iFixit Highlights Apple's Uncertain Right to Repair Stance Through Emails Shared With Judiciary Committee

[needsomecoffee]

A well stated, and intelligent reply that easily makes the point of both RtR and Side-loading. The comment notes, "Do we really want all devices forever to have to be repaired by crazy uncle Charlie". Of course not. Owners of iPhones that want Apple's promise of security and assured repairs will only choose the options of the App Store (30% tariff), and Apple repair prices. What is certainly wrong is for Apple to deny users the options to side-load apps outside of the AppStore (OK for MacOS, wrong for iOS), or who want the option of paying less for repairs vs. Apple's forced repair guidelines (force a new phone purchase when a simple solder connection repair extends the life of the phone of many years).

Apple's stance on RtR is disgusting. They can provide clear statements that users who choose not to follow Apple's guidelines face additional risks. This is a clear OPTION that users have had up til a few years ago, but which are now denied because of the DCMA and strong lobbying. Until Tim and Apple decide to let users extend the lives of their phones, side-load software allowing developers a 30% greater share of income (shout out to Affinity), etc. we need to read these emails for what they are: Folks within Apple below the C-level think it may be rational and supportive to give up some revenues to support RtR. C-Level execs whose incomes dramatically depend on next quarter's financial will rationalize why not. E.g. Tim's $133 million compensation very likely putting him well into the "billionaires" club.

People have died because Tim and the C-level execs force new product purchases when at simple RtR battery replacement would have kept the consumer happy and fulfilled (research the impact of rare earth mining in China). Of course we all love big compensation and revenue numbers, so let's all Vote For Tim when he takes his gains and runs for office.

If Tim and Apple did the right thing, let's say his compensation was $80 million not $133 million. Destroy the environment (while paying PR folks to pretend otherwise), deny user's a valid right, so that I can have an additional $53 million in compensation added to my (guessing) $900 million pay to date. YEAH. TIM COOK AND APPLE: WORSHIP THEM. The absurdity of stuff like this strangely makes it easier to accept.

One again we find ourselves in the Twilight Zone. Of course there will be divergent opinions within Apple on a topic. It's also a complicated issue. Do we really want all devices forever to have to be repaired by crazy uncle Charlie - just because? That's obviously not a good idea. There are a hundred different definitions of 'right to repair' and what it means. And given the complicated nature of the devices, when i buy a used iPhone that Cousin Buckly repaired with Elmers glue "It says it can glue anything!"and it ignites while on an airplane - how's that going to go? Divergent opinions within an organizations is a sign of a healthy organization. Sharing those ideas and opinions a sign of strengt. Otherwise you ned up with dictatorial style systems that squash important voices. Ultimately, yes, a decision has to be made, but I find it silly that everyone is reacting to the fact that different people in an organization can have and share different opinions. Man, it's almost like the world is complicated...

 

[Juicy Box]

That makes it a lot easier for Apple top claim a faulty repair broke something else than on a car.

Making it easier to claim a faulty repair broke something else doesn't make it legal or ethical for them to do so. I understand you are saying how things are, I am am saying how things should be, but some people think that Apple is within their right to deny a warranty claim just because someone else worked on the machine, which is totally false (at least in the US).

BTW, if someone does a repair to anything, and that repair leads to problems elsewhere, I am not saying Apple should be held responsible. I just want to clear that up incase someone thinks that is what I am saying.

 

[Juicy Box]

Car repair requires more specialty tools and far more extensive knowledge than phone repair does.

Very true. And some of the tools can cost much more than an iPhone.

Cars are not just mechanical too.

People sometimes forget that electronic are all over the place in modern cars. I have an older car that is hard to get some replacement parts, a lot of electrical component failures are often quicker and cheaper to do instead of sourcing a replacement to just remove and place it.

A few years back, I replace two caps in the tachometer that blew. It would have taken a really long time, and a lot of money to find and buy a new gauge cluster.

I am not saying that just anyone should go buy a soldering iron and go nuts on their broken iPhone, but replacing batteries, screens and certain components on iPhones are relatively minor repairs.

 

[SocialKonstruct]

After watching Louis Rossman videos I would never trust an Apple store to repair my Macs ever.

