4 ms·

I suspect that the driving force behind Apple’s new desire to be repairable is legislative. IMO: Not profit of the “self-service” repairs, nor the improvement

I suspect that the driving force behind Apple’s new desire to be repairable is legislative. IMO: Not profit of the “self-service” repairs, nor the improvement to the bottom line when they refurbish their own devices. Not some future goal of selling people the parts and/or tools. Not the goal of being ecologically sustainable (though IMO they do very well at this). I think they are working very hard to steer the Right to Repair ship so that it avoids successfully docking. If Right to Repair gets everything that it could in the interests of the public, Apple will lose a lot of things. They will lose exclusivity contracts that lock in the manufacturers (it will be almost impossible to stop 3rd party duplicates of parts). They will lose a portion of the income from users who would would repair instead of upgrading. They will lose the illusion of security that they enjoy currently (unrestricted repair communities uncover every tiny detail, especially those ones that are security holes). They will lose the ability to lock people in to the Apple cloud (Jailbreaking will be inevitably easier). And they might even lose the pristine brand image they have built. If Apple continued on the path of unrepairable iPhones, at some point they would be one of the examples that got Right to Repair signed in to law. However, they might be banking on the idea of saying “we’re making steps” for long enough that legislators will have space to stand down and the public will lose momentum. Then they can go full-throttle on control.

surewe 4y ago
I don't see how software security relates to being able to repair hardware -- third party logic boards would most likely... not exist, for example.
- joshspankit 4y ago
  I agree but Apple does not. If Right to Repair gets, as I say; “everything that it could in the interests of the public”, it would mean that software would not be able to restrict hardware. No vendor-controlled unique IDs that need to be whitelisted in order to connect between chips or boards, no intrusive warnings about 3rd party parts that are installed, no undocumented protocols for basic functionality, and so-on. And if they say they have to because of security that claim would be heavily scrutinized. Way back in the day Microsoft tied IE in to Windows and leveraged it’s OS dominance to try to win the browser wars. Browsers, like hardware, are based on vendor-agnostic technologies and so MS felt it had to play dirty since there was no way for them to win a war where browsers are commodities. Back then the government stepped in as they recognized the fact that browsers are commodities and that paved the way for the majority of the web standards we rely on today. Who knows what sort of fragmented web we would have if MS had been allowed to lock users in with their proprietary “improvements”. We may be at the same crossroads here with Right to Repair.
threeseed 4y ago
> I suspect that the driving force behind Apple’s new desire to be repairable is legislative. I disagree. It's all about customer LTV. Apple is increasingly seeing a larger percentage of their revenue come from services e.g. Music, TV+ and iPhone-centric devices e.g. Apple Watch. Keeping users in the ecosystem is incredibly important to Apple so much that they are happy to have users use older phones for longer. Just as long as they don't switch to Google or Samsung.
- joshspankit 4y ago
  You may be right. My rebuttal is that Apple can only make system API changes through releasing new iOS versions and there have been many cases where they make an API change to kill competition. Does YouTube music have the same system-wide integration that Apple Music does? No. Look at Dropbox even: Some versions ago Apple took away iOS app’s ability to upload in the background while Apple’s Photos app is free to do it 24/7. A user who takes a lot of photos and likes to store them in the cloud is either an iCloud user where everything works automatically, or a non-iCloud user where files are stalled until the app is on-screen for however long it takes to transfer them. Apologies for getting ranty there. It’s hard to watch big tech these days, especially as someone who sees how much has been taken from us already.
kaba0 4y ago
That assumes they didn’t care about reparability in the first place. Have a look at JerryRigEverything videos of any iphone, they are beautifully constructed on the inside. They don’t do no-gos like cheaper phones building basically on top of the screen a battery and a cover, which would cause an insane price for screen replacement, they don’t use special screws to fuck with you, but because they literally use the same physical space as one screw by screwing a screw with an opposing direction into another.

surewe 4y ago

I don't see how software security relates to being able to repair hardware -- third party logic boards would most likely... not exist, for example.

joshspankit 4y ago
I agree but Apple does not. If Right to Repair gets, as I say; “everything that it could in the interests of the public”, it would mean that software would not be able to restrict hardware. No vendor-controlled unique IDs that need to be whitelisted in order to connect between chips or boards, no intrusive warnings about 3rd party parts that are installed, no undocumented protocols for basic functionality, and so-on. And if they say they have to because of security that claim would be heavily scrutinized. Way back in the day Microsoft tied IE in to Windows and leveraged it’s OS dominance to try to win the browser wars. Browsers, like hardware, are based on vendor-agnostic technologies and so MS felt it had to play dirty since there was no way for them to win a war where browsers are commodities. Back then the government stepped in as they recognized the fact that browsers are commodities and that paved the way for the majority of the web standards we rely on today. Who knows what sort of fragmented web we would have if MS had been allowed to lock users in with their proprietary “improvements”. We may be at the same crossroads here with Right to Repair.

threeseed 4y ago

> I suspect that the driving force behind Apple’s new desire to be repairable is legislative. I disagree. It's all about customer LTV. Apple is increasingly seeing a larger percentage of their revenue come from services e.g. Music, TV+ and iPhone-centric devices e.g. Apple Watch. Keeping users in the ecosystem is incredibly important to Apple so much that they are happy to have users use older phones for longer. Just as long as they don't switch to Google or Samsung.

joshspankit 4y ago
You may be right. My rebuttal is that Apple can only make system API changes through releasing new iOS versions and there have been many cases where they make an API change to kill competition. Does YouTube music have the same system-wide integration that Apple Music does? No. Look at Dropbox even: Some versions ago Apple took away iOS app’s ability to upload in the background while Apple’s Photos app is free to do it 24/7. A user who takes a lot of photos and likes to store them in the cloud is either an iCloud user where everything works automatically, or a non-iCloud user where files are stalled until the app is on-screen for however long it takes to transfer them. Apologies for getting ranty there. It’s hard to watch big tech these days, especially as someone who sees how much has been taken from us already.

kaba0 4y ago

That assumes they didn’t care about reparability in the first place. Have a look at JerryRigEverything videos of any iphone, they are beautifully constructed on the inside. They don’t do no-gos like cheaper phones building basically on top of the screen a battery and a cover, which would cause an insane price for screen replacement, they don’t use special screws to fuck with you, but because they literally use the same physical space as one screw by screwing a screw with an opposing direction into another.