15 ms·
Apple crushes one-man repair shop in Norway’s Supreme Court
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chinhodado 6y agoCan someone explain to me what's in this for Apple? Surely the money that they get from forcing people to go the authorized way isn't that significant to their bottom line? And it's not like they risk impacting their quality reputation either since the repair shops don't advertise that they provide genuine Apple part. So why risk people's goodwill on things like this?
- helldritch 6y agoBecause they don't want devices to be repaired, they want devices to become obsolete or irreparable within 5 years so that consumers can buy a new device.
- threeseed 6y agoI don't think this is true at all. In the mobile space Apple is transitioning to a services and ecosystem business as the space commodifies. You buy an iPhone and then get Apple Music, TV+, News+, AirPod, Watch, Glass etc. If you look at the Android OEMs they don't even support phones after 2 years. And Apple would likely increase upgrade support for more than 5 years if those phones weren't massively underpowered.
- effie 6y agoYou've got a point about Android manufacturers not bothering with supporting their models for long. At the same time, Apple does make it complicated to do cheap repairs. Why would that be... they have to keep the brand status... and also new units to sell, just as Android manufacturers do.
- hosteur 6y agoThis. And also to intimidate other repair shops. Plus a case like this sets a legal precedent. Btw. If I by a car from, say, Toyota and go to a shop to have it repaired. Of course the dealer may use off brand parts to repair it.
- encom 6y agoBingo. Also note how Apple pretends to care about their environmental impact, while being actively hostile towards repair efforts, that would reduce the amount of e-waste generated. Absolute hypocrites.
- supernova87a 6y agoReally? They do this just to work at cross-purposes to their other teams which spend time and money to maintain software updates for older phones, 4-5 years longer than competitors do? How do you explain that one?
- effie 6y agoWhy not? It is a big company, with different teams having somewhat different priorities. It is perfectly reasonable for the upper management to leave the tech department supporting the devices for a long time, and thus maintain and increase the brand value, while keep the anti-consumer anti-environment business policies regarding repair. They can brag about how the Apple devices are great and long lived, and sell lots of new units/repairs every cycle. It makes perfect sense.
- Delk 6y agoI'm not an Apple apologist by any measure, but I don't think that's really true. At least last time I looked into it, Apple supported their devices with software updates for longer than the majority of other vendors in the market (for the majority of their devices at least). Of course Apple is a company that likes to keep a tight control of their market and their image, and you could maybe say they go to the point of control freakiness in that regard. Any potential loss in image regarding the quality of their products is a significant cost to them; being able to charge a premium for replacement parts probably doesn't hurt either. If independent repair shops and consumers lose something in repair costs and freedom, that probably doesn't tip Apple's scale in any way. For the rest of the society it could, and if needed, Apple (or any company) needs to be able to be criticized for that, and legislation needs to cater to that and not to the needs of any single corporation. Edit: It might be worth pointing out that while yes, Apple would probably like you to buy a new phone within five years, e.g. many Android devices aren't supported for more than a couple of years. I agree you shouldn't necessarily be forced to buy a new device even every five years, but most other vendors aren't any better in that regard.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago>Apple supported their devices with software updates for longer than the majority of other vendors The situation is exactly the opposite when it comes to computers/laptops. I can still have latest version of Windows on my father's 2011 laptop. Secondly, this whole 'loss is image' is a giant smoke screen. Consider that you can repair a BMW in a random garage with unauthorised parts and incompetent repairmen - and you might even die as a result. Does BMW's image suffer? Is their brand worth nothing? The consumer can comprehend the consequences of repairing his device where he chooses, this is not medical equipment. Using copyright to restrict repairs is a bastardisation of copyright law - it's intended purpose is wholly different.
- Delk 6y agoI didn't say I agree with preventing unauthorized repairs. I don't, and my comment wasn't meant as apologetics. I was merely speculating on why it might make sense for Apple to want that kind of control even if it isn't in the best interests of anybody else. The costs to everybody else just have no weight to them, as long as their customers keep paying, and thus even a small potential matter of image could weigh more to them. That doesn't mean you, me or anybody else should support that line of though. BMW might not mind having that kind of control either if their customers and the legislation were to put up with it. Your point about computers is valid.
