Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[doublepost=1524104704][/doublepost]
How did he destroy it? I saw that he damaged it but I didn't see where he destroyed it. Was that at the end of the video (admittedly I didn't watch the last few minutes)?
Semantics. Sorry. Ummmm, rendered a $5,000 top of-the-line computer into something that no-long works with a shattered screen and a fully voided warranty, with no re-sale value and can be outperformed by an abacus. Perhaps you should buy it? What would you pay for his Pro? But no, it was not destroyed in the literal sense. I will be more precise for you in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doelcm82
Yes, a strawman. You've been arguing an absolute when I made no absolute statement.

Now that I've dealt with your strawman how about dealing with the information I provided by Apple? Here's some additional information for your reading pleasure:

To minimize the possibility of damage to the computer components due to static discharge, it's important to wear an antistatic wrist strap while you work with your computer's memory.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205041

Apple, unlike yourself, understands the risk of ESD even for systems which are intended to be upgraded by end users.

Are you serious? As a hardware engineer with many designs under my belt I fully understand the risks of ESD. How about you? You still do not understand the ESD mechanism that manufacturers do not want to be responsible for when people open devices that are not meant to be opened and worked on by end users.

Does anybody not know a wrist strap should be worn when working on devices sensitive to ESD? Is that really news to you? Too funny.
 
Semantics. Sorry. Ummmm, rendered a $5,000 top of-the-line computer into something that no-long works with a shattered screen and a fully voided warranty, with no re-sale value and can be outperformed by an abacus. Perhaps you should buy it? What would you pay for his Pro? But no, it was not destroyed in the literal sense. I will be more precise for you in the future.
It's not semantics. What if he didn't open it and it got knocked over and the screen shattered? Would you say he should just suck it up?
 
Are you serious? As a hardware engineer with many designs under my belt I fully understand the risks of ESD. How about you? You still do not understand the ESD mechanism that manufacturers do not want to be responsible for when people open devices that are not meant to be opened and worked on by end users.

Does anybody not know a wrist strap should be worn when working on them? Is that news to you? Too funny.
Then you know it can damage electronics in devices which are user serviceable just as easily as those not intended to be user servicable. No intent necessary. That's why Apple speaks to it in their supporting documentation. Here's a third example:

Touch a metal surface inside the computer to discharge any static electricity from your body.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201165

Your argument about ESD is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rationalize Apple's behavior.

EDIT: And a fourth example from one of the most user serviceable Macs Apple has ever offered:

Touch the metal on the outside of your Mac Pro to discharge any static electricity.
Note: Always discharge static before you touch parts or install components inside your Mac Pro. To avoid generating static, don't move around the room until you finish installing the cards, memory, or internal storage device and replace the side panel.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205043
 
It's not semantics. What if he didn't open it and it got knocked over and the screen shattered? Would you say he should just suck it up?

Nope. If he didn't open it there would be no problem getting a paid for repair.
 
It's not semantics. What if he didn't open it and it got knocked over and the screen shattered? Would you say he should just suck it up?
My “semantics” remark is clearly regarding your “how did he destroy it” “was it at the end of the video?” response to my saying he destroyed his iMac Pro.
 
Then you know it can damage electronics in devices which are user serviceable just as easily as non user serviceable devices. No intent necessary. That's why Apple speaks to it in their supporting documentation. Here's a third example:

Touch a metal surface inside the computer to discharge any static electricity from your body.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201165

Your argument about ESD is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rationalize Apple's behavior.

"Touch a metal surface inside the computer to discharge any static electricity from your body."

Really? That's news to you?


"Then you know it can damage electronics in devices which are user serviceable just as easily as non user serviceable devices."

Not true. As I said before, devices that are intended to be serviceable by customers are less sensitive to ESD if designed properly. Also, since they are intended to be opened and serviced by end users, Apple publishes ESD information that users should pay attention to.

Similarly, devices that are sealed and not intended to be serviced by end users, will not have the benefit of Apple's ESD guidelines associated with those products.


"Your argument about ESD is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rationalize Apple's behavior."

Not just Apple. Other manufacturers as well. None want to assume the risk of latent failures due to end users futzing in devices that are only designed for factory repairs.
 
My “semantics” remark is clearly regarding your “how did he destroy it” “was it at the end of the video?” response to my saying he destroyed his iMac Pro.
OK...and? What about the scenario I presented to you? Should the end user just suck it up?
 
"Touch a metal surface inside the computer to discharge any static electricity from your body."

Really? That's news to you?


"Then you know it can damage electronics in devices which are user serviceable just as easily as non user serviceable devices."