 

[techwhiz]

People seem to forget that there is a "Right to Repair" for automobiles already.
There is also the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act that says that repairs or modifications don cannot void an entire warranty and it is up to the manufacturer to prove that the modifications caused other parts too fail.
Auto manufacturers got in the habit of voiding entire warranties when you changed the shocks on a car or something similar. Changing the shocks didn't cause a water pump, etc to fail.

Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The act extends to all consumer products sold in America.
On the back of my refrigerator is schematic.
Inside my washer lid is the schematic and test procedure.
Same for my dryer and a number of other household appliances.

Apple, Samsung, etc. do not have a leg to stand on.

 

[MacBH928]

"Apple has lobbied heavily against Right to Repair"

I don't mind Apple forbidding me from fixing their products on my own, so long as they provide an exact replacement no questions asked for the next 10 years immediately without waiting 4-6 weeks for repair. Fair enough?

Would anyone like to revert to the model where only BMW authorized shops can touch a BMW?

Actually this is exactly what automobiles manufacturers are doing, they are making it more and more difficult to fix your own car so you would take it to the dealership.

 

[Analog Kid]

Right to Repair would not impact Apple's design.

Is that categorically true? I can't seem to find legislative text anywhere, just links to MR articles that link to other MR articles that sometimes link to a statement of intent to create legislation that brings a self repair utopia.

It seems to me that RtR is a movement, more than a set of rules. How the law is written, and how the policies are enforced makes all the difference.

It just means manufacturers would have too make repair info and poissibly prts/ service equipment more broadly available; not make things repairable. Apple could simply design gear so that repairs involve swapping out major components; much like they currently do. Bad batter? Replace entire lower case. Broken screen? Replace entire upper case. Repair parts would be priced accordingly.

I doubt any independent repair shops could afford an inventory to be able too do a fast turnaround. More likely they'll have to order it from Apple and wait for it to get through the supply chain to be able to do the repair. I doubt Apple will stock repair parts in a warehouse to meet 3rd party demand; or sell via their stores to independents. I'm not even sure how much actual repair work Apple does in store anymore anyway. From a supply chain perspective it makes more sense for them to centralize repairs to keep their repair parts inventory at a minimum.

Every decision has consequences. If nothing is going to change, then the legislation isn't worth spending time on. If it's going to affect how people interact with Apple products, I'm sure Apple will be mindful of it as they design and that will impact how the design is done.

Look at how much effort they put into their packaging because they want the box to reflect positively on the company. If they're forced to make it user repairable, they'll be concerned about that experience. That means making different tradeoffs than they are today. I like the products I have today.
[automerge]1596155465[/automerge]

Can we clear up one thing: Apple never asked to make fixing your own phone "illegal". The Right to Repair law would force Apple to give repair manuals, access to diagnostic software, tools, and OEM parts to the public.

I think the right to repair law can be good, but there are potential pitfalls. There has to be protection for the manufacturer and more importantly the consumer built in to it. I would propose these caveats:

-Self repair, repair at an unauthorized shop, or use of non-oem parts = voided warranty (same with cars in their warranty period)
-Manufacturer not liable for personal injury sustained during repair attempt
-Manufacturer should not be compelled to change their design strategies in any way to make it easier to disassemble or repair, or to use common tools for repair. If you or your weird uncle Charlie want to fix your phone, you have to figure out how to do it using Apple's service manual with the proper tools. This also applies to soldering memory and SSD to the motherboard: if you don't like that, don't buy a Macbook. There are many other laptop options for you. If this hits Apple's bottom line, they will change their behavior.
-Devices being resold commercially should be somehow labelled or tagged as having been self repaired or repaired with non-oem parts. I like the idea of a "Smartphone-fax" registry to prevent people from getting ripped off.

But I'm sure none of that will stop the percentage of people who would phone Apple or storm into an Apple store demanding something be done about their botched iphone repair for free.

While that all seems reasonable, I still think it turns out badly... They'll still get sued for not making "reasonable efforts" at protection knowing users were going to be mucking around inside. People are going to scream to the rafters that they did the repair correctly and the phone is defective.

People vastly over estimate their own abilities...

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I do not buy the, " We do not want people to do the repair themselves for their own safety" line.

