4 ms·

There are several way different groups are viewing right to repair, that I find isn’t getting much coverage. Consumer: right to repair means fixing my broken d

There are several way different groups are viewing right to repair, that I find isn’t getting much coverage. Consumer: right to repair means fixing my broken display will be a DIY job for $50? Sweet! Repair shop: right to repair means I can source a display from lowest bidder, charge $150 for broken screen, and make $120 in profit? Let’s go! Apple: right to repair means you must buy $275 display module to fix a broken display. Apple being world’s most valuable company, is not going to willingly allow consumer or repair shop to get advantage over itself without kicking and screaming. A smartphone is not a device of yore, where components cost make up vast majority of its price. Instead it is almost pure margin. Every device repaired without handing cash to Apple handsomely is one less device they can sell.

Terretta 3y ago
> Apple: right to repair means you must buy $275 display module to fix a broken display. We cast about for myriad unique negative motives for Apple, while essentially all the various activities that "harm" middlemen are better explained by: Apple wants normal buyers to have a frictionless no worries experience. They didn't care about the telcos, refusing to bundle crapware. They don't care about the mall screen repair kiosk. They don't care about ad companies. They don't care about any middlemen on the value chain. They care about how the normal buyer feels about depending on and using Apple. You can explain product designs, app store curation, Apple store experiences, and repair policies, through this "don't make me worry" experience lens. > Apple being world’s most valuable company, is not going to willingly allow consumer or repair shop to get advantage over itself without kicking and screaming. They are not most valuable by screwing people over. Resenting this suggests the real complaint is annoyance at having to go that extra mile of excellence around the total experience to compete. It's incredibly difficult to compete with their operational excellence. The negative motives are mostly attributed to profit motive, as in this parent post, though when taken apart, Apple is usually find to be delivering a more consistently high quality at a margin comparable to rest of market, with any better margins usually boiling down to operational excellence. > A smartphone is not a device of yore, where components cost make up vast majority of its price. Instead it is almost pure margin. Every device repaired without handing cash to Apple handsomely is one less device they can sell. Teardown after teardown has found when you include not just parts but also assembly quality and longevity, as reflected in resale value, (a) other manufacturers such as Samsung or Dell charge the same for flagship products, and (b) Apple's assembly retains higher resale value. This would imply Apple's focus is on quality, quality costs money, and yet their pricing is comparable to flagships of less quality, making Apple a reasonable or even better "deal". Of course, it's not just that. There's an overall value prop you can expect anywhere you engage with Apple in their value chain, including walking into a store for a repair: - Think Different (and at the experience level, not just the parts) - Tech that "just works" (relative to others, and w/o tinkering) - "Using the product" is the product, not "User" is the product

Terretta 3y ago

> Apple: right to repair means you must buy $275 display module to fix a broken display. We cast about for myriad unique negative motives for Apple, while essentially all the various activities that "harm" middlemen are better explained by: Apple wants normal buyers to have a frictionless no worries experience. They didn't care about the telcos, refusing to bundle crapware. They don't care about the mall screen repair kiosk. They don't care about ad companies. They don't care about any middlemen on the value chain. They care about how the normal buyer feels about depending on and using Apple. You can explain product designs, app store curation, Apple store experiences, and repair policies, through this "don't make me worry" experience lens. > Apple being world’s most valuable company, is not going to willingly allow consumer or repair shop to get advantage over itself without kicking and screaming. They are not most valuable by screwing people over. Resenting this suggests the real complaint is annoyance at having to go that extra mile of excellence around the total experience to compete. It's incredibly difficult to compete with their operational excellence. The negative motives are mostly attributed to profit motive, as in this parent post, though when taken apart, Apple is usually find to be delivering a more consistently high quality at a margin comparable to rest of market, with any better margins usually boiling down to operational excellence. > A smartphone is not a device of yore, where components cost make up vast majority of its price. Instead it is almost pure margin. Every device repaired without handing cash to Apple handsomely is one less device they can sell. Teardown after teardown has found when you include not just parts but also assembly quality and longevity, as reflected in resale value, (a) other manufacturers such as Samsung or Dell charge the same for flagship products, and (b) Apple's assembly retains higher resale value. This would imply Apple's focus is on quality, quality costs money, and yet their pricing is comparable to flagships of less quality, making Apple a reasonable or even better "deal". Of course, it's not just that. There's an overall value prop you can expect anywhere you engage with Apple in their value chain, including walking into a store for a repair: - Think Different (and at the experience level, not just the parts) - Tech that "just works" (relative to others, and w/o tinkering) - "Using the product" is the product, not "User" is the product