Apple Supports Right to Repair Bill in California

[Nattsun]

I just recently upgraded an Air M1 8 GB to 16 GB, due to new work applications.
It's really simple, just with a different method than the "normal" one with opening the lid and inserting some modules;
I sold the 8 GB Air, and bought a another with 16 GB...

Assuming you went to a professional repair shop to have them solder denser memory modules onto the SoC, then I wouldn't exactly call that a "really simple" nor cheap upgrade.

Edit: Nevermind, just understood what you were trying to say. Sorry.

 

[t0rqx]

If they would repair products like they used to; like disarming a boobytrap with upmost attention. I'd let Apple do it. instead the companies they hire throw it around and comes back like being used. That's why we need to repair these ourselves.

 

[Craigwilliam]

I'm sure there will be more reasons found to criticise Apple on this subject. I suspect they are mostly seeing the writing on the wall and finding the most strategic path forward but in the end it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Trusteft]

I wonder whose lobbyists worked hard to ensure that exclusion was inserted into the bill.

Apple is ultimately motivated by an unwavering desire to protect customers and their data.

My guess, Microsoft.

 

[tripsync]

Let's keep things simple.

The main reason why people are in support of right to repair is to prevent Apple from succeeding in the creation of its anti-repair monopoly.

Or you can just not buy Apple products.

Yeah, it's as simple as that.

 

[laptech]

California's bill also says that service and repair facilities that are not authorized repair providers for a company must disclose if they're using replacement parts that are used or not from the manufacturer. That means an independent iPhone repair shop in California would be required to source parts from Apple or to inform customers that device repairs are done with counterfeit components or used parts.

This is going to insure that everyone, independent repair shops and the original manufacturer disclose to the customer what actual parts have been used to repair their device. No longer can they stay quiet on what parts they used. I would hope the process would be that on repair receipts it would have to be disclosed if the part(s) used to repair customers devices are OEM brand new, OEM used OEM refurbished because if a Chinese copy is used and is not disclosed to the customer, the repair shop that fitted the part would be in breach of the bill.

Further, the bill has a component that prevents manufacturers from being required to make tools, parts, and documentation available for any component that would disable or override antitheft security measures, which would encompass features like Face ID.

This is the loophole that will prevent manufacturers from giving out schematics because they would be able to argue that the schematic has sections within it that relate to security of the device and thus under the bill they can withhold ANY schematic.

This bill does nothing to help customers but protect manufacturers

 

[danteOfCourse]

Love these debates/discussions spread across these sites.
You all really think a company that will "protect" it's users from other vendors, game/app developers, the feds and a number of other malcontents wants to have that relationship intruded upon by random third-party repair shops? You all have not been paying attention.

One side saying this will make things worse and the other saying it will make things better.
At this point, I really wish people would acknowledge that as a collective we the consumers; WE ARE ALL IDIOTS.

We have this, Video Games, gaming hardware... all these categories where IF there were actually enough people NOT buying the latest offerings, then there would be change. But that's not happening so now there is legislation that after it is settled and poured over, the pro right to repair will be a fraction closer to what they want and will not have another "big swing" to get them all the way there. Cue a cycle of the bills did not go far enough, etc.

Consumer purchasing patterns speak louder than internet protests and the fact is across all these "concern" areas less than half of the PURCHASING consumers care enough to not buy to force change.

Please continue routing around the will of the majority and believe that you will see substantive change. It is working out very well for the US political system and achieving progress...

For all the pro right to repair people please remember that not EVERY third party repair leaves customers with a positive experience.

Also, giving people an/the option is good. Now they have options. How do I pick the repair place I go to? Reviews get gamed, do I know someone that used one of my "options"... Great getting my Apple device repaired is like shopping on Amazon for something that does not have any options from a recognized brand.

Love Louis R, but what he does not get is Apple product owners, are APPLE CUSTOMERS. If you do not like how Apple operates why did you build your business on top of keeping Apple customers operating within the Apple ecosystem. Maybe it was because Apple customers, by and large, are more profitable customers than other brands.

So, just like everyone else attempting to force Apple to operate differently, it is because of the desire to benefit from how Apple operating differently leads to predictable and profitable group of customers, single point of hardware and OS support, etc.

