13 ms·

Two parts of their statement stand out to me. First is "to enable the repairs performed by authorised repair channels", which indicates they don't really want

• nomel 3y ago
  > repair providers disclose the use on non-genuine or used parts This has my complete support. I’ve had a phone repaired with a knock off display/touch module. It stopped working with an OTA update. Buying used phones is a total gamble, as is.
  • mouse_ 3y ago
    The manufacturer remotely bricked your -working- device because you broke their terms and conditions by performing a repair. You should not support this sort of disgusting behavior.
    • Gigachad 3y ago
      No evidence that’s the case. Very realistic that the new update was trying to do something that’s in spec for the genuine screen but the clone hadn’t copied properly.
      • duskwuff 3y ago
        I think I know what was going on here. I can't find a source (too many false hits on tech news sites), but a batch of counterfeit displays for one model of iPhone used a touchscreen controller from a much older model. When a new version of iOS was released which no longer supported that older model, Apple removed the drivers for its touchscreen controller from the OS, under the assumption that they were no longer necessary. This had the unexpected effect of making those displays stop working. This wasn't intentional -- it was an inadvertent result of routine code cleanup -- and Apple added the driver back in a later OS update to restore functionality, and added messaging to indicate to users if their display wasn't a genuine Apple part.
      • rasz 3y ago
        Apple apologized and removed that block after getting caught and filled class action suit https://9to5mac.com/2016/02/18/ios-9-2-1-error-53-update/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/02/18/ios-9-2-1-error-53-update/
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • amluto 3y ago
    Also, non-genuine display modules can utterly suck. The most obvious failure is linearly polarized light output. Bonus points for horizontally or vertically polarized light — diagonal is at least somewhat tolerable.
    • rf15 3y ago
      I don't buy apple products so I don't quite understand the implication here; how is a physical property you cannot really perceive relevant to you?
      • omegabravo 3y ago
        I expect that if you're wearing polarising lenses such as sunglasses, you can't see your phone if it's held in portrait or landscape.
        • josefx 3y ago
          Must resist the urge to make a joke about Apple users "holding it wrong".
          • hulitu 3y ago
            Apple learned something from SUN. Don't sell the mouse (iPhone) without the mousepad (glasses). /s
        • nomel 3y ago
          Their point is that genuine Apple devices used circularly polarized filters so this isn’t an issue.
      • dagmx 3y ago
        It’s not really anything to do with Apple, and applies to all displays. If you wear polarized lenses, like good sunglasses out in the sun, polarization angle changes visibility of your screen. It can make your screen completely illegible if not created with forethought.
  • Zuiii 3y ago
    What you should support is stricter laws and penalties on fraud. I have no issue with (and sometimes prefer) used or "non-genuine" third party parts as long as it's an informed decision. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
    • jakelazaroff 3y ago
      That’s what they said. You both agree!
    • ChildOfChaos 3y ago
      That's the whole point though, by requiring repair services to disclose they used third party or used parts, you get to make an informed decision, without that, you don't.
      • bzzzt 3y ago
        Problem is some people make an 'informed decision' and forget to tell that to a buyer when they sell their phones...
        • rasz 3y ago
          Have you ever sold a car? Have you ever told buyer about provenance of every single part replaced?
        • gorbypark 3y ago
          This is why I support Apple's "serialization" of parts. I think the right to repair bills should prevent Apple from nerfing functionality if a new part is swapped in, but it's great being able to go to the settings screen and see the details of each repair. Currently, I think it will only tell you if Apple did the repair or not, but it would be great to have a list of all parts that have been replaced, if the part is genuine, and if the part was swapped in by Apple and/or an authorized repair centre. I want full disclosure of whats happened to a phone when buying used, but I don't want Apple to be able to make parts not work. If I want to buy a franken-phone full of knock off or mix and match parts I should be able to, but I should be able to clearly see that in the settings screens.