Not true. As I said before, devices that are intended to be serviceable by customers are less sensitive to ESD if designed properly. Also, since they are intended to be opened and serviced by end users, Apple publishes ESD information that users should pay attention to.

Similarly, devices that are sealed and not intended to be serviced by end users, will not have the benefit of Apple's ESD guidelines associated with those products.
Apparently Apple doesn't design their systems properly then. Because their documentation says things which imply it's easy to build up static electricity. Things such as the following:

To avoid generating static, don't move around the room until you finish installing the cards, memory, or internal storage device and replace the side panel.

That suggests static electricity can easily build up and damage electronics. Given this was taken from the Mac Pro memory upgrade guide I think anyone can see user serviceable systems are just as susceptible to ESD as those not intended to be user servicable.

You're apologizing for Apple's behavior and you're using an appeal to authority argument (i.e. that authority being you). Just admit your argument was weak at best. I won't think anything less of your electrical engineering knowledge because of it.
[doublepost=1524106551][/doublepost]
It needs a new logic board and power supply unit. I don't think that happened because of a drop.
If true it'd probably be less expensive to buy a replacement.
 
This is a horrible policy from Apple. Even if damage is the user’s fault, they should be willing to repair their products as long as the customer pays for it. Imagine if your car dealership refused to fix your car simply because you had opened the hood to replace an air filter and somehow caused damage. With this policy Apple is saying ‘screw you. enjoy your $5,000 paperweight’. Ridiculous...

There is a lot from the story that is missing but I think Apple usually denies service if its something that could cause a safety concern like batteries and stuff like that. This guy is not saying much.
 
Apparently Apple doesn't design their systems properly then. Because their documentation says things which imply it's easy to build up static electricity. Things such as the following:

To avoid generating static, don't move around the room until you finish installing the cards, memory, or internal storage device and replace the side panel.

That suggests static electricity can easily build up and damage electronics. Given this was taken from the Mac Pro memory upgrade guide I think anyone can see user serviceable systems are just as susceptible to ESD as those not intended to be user servicable.

You're apologizing for Apple's behavior and you're using an appeal to authority argument (i.e. that authority being you). Just admit your argument was weak at best. I won't think anything less of your electrical engineering knowledge because of it.
[doublepost=1524106551][/doublepost]
If true it'd probably be less expensive to buy a replacement.

I'm guessing you're right, if only because he messed it up himself. I sent in a MBP that had a few issues after a thunderstorm and they basically replaced the entire laptop for less than 130$.
 
if you think you're clever enough to open it up and modify it, you should be clever enough to fix it yourself
just letting you know, he's more used to pc builds... anyways to fix a mac, you need to send it to a certified dealer you can't just ask for the parts. they don't do that
 
There is a lot from the story that is missing but I think Apple usually denies service if its something that could cause a safety concern like batteries and stuff like that. This guy is not saying much.

Here is their reasoning.

11169A61-91AF-46F4-8523-77FA1367AE13.jpeg
 
It needs a new logic board and power supply unit. I don't think that happened because of a drop.

Yes. Linus did a teardown for his iMac Pro review. And you know what? I'm glad he did. I am seriously considering buying an iMac Pro for graphics work and some CPU-heavy coding tasks. And I wanted to know how hard it is to tear it open myself to upgrade the RAM and CPU down the road, which, inevitably, will happen because I want to keep the expensive display alive after my warranty runs out.

His team broke the machine while putting it back together. That in itself is a signal to me that this isn't something I'd like to try myself, even though I have no problems with fixing iPhones and laptops.

I own two Macbooks and an iPad. I like OS X. But not selling a man parts just because they'd have to do the same to 3rd party repair shops is just asinine. I've upgraded SSDs in Macbooks, and the thought that Apple could single-handedly make access to parts near-impossible is scary. Props to him for calling out Apple's BS.
 
1. "Opening your computer voids the warranty". It should be illegal to have a rule like this. If you open your computer, then break something, then Apple should make you pay out-of-warranty prices for a repair. But just opening your computer without any damage should not invalidate a warranty. I have personally taken apart ALL of my Apple computers, even an iMac, and never broke anything. The same rules that applies to cars should apply to computers in this respect.

2. "Apple doesn't ship parts to third-party repair shops". This should be illegal as well. Apple should be forced to sell parts to whomever wants to pay for them, the same as car dealers sell you parts. It isn't clear whether this is a temporary situation because of the newness of the iMac pro.

3. Apple can't yet repair this computer. This is ridiculous and reflects poorly on Apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.