5 ms·

Hate to say it, but that is factually incorrect. (1) Component level repair is done daily by multiple repair shops. Apple not doing something doesn't make it i

Hate to say it, but that is factually incorrect. (1) Component level repair is done daily by multiple repair shops. Apple not doing something doesn't make it impossible or uneconomical. (2) Competition and availability of parts/tools/manuals will bring down costs. Apple forces suppliers to not sell parts to repair shops driving up acquisition costs for parts. (3) If someone still doesn't want to use a third party repair shop, they can take it to Apple. (4) Labor prices vary throughout the world. Smart people exist everywhere. Lets focus on the real issue - reducing e-waste and promoting longer device lifetimes via repair.

kube-system 5y ago
This program is not for repair shops. Apple not producing repair procedures for component-level repairs does make it impossible for them to share those procedures... because they don't have them to share.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- passivate 5y ago
  We don't need any "repair procedures" from Apple. What needs to stop is Apple choking the repair market by blocking sales of components by third-parties. I'm sure Apple has designed the electronics really well, so there is no complaint there. But they're still using normal components in a normal circuit doing normal things. At the electronics level, a competent tech can diagnose and fix/replace faulty components with some working knowledge of electronics and a curious mind. Like with anything else people get better with experience so there may very well be a difference in the amount of repair each individual repair shop can do. As a society, our final goal should be to reduce e-waste and promote longer device lifetimes through reuse and repair in all industries.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    >We don't need any "repair procedures" from Apple. Who is we? Experts? Or consumers repairing their own devices? For the latter, people absolutely do need repair procedures. The first stop for most people is a site like iFixit -- a site founded on the need for documentation to repair an Apple laptop. While we certainly need to be mindful of e-waste, I'm not convinced that component-level repairs are unquestionably a net benefit to society vs module-level repairs. Process efficiency, shipping, warehousing, packaging, materials-used, and the environmental controls in place have huge environmental impacts as well. The total environmental impact is much more complicated than the board itself. I understand and share the desire to tinker with and repair anything regardless of complexity. However, as someone who also produces products, I also think that the law should be reasonable in what it forces me to do when I create something.
    - passivate 5y ago
      I can only hope you've read statements from environmental organizations urging electronics makers to promote repair and reuse to reduce e-waste. The goal isn't to convince you or change your beliefs, the goal is to reduce e-waste. There are plenty of volunteers, but companies like Apple are also hiring lobbyists to block right to repair legislation by making false statements. >I understand and share the desire to tinker with and repair anything regardless of complexity. However, as someone who also produces products, I also think that the law should be reasonable in what it forces me to do when I create something. Sorry, but the environment comes first. The point with right to repair is to remove the artificial restrictions on expert technicians so they can service consumer electronics.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        I don’t disagree with the sentiments you have, and I share the goal of protecting the environment. However, our environmental impact is very multidimensional and affected by much more than just the quantity of e-waste. Our missteps with recycling programs are a good example of this. As municipal recycling programs grew with a singular goal of increasing recycling quantity, many cities (like my own) decided to legally require recycling. This increased the quantity of the recycling, but decreased the quality. Eventually the quality got so low that third world purchasers started dumping it in the ocean. So, in an effort to save a bottle from being sequestered carbon in a landfill, we instead shipped it halfway around the world to become ocean pollutant. Now, the recycling demand for some types of material has completely dried up and some cities have nowhere to put the recycling other than the landfill. So in effect, they’re burning more diesel to drive two trucks to the landfill instead of one. The same experts who were urging everyone to recycle in the 90s now agree that we’d be better off if the people who didn’t wash out their peanut butter jars didnt recycle. “More recycling = more better” ruined it for everyone. All I’m saying is be careful not to be focused on the single dimension of component-level repair in this case as well. Good intentions to improve one variable can backfire if it doesn’t consider its effect on the entire lifecycle. It isn’t hard to imagine a similarity disastrous situation if tens of thousands of sweatshops started dumping flux and solvents in their rivers, when Apple may have a more environmentally controlled process in spite of a modular approach to repair. Just because something is labelled "recycling" doesn't guarantee that those processes are lower impact than any alternatives. I agree with the the public's right to repair, in that it compels companies to share the same repair parts, procedures, and tools that the company itself uses. But you're asking for more than that, which I think is unreasonable, and a misguided hill to die on, particularly for environmental reasons. If component level repair of iPhones was more accessible, you won't see this cottage industry flourishing in well-regulated high wage countries with strong information industries. This is high-skill labor intensive work. It will happen in low-wage countries with skilled workers, many of which have horrible environmental protections.