  • 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
    Nope... You have choice. You can go to "authorized repair shop" and pay 50% of the cost of a device for a repair or go to your nearest repair shop and pay a fifty bucks to repair the broken charging port. You get what you pay for. The only problem would be "authorized shops" up charging premium rates for cheap parts"
    • rddbs 3y ago
      Would forcing disclosure of non-authorized parts not address that? If you were willing to pay the premium for authorized parts then you’d have the information to choose the right repair shop.
      • 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
        the problem is, will unregulated report shops be able to do the repair from knockoff parts? I know the last time a fingerprint sensor broke for a phone, i had to replaced for US$1. had to pay $3 for labour but the part cost just $1. its working for the past 3 years so yeah.
        • lwkl 3y ago
          Where do you live that the labour is that cheap? I live in Switzerland and I get why repairs are expensive. Because the labour is really expensive. I did multiple repairs (not on phones) where the labour was more expensive than just buying a new device (cheap printers).
          • 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
            unfortunately india
      • rasz 3y ago
        wtf is "authorized part"? https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspers... >Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), it is illegal for a manufacturer to void a warranty or deny coverage if a customer has a repair or maintenance performed by an independent repair shop or using a third-party replacement part (unless the original manufacturer provides the service or part for free).
  • snapetom 3y ago
    Absolutely. My local and much beloved (by others) repair shop got really pissy when I started asking them if they participated in the authorized repair program. Why? Because the battery replacements always sucked. Sure they “covered” the work, but I was tired of going back every other month for half a year because they “got a bad batch of batteries.” I got tired of their crappy attitude and eventually found an authorized shop. Give me genuine parts with the convenience of not having to deal with a “genius” bar.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • elsjaako 3y ago
      Louis Rossmann has talked a lot about why he isn't part of the authorized program. There are two main problems he mentioned, IIRC. (It's been a while, so my memory may be wrong or the situation may have changed). Firstly, you can no longer do component level repairs. So replacing some capacitors that got waterdamaged is no longer allowed. This is part of the agreement you make with Apple. Secondly, although you can buy screens and batteries, you can't keep them on stock. You need to get the phone from your customer, then order the parts from apple, then wait for them to arrive, perform the repair, and only then can you finish. If you want to do "While you wait" repairs it's impossible. It's a bad look to go off on a rant about Apple every time a customer asks a question, so I can understand them being annoyed when someone asks them if they're part of the official program.
      • turquoisevar 3y ago
        The component level repair issue I get from both sides. Rossmann obviously wants to continue to be able to provide that service, in part because it’s arguably his specialization. Apple obviously doesn’t want it because even under the best of circumstances it’s difficult to ensure consistency from repair to repair, much less between different technicians or locations. And explaining a customer that while, yes, they did go to an authorized repair shop, but no, that specific repair doesn’t fall under Apple’s warranty or seal of approval, is also a nightmare. Similarly, for keeping parts on stock I can see both sides of the debate. Shops would like to have stuff in stock to provide the best and fastest service available, Apple on the other hand wants to prevent parts from falling in the wrong hands given the already prolific grey market for their parts. I know they’ve already loosened up a bit with some shops that have high volume and good track record, letting them have some common stuff on hand (e.g. batteries, screens, etc.), but there’s also the option to let the customer get the part via the self-repair program and bring it to the store to have it placed. There are two competing interests at play but I think with a bit of compromise in either end a workable solution is possible. As for shops getting pissed when asked if they’re part of the program, I think your explanation is rather poor. It’s equally, if not more of, a bad look to get pissed everything they’re asked that question. If anything it makes them look sketchy when that doesn’t need to be the outcome. People are generally just interested in the quality of the components used and want to know if official components are used to gauge that, as well as know if they can go to Apple should problems arise (i.e. if it’ll be covered by Apple’s repair warranty).
  • 14 3y ago
    If the screen was working fine then an update caused it to stop working that doesn’t sound like an issue with the display but rather a hostile software update that is preventing it from working merely because it is a knock off screen but was working as you say just prior. Should be mad at apple in that case not the knock off screen.
