5 ms·

> It seems you have missed the point so hard it's almost pointless to reply. As are you - you are bringing up all these hypothetical production line theories,

by nikau 5y ago

> It seems you have missed the point so hard it's almost pointless to reply. As are you - you are bringing up all these hypothetical production line theories, where in practise the screen is the most common repair, and Apple have now restricted it to their official repair centres or repair centres with very skilled technicians to remove, re-ball, and re-solder a tiny chip. > If Apple was a person and the person wanted to be a prick, there are far cheaper and easier ways to do that. Fill the entire phone with epoxy, problem solved. Would be instantly water-proof, shock-resistant, Except apple still need to repair phones under warranty, so filling with epoxy isn't viable, so here we are with pentalobe screws and device locked screens.

oneplane 5y ago
You assume 'repairing under warranty' isn't done with simply replacing the entire device. You are aware that this is standard practise anyway right? Right now you are most likely to get an identical refurbished version of your phone while your own hardware is queued for repair, mostly off-site. As for the hypothetical cases: that is indeed what I wrote they were as well as why I was writing them. They are real world cases that apply to any consumer goods manufacturing pipeline. (albeit anecdotal as I'm not in the mood to dox myself) You do not know the details of Apple's pipeline and are speculating about it, as am I. Your speculation, however, is a plain anthropomorphisation of a for-profit company that really has no merit. There is no money in 'being bad to customers at scale'. Every reply of yours has either been some irrelevant detail that doesn't match with what is happening in the real world, or it's some bigger picture that doesn't relate back to any multinational global consumer goods lifecycle. Besides the fact that being able to repair consumer goods is a good thing, we're not getting anywhere.
- nikau 5y ago
  > You assume 'repairing under warranty' isn't done with simply replacing the entire device. You are aware that this is standard practise anyway right? No its not standard practise. If my battery is degraded they replace it. If my screen is broken they replace it. If a camera is bad they replace the camera module. If the charging port is bad they replace it as its on a seperate field replaceable unit. Pretty much everything bar a failed mainboard is repaired. > They are real world cases that apply to any consumer goods manufacturing pipeline. Yep and in this case its bad engineering, and that's why Apple are being called out on it. Its similar to some German cars with rear facing timing chains and turbos mounted in the V engine valley and other stupid ideas, they get called out for being the shit engineering that they are. This doesn't stop people buying them. With that said, it looks like the bad pr has done it's job and suddenly Apple has find a solution, amazing huh... https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/9/22772433/apple-iphone-13-screen-replacements-face-id-software-update https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/9/22772433/app...
  - oneplane 5y ago
    > No its not standard practise. Yes it is. There is no guarantee you get your 'own' device back instead of a replacement while your previous device enters the repair queue. Not at service ingress at an APR, not at an AASP or an APSP. An APSP is more likely to not need to queue, but again, no guarantee and in any high density areas the queue is more common than uncommon. Now, maybe you read it out of context and you assumed 'repairs of consumer goods by anyone, anywhere' which is a different case and not the one we are discussing.
    - nikau 5y ago
      So either way, if you get your own device back or someone elses refurb they still cant fill it with epoxy.
      - oneplane 5y ago
        Sure they can, perhaps they have to use a solvent to get rid of it. But that is not the point. The point isn't the implementation detail, it's the fact that if someone wanted to make something that is purely bad for consumers they could. This is what you present as being the incentive. You keep writing that there are bad design choices, things that are done just to introduce bad UX for repair personnel etc. all for the sake of being annoying. But there is no economical incentive for that and the company is a for-profit organisation. You disregard all the other reasons why someone might be done and when presented with a theoretical case that fits your narrative you dismiss it, against your own viewpoint.

by nikau 5y ago

oneplane 5y ago

You assume 'repairing under warranty' isn't done with simply replacing the entire device. You are aware that this is standard practise anyway right? Right now you are most likely to get an identical refurbished version of your phone while your own hardware is queued for repair, mostly off-site. As for the hypothetical cases: that is indeed what I wrote they were as well as why I was writing them. They are real world cases that apply to any consumer goods manufacturing pipeline. (albeit anecdotal as I'm not in the mood to dox myself) You do not know the details of Apple's pipeline and are speculating about it, as am I. Your speculation, however, is a plain anthropomorphisation of a for-profit company that really has no merit. There is no money in 'being bad to customers at scale'. Every reply of yours has either been some irrelevant detail that doesn't match with what is happening in the real world, or it's some bigger picture that doesn't relate back to any multinational global consumer goods lifecycle. Besides the fact that being able to repair consumer goods is a good thing, we're not getting anywhere.

nikau 5y ago
> You assume 'repairing under warranty' isn't done with simply replacing the entire device. You are aware that this is standard practise anyway right? No its not standard practise. If my battery is degraded they replace it. If my screen is broken they replace it. If a camera is bad they replace the camera module. If the charging port is bad they replace it as its on a seperate field replaceable unit. Pretty much everything bar a failed mainboard is repaired. > They are real world cases that apply to any consumer goods manufacturing pipeline. Yep and in this case its bad engineering, and that's why Apple are being called out on it. Its similar to some German cars with rear facing timing chains and turbos mounted in the V engine valley and other stupid ideas, they get called out for being the shit engineering that they are. This doesn't stop people buying them. With that said, it looks like the bad pr has done it's job and suddenly Apple has find a solution, amazing huh... https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/9/22772433/apple-iphone-13-screen-replacements-face-id-software-update https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/9/22772433/app...
- oneplane 5y ago
  > No its not standard practise. Yes it is. There is no guarantee you get your 'own' device back instead of a replacement while your previous device enters the repair queue. Not at service ingress at an APR, not at an AASP or an APSP. An APSP is more likely to not need to queue, but again, no guarantee and in any high density areas the queue is more common than uncommon. Now, maybe you read it out of context and you assumed 'repairs of consumer goods by anyone, anywhere' which is a different case and not the one we are discussing.
  - nikau 5y ago
    So either way, if you get your own device back or someone elses refurb they still cant fill it with epoxy.
    - oneplane 5y ago
      Sure they can, perhaps they have to use a solvent to get rid of it. But that is not the point. The point isn't the implementation detail, it's the fact that if someone wanted to make something that is purely bad for consumers they could. This is what you present as being the incentive. You keep writing that there are bad design choices, things that are done just to introduce bad UX for repair personnel etc. all for the sake of being annoying. But there is no economical incentive for that and the company is a for-profit organisation. You disregard all the other reasons why someone might be done and when presented with a theoretical case that fits your narrative you dismiss it, against your own viewpoint.