3 ms·

The article claims that Tim Cook said a certain thing "Tim Cook laid it out for his investors: when people can repair their devices, they don't buy new ones. W

The article claims that Tim Cook said a certain thing "Tim Cook laid it out for his investors: when people can repair their devices, they don't buy new ones. When people don't buy new devices, Apple doesn't sell them new devices" It also provides a link to a source... in which Tim Cook said something totally different "While macroeconomic challenges in some markets were a key contributor to this trend, we believe there are other factors broadly impacting our iPhone performance, including consumers adapting to a world with fewer carrier subsidies, US dollar strength-related price increases, and some customers taking advantage of significantly reduced pricing for iPhone battery replacements" It seems to be a pretty big jump from "one of the reasons we didn't perform as well as possible this quarter is because of customers taking advantage of our reduced price battery replacement program" which could impact their bottom line by just operating on thinner margins than normal battery replacements, to "repairs are stopping people from buying new phones"

criddell 3y ago
Yeah, I looked at that too. Seems like a very bad faith interpretation of what Cook was saying.
- dpkonofa 3y ago
  The whole article is bad faith. It links to a Vice article claiming that Apple is lying about its environmental stances because it doesn’t reuse old iPhones and MacBooks. Then, they breeze over the fact that Apple literally breaks these devices down into their core materials for use in new devices and falsely claims that they’re “shredded into immortal e-waste”. How is that not reuse? Are they suggesting that the parts from an iPhone 4 can somehow be reused more effectively? How many old iPhones are still out there that would even be able to use any of those parts?
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    That is in fact not reusing. That’s recycling. And what they could do instead is yes sell those parts, or extend their certified refurbished program. It currently only goes back to the iPhone 12, even though their newest OS supports much older phones. To say nothing of how far back security updates are still (selectively) being released.
    - dpkonofa 3y ago
      The logistics of doing that are nearly impossible. Old phones are old phones. No one wants them.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        That’s a matter of price. People who currently use their old phone rather than upgrade every year very much do want their old phone.
  - bzzzt 3y ago
    Technically "reuse" means wholesale reuse of components, shredding them would be recycling. But you're right. The whole right-to-repair is just lobbying from independent iPhone repair companies who want to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. It's part penny-pinching, part fake environmentalism and lots of hate for everything Apple. Even if Apple would bring out the most repairable phone ever it wouldn't be enough since it's all about the control they don't want Apple to have (even if that control is advantageous to the customer)
    - whelp_24 3y ago
      I staunchly refuse to buy an iphone or whatever else Apple sells. I both support right to repair and am affected by many non Apple companies that do anti-consumer stuff. The article here actually lists several companies that aren't and hate right 2 repair, including Wahl (learn something everyday). I can't understand why anyone who isn't a manufacturer would be against this.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      > The whole right-to-repair is just lobbying from independent iPhone repair companies who want to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. That is a very interesting take. Basic repairability, whether by an independent shop, or a skilled individual (aka you), should be a goal so the manufacturer doesn't have a monopoly on repairs. Market economies abhor a monopoly, and the vendor-only repair scheme is a big one. Looking at cars, The US has the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which was fought for in the courts, to force vendors to accept that aftermarket parts didn't void the warranty of the part wasn't related. Which isn't directly applicable here, but the point is that an outside vendor could create a replacement part, better in some way (cheaper is a kind of better), and repair shops and customers could choose to use that part instead. Apple shouldn't have that much control. We decided this for cars, the same should be applicable with ebikes for the mind.
    - eternityforest 3y ago
      How is it advantageous to the customers? Are there commonly shady phone repair people doing bad work? I've never had a phone repaired(Rugged cases prevent the need pretty effectively!) so I might be out of the loop.
  - zbbbbbbb 3y ago
    Shocking that an article that uses a swear word in its title doesn't adhere to the strictest journalistic standards :)
    - throw10920 3y ago
      That's because Doctorow (the author) is not a journalist. He's an activist. He never has and never will adhere to any sort of journalism standards.
- wtallis 3y ago
  The complaint about trademarks on refurbished parts also sounds a bit off, implying that nothing used with a logo on it can be legally imported. There may not be a good and legal solution, but it seems like refurbishing operations and repair shops are trying to avoid having to tell end customers that the assemblies they use for repairs are "a mix of used Apple components and third-party components not approved by Apple". If a disclaimer like that can't get the parts through customs, then maybe we have a problem.