- 4636760295 6y agoThey probably have an army of staff attorneys who have nothing better to do.
- threeseed 6y agoApple gets sued all the time for patent infringement so I doubt this is true.
- 4636760295 6y agoThey send their interns into those cases.
- est31 6y ago> Surely the money that they get from forcing people to go the authorized way isn't that significant to their bottom line? In the car business, a large part of the profit that a manufacturer makes is actually made after the car is sold, in the form of replacement parts. Basically, by buying a car you enter into a relationship with the manufacturer to buy replacement parts for your car. Some are being manufactured independently, but many aren't available. I guess it's similar in the case of phones.
- npunt 6y agoThis is almost nothing like the very low margin auto business. Apple makes ~35-40% margins on the devices at time of sale, and make additional profits on services. Repairs are barely profitable IIRC.
- est31 6y agoWhat if they want to change that and make massive profits on repairs as well? You can't do that if you have competitors undercutting you. Once they are gone you can charge what you want.
- npunt 6y agoIt's in Apple's best interest to maintain high customer satisfaction, because that's how they get repeat business. This question is in the same vein as hypothetical questions like 'what prevents Apple from violating people's privacy to sell/use their data'. The answer is always the same: pick a business model that aligns customer and company interests, and these things won't happen. Apple thinks in long term customer relationships measured in customer lifetime value, which can be 10s of thousands of dollars over decades of customer relationship. To sacrifice that for a few extra bucks on screen repair would be really dumb.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago> 10s of thousands of dollars over decades of customer relationship. To sacrifice that for a few extra bucks on screen repair would be really dumb. Have we never seen management prioritise short term gains and next quarterly report over long term profits? Think of 2008 and the Boeing disasters. Almost everyone involved knew that this will blow up one day, and yet they kept going.
- ssivark 6y agoThe broader effect of aggressively controlling such third-party interactions is to lock-in users, and convert what one would normally think of as a “product” into something more like a “service” — which then gives the company much more power with pricing, market segmentation, etc. (including Apple care/warranties, value of returns or refurbished devices, upgrade cycle of devices, etc). Functionally, yet another way of exerting monopolistic effects. This strategy applies beyond this particular example, and is probably one of the strong business motivations for Apple’s vertical integration. Business-wise, this is yet another way to boost the “lifetime value” of a customer and ensure it is far more than the price of a single product, which I’m sure is a significant factor in the high valuations (and revenues) of Apple. The fact that they invest so much into marketing/advertising the Apple ecosystem as a lifestyle brand also means that they are pushed towards a business model where their customers need to have a large lifetime value to offset the customer acquisition/retention costs.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> it's not like they risk impacting their quality reputation either since the repair shops don't advertise that they provide genuine Apple part If the end consumer winds up confused, it still hurts Apple. That is the matter of this case. The repair shop didn’t make it clear enough that these are not genuine parts.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoHow did you conclude it's not clear enough? Is there any actual person under impression that when they get their phone fixed for $50 it's using original parts in mint new condition? Because if such people exist, I've never met them.
- fearface 6y agoIt’s not about money, but about ensuring that the repair shops have up to date information and tools to execute the repairs and that they’re delivering a decent quality. Without the certification you won’t get access to the special tools and diagnose software.
- encom 6y agoThese special tools and software only exist in the first place to hamper 3rd party repair efforts.
- floatingatoll 6y agoThird-party repair shops working with screens and touchID/faceID sensors have an opportunity to install surveillance hardware inside iPhones that could be used by organized crime and governments to commit harm upon citizens. Denying official parts for these security-critical components to uncertified vendors would protect users from these “evil maid” threat vectors, as the certification can be used to enforce compliance with strict auditing and process controls designed to minimize the threat of harm to users.
