32 to 64 are pro users. They buy that stuff already loaded. 4-8 or 8-16 makes more sense. Anyway… Apple is by fare not the only one wohl charges a lot for his stuff. Look around, there are many of them with heavy money wishes.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Supports Right to Repair Bill in California
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok but after the ridiculous 2 month saga I've been on trying to get my battery replaced I think I'm going to have to side with them.
It shouldn't be this difficult to replace a battery.
As already pointed out you are completely missing the point by miles. I suspect you either are blindly defending apple and are willfully ignoring the point.
If indeed the EU would require user-replaceable, I would hope that it would also require third party replacement battery compatibility. Can we imagine if a car battery were not replaceable, or if we were forced to buy a new car battery from the manufacturer?
The problem is Apple forces their suppliers to be exclusive. If you want the same quality battery as OEM, you need to buy from Apple. Right now, you can buy a third-party battery but the quality is likely to be so-so.
No, it holds up perfectly. There’s a massive raw materials acquisition, production, and shipping industry required to support RTR (that, of course, would not be required without RTR), I’ve never understood why anyone would try to claim that creating MORE things to throw away is remotely related to being ecological.
I know folks want to make a point for RTR, but anyone ecologically minded in the least is delivering their products to be recycled, regardless if its 2 laptops or 1 laptop, 4 sticks of RAM, 3 SSD’s, 2 screens, 4 keyboards, and 4 motherboards.People who aren’t going to recycle, just aren’t going to, no one can force them and, for those people, the less they’re provided to throw away, the better. And that’s even before considering that, given an option to upgrade, most still don’t. So, for devices that have extra parts in them specifically to allow for upgrading, those parts go unused. It’s smart that companies realized that, and then stopped putting those parts in all those millions and millions of systems going to people who were never going to use them anyway.
N IS M!
N is for ALL DEVICES MADE. It’s not like, for a replacement, they’re going to go “Oh shoot! We need to replace this device. BACK TO THE MINES!” Every device made is potentially, either as a new device OR a refurbished device, a replacement device.You can call it BS if you like, you’re free to do so! But, understanding that you feel that maintaining an industry for obtaining raw materials, processing those raw materials and then shipping the parts produced is “better” for the environment, I know how much credence to put into that assessment.
That argument would only make sense if there were no repair processes currently existing, but even Apple already stocks repair parts. There is no massive additional industry that is going to pop up because of this.No, it holds up perfectly. There’s a massive raw materials acquisition, production, and shipping industry required to support RTR (that, of course, would not be required without RTR), I’ve never understood why anyone would try to claim that creating MORE things to throw away is remotely related to being ecological.
People who aren’t going to recycle, just aren’t going to, no one can force them and, for those people, the less they’re provided to throw away, the better. And that’s even before considering that, given an option to upgrade, most still don’t. So, for devices that have extra parts in them specifically to allow for upgrading, those parts go unused. It’s smart that companies realized that, and then stopped putting those parts in all those millions and millions of systems going to people who were never going to use them anyway.
LOL, no it isn't. You can't seem to grasp that your formula is missing one key variable even when someone tells you how it plays in... The foundation of your argument is flawed. End of story. All of the industries you describe already exist and are required to build the device in the first place...N IS M!
You can call it BS if you like, you’re free to do so! But, understanding that you feel that maintaining an industry for obtaining raw materials, processing those raw materials and then shipping the parts produced is “better” for the environment, I know how much credence to put into that assessment.
Only if you buy knockoffs.
Even so it’s not component level and as percentage of price, much lower costs. Very different repair dynamics.
It becomes a price issue. They need to be cheap enough to drive demand, which means many repairs would not be cost effective on older phones.
BMW required battery registration after replacement, which meant either a special tool or trip to dealer.
Right to Repair would need to make sure that genuine or authorized 3rd party replacement batteries are used because throughout the years we have seen numerous television news stories about people places burning down or other fire events due to people buying cheap knockoff Chinese batteries and/or chargers because how many people will be thinking 'Right to Repair has succeeded, now I can open up my own repair shop and get in cheap parts to make a profit' and they buy cheap Chinese knockoff batteries which short out causing fires. Having a Right to Repair bill is utterly pointless if it does not come with conditions to make sure safety is paramount because people will abuse it otherwise.
N IS M!
You can call it BS if you like, you’re free to do so! But, understanding that you feel that maintaining an industry for obtaining raw materials, processing those raw materials and then shipping the parts produced is “better” for the environment, I know how much credence to put into that assessment.
What you are not getting is N will be SMALLER when you have replacement parts and easier repair. The extra parts needed reduce in total waste as several devices have been repaired. That means fewer TOTAL parts are needed as you are not throwing away an working motherboard when it was just the screen that was broken. It means the total device is not replaced because the battery is bad. You are not throwing away the entire device because a switch is bad.
