Right to Repair !!!

[ght56]

Having just had a terrible battery replacement experience upon sending the computer to Apple, getting it back in worse condition then it went, sending it a second time and getting back in even worse condition then the first, and then ultimately having to pay a local Apple Authorized Service Provider to fix what Apple did to my computer, I agree. While vastly different from Apple's generally great service, the silly part was how easier things would be if I could just easily replace the battery on my own. Replacing a battery should not be as complicated as building an aircraft carrier!

I would prefer to be able to do basic repairs on the system myself because having someone else do it is a gamble and carelessness is common with any type of repairs. It is my machine and I am going to give more attention to the little details than someone who doesn't have to live with it. I service my cars for this very reason and began learning how to do this after a mechanic only hand tightened the lug nuts on my mother's car when I was in college (well, basic service--fluids, brakes, filters, tires, suspension, clutches, spark plugs, etc.)

If that battery - a known wear item in every sense - was easier to remove and replace, that would be really nice as it would have avoided my situation outright and I could have personally ensured the job was done right the first time.

 

[davidhunternyc]

@ght56 It's your MacBook. You bought. You own it. You should be able to do what you want with it. If other people don't want to exercise their Right to Repair, great, keep buying new computers every few years and throw your old computers in the landfill. NIMBY. Just leave me alone and let me do what I want to do with my own computer.

 

[leman]

@ght56 It's your MacBook. You bought. You own it. You should be able to do what you want with it. If other people don't want to exercise their Right to Repair, great, keep buying new computers every few years and throw your old computers in the landfill. NIMBY. Just leave me alone and let me do what I want to do with my own computer.

You are able t do what you want with it. Learn the skills, get the tools and go ahead...

If that battery - a known wear item in every sense - was easier to remove and replace, that would be really nice as it would have avoided my situation outright and I could have personally ensured the job was done right the first time.

I understand that you had a bad experience, but I hope that you agree that it was a rare isolated case. Usually these things go much smoother. As to removable batteries — these come with drawbacks as well. Would you for example accept that your laptop were heavier and bulkier or that your battery life was lower as a consequence? I remember how couple of years ago people were carrying two charged MacBook Pro batteries to conferences so that they can get a full day battery life. Well, now you can get it from a single battery. Lose on flexibility, win on functionality. Nothing is free. There is always a compromise.

 

[filu_]

You may just not buy Apple hardware. On the one hand, I am satisfied with the iPhone and iPad, and I would naturally like to supplement the equipment with a Mac computer.

But while the simple and unconfigurable interface in the iPhone / iPad does not bother me (and I was tired of it in Android), the "way Apple" on the computer limits me. I don't mean the desktop where I can change the wallpaper, but the apps that try to organize my files their own way (especially photos).

Besides the price, this is the second factor that keeps me from purchasing a Mac.

I would prefer the equipment to be easily repaired and long-lasting (although Apple's probably not bad at all). The company seems to have cost a lot on the Macbook butterfly keyboard replacement program due to soldering them to the battery (it's essentially a keyboard and battery replacement program).

Outside of Apple, there are a lot of producers of mass bad electronics that break down quickly and end up in the trash (you can order entire containers of devices with your company's logo, like Manta, Kruger, etc.). This evil is nameless ....

 

[Yebubbleman]

While the latest news is about Apple Silicone the elephant in the room is that Apple glues down the battery and hard drive so that the computer can not be fixed when broken. Apple is also making certain chips unavailable to third party repair shops. Apple is tightening the reigns and soon your only option, after your warranty ends, is to buy another $3,000 MacBook Pro. Why isn't the public in an outrage over this? When you buy your computer, you OWN your computer. Like a car, when your computer breaks, we must have the Right to Repair.