I can buy the line of protecting customers by making sure only Apple parts are used in repairs. But the solution is then to make the parts available to repair shops. But then the issue becomes customers will always go for the cheapest solution. Repair shop, " You want OEM parts? That will be a $150 repair. We can do it for $80 if you want to use generic parts." The customer will then opt for the $80 charge then you have a suspect knockoff battery in the phone.

Getting your battery replaced by third party repairers with knockoff batteries is already available for pretty much any Apple device. And yep, some of them are useless rubbish, buyer beware, but these days most are actually just fine, and I think it's moving more and more this way as the cheap knock offs have been found out, and the repairers themselves won't use them, as they know they will get negative reviews and go out of business. The parts the Right to Repair movement are wanting access to are the other little ICs and so on, that are normally available for most products, but Apple have locked them down by using custom parts (simply to make them difficult to replicate, not because generic designs aren't already tried and true) so that you're forced to use Apple or their authorised repairers who have signed onerous contracts. All of it is pure greed. That's the problem.

 

[Shirasaki]

The more I read into this, the more I think “Right to Repair” vs “only apple can repair Apple devices” (sometimes did poorly) sounds more like a trade-off than an outright benefit, hence neither parties can fully convince the other. “Right to repair” encourages longer device ownership and potentially cut down e-waste and saves customer money. “Only Apple can repair Apple devices” ensures Apple having full liability of repairing those devices while some customers can have a peace of mind assuming Apple technician knows what they are doing.

I personally am more than happy to welcome right to repair cause apple’s repair usually involves changing big parts (motherboard, screen, or even the entire device) instead of smaller pieces, implying shady engineering design is ok and they can walk away from it. However, if one assumes right to repair is to encourage home repair, then they are wrong.
[automerge]1596158185[/automerge]

People vastly over estimate their own abilities...

Cant agree more.

 

[Yammabot]

This is so long over due it’s pathetic! It makes you have to go to underground parts depots, it’s not like people are not fixing their own devices already it’s just that the parts are scarce and knowledgeable help is non existent.

 

[trusso]

Congress should ask iFixit how they make their money. Of course they're advocating for "Right to Repair"; with it, they could do a lot more business.

You're probably right that iFixit might benefit, but that doesn't mean they're acting entirely out of self-interest. And regardless of other companies' interests in Right-to-Repair, it's simply the right thing to do. For user freedom, for the environment, and (strange as it may sound) for democracy. Yes, a citizenry forced to accept less freedoms with their own possessions will gradually accept less freedoms in the social sphere as well. This is a long and slippery slope.

Right to repair is an obvious step. For the "what happens when..." crowd, one need to look no further than cars. OEMs authorize franchises to repair their vehicles, but any other number of unauthorized shops can also do the repairs. The OEMs make the parts and knowledge available to everyone to facilitate the free market.

Does anyone honestly believe Apple should be in the hook for anything if a home repair does not work out?

Look, I can fix my car at home and still take it to a dealership. Same thing. If I messed it up, Apple will charge me extra to fix my screw up. Simple. Stop trying to make it illegal to work on our own purchased items.

Precisely. Let the free market decide. I'm sure plenty of folks will still take their stuff to Apple. In the meantime, the more technically-inclined of us can take it to third-party shops or perform the fixes [much more easily] ourselves.

I have an iPhone 6s which has served me well for the last 4 years, and I continue to appreciate it for it's physical home button and the audio jack. It runs everything I need, and with Apple continuing to break cloud compatibility with newer versions of iOS and macOS, I'm not actually going to care when it's unsupported in a year or two. With iFixit's help, I just installed a new battery and performed some other internal maintenance. She's working like new again. All for just $30 in parts and a few well-spent and educational hours of my time.

Fight the good fight, folks.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Apple needs to make their devices and computers be repairable by the end users! period. this has turned into a joke.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple needs to make their devices and computers be repairable by the end users! period. this has turned into a joke.

Why? If Apple wants the iPhone to be an appliance why shouldn’t that be allowed?

 

[Analog Kid]

Precisely. Let the free market decide.

I agree with you here, but I think at a different level of decision. To me, letting the free market decide means I have the choice of a closed (and, in my belief, more stable) device, and if there is sufficient demand for a more open repair model then the company that offers it will get your business.

