4 ms·

I'm not privy to anything specifically about batteries, and you may be right about the batteries all effectively being the same. However, I do know - in genera

by npunt 6y ago

I'm not privy to anything specifically about batteries, and you may be right about the batteries all effectively being the same. However, I do know - in general - component manufacturers are notorious for cutting corners to save a few cents, doing additional factory runs after hours, altering chemistry, faking specs, etc. It's a shady business climate that needs constant QC. Also a fair amount of what you pay for is a known chain of custody from component manufacturer to your device. From what I can tell for many components there isn't a clear feedback loop to end customers, as parts travel through several intermediaries, which means its less likely bad quality will lead to repercussions to the component manufacturer. It goes all the way to the repair place, who's typically doing a one-off order for a customer rather than having an ongoing customer relationship, and who may never see a failure 6 months down the line. As far as batteries, and this may be a hypothetical as I do not know about who's manufacturing what and at what quality, but there's also legitimate safety concerns which is why a higher than typical level of scrutiny is required. These are all conditions that could lead to potentially higher failure rates. How much higher is debatable, it may be only a percent or two, and for many folks a small additional risk may be worth saving some cash for. Personally? For older devices I wouldn't care. A newer device, I would.

rlpb 6y ago
That's all fine. If you want a known chain of custody, you could exclusively use a manufacturer-authorized repairer, or use a third party repairer who guarantees to only use manufacturer-authorized parts, and so on. For competition however, I maintain that the consumer should have the ability to choose to do business with a repairer with no supply relationship with the manufacturer who claims to be able to do better. As long as the consumer isn't being misled, the consumer should be entitled to choose to take that risk.
- fragmede 6y ago
  Realistically this would be far less of a problem if Apple didn't pretend that their devices (like everything else in this world) get old, and supported a robust economy around servicing older devices. Why can't I just buy an iPhone SE battery right off Apple.com? Why can't my third party repairer? How about an authorized repairer? Where are the publicly available service manuals? How about some schematics? Back in the day, high-end electronics (particularly audio equipment) had full-blown schematics, for repair. While reflow re-soldering BGA devices is way out of reach for the average non-technical home users today, with a steady hand, and the right tools, replacing an iPhone battery is only slightly more complicated than changing a tire.
effie 6y ago
Most of this fear of "something bad could happen if you buy a device with replaced parts" is due to manufacturers making it hard for people to get the original replacement part and service the device. They do this because it increases their profits and because they can get away with it.
- npunt 6y ago
  It's to control business & brand risk. I believe this explains all downstream choices: how devices are designed and how easy they are to repair, whether they supply repair groups with adequate info, parts availability, etc. Remember engineers love anything that loosens constraints. Making things easy to repair is a pretty challenging constraint to juggle with all the other constraints like manufacturability, chassis design, thermals, etc. They say they don't make profit on repairs. I've no particular reason to not believe this. They could design products to be easier to repair and thus cost less to repair, but the fundamental rationale always points back to controlling brand risk, because a drop in customer satisfaction by even 1% is worth billions. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/11/20/are-apple-repairs-profitable/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/11/20/are-apple-repairs-profita... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23422661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23422661

by npunt 6y ago

rlpb 6y ago

That's all fine. If you want a known chain of custody, you could exclusively use a manufacturer-authorized repairer, or use a third party repairer who guarantees to only use manufacturer-authorized parts, and so on. For competition however, I maintain that the consumer should have the ability to choose to do business with a repairer with no supply relationship with the manufacturer who claims to be able to do better. As long as the consumer isn't being misled, the consumer should be entitled to choose to take that risk.

fragmede 6y ago
Realistically this would be far less of a problem if Apple didn't pretend that their devices (like everything else in this world) get old, and supported a robust economy around servicing older devices. Why can't I just buy an iPhone SE battery right off Apple.com? Why can't my third party repairer? How about an authorized repairer? Where are the publicly available service manuals? How about some schematics? Back in the day, high-end electronics (particularly audio equipment) had full-blown schematics, for repair. While reflow re-soldering BGA devices is way out of reach for the average non-technical home users today, with a steady hand, and the right tools, replacing an iPhone battery is only slightly more complicated than changing a tire.

effie 6y ago

Most of this fear of "something bad could happen if you buy a device with replaced parts" is due to manufacturers making it hard for people to get the original replacement part and service the device. They do this because it increases their profits and because they can get away with it.

npunt 6y ago
It's to control business & brand risk. I believe this explains all downstream choices: how devices are designed and how easy they are to repair, whether they supply repair groups with adequate info, parts availability, etc. Remember engineers love anything that loosens constraints. Making things easy to repair is a pretty challenging constraint to juggle with all the other constraints like manufacturability, chassis design, thermals, etc. They say they don't make profit on repairs. I've no particular reason to not believe this. They could design products to be easier to repair and thus cost less to repair, but the fundamental rationale always points back to controlling brand risk, because a drop in customer satisfaction by even 1% is worth billions. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/11/20/are-apple-repairs-profitable/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/11/20/are-apple-repairs-profita... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23422661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23422661