5 ms·

The official workshop manual from the manufacturer for my car (which includes full engine assembly!) — the same one used by all of its dealer techs - is over 64

by MrFoof 4y ago

The official workshop manual from the manufacturer for my car (which includes full engine assembly!) — the same one used by all of its dealer techs - is over 6400 pages. It is loaded with an absurd number of detailed diagrams, torque specifications, required tools, checklists, etc. Does that make my car less repairable? Or does it provide all the information necessary for someone to correctly perform repair or maintenance, including all required pre- and post- processes related to the affected area?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
falcolas 4y ago
Does your car repair manual dictate that replacing the battery and alternator includes also replacing the unibody (including the driver controls, though not the seats) with a unit provided only by the car manufacturer? Having used a few workshop manuals, I do get your point. But those manuals provide the advantage of actually letting you repair cars without having to replace the entire unibody when you change an oil filter (though you'll often have to disassemble vast portions of the car to get at simple consumables these days).
- tpmoney 4y ago
  I imagine the replacement process for an EVs battery pack also is involved and requires a lot of work. I also imagine the official replacement process will not involve individual cell replacement and will likely be an entire pack that may also include BMS units or other components.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > I also imagine the official replacement process will not involve individual cell replacement Since when has it involved that? Even back when cellphones were repairable, trying to fix a broken battery by manipulating the cells is a suicide mission. I get that you're trying to illustrate that "density has a repairability cost", but I think that's entirely redundant, since: - Apple can throw money at this issue and fix it. No private interest on the planet has even remotely as much research funding as Apple. If companies like Framework can manage it, then so can Apple. - Apple's devices are getting larger, and their SOCs are getting more dense. There's more room inside the Macbook Pro than ever before, which leaves plenty of space to reinforce the device and improve it's disassembly process. - Making repairable/sustainable technology doesn't seem to impede any of Apple's goals. Adding an M.2 slot on the Macbook would have no perceivable downside. Removing the internal adhesive could help improve the device's lifespan and make it possible to reassemble without additional components. Offering a matte/plastic display option would also give users the option to own a Macbook that doesn't break when it falls from waist height. So, I don't really buy this. When people come forward and speculate on Apple's behalf, I feel like they're forgetting that we're talking about the most powerful company on Earth. Apple can move mountains, and you're trying to justify why they can't offer more granular repair options? This is the exact same supply-chain pettiness that people used to applaud Apple for, and now that everyone feels the impact of it, why do we still defend them for abusing capitalism and hurting everyone in the process?
    - tpmoney 4y ago
      >Since when has it involved that? Even back when cellphones were repairable, trying to fix a broken battery by manipulating the cells is a suicide mission. I get that you're trying to illustrate that "density has a repairability cost" Sure, for a small battery pack like that, but an EV's battery pack is made of self contained replaceable cells. It would be perfectly possible to replace the individual cells and save the exterior casing and any internal electronics. But the official dealer process is almost certainly going to replace the entire thing as a single unit. My point was't "density has a repairability cost", it was that sometimes for the sake of ease, repeatability or reliability a manufacturer may decide to bundle individually replaceable components into a single module that will be replaced as a whole unit as part of the repair process and that can be a reasonable decision. We see this all the time with cars. Transmissions are rebuildable, but usually you just replace the whole thing. Same with alternators. Engines are absolutely rebuildable, but if you blow yours, the dealer will almost certainly just replace it wholesale. Wiring harnesses can be patched, but the service manuals will tell you to replace the whole thing. A single switch in your steering wheel controls might be broken, but likely the entire control cluster will be swapped. These things don't make the car "less repairable", nor does the fact that the manufacturer's manual only tells you how to replace the whole thing, and won't sell you anything other than the whole part mean you can't piece it together yourself or that they're somehow hindering you from repairing your car. Likewise, the battery being bundled with the top case is a choice made for a reason. I suppose we can assume it's because Apple is trying to make it unrepairable, but that flies in the face of the fact that they need to make repairs themselves. It's clear apple can make it separable (see the Macbook Air repair options), and the article in question even says Apple plans on doing the same for the other Macbooks. so it really feels like a lot of this is complaining that Apple hasn't gone out of their way to tool up an entirely new set of assemblies outside of what they provide their own in house repair people, and assuming this is do to maliciousness rather than simply doing the most reasonable thing which is opening up their own official processes and parts to the public.
smoldesu 4y ago
> Or does it provide all the information necessary for someone to correctly perform repair or maintenance Well, that's the problem. Apple doesn't provide all of the necessary information to safely perform board repairs or fix mechanical failure. If you break your car's window, you can go get it replaced in an afternoon. If you break your Macbook's display, your options are to take it to an Apple Store and let them quote you a repair, or buy their $500 topcase "do it yourself" replacement kit. All roads lead back to Apple, and Apple deliberately destroys all roads to repairing your computer. This is clearly evidenced by their unbelievably coarse selection of replacement parts, forcing their customers to buy replacements for components they don't need. In other words, it's like breaking your windshield and being told to get a new car or replace the entire chassis. Apple can fix this, and quite easily at that, but why would they? They have a direct financial incentive to keep letting Macbooks break in unfortunate ways. The most common damage (screen/display, logic board) also happens to be the most expensive, and their price is entirely artificial.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  Why would you buy a top case to replace a broken display and not the display module that they sell separately?