criddell 3y ago

Yeah, I looked at that too. Seems like a very bad faith interpretation of what Cook was saying.

dpkonofa 3y ago
The whole article is bad faith. It links to a Vice article claiming that Apple is lying about its environmental stances because it doesn’t reuse old iPhones and MacBooks. Then, they breeze over the fact that Apple literally breaks these devices down into their core materials for use in new devices and falsely claims that they’re “shredded into immortal e-waste”. How is that not reuse? Are they suggesting that the parts from an iPhone 4 can somehow be reused more effectively? How many old iPhones are still out there that would even be able to use any of those parts?
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  That is in fact not reusing. That’s recycling. And what they could do instead is yes sell those parts, or extend their certified refurbished program. It currently only goes back to the iPhone 12, even though their newest OS supports much older phones. To say nothing of how far back security updates are still (selectively) being released.
  - dpkonofa 3y ago
    The logistics of doing that are nearly impossible. Old phones are old phones. No one wants them.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      That’s a matter of price. People who currently use their old phone rather than upgrade every year very much do want their old phone.
- bzzzt 3y ago
  Technically "reuse" means wholesale reuse of components, shredding them would be recycling. But you're right. The whole right-to-repair is just lobbying from independent iPhone repair companies who want to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. It's part penny-pinching, part fake environmentalism and lots of hate for everything Apple. Even if Apple would bring out the most repairable phone ever it wouldn't be enough since it's all about the control they don't want Apple to have (even if that control is advantageous to the customer)
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    I staunchly refuse to buy an iphone or whatever else Apple sells. I both support right to repair and am affected by many non Apple companies that do anti-consumer stuff. The article here actually lists several companies that aren't and hate right 2 repair, including Wahl (learn something everyday). I can't understand why anyone who isn't a manufacturer would be against this.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    > The whole right-to-repair is just lobbying from independent iPhone repair companies who want to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. That is a very interesting take. Basic repairability, whether by an independent shop, or a skilled individual (aka you), should be a goal so the manufacturer doesn't have a monopoly on repairs. Market economies abhor a monopoly, and the vendor-only repair scheme is a big one. Looking at cars, The US has the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which was fought for in the courts, to force vendors to accept that aftermarket parts didn't void the warranty of the part wasn't related. Which isn't directly applicable here, but the point is that an outside vendor could create a replacement part, better in some way (cheaper is a kind of better), and repair shops and customers could choose to use that part instead. Apple shouldn't have that much control. We decided this for cars, the same should be applicable with ebikes for the mind.
  - eternityforest 3y ago
    How is it advantageous to the customers? Are there commonly shady phone repair people doing bad work? I've never had a phone repaired(Rugged cases prevent the need pretty effectively!) so I might be out of the loop.
- zbbbbbbb 3y ago
  Shocking that an article that uses a swear word in its title doesn't adhere to the strictest journalistic standards :)
  - throw10920 3y ago
    That's because Doctorow (the author) is not a journalist. He's an activist. He never has and never will adhere to any sort of journalism standards.
wtallis 3y ago
The complaint about trademarks on refurbished parts also sounds a bit off, implying that nothing used with a logo on it can be legally imported. There may not be a good and legal solution, but it seems like refurbishing operations and repair shops are trying to avoid having to tell end customers that the assemblies they use for repairs are "a mix of used Apple components and third-party components not approved by Apple". If a disclaimer like that can't get the parts through customs, then maybe we have a problem.