I don't disagree with you at all. But the sad fact of the matter is that most of Apple's audience are not the type to want to concern themselves with repairing their own stuff and are just as content to replace when they have to. That and Apple's desire for end-to-end control over their own stuff is practically in their DNA. Not saying you don't have the right to be outraged by this and that more people shouldn't be outraged by this. But the sad fact of the matter is that people have already (albeit unwittingly) consented to this treatment by Apple.

 

[B S Magnet]

While the latest news is about Apple Silicone the elephant in the room is that Apple glues down the battery and hard drive so that the computer can not be fixed when broken. Apple is also making certain chips unavailable to third party repair shops. Apple is tightening the reigns and soon your only option, after your warranty ends, is to buy another $3,000 MacBook Pro. Why isn't the public in an outrage over this? When you buy your computer, you OWN your computer. Like a car, when your computer breaks, we must have the Right to Repair.

@davidhunternyc, I’m really glad you’re speaking on this topic here and now.

On another sub-forum, this topic surfaced recently with respect to the arrival of ARM architecture superseding Intel. As addressed there, the principal issue with Apple removing most, if not all user-servicability/repair centre-servicing components from its Macs across the board — MBA to Mac Pro — is the converging of a completely closed, anti-competitive environment in which Apple solely controls hardware manufacture (soon, including its main workhorse); repair (if any is to actually happen in lieu of disposal); servicing (the “Genius Bar”); the OS (once relying heavily on the OSS community to maintain an openness re APIs and codebase); and accessing software (shunted to a closed ecosystem within the App Store).

Also, as covered in the linked thread, this is where anti-trust actions would confront these intertwined problems in earnest — if not in Apple’s home base, the U.S. (presently loath to enact regulatory and antitrust measures on the tech sector), then in other significant markets which have the collective regulatory might to force Apple’s hand to divest and/or re-open parts of this completely integrated (read: closed, both vertical and horizontal) chain of its own deliberate making.

An Apple argument appealing to the notion that “thin and light” is incompatible with end-user/local repair centre serviceability is not a valid argument to advance when competitors for other platforms are managing this “thin and light” feat whilst maintaining parts modularity and/or serviceability, even in 2020.

Apple can do much better, and they are not. They are not being pressed to do better because they’ve engineered a wholly closed ecosystem of non-competitiveness at every level, and any pressure or motivation to improve, with respect to Macs, is increasingly a matter of competing with itself from a year ago, from three years ago, and so on. A similar case could probably be made with the rest of their hardware and *OS line-ups.

* * * * *

Last thought: someone earlier in the thread brought up NEC as a case dilemma of making high-quality equipment and then going out of business because people weren’t replacing them rapidly enough. Were this a simple A-B correlation, then one could just as readily make an A-B case why Toyota or Honda failed in the automotive industry.

But that has not happened. At all.

 

[laptech]

I am curious to know if the strength and power of Apple lobyists and Apple themselves are so powerful that they can put undue influence of the countries environmental agency. The reason I ask is because it seems strange that due to Apple's increasing stance on making it difficult to get their products repaired, it would appear they opt for 'throw away' of the product rather than repair it. This would means thousands upon thousands of electronic parts are being thrown away, probably into landfill sites as not much of the product is recyclable and I would have therefore though such behaviour would have the environment agency knocking on Apples door asking them to explain themselves. Explain as to why they opting to have their products end up in the environment rather than being repaird and kept in circulation.

A situation in point is Apple's refusal to unlock iphones that have had 'Find My Phone' activated and the owner of the phone has lost their account details and thus locked out of their phone. In the majority of cases Apple say's there is nothing they can do thus a fully functioning iphone is now basically an electronic brick, to be thrown away and a new phone purchased. Why hasn't the environmental agency stepped in telling Apple that they are contributing too much E-waste and that a change in company policy could limit how much is put into e-waste.

 

[B S Magnet]

I am curious to know if the strength and power of Apple lobyists and Apple themselves are so powerful that they can put undue influence of the countries environmental agency. […] Why hasn't the environmental agency stepped in telling Apple that they are contributing too much E-waste and that a change in company policy could limit how much is put into e-waste.