by MrFoof 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

falcolas 4y ago

Does your car repair manual dictate that replacing the battery and alternator includes also replacing the unibody (including the driver controls, though not the seats) with a unit provided only by the car manufacturer? Having used a few workshop manuals, I do get your point. But those manuals provide the advantage of actually letting you repair cars without having to replace the entire unibody when you change an oil filter (though you'll often have to disassemble vast portions of the car to get at simple consumables these days).

tpmoney 4y ago
I imagine the replacement process for an EVs battery pack also is involved and requires a lot of work. I also imagine the official replacement process will not involve individual cell replacement and will likely be an entire pack that may also include BMS units or other components.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > I also imagine the official replacement process will not involve individual cell replacement Since when has it involved that? Even back when cellphones were repairable, trying to fix a broken battery by manipulating the cells is a suicide mission. I get that you're trying to illustrate that "density has a repairability cost", but I think that's entirely redundant, since: - Apple can throw money at this issue and fix it. No private interest on the planet has even remotely as much research funding as Apple. If companies like Framework can manage it, then so can Apple. - Apple's devices are getting larger, and their SOCs are getting more dense. There's more room inside the Macbook Pro than ever before, which leaves plenty of space to reinforce the device and improve it's disassembly process. - Making repairable/sustainable technology doesn't seem to impede any of Apple's goals. Adding an M.2 slot on the Macbook would have no perceivable downside. Removing the internal adhesive could help improve the device's lifespan and make it possible to reassemble without additional components. Offering a matte/plastic display option would also give users the option to own a Macbook that doesn't break when it falls from waist height. So, I don't really buy this. When people come forward and speculate on Apple's behalf, I feel like they're forgetting that we're talking about the most powerful company on Earth. Apple can move mountains, and you're trying to justify why they can't offer more granular repair options? This is the exact same supply-chain pettiness that people used to applaud Apple for, and now that everyone feels the impact of it, why do we still defend them for abusing capitalism and hurting everyone in the process?
  - tpmoney 4y ago
    >Since when has it involved that? Even back when cellphones were repairable, trying to fix a broken battery by manipulating the cells is a suicide mission. I get that you're trying to illustrate that "density has a repairability cost" Sure, for a small battery pack like that, but an EV's battery pack is made of self contained replaceable cells. It would be perfectly possible to replace the individual cells and save the exterior casing and any internal electronics. But the official dealer process is almost certainly going to replace the entire thing as a single unit. My point was't "density has a repairability cost", it was that sometimes for the sake of ease, repeatability or reliability a manufacturer may decide to bundle individually replaceable components into a single module that will be replaced as a whole unit as part of the repair process and that can be a reasonable decision. We see this all the time with cars. Transmissions are rebuildable, but usually you just replace the whole thing. Same with alternators. Engines are absolutely rebuildable, but if you blow yours, the dealer will almost certainly just replace it wholesale. Wiring harnesses can be patched, but the service manuals will tell you to replace the whole thing. A single switch in your steering wheel controls might be broken, but likely the entire control cluster will be swapped. These things don't make the car "less repairable", nor does the fact that the manufacturer's manual only tells you how to replace the whole thing, and won't sell you anything other than the whole part mean you can't piece it together yourself or that they're somehow hindering you from repairing your car. Likewise, the battery being bundled with the top case is a choice made for a reason. I suppose we can assume it's because Apple is trying to make it unrepairable, but that flies in the face of the fact that they need to make repairs themselves. It's clear apple can make it separable (see the Macbook Air repair options), and the article in question even says Apple plans on doing the same for the other Macbooks. so it really feels like a lot of this is complaining that Apple hasn't gone out of their way to tool up an entirely new set of assemblies outside of what they provide their own in house repair people, and assuming this is do to maliciousness rather than simply doing the most reasonable thing which is opening up their own official processes and parts to the public.

smoldesu 4y ago

> Or does it provide all the information necessary for someone to correctly perform repair or maintenance Well, that's the problem. Apple doesn't provide all of the necessary information to safely perform board repairs or fix mechanical failure. If you break your car's window, you can go get it replaced in an afternoon. If you break your Macbook's display, your options are to take it to an Apple Store and let them quote you a repair, or buy their $500 topcase "do it yourself" replacement kit. All roads lead back to Apple, and Apple deliberately destroys all roads to repairing your computer. This is clearly evidenced by their unbelievably coarse selection of replacement parts, forcing their customers to buy replacements for components they don't need. In other words, it's like breaking your windshield and being told to get a new car or replace the entire chassis. Apple can fix this, and quite easily at that, but why would they? They have a direct financial incentive to keep letting Macbooks break in unfortunate ways. The most common damage (screen/display, logic board) also happens to be the most expensive, and their price is entirely artificial.

tpmoney 4y ago
Why would you buy a top case to replace a broken display and not the display module that they sell separately?