There's a thousand variants of smartphones out there. If not one of them is made with an open service model, then maybe it just isn't what the people want... Market forces aren't great at solving every problem, but they are the perfect guide for consumer products.

 

[ilikewhey]

i would support apple on this except THEY DON'T FIX JACK, had a iphone 7 that stop charging, apple's only solution is to charge me $378 for another iphone 7, i took it to a independent repair guy who is a friend of luis rossman, desolder and replaced the chip responsible for charging and fixed it for only 70 bucks.

 

[UK-MacAddict]

This topic is only a big issue because Apple charge high prices for its repairs compared to independents.

If Apple just lowered its repair costs nobody would complain.

 

[the-msa]

obviously the only reason apple is fighting this is so that they can charge you 1500 bucks and a week or more of your time for something that could be done for 50 bucks in 2 hours.

right now, repairing is just another profit stream for apple.

 

[truthertech]

What is the difference between a car? Should we make it illegal to repair our own car at home because we want to protect our customers? That sounds insane.

It’s not illegal to repair your phone. The question is whether Apple should be forced to carry and supply manuals, parts, etc., that are available to the public.

 

[Tech198]

Just because Apple cautiously supplied tools to repair shops to undertake tasks doesn't give the "all clear' signal either..

As long as their are iFixit and DIY manuals, that to me, oversees Apple's "so called restricted rule"

it only seems that way.. Just because Apple doesn't provide their own repair manuals doesn't mean its not possible. So, why are we trying to make it one?

They just do things "different" And according to users, being different is bad. No one said there can't be a middle gruond, which what iFixit provides us.

 

[jlc1978]

People seem to forget that there is a "Right to Repair" for automobiles already.
There is also the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act that says that repairs or modifications don cannot void an entire warranty and it is up to the manufacturer to prove that the modifications caused other parts too fail.
Auto manufacturers got in the habit of voiding entire warranties when you changed the shocks on a car or something similar. Changing the shocks didn't cause a water pump, etc to fail.

Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The act extends to all consumer products sold in America.

True, but MMWA doesn't require a manufacturer to make parts or anything else available to for DIY repairs. It just prevents them from voiding warranties for the reason you mentioned, as well as a few other protections.

On the back of my refrigerator is schematic.
Inside my washer lid is the schematic and test procedure.
Same for my dryer and a number of other household appliances.

Apple, Samsung, etc. do not have a leg to stand on.

Not sure whay you think that. Apple has chosen not to make such info avaiable, which is currently legal. Even if RtR becomes law, I doubt it will change much for Apple users. Apple, like the examples you mentioned, is unlikely to provide board level details too allow such repairs; which means selling you an entire screen unit if a cable breaks, uppercases to replace a faulty key, etc.

Nothing in RtR requires making repair parts readily and cheaply available. Repair parts could be priced so high that most repairs become uneconomical. Then, of course is the whole issue of special tools needed to restore full functionality. A late model (and now not so late) BMW requires a special tool to reset the battery after its replaced so the computer properly charges it. As a result, replacing a battery properly requires either having the tool or a trip to the dealer and $$$.

Years ago I could get a factory BMW service manual, now it's all part of a computer system that BMW sells to dealers. They only way to get it is a pirated copy, and if BMW was forced to make it available it's cost is likely to be more than most shops could justify, let alone a DIY such as myself. You can get a revsere engineered version relatively cheaply; but they lack the full capabilities such as coding the vehicle order to activate features or change functionality. You can code but then of course that risks voiding your iDrive warranty if something goes wrong afterward.

I have no doubt computer manufacturers would do similar things. Apple already requires resetting devices for what are minor repairs such as home button replacement, IIRC. An independent shop could very well find itself having to invest significant money in tools to properly repair devices, an investment that may be hard to justify based on anticipated demand for repairs. The small shops that already do screen and battery repairs may simply find it more profitable to do non-OEM repairs because most customers will buy on price alone and thus not recover the upfront costs of tools and inventory.

I support RtR, but doubt it will really change anything.