    • dodslaser 3y ago
      Probably, but not necessarily. Could also be a code change that works perfectly fine for the OEM part, but not the third-party one. Manufacturers can't realistically be expected to guarantee a device will keep working as normal with third-party parts.
      • callalex 3y ago
        Sure, but having the screen stop working because of an unforeseen coincidence is very different from intentionally breaking the screen with malicious intention. Besides, has there been a single documented case in the history of smartphones where a device manufacturer changed the communication protocol with a display via OTA update after the phone shipped?
        • nudgeee 3y ago
          I can think of a myriad of things such as enabling a feature that was previously disabled/in development, updates to calibration values/curves, tweaking timing and power saving control registers, etc. Any of these could throw off a third party part if not implemented exactly the same way.
          • Dah00n 3y ago
            Sure, but we also know for a fact that Apple does a lot of tweaking to disable non-genuine parts. Seems as likely.
        • kaba0 3y ago
          Surely Apple maliciously went after some tiny third party that sells 3 screens per year. Occam’s razor..
  • hulitu 3y ago
    > It stopped working with an OTA update. So the display was ok but was disabled by SW.
    • saiya-jin 3y ago
      Important distinction - the day when Apple is honestly supporting right to repair is not yet here, and given company's history it most probably won't come anytime soon. Which is fine, but let's be honest here. Apple is for-profit corporation just like gazillion others, it will fight tooth and nail against anything imparting their revenue streams, be it massive cut from itunes sales or expensive repairs. These kind of modern just movements are not what mega corporations like Apple enjoy. But they have to throw bits and pieces around for marketing to show to mostly young that 'they care', 'they understand', 'privacy first' and so on. Well sure they do, about their revenue. Just look at their actions, rest is pure marketing carefully crafted over months and endless meetings and psychological market analysis. What they did is just marketing move and basically allowing you to pay them fully just like in official repair center. That's not what right to repair means (hacking together my own fixes if I decide to, ie in old John Deere fashion). They should just make sure that things work at the end while not compromising things like security and longevity, ie by open protocols and specification. Nothing like that is happening anytime soon in Apple realm.
    • spacebanana7 3y ago
      This doesn't necessarily indicate malice. Apple has little obligation to test every software change on non standard hardware so it's reasonably possible some innocent change had a breaking effect on a modified device.
      • izacus 3y ago
        In reality, Apples hardware DRM checks broke the OTA no matter how functional the display was.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
  • Dah00n 3y ago
    That's Apple's fault, not the repair shop, and apple should be fined for doing so.
    • monooso 3y ago
      Why is it Apple's fault that a knock-off (i.e. unsupported) display stopped working after a software update?
      • arghwhat 3y ago
        Because it sounds intentional, as the affected electronics are off-the-shelf and not something subject to firmware updates and because apple specifically have a habit of intentionally interfering with parts not installed by Apple. Third party manufacturers are perfectly able to make an entirely equivalent and compatible display unit, as the originals are sourced by Apple from such manufacturers in the exact same way.
        • philistine 3y ago
          So a part that cannot tolerate a change in data characteristics the same way that a genuine part can must be allowed to function?
          • arghwhat 3y ago
            Rather unlikely for that to occur in a genuine scenario as neither side of the interface is software defined and as the functionality is fixed and provided by a third party.
            • nomel 3y ago
              The knock off probably didn't implement something correctly, in hardware.
              • arghwhat 3y ago
  • arghwhat 3y ago
    As long as it is not twisted into the device being allowed to nag you over the use of non-genuine parts. Apple should not be allowed to inconvenience users of aftermarket/non-Apple parts.
  • amelius 3y ago
    What if you read in a reputable forum that some display panel is much cheaper and works great?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • itsoktocry 3y ago
    >This has my complete support. Disclosure is nice. But what reason would cause an after-market component to fail after a software update? We don't want these companies building software "genuine" checks to brick phones that use other parts.
    • wccrawford 3y ago
      It might have been slightly out of spec in a way that the old software didn't care about, but a recent software improvement needed it to be in-spec after all.