There are literally thousands of technology devices third-party repair COULD be repairing, but since most of those customers don't value the devices enough to get them repaired at a rate that you could build and operate a business on for several years...

I'm just gonna stop now. This whole thing is stupid. I do think we should have the ability to repair devices we own. But my prediction is that since consumers are idiots, myself included, the vocal idiots are going to keep doing "things" until the response will be we no longer can "buy" computers, they will be licensed like software. Apple is the one OEM that could do it. AND they would drop the upfront price to 1/3 or 1/5 for a 3 year or 5 year contract, because from an accounting stand point shifting to a subscription model will not hurt their numbers. But boy will the Apple consumers be pleased. "Thanks right to repair"

That would eliminate the right to repair because you don't "own" the computer anymore. Much more likely than reaching a future where board level repair documentation AND board components will be available from Apple.

 

[danteOfCourse]

Or you can just not buy Apple products.

Yeah, it's as simple as that.

No it's not, but people that do not understand that will keep saying it. People that care will not buy, but people that do not care will continue to buy. Which number of people do you think is bigger?

 

[danteOfCourse]

So is it not possible to get iPad parts? My 12.9" iPad screen broke mysteriously one day inside a case inside a padding insert inside of a computer bag and I would like to replace it myself but I'm unsure where to get the mini LED display component that isn't some cheap knockoff? It seems like the glass is laminated so I don't have the gear to do that. I used to build computers back in the day and I'm skilled with tools and have a workshop so I was wanting to attempt it but I'm not sure how to source things? It's an M1 with 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD so I don't just want to throw it out! It is still very capable and would've lasted me many years into the future.


This is an insanely bad take. I can't express how bad this take is. Right to repair is better for the environment, and it's better for consumers. Having more options for repair lowers repair costs and companies are required to build things in a more sustainable way. We're destroying the planet with all of this e-waste and manufacturing and it's time we move away from the boomer philosophy of building things as cheaply as possible at the expense of our home planet.

Are you serious? Right to repair COULD be better for the environment but does not guarantee it, if you do not know that it would be advisable to have an understanding of YOUR take before calling someone else's take "insanely bad."

FYI, you can give Apple your broken product so it does not end up as e-waste, so that addresses that piece. As far as YOUR ability to repair...IF (big if) your first time out works well and you repair it great, if not, how much e-waste would you be responsible for because you wanted to repair it yourself?

Assuming only screen cracked, Apple e-cycles everything else from it, e-waste is just a broken screen. If a user repair is botched and components on the board are damaged or destroyed...

Not saying YOU should not have the option AND ability to do it, but that is based on a consumer right not being extended to you. The e-waste argument falls short, more Apple products that had diy repairs become e-waste than those that do not.

If you want to battle e-waste and climate impact, you should probably be working on the lowest end of consumer electronics. That's where the majority of e-waste comes from. And spoiler alert it would start with not having a race to the bottom on price for everything, just saying.

 

[iFishishh]

There's the loophole right there.

Apple is currently electronically serializing every component in their devices, including the battery for "anti-theft" purposes. Apple has already serialized the lid angle sensor on MacBooks, meaning you can't replace the simple magnetic switch without going through Apple or an ASP.

Who is stealing a lid switch? Who is hacking a MacBook through the lid switch?

Pretty soon, the iPhone back glass, USB-C port, and the individual keyboard key caps will be serialized for "anti-theft."

So sure, Apple supports the heck out of this bill.

Apple would still be using their proprietary lightning cable if it were up to them. Soon enough any money you make using your iPhone will be taxed by Apple.
oh you use your iPhone to drive for uber? Tax
you traded stock using your phone? tax

 

[danteOfCourse]

Plus in some cases Apple charges so much for the parts that the cost of repairing it yourself isn't much different from having Apple do it. In such cases Apple is complying with the letter of the law while sabotaging it in practice.

You are looking at this with an eye for how things will potentially roll out based on the legislative route being taken.
If the bills do not have pricing guidelines or anything that speaks to reasonability on what is provided, this is progress but inches not yards.

And once you have the bill passed, what's missing and should be added will take a lot more...

 

[danteOfCourse]

🤦‍♂️

That was just to illustrate the huge price discrepancy between what Apple charges and what you can get from an aftermarket supplier, and how much you'd save.