 

[G5isAlive]

Apple was trying to pass a bill in California trying to make it illegal to fix your phone yourself. What are you talking about. Dude, Apple is hella shaddy for that. They are not on the customer side.
[automerge]1596131570[/automerge]

Eh wrong. People buy second hand cars all the time. Check craiglist. Those cars have been worked on by regular people.

I don't think the car analogy holds, close but no. 1) before I buy a used car I take it to get examined by a qualified technician. 2) And when I buy a car I can requests a repair history (doesn't mean I will get it). 3) A car also requires a LOT more (easily a 100x more) general maintenance and repair than a phone, consequently it makes more sense there be independent repair shops to meet this demand, and hence the buy is aware the chances are high that it IS maintained outside a dealer (see point one). and 4) there is historical precedence for independent car repairs.

 

[thegrayrace]

Congress should ask iFixit how they make their money. Of course they're advocating for "Right to Repair"; with it, they could do a lot more business.

Speaking in a personal capacity, but as someone that works for iFixit, it is by no means clear that iFixit stands to benefit financially from Right to Repair legislation. We advocate for it purely because we sincerely and collectively feel it is in the best interests of consumers, the repair community, and the environment.

In fact, iFixit's prominent position in the electronics parts market has largely been a consequence of the lack of availability of parts and components from original manufacturers — Apple in particular. In addition, our brand has largely been built off the enormous amount of content we've produced to fill a void, in the absence of publicly available OEM repair guides and manuals. If manufacturers began making their parts, tools, and repair manuals readily available to the public, it is quite possible that traffic to our site – and the brand awareness that comes with it – will decline, along with part and tool sales. We talk about this internally a fair amount, but feel the global benefits of Right to Repair outweigh the potential risks to our current business model.

 

[Brandon916]

Getting your battery replaced by third party repairers with knockoff batteries is already available for pretty much any Apple device. And yep, some of them are useless rubbish, buyer beware, but these days most are actually just fine, and I think it's moving more and more this way as the cheap knock offs have been found out, and the repairers themselves won't use them, as they know they will get negative reviews and go out of business. The parts the Right to Repair movement are wanting access to are the other little ICs and so on, that are normally available for most products, but Apple have locked them down by using custom parts (simply to make them difficult to replicate, not because generic designs aren't already tried and true) so that you're forced to use Apple or their authorised repairers who have signed onerous contracts. All of it is pure greed. That's the problem.

Why are you making all third party are scums? Why can't you also say some third party might rip you off and some third party won't?

 

[jayducharme]

Speaking in a personal capacity, but as someone that works for iFixit, it is by no means clear that iFixit stands to benefit financially from Right to Repair legislation.

I'm actually someone who really enjoys iFixit's teardowns. You all do a remarkable job, and with humor to boot. But you do sell lots of repair tools on your site; that's what I meant by "benefitting". More people repairing at home might translate into more tool kits sold (not that I expect sales would launch you into the Fortune 500).

I'm in favor of making desktop and laptop computers more repairable. With tech that large, it's doable and it's good for the consumer. I'm not a fan of Apple's tendency to solder otherwise replaceable components (like memory and hard drives) to their motherboards. It's bad enough in laptops, but even in a Mac mini? So I think there's ample room for improvement there and fully support right-to-repair in that case. But with smaller tech like smartphones, I'm content to have a sealed unit in exchange for the conveniences that provides (e.g. sleekness and waterproofing). As long as the parts are ultimately recycled upon end-of-life, that's a trade-off I'm willing to make.

 

[thegrayrace]

I'm actually someone who really enjoys iFixit's teardowns. You all do a remarkable job, and with humor to boot. But you do sell lots of repair tools on your site; that's what I meant by "benefitting". More people repairing at home might translate into more tool kits sold (not that I expect sales would launch you into the Fortune 500).

Sure, toolkits do indeed represent about half of our business, but what drives the website traffic (and, with it, both customers and brand awareness) is the content we provide: teardowns, guides, etc. If/when the manufacturers themselves are producing that content, it is likely to diminish interest in our own quite considerably.

I'm pretty confident in our team's ability to adapt to changing market conditions, but advocating for Right to Repair is definitely seen as a risk to our current business model — as we're doing reasonably well under the status quo. However, being a privately owned business (and not beholden to investors) allows us to advocate for policy we feel is right, despite those risks.