Louis Rossmann’s video is a good take on this. Basically the anti-repair stance they have held for so long is evolving into a passive approach where it is either too costly or too difficult to repair
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
369 points (97.9% liked)
Apple
17481 readers
166 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yea I'll believe it when I see it
What they are saying is that Apple is now fine with people repairing their own devices because the cost of the equipment/parts to replace parts in their own devices likely is more expensive than the average Joe is willing to sink into a DIY project, with none guaranteed results, as opposed to just send it to Apple for a repair.
Sure people can now send it to a third party for a fix but if the cost for a repair at a third party shop is marginally lower than an Apple repair, Apple is betting that a customer will likely choose them vs. a third party.
Apple will be gatekeepers over NEW replacement parts for their devices so it’s a win win win for them. They win if you buy their parts to replace parts, they win if you take it to a third party and you buy their parts and they win if you take it to Apple for service and repairs.
and they also win because they now get good PR as being “supportive” of the right to repair movement
Same as oil companies claiming they care about going green now after denying the mere existence of climate change tooth and nail for decades. Apple even already confirmed that they'll weasle their way out of the EU law for replacable phone batteries with the waterproof loophole.
Re Weaselling from EU rules: do you have a source? I am very interested.
I could only find a rumour that they were trying to circumvent it.
Thanks. That will not work. IO68 is not waterproof. It’s not a reason enough to not have a replicable battery. We have had ip68 phones with removable backs and user swappable batteries. We can have it again.
Which loophole is that again?
i hadn’t heard of it before but i found a verge article that says
The battery regulation contains an exemption for devices “that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion.”
the actual legislation (linked in the verge article) says
… this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users.
im far from being a legal expert and i know apple has its own private army of lawyers, but it seems like it will be an uphill battle to say the iphone qualifies for that exemption.
that would be quite a spurious argument, that exemption looks like it's for stuff like Go-pros.
Never believe mega corporations.
Or even regular ones
Or people
“The big exceptions are video game consoles and alarm systems.”
Why specifically exclude game consoles?
Because they lobbied hardest.
Not saying this is a good excuse, but I suspect it's related to DRM / cheating.
Video game consoles exist for the sole purpose of playing protected content, and they rely on part on verifying things haven't been tampered with to discourage creating.
That’s the slipperiest slope ever. All modern computing is full of DRM. I watch Netflix on my Mac and game on my desktop, should I have no rights?
Again not saying it's a good excuse. You're right that modern computing is full of DRM, but unlike a computer, an Xbox is literally just a DRM box. They rely on their hardware DRM to prevent piracy.
Not sure if it's still the case but back in the day, people would install aftermarket disc readers in early 360s specifically to allow it to play unprotected game discs, so anyone with a DVD burner could burn a pirated ISO onto a disc for their Xbox
That's a very weak argument. I get where you're going with it. All moderns computers / devices are DRM first.
The PS4 and Xbox One and later are quite literally x86_64 architecture. They run either Windows NT kernel or Unix Kernel. Albeit custom OS variants that are functionally labelled "forks" for all intents and purposes. Games can be be ported between them and PC with ease due to this nature. They play movies and music whether it be streamed from an app, a DVD/CD, on a USB device or internal drive. They can browse the web using a web browser that's part of the OS.
Traditional computers have had hardware based DRM for decades. There's nothing really special about consoles having it too.
Consoles take the same approach as Apple has with iOS. They don't want you doing anything with it that they haven't approved. A walled garden to exert control.
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo just lobbied really hard and padded pockets to get their exclusion.
So, the iPhone has literally the same approach of OS which the EU seem to dislike. On the other hand, Nintendo is allowed to have nonrepairable batteries even if they repeatedly show that they give a duck about eWaste, by first killing all eShop for 3ds and issued an update later to make sure the 3ds bricks on try installing software from other sources (well they tried, but NintendoHacker are smart). So a Company which is way worse than apple regarding repairability (my opinion) should be allowed to stick the batteries in to the case with the strongest glue they find while apple is not? Seems not fair to me.. I’m all for forced replaceable batteries, but I find it way worse, if devices get killed by update/lack of server support and don’t offer the owner root access to the now worthless tech. EU should force giving root rights to user at end of life of any device.
Video game consoles exist for the sole purpose of playing protected content,
Consoles have never been good at handling protected content. I'm pretty sure they have higher piracy rates than PC, purely because PC will emulate them.
Pretty sure the main reason has always been form factor and self-contained. People get consoles because they don't want the setup that a PC entails. That and up until around 10 years ago maybe, PCs were prohibitively more expensive than consoles.
But hell, even back in the 90s my first experience with Pokemon was on no$GB
Why alarm systems???
I'm guessing because then states would need to heavily modify code laws on things like fire alarm requirements. Those regulations are for anyone who might have to walk into your house.
There aren't regulations on security systems to my knowledge. Fire alarms work independent but they can optionally operate with a security system. Security systems are consumer devices, you can buy them yourself anywhere without any licensing or regulation.
Legal and liability nightmare I'd guess. Imagine someone dies in a house fire so they sue the repair shop, or insurance refuses to pay because you modified your alarm.
Nobody talking about fire alarms still
For the same reason you need a licence in most places to install fire and security systems. If you make a mistake, people can die.
Who said fire?
The proposed legislation:
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB244/id/2832427
(ii) A product or component of an “alarm system” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 7590.1 of the Business and Professions Code. Code, including a fire protection system, as defined in the California Fire Code.
That makes sense then. When you search alarm system anywhere else you will get results for security systems which these days are simple consumer devices that lock customers into sketchy proprietary "ecosystems" that require subscription services that prevent users from operating and repairing by themselves.
I would assume because at that point you have a PC.
The government telling us to buy a PC
All they are doing is shifting the responsibility and liability into you.
They want to control the discussion about R2R. Rather than having pro-consumer groups set the rules, they rather have their influence dictate the rules to R2R from the inside. They know that participating in the process both makes them look good, but also let's them control the discussion.
They want you using authorized Apple parts using authorized Apple tools and installing authorized Apple software. But using your labor to do it. Probably one of the biggest bottlenecks in the phone repair chain is the labor to open up and repair the phone. So for Apple it is a win-win to off-load that manual labor onto the user. If they fuck up the phone, then it is a win for Apple because that person now needs a new phone. If the repair goes successfully, it is still a win for Apple because the user is still locked into their ecosystem and they just bought some highly marked-up parts and didn't give more work to their probably overloaded repair supply chain.
Also, the EU is currently adopting a right-to-repair bill that will require all companies, including Apple, to only offer home-repairable devices starting 2027.
Apple just sees which way the wind is blowing and decided to hop on the bandwagon. Better to own and somewhat control it.
I couldn't really give two flying fucks what any business supports for legislation.
However, I do care that their opinions weigh more heavily than anyone else's.
Labor is too expensive, better to push it back on to the consumer and make bank on the parts
Probably they want to get rid of third party repair parts…
They've found a way for it to be more profitable than less, so now they're on board.