7 ms·

I think the story isn't the end of the repairable iPhone. It's about the end of the consumer (or consumer segment) who cares enough to vote with their dollars

I think the story isn't the end of the repairable iPhone. It's about the end of the consumer (or consumer segment) who cares enough to vote with their dollars for repairability more than new functionality and price. We are all free to vote with our money what we want. We collectively choose not to, on average.

simongr3dal 6y ago
How would the consumer ever get to "vote" tho? There never was a year where Apple released a mediocre repairable phone and a slicker unrepairable phone, so the vote has never happened.
- gear54rus 6y ago
  The first step of the process is to not buy anything apple recognizing there hardly ever was a company more hostile to user freedom both on software and hardware side.
  - lokar 6y ago
    Apple is not a computer company. They are a consumer electronics company.
    - arvinsim 6y ago
      Is that relevant?
    - encom 6y ago
      They're barely even that. Apple is the expensive handbag company of consumer electronics. Something people buy to show off their wealth.
  - taejavu 6y ago
    An alternative first step might be for other companies to make products that are as good as Apple’s.
    - gear54rus 6y ago
      It's happening every year on both desktop and mobile. You can't call walled gardens good sorry.
      - taejavu 6y ago
        Maybe you can’t, and that’s fine, but for most people the superior user experience delivered by that walled garden is more appealing than any alternative. I’m not defending Apple’s user-hostile practices, I’m just saying that if this situation is going to change by people voting with their wallets, it’ll be because of changes to things that matter to the masses, and not the (totally legitimate) philosophical concerns of technology enthusiasts.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      Absolutely -- go push other companies to make an alternative. Or even better, go investigate how to build a phone and its software, in a way that gives you all the control and repairability you want. Maybe you'll find that it's harder than you think (as well to turn a profit) and there may be reasons why things are the way they are?
  - Lio 6y ago
    So what’s the alternative? Google and giving up your privacy? You might be happy with that but I’m already “voting with my feet” on that matter. There are some independent Linux based offerings now but they’re immature and going that way would mean loosing support of some third party apps that I currently need. No manufacturer is offering a perfect or even good enough product right now. You end up compromising on something.
    - Yetanfou 6y ago
      > So what’s the alternative? Currently: a Google-free AOSP-based distribution on one of the hundreds of supported devices. In the future, hopefully: a free software mobile platform compatible with a range of hardware. Google-free Android is a thing, I've been using it for about 10 years now. I do not have a Google account, there is no 'Gapps' (Google Apps) on my devices, I do not use the 'Play Store' (which is a bit of a silly name for people who speak Dutch where the word 'Play' sounds like a Dutch slang term for toilet, 'plee'), I don't use Google Search directly (it is one of the engines used in my own Searx instance, next to DDG, Bing, Yahoo etc.), no Gmail (I host my own mail), no Google Docs (or whatever it is called today, Libreoffice Online works just fine for me, hosted on my own server), etc. Just try it for a change instead of giving up and giving either Apple or Google their pound of flesh. There is too much disinformation on the subject of mobile freedom, too much 'party politics'. There is a world outside of Apple and Google, why not give it a try instead of assuming it doesn't exist?
      - Lio 6y ago
        Which distribution would you recommend as a starting point? My assumption has not been that Google free Android doesn’t exist but that I’d need Google’s app store to run the third party apps I need. Specifically things it's stuff for firmware updates on stuff like Shimano Di2 or other hardware devices. Are third parties now officially supporting other alternative app stores? (Sorry about the questions but this is quite interesting.) Personally I’m thinking of moving towards a non-android Linux based phone and keeping an older iPhone for these updates.
        6y ago
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    I think you have to acknowledge that you're part of a very specialized user group, and that your goals and requirements are very different from the general population. Is Apple to sell phones to you, or to the general population? Answer is obvious, isn't it? For the general population, making a tightly controlled (and simple) hardware and software environment makes more things possible -- overall -- to the users than absolute freedom does. It's a paradox -- by controlling things, they set the market for this product loose. You can see how it is a hard thing to manage to, and leads to users like you being unhappy. Linux gives incredible freedom to users, yet has very little market penetration. Not everyone wants to be able to side load apps, tweak their battery charging settings, and have their phone die because they did something wrong to it.
- blihp 6y ago
  You vote every time you choose to buy a product from company X or one of their competitors instead. Remember back when Apple made phones with smaller screens? They took notice when millions of consumers were buying Samsung/whatever devices instead with a key reason given being 'bigger screen'. Apple then started producing devices with bigger screens.