kube-system 5y ago

This program is not for repair shops. Apple not producing repair procedures for component-level repairs does make it impossible for them to share those procedures... because they don't have them to share.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
passivate 5y ago
We don't need any "repair procedures" from Apple. What needs to stop is Apple choking the repair market by blocking sales of components by third-parties. I'm sure Apple has designed the electronics really well, so there is no complaint there. But they're still using normal components in a normal circuit doing normal things. At the electronics level, a competent tech can diagnose and fix/replace faulty components with some working knowledge of electronics and a curious mind. Like with anything else people get better with experience so there may very well be a difference in the amount of repair each individual repair shop can do. As a society, our final goal should be to reduce e-waste and promote longer device lifetimes through reuse and repair in all industries.
- kube-system 5y ago
  >We don't need any "repair procedures" from Apple. Who is we? Experts? Or consumers repairing their own devices? For the latter, people absolutely do need repair procedures. The first stop for most people is a site like iFixit -- a site founded on the need for documentation to repair an Apple laptop. While we certainly need to be mindful of e-waste, I'm not convinced that component-level repairs are unquestionably a net benefit to society vs module-level repairs. Process efficiency, shipping, warehousing, packaging, materials-used, and the environmental controls in place have huge environmental impacts as well. The total environmental impact is much more complicated than the board itself. I understand and share the desire to tinker with and repair anything regardless of complexity. However, as someone who also produces products, I also think that the law should be reasonable in what it forces me to do when I create something.
  - passivate 5y ago
    I can only hope you've read statements from environmental organizations urging electronics makers to promote repair and reuse to reduce e-waste. The goal isn't to convince you or change your beliefs, the goal is to reduce e-waste. There are plenty of volunteers, but companies like Apple are also hiring lobbyists to block right to repair legislation by making false statements. >I understand and share the desire to tinker with and repair anything regardless of complexity. However, as someone who also produces products, I also think that the law should be reasonable in what it forces me to do when I create something. Sorry, but the environment comes first. The point with right to repair is to remove the artificial restrictions on expert technicians so they can service consumer electronics.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      I don’t disagree with the sentiments you have, and I share the goal of protecting the environment. However, our environmental impact is very multidimensional and affected by much more than just the quantity of e-waste. Our missteps with recycling programs are a good example of this. As municipal recycling programs grew with a singular goal of increasing recycling quantity, many cities (like my own) decided to legally require recycling. This increased the quantity of the recycling, but decreased the quality. Eventually the quality got so low that third world purchasers started dumping it in the ocean. So, in an effort to save a bottle from being sequestered carbon in a landfill, we instead shipped it halfway around the world to become ocean pollutant. Now, the recycling demand for some types of material has completely dried up and some cities have nowhere to put the recycling other than the landfill. So in effect, they’re burning more diesel to drive two trucks to the landfill instead of one. The same experts who were urging everyone to recycle in the 90s now agree that we’d be better off if the people who didn’t wash out their peanut butter jars didnt recycle. “More recycling = more better” ruined it for everyone. All I’m saying is be careful not to be focused on the single dimension of component-level repair in this case as well. Good intentions to improve one variable can backfire if it doesn’t consider its effect on the entire lifecycle. It isn’t hard to imagine a similarity disastrous situation if tens of thousands of sweatshops started dumping flux and solvents in their rivers, when Apple may have a more environmentally controlled process in spite of a modular approach to repair. Just because something is labelled "recycling" doesn't guarantee that those processes are lower impact than any alternatives. I agree with the the public's right to repair, in that it compels companies to share the same repair parts, procedures, and tools that the company itself uses. But you're asking for more than that, which I think is unreasonable, and a misguided hill to die on, particularly for environmental reasons. If component level repair of iPhones was more accessible, you won't see this cottage industry flourishing in well-regulated high wage countries with strong information industries. This is high-skill labor intensive work. It will happen in low-wage countries with skilled workers, many of which have horrible environmental protections.