      • SenAnder 3y ago
        Has Apple earned this much benefit of the doubt?
        • wccrawford 3y ago
          Apple breaks enough things by accident that I find it easier to believe that than than they deliberately targeted this replacement screen and found a way to make their hardware and software still work well for existing users, and break just this third-party screen.
    • philistine 3y ago
      With Apple, the reason is usually security. For a third-party screen, it could take pictures of the display to steal information. With the iPhone being the target of state sponsored brigands, it is not theoretical. It is probably happening. With the camera modules and batteries it’s a question of calibration and Apple clearly never thought anyone but them needed to calibrate the part.
• MBCook 3y ago
  > First is "to enable the repairs performed by authorised repair channels", which indicates they don't really want to make parts available to the average joe Except they already do that. There were plenty of discussions on HN about their repair toolkits users could get to replaced parts of their phones.
  • chongli 3y ago
    Yes and Apple even lets users rent the tools instead of having to buy them. This is key because the tools for taking apart an iPhone are not trivial!
    • MBCook 3y ago
      And that was one of the big complaints. “It’s too big, it weighs too much” since the tools came in well packed pelican cases. Because Apple doesn’t have amateur tools. They ship you the same thing the stores and third-party use. The framing of this article seems very clickbate-y to me. Sounds like Apple wanted to make sure a couple of reasonable rules/clarifications were in place to prevent their customers for being ripped off. And once that was in place they were happy to support it. Which makes sense because they’ve already started moving in this direction anyway (the writing was on the wall). They even seem to be designing things to be easier to service. The iPhone line last year, and reportedly the iPhone pro/max line will join in this year.
      • theshrike79 3y ago
        The tools are built so that it's pretty hard to use them wrong (use too much force or bend something in the wrong direction). That's why they're so bulky. They could just send you a screwdriver set and a few spudgers, but it's really easy break a phone like that =)
      • nottorp 3y ago
        Personally I trust my corner repair shop (mind, a specific repair shop in my town, not all of them) more than Apple to fix only what's broken and not swap the whole phone. Not to mention I don't have to ship the phone to another town or something like that.
• camillomiller 3y ago
  Apple’s brand is so strong that anything that happens on an Apple device is perceived as Apple’s merit, but also more often as Apple’s fault. Apple is aware that its main competitive advantage is also their main Achille’s heel, unless they keep control. When it comes to software that’s easy, and that’s why they’re so against side loading. When it comes to hardware that’s much harder. When someone goes to a random store, gets their screen swapped with a random part and that starts behaving uncontrollably and degrading the experience, who do you think that customer is holding accountable for that? Themselves? The repairer? Nope, it’s Apple. If you want proof, ask any acquaintance who works at an Apple Store about the complaints they get from customers. Pressured by a growing outrage about repairability, Apple found a smart way out: sure, repair it yourself, these are the parts and tools you should use, if you mess up it’s your problem. It can still dent Apple’s brand a bit but it’s better than forced regulation for them. This argument wasn’t in Apple’s defense, but an attempt at showing that Apple’s approach doesn’t come from an ideological dislike of repair per se, but from pure business calculation based on their current status as a brand and user-experience-focused company. Now, if you want the ideological bit, that’s a different one and more generic and it’s the old Steve Jobs tenet: users don’t know what they want until you show it to them. I personally believe that’s still true, and yes I believe it applies to the right to repair when taken beyond a small bubble of entitled electronics enthusiasts. Edit: oh no, I dared say something against the right to repair! Hasten! Bring in the downvotes!!!
  • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > who do you think that customer is holding accountable for that? Themselves? The repairer? Nope, it’s Apple. This is disproven in these very comments by people blaming the repair shop for doing a poor job. People know whether or not they took their phone to the Apple store to get it repaired. These arguments also seem... odd? From a marketing perspective. "Our customers are much too stupid to know where they had service done, so the only solution is to prohibit them from having it done by anyone independent." (Pay no attention to the effect on our repair margins or that increasing the cost of repairs often causes people to buy a new device instead.)