- everly 6y ago
  I realize we're talking about voting with dollars here but it's also possible that consumers could literally vote on (or push their representative to draft) legislation to address the issue. I'm not up-to-date on the John Deere right-to-repair litigation but seems like the concept is the same.
OrwellianChild 6y ago
I think this assumes a level of savvy in the average smartphone customer (aka the entire world)... Most people don't understand "repairability" in the context of less complicated systems (their cars, refrigerators, etc.). They can't vote for what they don't understand. This can be seen in product faults that remain fixed for many years in other consumer products. (see Samsung washing machines, GM ignition systems, etc.) Folks don't know how to evaluate design considerations at this level, I think this supports robust right-to-repair regulation as a counter-veiling force.
jhanschoo 6y ago
> It's about the end of the consumer (or consumer segment) who cares enough to vote with their dollars Is it though? Many competitor smartphones are still repairable, and they still control a good share of the market.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Actually I think most users would vote for a more reliable device over a repairable one. If using more glue means getting the phone wet is less likely to damage it or stops it breaking when dropped then that's a good tradoff. The fact my aging phone is still getting updates is more important than being able to replace the camera. I tend to buy my devices second hand so knowing it's difficult for a repairer to use sub standard parts is also good.
nerbert 6y ago
Wait until the EU commission hears about it. I have a feeling that they’re not going to let this fly.
- pedro2 6y ago
  I hope so. But we have to be vigilant: “Big Tech's aggressive EU lobby caused a shift in power” [1] [1] https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/News/Data-news/Big-Tech-s-aggressive-EU-lobbying-has-caused-a-power-shift https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/News/Data-news/Big-Tec...
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I am actually a little puzzled by this, and maybe you can explain the position. Suppose that there is a consumer market for something, and people have shown their preferences, and are actually demonstrating that they actually don't want something (issue, feature, functionality). Are you saying that regulators should come in and force rules that satisfy the desires of say, 5% of users (if even that), to the detriment of the rest? Who are they to contradict the choices of the rest of the people? I mean, this is not like carbon regulation or pollution where someone's individual action has a negative shared cost on everyone else. What principle are we to apply then? There are tons of other 5% issues too -- which ones will be put into regulation? I think it's important to differentiate when your desire for something is personal and you want a company to do something despite others not caring about it, versus when there is actually harm being done and needs to be regulated.
vladvasiliu 6y ago
> We are all free to vote with our money what we want. We collectively choose not to, on average. While I agree with this on principle, to me it looks like it gives the collective us an agency which I would argue isn't really there in that not enough people consider it as a factor. I think that many people don't really care. As another commenter said, people seem to care more about "specs" (like in the commenter's example with people preferring Samsung phones because of the bigger screens) and about having the latest phone. This makes me wonder what percentage of people actually have to repair their phones, and of those, how many would have opted to do it themselves with off-brand components. While I understand the philosophical concerns around repairability and mostly like my laptops to be repairable, I also get the feeling that for phones it only now may become important, if at all, because of their usable life. My previous phone was a Galaxy S5, with a user replaceable battery. A new Samsung battery from a reputable store (not Amazon) costed 50-60 €. A battery replacement for the iphone costs 70 € at an authorised shop (I'm in Paris, France). I know I could have used an "alternative brand" battery in the GS5, but after a terrible experience with such a battery for a camera, I wouldn't go through that again. Now I understand that this or that model may have design issues which would have random components fail prematurely. But I doubt that replacing the component with an off-brand one would be that great. I'd consider that model a lemon and avoid it. Even if it would be simple, I'd hate to have to replace my phone's [x] every two weeks.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  We live within many systems where what the majority wants determines what we get. Some things, if you can't build up enough support, you either live with or create your own environment where it is possible. If I live in a neighborhood where it takes 7/10 households to vote to improve the paved road, or install fiber internet, if only 3 of them want it, we're not getting any of those things. I can move to a different neighborhood, or pay for my own solution. This is life.
emsy 6y ago
Voting with money doesn’t work, regulations do.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

simongr3dal 6y ago

How would the consumer ever get to "vote" tho? There never was a year where Apple released a mediocre repairable phone and a slicker unrepairable phone, so the vote has never happened.