- saagarjha 6y agoAn even simpler and more common case is a third-party using a shoddy part that fails later.
- encom 6y agoYes, but that's the customers choice to make.
- saagarjha 6y agoAs far as I understand it, Apple prefers that they not show up in the news as "iPhone EXPLODES" because the part where it says the customer bought some cheap third-party replacement is going to be buried ten lines into the article.
- hansvm 6y agoIf their problem is with reporters then taking out independent repair shops is a lot of collateral damage on the way to preventing things Apple actually cares about.
- saagarjha 6y agoApple cares about how their brand is perceived. Similarly, I doubt there are people at Apple who cackle maniacally when they lock down their operating systems; these are just a result of trying to protect their image at the expense of user freedom.
- supernova87a 6y agoContrary to the inflated anti-competitive suspicions by others below (or that "Apple has an army of staff attorneys with nothing better to do"), there are pretty legit reasons for Apple to object. If you've ever looked at buying a used or refurbished phone, it's a total wild west out there with people claiming (or being purposefully deceiving) that the phones are refurbed to the quality of Apple or similar. Or you find out after buying that you end up getting a poor quality uneven brightness display from prior-generation China factories, microphones that don't work right, etc. The guy in the story was importing counterfeit parts. Apple (and other manufacturers) have a big interest to not have people feel that their hardware is shitty. And if Apple were really trying to make people's technology obsolete, why would they support the OS of legacy phones for multiple (4-5) years longer than most other phone manufacturers? I guess they're so evil they're trying to confuse us with good cop/bad cop. Inject some reality into your thinking.
- syshum 6y agoIf apple (and other manufacturers) did not want to make people technology obsolete they would support right to repair, provide open access to parts and schematics, and allow independent repair shops to do board level repairs with out threat of lawsuit They created the environment where counterfeits and shady dealers are required by prohibiting any official ways to repair things So I do not have any sympathy for your argument. The day I can go to apple.com to buy a capacitor and order a schematic is the day I will agree with you
- thoraway1010 6y agoApple's products have FAR higher resale and expected life than almost any competitors. Your insistence that folks buy trash phones that get thrown away (and are totally unsupported software side almost from date of mfg) is ridiculous and actively harms the environment. By increasing confidence in their products, including used products, apple does a LOT to enhance the perceived long term value of their product. There is a very active apple refurb market, and you can take your phone and get new batteries etc from apple. They have a huge retail presence with walk in repairs. They have authorized third party repairs. And they have mail in repairs.
- AlphaSite 6y agoI think issue is that a large % of these parts are sourced from stolen phones, since they can't be resold once reported stolen.
- npunt 6y agoIt's extremely straightforward: Apple is in the user experience business. People buy Apple products because they 'just work'. That reputation is worth hundreds of billions of dollars because most people have frustrating experiences with tech. Unreliable devices damage Apple's hard-earned reputation. An end user won't know why the Apple device they're holding is unreliable - they may not even know it has been repaired if they acquired it from someone else. They'll just know it's an Apple device, and thus it must be Apple's fault. When that person talks to someone a day or a month down the line about their experience, they will not have as good things to say. In sum, this reputation will depress sales and customer satisfaction, which are the two key metrics for how Apple measures success. Building reliable tech that just works is hard enough. Non-OEM components and third party repair shops add additional business risk, which is why Apple takes a pretty restrictive stance.
- Krasnol 6y ago> Unreliable devices damage Apple's hard-earned reputation. This is hilarious as the only Apple related Videos I know of are those of this repair guy who cheaply fixes parts that were obviously made to break and be repaired at ridiculous costs pushing the customer to buy a new device. Nobody who goes to a private fix it shop would blame Apple. But they might hear about those strange parts that were build to break and this is where they may indeed lose reputation. Reputation they do not deserve in the first place.
- Improvotter 6y agoFrom what I hear, this isn't only about repairing iPhones. In a previous court proceedings the man was ordered to remove the logos from Apple because he imported the parts from China to refurbish iPhones. These were not genuine parts and they were being sold as refurbished iPhones. This court case bas brought on by Apple because he did not properly remove the Apple logos. He used a permanent marker to "remove" them from the parts. Apple did not agree that this was a proper way to do it. As much as I am for the rights to repair. I would say that Apple has some grounds here.