And just because that iMac is years-old doesn't mean it cannot meet the needs of someone today. Maybe the 8GB of RAM isn't enough anymore and someone wants to upgrade it to 64GB. A 64GB upgrade now costs $65 from Amazon.

I would support this, but if it were being made 5-7 years ago. This concept of keeping computers operating for years by upgrading the hardware is not compatible with what Microsoft and Apple want to do going forward.

If you are a linux user, totally different story, but years-old, meeting needs... Not sure if you are looking at the OS/Software landscape, but selling someone a static application for them to use for 3+ years is a niche that is not just dying it is dead. Honestly, it's more work to do so considering the frequency of security updates that impact areas of the OS/API developers have to interact for their software to work. It makes more sense to fall inline with the march forward.

That means leaving older hardware behind.

Please believe me when I am upset about the state of things. I still can not imagine why native 4k HDR decoding was removed from Intel's latest processors. I still like like and own blurays, but the world wants to stream...

Catering to the minority is not in the cards. Sad but true.

 

[danteOfCourse]

Apple would still be using their proprietary lightning cable if it were up to them. Soon enough any money you make using your iPhone will be taxed by Apple.
oh you use your iPhone to drive for uber? Tax
you traded stock using your phone? tax

I hate keeping up with lightning cables but I have apple devices so they work for everything.

You should look at how many varieties of usb cables have the usb-c end type...
Is this a PD(up to 240W) or non-PD(15W)? Why doesn't this work in my thunderbolt 3/4 port? Wait, is it thunderbolt or usb 3 or 4? There's more than 1 usb3? Is it 5/10/20/40gbps transfer rate? Wait, why doesn't it do data transfer? Which one of my usb-c cables does what, I can't tell just by looking?

Yeah, the whole lightning cable thing has definitely been MUCH more inconvenient than the cluster that is usb-c cables...

Here is THE BEST part, based on the arguments being made to force the change, Apple will just not included the cable.
Since EVERYONE has all these usb-c cables around, why add one more to a users pile unnecessarily.

So, people will try the cheap freebie they got from other devices and it will take forever to charge their device or they will need to do a backup of a 512GB device, then they will give Apple MORE money for the "right" cable.

 

[chrono1081]

Right to repair folks are insufferable.

I have to agree with this. Most don't take the hardware landscape into any kind of account and want things that would drastically increase the physical size of hardware. Take for example the people want removable batteries (despite things like battery extension cases existing). They don't realize how much physical space all the requirements for that take up inside a phone, meaning the phone will be thick as hell plus big.

They're the same kind of people that would complain flat screen TVs don't have cathode ray tubes they can replace if the panel goes bad.

 

[bgillander]

Yeah I've been checking there and it seems like all the 12.9" 5th gen displays from 2021 are MIA. I saw some online but they said LCD and seemed on the cheaper side and kinda sketch. I've never broken a display before, and I'm not even sure that I actually broke it because it just seemed to magically break on it's own inside of my bag when it wasn't being used, so I'm really new to having to source parts and is why we really need strong legislation around this. I shouldn't have to pay another $1500 to replace this iPad just because the display is cracked with pieces falling out. I got it taped up now with packing tape it's so sad.

From the way you are describing it, I’m wondering if one of the iPad batteries swelled and broke the screen. A friend’s MacBook Pro had a battery swell and it broke her keyboard years ago. I need to take in an original MacBook Pro battery (the old, removable ones) to the Apple Store for disposal, as it has popped the battery case open and is double the original width. Fortunately it was on a shelf and not installed in my old MacBook Pro at the time.

 

[danteOfCourse]

Now, I don't usually comment on forums, but you've given such a monumentally Apple-biased take that it makes me wonder whether or not you realize the insane degree of mental gymnastics you've performed.

Let's keep things simple.

The main reason why people are in support of right to repair is to prevent Apple from succeeding in the creation of its anti-repair monopoly. Take simple battery replacements, for example—a basic form of maintenance that virtually every portable device will require at some point. Apple wants $89 to replace the battery on my 3 year old iPhone 11 Pro. Not the cheapest, but at least somewhat palatable for folks who aren't struggling in life. Heck, if I can tolerate some warning messages on my phone, I can just go to some local repair shop to have it replaced for $40.