gear54rus 6y ago
The first step of the process is to not buy anything apple recognizing there hardly ever was a company more hostile to user freedom both on software and hardware side.
- lokar 6y ago
  Apple is not a computer company. They are a consumer electronics company.
  - arvinsim 6y ago
    Is that relevant?
  - encom 6y ago
    They're barely even that. Apple is the expensive handbag company of consumer electronics. Something people buy to show off their wealth.
- taejavu 6y ago
  An alternative first step might be for other companies to make products that are as good as Apple’s.
  - gear54rus 6y ago
    It's happening every year on both desktop and mobile. You can't call walled gardens good sorry.
    - taejavu 6y ago
      Maybe you can’t, and that’s fine, but for most people the superior user experience delivered by that walled garden is more appealing than any alternative. I’m not defending Apple’s user-hostile practices, I’m just saying that if this situation is going to change by people voting with their wallets, it’ll be because of changes to things that matter to the masses, and not the (totally legitimate) philosophical concerns of technology enthusiasts.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    Absolutely -- go push other companies to make an alternative. Or even better, go investigate how to build a phone and its software, in a way that gives you all the control and repairability you want. Maybe you'll find that it's harder than you think (as well to turn a profit) and there may be reasons why things are the way they are?
- Lio 6y ago
  So what’s the alternative? Google and giving up your privacy? You might be happy with that but I’m already “voting with my feet” on that matter. There are some independent Linux based offerings now but they’re immature and going that way would mean loosing support of some third party apps that I currently need. No manufacturer is offering a perfect or even good enough product right now. You end up compromising on something.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    > So what’s the alternative? Currently: a Google-free AOSP-based distribution on one of the hundreds of supported devices. In the future, hopefully: a free software mobile platform compatible with a range of hardware. Google-free Android is a thing, I've been using it for about 10 years now. I do not have a Google account, there is no 'Gapps' (Google Apps) on my devices, I do not use the 'Play Store' (which is a bit of a silly name for people who speak Dutch where the word 'Play' sounds like a Dutch slang term for toilet, 'plee'), I don't use Google Search directly (it is one of the engines used in my own Searx instance, next to DDG, Bing, Yahoo etc.), no Gmail (I host my own mail), no Google Docs (or whatever it is called today, Libreoffice Online works just fine for me, hosted on my own server), etc. Just try it for a change instead of giving up and giving either Apple or Google their pound of flesh. There is too much disinformation on the subject of mobile freedom, too much 'party politics'. There is a world outside of Apple and Google, why not give it a try instead of assuming it doesn't exist?
    - Lio 6y ago
      Which distribution would you recommend as a starting point? My assumption has not been that Google free Android doesn’t exist but that I’d need Google’s app store to run the third party apps I need. Specifically things it's stuff for firmware updates on stuff like Shimano Di2 or other hardware devices. Are third parties now officially supporting other alternative app stores? (Sorry about the questions but this is quite interesting.) Personally I’m thinking of moving towards a non-android Linux based phone and keeping an older iPhone for these updates.
      - 6y ago
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I think you have to acknowledge that you're part of a very specialized user group, and that your goals and requirements are very different from the general population. Is Apple to sell phones to you, or to the general population? Answer is obvious, isn't it? For the general population, making a tightly controlled (and simple) hardware and software environment makes more things possible -- overall -- to the users than absolute freedom does. It's a paradox -- by controlling things, they set the market for this product loose. You can see how it is a hard thing to manage to, and leads to users like you being unhappy. Linux gives incredible freedom to users, yet has very little market penetration. Not everyone wants to be able to side load apps, tweak their battery charging settings, and have their phone die because they did something wrong to it.
blihp 6y ago
You vote every time you choose to buy a product from company X or one of their competitors instead. Remember back when Apple made phones with smaller screens? They took notice when millions of consumers were buying Samsung/whatever devices instead with a key reason given being 'bigger screen'. Apple then started producing devices with bigger screens.
everly 6y ago
I realize we're talking about voting with dollars here but it's also possible that consumers could literally vote on (or push their representative to draft) legislation to address the issue. I'm not up-to-date on the John Deere right-to-repair litigation but seems like the concept is the same.