- symkat 6y ago> As Huseby puts it, Apple uses copyright law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce copyright.
- paxys 6y agoWhy does the grey market put Apple logos at all in the first place if not to deceive buyers?
- jccooper 6y agoThey don't. Apple puts logos on their parts and then someone uses them in a "refurbished" part and doesn't scrub the logos. It's not a problem in China, because they don't care, but in more legally-observant parts of the world it becomes a trademark issue, because you have a part that isn't entirely from Apple (and is thus not an official Apple product) but has their logos on it.
- tssva 6y agoThe grey market didn't put the logos on. The parts in question were screens where the glass had been broken but the display panels were still functional. The glass was replaced and the units are sold as refurbished. The Apple logos on them were on the display panels and placed there when originally manufactured for Apple.
- Dahoon 6y agoBeen at the broken Apple-Glass(tm) enough to know how insane their prices are. This alone is enough for me to stay away from Apple devices. I used to own some but now have switched to different bands for every piece of hardware (Android, Linux and Windows PC's etc). I can't for the life of me understand how people can support this but I guess it is me living in my hacker/geek bubble.
- Google234 6y agoI imagine you are also confused about why people buy BMWs and Mercedes or shop at Whole Foods when Walmart has cheaper food.
- encom 6y agoBut Apple is not a luxury, high performance manufacturer like BMW or Mercedes.
- effie 6y agoBut people think they are. Why is that? Maybe their devices do have some genuine selling points?
- harwoodleon 6y agoEven BMW has OEM parts.
- fakename11 6y agoNot my point.
- threeseed 6y agoInstead of comparing prices compare lifetime value. Android OEMs support their phones for typically 2-3 years. Apple supports them for at least 5 likely to be longer in the coming years.
- deleted 6y ago
- stormdennis 6y agoThank G--gle for Android.
- m0xte 6y agoAye so you can suffer through shitty half arsed third party repairers who either write your phone off as water damaged even though it wasn’t (thanks Motorola) or glue it back together because they broke all the clips opening it (thanks dude down the local repair shop).
- jansan 6y agoMy son broke the screen of his Android phone twice. Each time I ordered a replacement screen on ebay for 35€ and repaired it myself. The second time I had become quite good at it and it only took me about half an hour. Now good luck trying this with an iPhone.
- m0xte 6y agoNone of us (2 adults, 3 kids) have managed to break an iPhone in the last decade.
- jansan 6y agoYou are such great people, I knew it.
- m0xte 6y agoNot really. Dropped my XR about 20 times this year so far.
- stormdennis 6y agoThought you had a Motorola Android?
- m0xte 6y ago
- elicash 6y agoThese were counterfeit parts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ar2Gxw8mIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ar2Gxw8mIQ You may remember Louis Rossmann testifying in this case. To his credit, he published this video about the different ways he was wrong. Unfortunately, you probably didn't see the retraction bc the original testimony got 13x the views. Not through any fault of Louis, simply due to how things spread online.
- ginko 6y agoHow is this different of someone fixing a brand name stereo amplifier by replacing the capacitors or op-amp with some other similarly specced parts?
- fireattack 6y agoI think Apple has grounds on this case. But is it "allowed" (by Apple or by law) at all, to manufacture/sell 3rd party parts of iPhone (I mean by not pretending to be genuine parts)? If not, and combined with the fact Apple don't sell their genuine parts to basically anybody, the situation still sounds ridiculous to customers at the end of the day. Edit: by the way, what's the legal status of reclycled parts from genuine iPhones?