Now, imagine if Apple were to go further than simply displaying warning messages on my phone, and outright disable my device if it detects a non-genuine battery. Oh well, have to get the battery replaced for $89; no big deal I guess. They know their devices best, after all! Alas, all of a sudden, Apple raises the price of battery replacements to $199, stating inflation and volatile market conditions as their reasoning. I don't have any other choice—Apple's the only one that can service the batteries, and as such, they're free to dictate the market price. Just like that, my perfectly functional but now 3-year old iPhone (that sells for $350) isn't worth fixing anymore. Either I deal with the poor battery life, pony up the cash for a new device, or pound sand.

Don't act like this is some crazy dystopian slippery slope that I just came up with to antagonize Apple; it's already happening right in front of you. Memory and storage upgrades for Apple devices cost nearly ten times as much as the current market price, which they're able to get away with because those components are all soldered now. The only reason that the same thing hasn't happened with basic repairs like screen/battery replacements is because of the availability of cheaper and relatively abundant third-party options.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the added supply-chain costs for logistics and warehousing. I can assure you that Apple also spent (and is currently spending) a significant amount of cash on R&D for serializing individual components and building highly specialized one-off machines which have the sole job of reprogramming them, the costs of which have already been passed on to us consumers.

TL;DR: Right to repair prevents Apple from monopolizing the industry and bringing service costs to the moon, while engineering devices to be difficult to fix arguably costs more than just allowing third-party repair.

I know you said DON'T act like this is some crazy dystopian slipperly slope, but...

Yeah it is, Apple CAN have a monopoly on "unrepairable" devices, because it's their devices and when we are talking about computers, they are not a large enough percentage of the industry to have to worry about governmental force.

Apple can decided tomorrow, they do not make "computers" they make something different that they lease or license to users instead of "sell" and all these arguements become mute. Have you seen Apple's most recent logic boards? They could probably successfully make the argument that they do not currently make a general-use computing device and thus should not be classified as computers.

iPhones they may have a slightly larger fight, but again they are not a large enough percentage of that industry to be worried.

What utterly kills me about everyone, supplying all these positions about "their" device is, unless you are running linux on it, it's yours with an asterisk. For Windows and MacOS you have a license that if revoked leaves YOUR device unusable, unless you can get linux installed on it.

So, with that said, with all this "forcing" of Apple to do what the vocal minority want, just how long do you think it will take until, they decide that they will just remove the concept of "your" computer?

Bonus question: Do you ACTUALLY think ENOUGH people, that BUY apple computers will care?

For the most part Apple computers are mostly bought buy users making money from something uniquely or most cost-effectively done via Apples, status conscious with more money than time, long-time users that are steeped in the eco-system AND are not turned away by the (d)evolution of Apple's offerings?

 

[danteOfCourse]

Probably should state, I support right to repair full stop. I, unlike a lot of the individuals that have been vocal online regarding this, have imported parts from China to do board level repair. I have "acquired" schematics in order to aid those repairs. I have used i-fixit kits, I have done direct swaps between devices to cannibalize as much as possible before putting a non-functioning device in e-waste.

I view right to repair, for my support, through the lens of the handful of situations where getting that exact device back meant the difference in thousands of dollars of data recovery or loss of memories. Even though they could have just bought a new one, that would not solve the REAL problem. And trusting data recovery houses was a concern.

But when I scale back from those situations to the greater landscape, what I see is a sizeable amount of people that are not Apple's ideal customers bringing about change that while a net positive for consumer electronics as a whole, is going to cause Apple to remind everyone why Apple is Apple.

Example scenarios:
Apple computers no longer computers, users licensed to have an "Apple computing device" for a subscription period, third-party repair is prohibited. How many third-party repair shops will lose their reliable and profitable customer base?

You get right to repair but you can not repair apple devices or import apple device components with a knock on the door from the feds... You lose ground and business potentially.

You all better hope that there are not people that think like I do working for Apple. (Spoiler alert: There are, I know some of them)

 

[danteOfCourse]

Serializing parts, not to be confused with putting calibration configuration on another component, was put in place to address the secondary market that sprang up AFTER putting activation lock in-place to thwart theft.