    • 3y ago
• derefr 3y ago
  Apple is as right-to-repair as they can be while also trying to inhibit and disincentivize the stealing of iPhones to send them to chop shops (to extract the parts to sell wholesale to repair shops.)
  • purkka 3y ago
    Perhaps there would be less demand for chop shops if Apple didn't try their hardest to prevent repair shops from buying their slightly customized chips new and genuine from the manufacturers.
  • Dah00n 3y ago
    Apple is to blame for that since they are the ones refusing to sell parts. That's going in circles. No, Apple is as Right to repair as they deem necessary to uphold the law and not get too much backlash from customers. If they had their way they would utterly refuse any kind of right to repair, as history has shown.
• friendzis 3y ago
  I still do not know which side of the fence do I sit on with regards to "genuine" parts. A deliberately stretched example. Apple laptops are claimed to not need camera privacy shutter, because the recording light is hardware controlled, so the user always knows when the camera is recording. What if what if recording ight on non-genuine camera is software controlled via additional register and simply automatically turned on on recording to not cause suspicion, but could be manually turned off via software? More generally the issue is about broad compatibility. People often mention screens and batteries as being observably worse. Sure off-brand screens do display pixels and batteries provide power, but they do that at an observably lower quality. A networking module may not support some "smart" features and so on. Hardware quality levels are what differentiate macs from PCs. Whatever you say about Apple, you have to agree that with Apple you consistent (and relatively high) quality levels. With PCs it is quite another story. You can buy "business class" laptop that has durable frame, quality components that easily interface with the rest of the system and things mostly "just work". And then there are shit tier laptops where BSODs show up if you look at them weird, you need to hunt down right versions of drivers after every OS update and some features outright do not work. Apple could maintain the quality floor mostly by being in tight control of hardware. With independent shops installing shit-tier components Apple is going to have shit-tier macs in the wild. I can understand Apple. But on the hand, I do not want to be forced into genuine-only programs, as long as I can make an informed decision that I am sacrificing something. it's not a small thing. An older laptop is quite often not worth to fix with genuine parts (that are expensive in part due to quality control), but it may make sense to revive with with an off brand component. I have no idea how to coalesce these two ends of a stick.
  • rasz 3y ago
    Its not about "genuine" parts. Apple blocks "genuine" brand new parts taken off of brand new same model unit. Its about blocking all repairs not going thru Apple, its all about control and %. US law doesnt recognize such a thing as "genuine" part. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act spells it out pretty well "it is illegal for a manufacturer to void a warranty or _deny coverage_ if a customer has a repair or maintenance performed by an independent repair shop or using a third-party replacement part"
• kalleboo 3y ago
  > to enable the repairs performed by authorised repair channels I think what this means is that just want to be required to support the "replace whole part" type repairs that Apple Stores already do - i.e. replace motherboard, replace display assembly, replace whole top case. Compared to enabling the kind of board or component-level repairs that people like Louis Rossmann does which requires access to schematics, individual ribbon cables and specific chips. The former means that one slightly torn 50 cent ribbon cable means a $300 screen replacement, or one blown $1 power controller chip means a $2000 logic board (cpu/ram/flash storage all that is soldered on) a replacement, which is all extremely wasteful both of money and natural resources.
• amelius 3y ago
  So disappointed in the tech community that we couldn't make this bill a little better. Probably because we were stuck in our echo chambers ...
• golergka 3y ago
  > Second is "repair providers disclose the use on non-genuine or used parts" which indicates they may try to continue the serialisation of parts to force the repairer to buy replacement new parts, rather than being able to swap in known-working used or non-oem bits. If you can't use other units for parts, it means that people don't have any reason to steal it.
• soundnote 3y ago
  If I am to believe Louis Rossmann ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tB3t7xGWjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tB3t7xGWjk ), this would still be a marked improvement over the current state of affairs, where Apple ostensibly offers tools, but the terms end up forbidding their use in serious repair shops. If they actually offer a good selection of OEM parts, that'd be good for the end user.