- jessriedel 6y agoCan you summarize the video, or give a link to text? It's not a great medium for citing in a discussion. As the article describes it, the parts are only counterfeit in the sense that an original Apple part was broken, re-furbished by a Chinese manufacturer (e.g., replacing a piece of glass), and then imported into Norway without having the Apple logos sufficiently scrubbed off. It would be reasonable to call these parts "counterfeit" if anyone was actually being deceived into thinking they were genuine new Apple parts. But if no one in the supply chain thinks they are genuine, it seems wrong to call this counterfeit, which implies deception. It's like saying monopoly money is "counterfeit".
- rlpb 6y ago> As Huseby puts it, Apple uses copyright law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce copyright. It seems to me that something like the exhaustion doctrine[1] should be made to apply here (but presumably doesn't in Norway). Once a part is legally sold, even if as part of a bigger product, IP law should not be able to be used to prevent the buyer from doing what they want with the part, including using it in a different product that is then sold as a refurbishment part. The only exception should be to prevent others from being misled about the origin of the product; that doesn't appear to have been happening here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_property_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_pro...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoOdd question. As I understand it, Apple flouts EU rules regarding standards ( Lightning charge cable comes to mind ). If a company does not play by the same rules as others, can't it simply be barred from the markets that offer them the legal protections ( just as it demands basic compliance ). Or is this a case of too big to regulate.
- saagarjha 6y agoAs far as I understand, compliance is voluntary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply. Did the EU back down on trying to enforce this?
- Sharlin 6y agoiPhone AC adapters come with a bog-standard USB-A connector. That's what matters to EU; the connector at the phone end is immaterial.
- mattlutze 6y agoThere are some legitimate and common-sense applications of "terms of service" in physical products. You wouldn't want someone removing a battery from one device to try and retrofit into another and then sell the refurbished device as safe. Inevitable problems could be both a safety issue and injure the reputation of the company. Whether a phone or watch generally is one of those sorts of products though is certainly something to debate.
- sinak 6y agoIf you're in the US and agree with Right to Repair, consider joining Repair.org with an individual membership, or asking your company to join: http://repair.org/join http://repair.org/join
- kwiens 6y agoAbsolutely! iFixit is a member and it's amazing how much progress we've made over the last few years.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rpm91 6y ago> Apple claimed that Huseby was allegedly importing “counterfeit” iPhone screens. Huseby denied this, saying that he simply used refurbished iPhone screens that he never advertised to the public as “genuine” parts from Apple. I'm no fan of Apple's crackdown on repairers in general, but this sure sounds like he had third-party screens that he called "refurbished iPhone screens," which sounds pretty misleading to me. If someone told me something was a "refurbished iPhone screen," my assumption would be that it was originally a genuine Apple part, and it doesn't sound like that's what he was using. Just leaving out the word "genuine" doesn't make it not-misleading.
- cat199 6y ago> Just leaving out the word "genuine" doesn't make it not-misleading. agree on this point - in english there would be some distinction between 'refurbished iPhone screens' vs 'refurbished screens for iPhones', where the former implies some kind of 'official screen' and the latter implies a 'compatible part' but - and I don't know the labelling used or norwegian - what if there is no native language construct that captures this subtle distinction?
- rlpb 6y ago> ...this sure sounds like he had third-party screens that he called "refurbished iPhone screens," It doesn't sound like that to me at all. From the article I get the impression he was selling "refurbished iPhones" or offering to "repair your iPhone". In both of those cases I don't think using non-Apple parts is misleading - because as the article says "he simply used refurbished iPhone screens that he never advertised to the public as “genuine” parts from Apple".
- pieterk 6y agoseems like he didn't get the support he needed. https://repair.eu/de/news/support-henrik-huseby-in-his-battle-with-apple/ https://repair.eu/de/news/support-henrik-huseby-in-his-battl...
- wearhere 6y agoIt's crazy to me that the EU is wasting their time making Apple use the same ports as other smartphones (https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/02/02/what-the-eu-mandate-for-a-common-smartphone-charger-means https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/02/02/what-the-eu-manda...) when they could make it easier to replace _any_ Apple component with an equivalent. I see the other comments saying that this guy deserved to lose this specific case since he was calling the parts "refurbished" but it's not clear that there's any way for him to use aftermarket parts legally.