Serializing every single part is security/anti-theft. When iphones could not be activated when stolen then they were sold as spare parts. This is the response to thwart that. Living in a major metro that literally had an "Apple" task force in our police department, the justification was real.

Same thing for Apple macbooks and ipads.

People were getting hurt to have their devices taken because of the resell value even if it was activation locked, once the ease of "flipping" the devices became more difficult the thefts decreased significantly.

You may not like the solution they implemented but there was and still is justification for it that can not just be waved off because it makes third party repair more difficult.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

I read into this, and it's a trap. Apple's supporting this specific bill since it gives them control of who they can give parts to.

"Further, the bill has a component that prevents manufacturers from being required to make tools, parts, and documentation available for any component that would disable or override antitheft security measures, which would encompass features like Face ID."

It's just too good to be true. Do not trust Apple in any way when it comes to Right to Repair. They will find a way to subvert it to their advantage. There is ALWAYS a catch, like how there's the catch of them moving the iPhone to USB-C where the regular iPhone is still locked to USB 2.0 speeds while the iPhone Pro gets faster file transfer speeds.

 

[HVDynamo]

That’s only true if Apple or other manufacturers use discreet components, something Apple with AS is moving away from. Repair is likely to involve replacing an entire motherboard, with no upgrade possible unless you buy an entire new board. Even so new models will likely not he backward compatible.

Unified memory does have benefits in speed, so at least on the memory front there is a benefit to having it soldered down now. But that benefit was only realized with Apple Silicon, and not with the intel chips soldered down before. I think a good compromise now would be to add in additional physical slots in addition to the unified memory that add to the overall capacity, but are only used when unified becomes full. This would still allow speed benefit over SSD storage, and help extend the useful life of an older machine somewhat. Those slots could come populated or empty in machines that have the space for them. MacBook Pro’s and all desktops should have the option, but it makes sense not to have it in the MacBook Air as that really is making the size trade off. Upgradable storage though still has no excuse. Every mac should have an M.2 slot in addition to any soldered storage, and that slot should be able to run the OS just the same if needed.

 

[HVDynamo]

Or you can just not buy Apple products.

Yeah, it's as simple as that.

Way to skirt the issue…. You do realize that apple being successful in doing this will result in other companies doing the same, eventually resulting in there being no real option to avoid it right? Or can’t you think of any consequences beyond getting the shiny thing you want right now?

 

[HVDynamo]

I have to agree with this. Most don't take the hardware landscape into any kind of account and want things that would drastically increase the physical size of hardware. Take for example the people want removable batteries (despite things like battery extension cases existing). They don't realize how much physical space all the requirements for that take up inside a phone, meaning the phone will be thick as hell plus big.

They're the same kind of people that would complain flat screen TVs don't have cathode ray tubes they can replace if the panel goes bad.

Being replaceable by a third party doesn’t mean it has to have fancy latches and a ton of extra hardware added to make it repairable or replaceable. Just stop gluing **** down and make it easy to physically take apart. I don’t mind having to take out some screws and unplug a few cables, I have a problem with them being glued down so hard you can’t get them out without some chemical solvent, or having them cryptographically held hostage with serialization. I don’t think you understand what right to repair is really after if that’s your take… Right to repair is 100% pro consumer, to be a consumer and argue against it means you either don’t understand it, or you’ve bought into the corporate koolaid. There really isn’t any wiggle room here. Being anti-right to repair is essentially being pro monopoly.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Are you serious? Right to repair COULD be better for the environment but does not guarantee it, if you do not know that it would be advisable to have an understanding of YOUR take before calling someone else's take "insanely bad."

People are somehow under the impression that them continuing to use a device for another 3-4 years before it ends up in a landfill makes a difference. The environment’s time scales are in the thousands and millions of years. Right to Repair means that the original device PLUS all of the parts that were swapped out end up in the landfill. Certainly NOT guaranteed better for the environment.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They're the same kind of people that would complain flat screen TVs don't have cathode ray tubes they can replace if the panel goes bad.

“Why are there dark lines across the screen?”
“Right to Repair means that every individual pixel has to be easily replaceable. That’s also why each pixel is 2.5 inches across.”

 

[jlc1978]

and doing that to an battery will not be allowed under the new EU battery rules

How do? User replaceable doesn’t mean there can’t be a verification process to rnsure parts are authentic.