But you can keep arguing your point and just proving that you either are either just making stuff up or are so willfully blind that you are just making stuff up. Basically you are just going to show you are to prideful to admit you are wrong and rather look the fool than just admit you are wrong.
Aproper rcycling program the either repairs or recycles would accomplish the same thing.
The 3 R's in Reduce/Reuse/Recycle are in that order on purpose. Reducing has a larger positive impact than Reusing, and Reusing has a larger positive impact than Recycling. Right to repair helps at the Reuse level by reusing the rest of the machine that's not broken by simply replacing the broken component.
Repairing during recycling would be the same and also require right to repair just the same.
Still wouldn’t. This is due to the fact that in the end you end up making more phones.
If you add up all the parts needed repair is going to be less then replace even if recycling is added in.
Reduce, reuse and recycle in that order. Recycling is the last step but if you can reduce the number you need and reuse them longer you come out on top that way.
Which is why I included repairing in a recycling program. Having a device that is properly repaired with a solid warranry can help.
It can be done by the manufacturer as well.
I am for the right to repair, as someone who has repaired my own devices when possible, but realize it is not the panacea many people seem to think it is. Most people will never bother, especially with older phones, third part repair shops will continue to use cheap parts to keep costs down and compete with manufacturers repairs; and will simply upgrade when their phone needs repair. As a result, I think it is highly unlikely R2R will have any significant impact on the % of devices actually repaired.
Her’s the issue: how long will companies keep spare parts on hand vs. the avergae age phones are traded in? It makes no sense to keep any significant parts in stock, beyond what may have been made when the device is new, Beyond the average turn in age of phonses. Doing so just increases cost and eventually winds up recycling old parts. I suspect most phones are discarded, in perfect working order, because people want new features or just the latest shiney.
You dont keep much in stock. Just like in the Auto world at a certain point you just stop and let 3rd parties make spare parts for really old items. Most of the parts are fairly standard off the shelf parts and tends to be around for years big time for the most common replacement items.
Also anyone with an understanding of supply chain management should have a good idea on even how many spare parts to make.
If you are throwing away a ton of spare parts afterware you have other issues.
Reality it is make spare parts and fewer phones Over all less crap.
I love the use of “anti-theft” as if it’s not really the reason why. You do realize there is a MASSIVE supply chain of stolen Apple parts, right? How many posts on Apple sites do we see about peoples stolen phones ending up in Asia and the owner getting threatening texts to remove the lost status?
These phones are stripped and those parts reused and sold to less than honest repair shops. Apple doesn’t do that to try and sell you parts at some massive profit (the parts are sold close to cost). They’re doing it to try and remove any avenue for the black market of parts and eventually discouraging theft. If there is no market for stolen iPhones because neither the phone, nor its parts, are of any value, thieves will move on to the next thing. That’s what serializing all the components does. They started with the highest price components and will eventually work their way through to less expensive parts.
Are you saying the thieves send threatening texts to remove the lost status so they can then use the serialized parts? I “understand” the value of a stolen iPhone that is functional, so I could sort of see that with a full iPhone, but it seems like a awful lot of work for the much lower value of “chop shop” parts. Not that I understand the criminal mind, but it just seems like a lot of work once Apple locked the functional iPhones, and I thought they would move on to easier crimes.
Well, while still under warranty, the burden for repair/replace is on the manufacturer, so an easier repair is to their benefit. Once off warranty, most people still go to the manufacturer for repair, and I doubt they would decrease the repair charge, so when it is easier, the difference in time required is more profit.
It works in the auto industry because cars tend to stay in service longer, 12 years vs 3 or so for a phone. That makes the aftermarket more appealing. A car is a much larger investment of money than a phone and thus different market dynamics.
In addition, unlike cars, using non-manufacturer parts could mean no trade in value.
I agree. Apple currently uses what, 5 years as the cutoff for repairs. I suspect most phones are taken out of service by then so spares will not be a supply chain issue unless governments make unreasonable availability demands.
I just don’t think it will make much difference in the long run as most users see a phone as a disposable device. Most users will want features not available on older phones and upgrade, IMHO.
Problem with this is that more than one I witnessed owners who activated find my mac snd find my iPhone lock down and unable to remember the password they used. When this happens Apple will not repair your device unless you can prove you own it. One of my neighbors bought a macbook through the Apple online store and Apple did not have any record of the purchase. I used to buy Apple products and recommended them to many but now I will not be part of that. I use my 2014 imac and a iPhone 8 to keep to principal
Most Apple products are no longer upgradable like in the early days since ram is soldered onto the main logic board along with the storage. Unless you purchase a uber expensive laptop or desktop with 32 or 64 gig and a larger 4 tb SSD you will be replacing you unit instead of adding more ram when the newer OS comes out and require more ram than 8 gig. Apple has cornered the consumer and why not cause it’s now one of the richest corporations in the world. Great job Apple for squeezing that last dollar off the consumers back.