OrwellianChild 6y ago

I think this assumes a level of savvy in the average smartphone customer (aka the entire world)... Most people don't understand "repairability" in the context of less complicated systems (their cars, refrigerators, etc.). They can't vote for what they don't understand. This can be seen in product faults that remain fixed for many years in other consumer products. (see Samsung washing machines, GM ignition systems, etc.) Folks don't know how to evaluate design considerations at this level, I think this supports robust right-to-repair regulation as a counter-veiling force.

jhanschoo 6y ago

> It's about the end of the consumer (or consumer segment) who cares enough to vote with their dollars Is it though? Many competitor smartphones are still repairable, and they still control a good share of the market.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

Actually I think most users would vote for a more reliable device over a repairable one. If using more glue means getting the phone wet is less likely to damage it or stops it breaking when dropped then that's a good tradoff. The fact my aging phone is still getting updates is more important than being able to replace the camera. I tend to buy my devices second hand so knowing it's difficult for a repairer to use sub standard parts is also good.

nerbert 6y ago

Wait until the EU commission hears about it. I have a feeling that they’re not going to let this fly.

pedro2 6y ago
I hope so. But we have to be vigilant: “Big Tech's aggressive EU lobby caused a shift in power” [1] [1] https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/News/Data-news/Big-Tech-s-aggressive-EU-lobbying-has-caused-a-power-shift https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/News/Data-news/Big-Tec...
supernova87a 6y ago
I am actually a little puzzled by this, and maybe you can explain the position. Suppose that there is a consumer market for something, and people have shown their preferences, and are actually demonstrating that they actually don't want something (issue, feature, functionality). Are you saying that regulators should come in and force rules that satisfy the desires of say, 5% of users (if even that), to the detriment of the rest? Who are they to contradict the choices of the rest of the people? I mean, this is not like carbon regulation or pollution where someone's individual action has a negative shared cost on everyone else. What principle are we to apply then? There are tons of other 5% issues too -- which ones will be put into regulation? I think it's important to differentiate when your desire for something is personal and you want a company to do something despite others not caring about it, versus when there is actually harm being done and needs to be regulated.

vladvasiliu 6y ago

> We are all free to vote with our money what we want. We collectively choose not to, on average. While I agree with this on principle, to me it looks like it gives the collective us an agency which I would argue isn't really there in that not enough people consider it as a factor. I think that many people don't really care. As another commenter said, people seem to care more about "specs" (like in the commenter's example with people preferring Samsung phones because of the bigger screens) and about having the latest phone. This makes me wonder what percentage of people actually have to repair their phones, and of those, how many would have opted to do it themselves with off-brand components. While I understand the philosophical concerns around repairability and mostly like my laptops to be repairable, I also get the feeling that for phones it only now may become important, if at all, because of their usable life. My previous phone was a Galaxy S5, with a user replaceable battery. A new Samsung battery from a reputable store (not Amazon) costed 50-60 €. A battery replacement for the iphone costs 70 € at an authorised shop (I'm in Paris, France). I know I could have used an "alternative brand" battery in the GS5, but after a terrible experience with such a battery for a camera, I wouldn't go through that again. Now I understand that this or that model may have design issues which would have random components fail prematurely. But I doubt that replacing the component with an off-brand one would be that great. I'd consider that model a lemon and avoid it. Even if it would be simple, I'd hate to have to replace my phone's [x] every two weeks.

supernova87a 6y ago
We live within many systems where what the majority wants determines what we get. Some things, if you can't build up enough support, you either live with or create your own environment where it is possible. If I live in a neighborhood where it takes 7/10 households to vote to improve the paved road, or install fiber internet, if only 3 of them want it, we're not getting any of those things. I can move to a different neighborhood, or pay for my own solution. This is life.

emsy 6y ago

Voting with money doesn’t work, regulations do.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]