insides of the devices and not viewable by consumers once repairs are completed. They made this ruling under the directive that the shop owner had to stop advertising as using genuine OEM Apple parts and he has since removed that language from his site. Apple is appealing the dismissal because they believe that someone seeing the Apple logo may be convinced that the parts are genuine Apple parts when they have, in fact, been replaced with inferior parts including digitizers, glass, and displays. 3. This is the same situation as the first one and, of course, you're only proving my point by linking to a Louis Rossman video. Apple didn't steal his batteries. Customs seized them because they bear Apple's logo on them but aren't actually sourced from Apple. It's a copyright and trademark issue, not a RTR issue. The fact that you can't argue against what Apple's doing without wildly misrepresenting each of these cases is telling. If you actually read the bills being proposed, it should be obvious why they're not pro-consumer nor are they fair to companies like Apple. The main exception is John Deere who software locks all repairs and prevents machines that have been repaired by third parties from starting or being usable. Apple not only doesn't do that but they warn you when third-party components force them to disable components like Touch ID and Face ID which, in my mind, is very pro-consumer. I don't ever want there to be a chance where Touch ID or Face ID are considered genuine when there's no mechanism in place to verify that the hardware chain is still secure.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Apple has a right to sell hermetic, unmaintainable boxes. They should have no say on their customers using alternative means to fix these boxes unless it wants to bind them in a contract.

mlindner 7y ago
Until Apple has to foot the bill when someone brings one of the broken(repaired) phones into the apple store.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Auto dealers can't void a warranty due to functional third party parts. Apple can do the same. Anything broken will just be charged as a cost of repair.
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    Apple does do the same. You're misrepresenting what Apple is doing and what their policy is for devices with third-party repairs present.
- tracker1 7y ago
  Apple doesn't foot the bill.. they just refuse to support, or charge full price for the repair, they aren't losing money on this.
- alluro2 7y ago
  Umm, how does Apple foot the bill in such case? They charge exorbitant amounts to replace (not repair) parts and it was shown time and time again that they try to overcharge by replacing more than just the undamaged parts...
dpkonofa 7y ago
And they don't. Apple does not, in any way, try to prevent people from using alternative means to fix those boxes. Please give any single example of them doing that. You can't because they don't.
- aspenmayer 7y ago
  DHS Seizes Aftermarket iPhone Screens From Prominent Right-to-Repair Advocate [1] Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost [2] [1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-screens-jessa-jones https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-... [2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-independent-iphone-repair-shop-owner-and-lost https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-inde... Edit: One more - Apple & Customs STOLE my batteries, that they won't even provide to AASPs https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    Do you know anything about any of those cases you just linked? None of them show that Apple prevented someone from trying to get their device repaired. All 3 of them are copyright issues, not having anything to do with the repair of devices. 1. DHS seized the screens from Jessa because they came from China and beared Apple logos. Apple doesn't sell any display parts so their copyright extends to the parts that bear their logo. Apple wasn't involved in seizure in any way except for holding legal protections for their products and logo. The article linked even says that she bought them from "grey market" shops in China. 2. Apple did not lose the case. That's misrepresenting what happened. The lawsuit alleged that the repair shop owner was advertising using genuine OEM Apple parts. According to the archive.org archive of their site, this is true and the archive is still up so you can see it. The court did not rule in favor of the store, it dismissed the case because it determined that the logos that would mistakenly identify the parts as "genuine" Apple parts would be on the insides of the devices and not viewable by consumers once repairs are completed. They made this ruling under the directive that the shop owner had to stop advertising as using genuine OEM Apple parts and he has since removed that language from his site. Apple is appealing the dismissal because they believe that someone seeing the Apple logo may be convinced that the parts are genuine Apple parts when they have, in fact, been replaced with inferior parts including digitizers, glass, and displays. 3. This is the same situation as the first one and, of course, you're only proving my point by linking to a Louis Rossman video. Apple didn't steal his batteries. Customs seized them because they bear Apple's logo on them but aren't actually sourced from Apple. It's a copyright and trademark issue, not a RTR issue. The fact that you can't argue against what Apple's doing without wildly misrepresenting each of these cases is telling. If you actually read the bills being proposed, it should be obvious why they're not pro-consumer nor are they fair to companies like Apple. The main exception is John Deere who software locks all repairs and prevents machines that have been repaired by third parties from starting or being usable. Apple not only doesn't do that but they warn you when third-party components force them to disable components like Touch ID and Face ID which, in my mind, is very pro-consumer. I don't ever want there to be a chance where Touch ID or Face ID are considered genuine when there's no mechanism in place to verify that the hardware chain is still secure.