- LockAndLol 6y agoThe article mentions > We are now holding the European Commission to its commitment to “a Right to Repair” in the Circular Economy Action Plan, to ensure universal access to affordable genuine spare parts for all electronics for both repair professionals and consumers. Does that mean there's a European Citizens Initiative? A petition? Or what is this referencing ?
- Delk 6y agohttps://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.h... I don't really know how EU policymaking works (although I guess I should, as I'm a EU citizen), but it seems to be more of a broad but approved plan than just an initiative or a petition.
- adamsea 6y agoThis is the #1 story on Hacker News? At this moment in time? Unsure if I should be glad people have a place to escape to and talk about the banal, or be concerned.
- Delk 6y agoDo you mean that everything in the news should be dominated by a single topic? Not only is it somewhat nearsighted (if perhaps sometimes tempting) to suggest that everything and everyone should put their focus on a single matter and stop focusing on anything else, it also leads to people getting weary really fast.
- adamsea 6y agoDepends on the topic and the circumstances of the time, doesn't it?
- Delk 6y agoI was assuming you might have referred to the covid-19 epidemic. And if that were the case then yes, I definitely do think there should also be other topics at the top. It's not like we're starving for news, or like feeding ourselves more is going to do much good after a certain point. Too much of it just becomes noise. Of course you might be referring to the issues of racism and police brutality. While those -- especially racism -- are significant matters on the global scale, the current events are mostly a U.S. thing, and not everyone is American. I agree those topics should be getting high visibility regardless, but I don't necessarily agree with the idea that we should just drop everything else we were doing and are interested in, or that it would be automatically sad if the top posts on a tech-oriented international forum don't happen to revolve around the current hot topic in the U.S.
- adamsea 6y agoWe could talk about systemic racism in the tech industry ... And, that's, just like, your opinion, man. Clearly a lot of people all around the world agree with me that systemic racism is worth discussing, based on the various protests in Paris, etc. I certainly am not arguing anyone has to agree with me. But to deny the validity of the discussion?
- codecamper 6y agoLoved my Apple IIc. Not so much liking the scissors MB Pro keyboard. Enjoying Android. Appreciate being able to add an sdcard. I think Lenovo will be my next laptop.
- jessaustin 6y agoYeah, this is the rational reaction to Apple's customer hostility. Just stop being a customer. Problem solved!
- saagarjha 6y agoIf it brings you any delight, I screenshotted that comment along with the article title and sent it to a friend as "hacker news dot png" since picking a keyword from the article title and posting a prepared comment about it is such a quintessential Hacker News quirk.
- Ayesh 6y agoFor the past 5 years, I've been relying on cheap Android mid tier phones. I currently use a Redmi Note 8 Pro (I bought the first one shipped to my country) for a little over $250, and I wouldn't feel bad about buying a new phone if this one breaks. These phones are often made to not be repaired in the first place. The spare parts are quite difficult to come by because nobody bothers to even make them. The manufacturer in fact sends a plastic case for the phone because customers are u likely to find one elsewhere. Most of the repair shops here (I'm in East Asia now), get broken iPhones, or higher and lower end Samsung phones. I can understand Apple being constantly hostile towards the repair shops can easily put customers out of option to repair their own devices from cheaper places, and the repair shop lot of business because they simply can't source spare parts. I think Louis Rossman was very vocal about the issue (a New York based YouTuber and a repair shop owner), that is probably worth a look.
- onetimemanytime 6y ago>>After having paid fees for his appeals, he now faces severe financial consequences, which include paying his own legal team and €23,000 to Apple. I guess €23,000 passes for severe in Norway. He's lucky he's not in USA. The court might have just done its job, as the laws stands Apple wins. The politicians should pass laws forcing Apple to allow repairs, if they want to sell iPhones.
- karmakaze 6y agoApple, like Disney, are evil (geniuses?)
- harwoodleon 6y agoCounterfeit is 1984 speak for unprofitable.