It would require both regulation and regulatory enforcement — neither of which is particularly stringent right now in either the U.S. or with multinational trade agreements.

 

[davidhunternyc]

I remember how couple of years ago people were carrying two charged MacBook Pro batteries to conferences so that they can get a full day battery life. Well, now you can get it from a single battery. Lose on flexibility, win on functionality. Nothing is free. There is always a compromise.

This is a false dichotomy. It is not binary. It is not either we have batteries that are glued down and advanced OR batteries that are not glued down but compromised. Years ago people carried extra batteries with them because battery technology was not as advanced as it is today. This has nothing to do with whether or not Apple glues down it's batteries.

The Right to Repair is more than just batteries. Apple makes it impossible to replaced hard drives too. If you watch Louis Rossman's video at the beginning of this thread Apple is also starting to implement chips that are not replaceable or fixable either. Again, this has nothing to do with the chips being advanced nor proprietary. It has to do with Apple's continued march towards planned obsolescence.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Why hasn't the environmental agency stepped in telling Apple that they are contributing too much E-waste and that a change in company policy could limit how much is put into e-waste.

We all know that the EPA is joke and is beholden to lobbyists and industry titans but your point about being green is a strong one. There is enough movement towards ecology and sustainability that these forces could influence the electronics industry as well.

then in other significant markets which have the collective regulatory might to force Apple’s hand to divest and/or re-open parts of this completely integrated (read: closed, both vertical and horizontal) chain of its own deliberate making.

What are these markets that have regulatory "might?" If so, why haven't they pressured Apple? I do not know of any antitrust lawsuits against Apple's lock on proprietary hardware. Maybe these markets should team up with environmental organizations to battle Apple too.

 

[ght56]

I understand that you had a bad experience, but I hope that you agree that it was a rare isolated case. Usually these things go much smoother. As to removable batteries — these come with drawbacks as well. Would you for example accept that your laptop were heavier and bulkier or that your battery life was lower as a consequence? I remember how couple of years ago people were carrying two charged MacBook Pro batteries to conferences so that they can get a full day battery life. Well, now you can get it from a single battery. Lose on flexibility, win on functionality. Nothing is free. There is always a compromise.

I agree it is isolated. Apple usually has a very high standard, and that is partly why this experience was so upsetting as it failed to meet even minimum standards and Apple then failed to fix the issue a second time. I suppose it is possible that COVID means they have problems with staffing/surges like many other companies and perhaps it has impacted the quality of some of their current work?

Yes, there would be drawbacks to some extent, but Apple is one of the most creative, innovative, powerful, and capable companies in the history of industry. They employ some of the brightest minds in the world. I feel like they should be able to make the battery somewhat more user accessible without massive increases in weight or without massive costs. Perhaps it would require a new innovative attachment mechanism for a conformal design as such (something other than and easier to remove than glue). But I feel if Apple put their heart into this, they could absolutely do this quite easily.

The downside (from Apple's perspective) is that at least a sizable portion of users would likely replace their own battery as opposed to sending the systems to Apple for service and it would open the doors to more third party companies producing parts (which is its own complexity).

 

[B S Magnet]

What are these markets that have regulatory "might?" If so, why haven't they pressured Apple? I do not know of any antitrust lawsuits against Apple's lock on proprietary hardware. Maybe these markets should team up with environmental organizations to battle Apple too.

The first to come to mind is, of course, the European Union, given its formalized establishment as a multi-national market. Others might include the PRC, India, and even joint agreements between the Gulf states.

There could be others, if so inclined, but this would require involving bi-lateral and/or multi-lateral accords between nation-states which share an interest to redress corporate tech trusts which have negatively impacted their respective nation-state’s economies and/or the consumer rights/protections for their residents — including nation-states which functionally may be drowning in the tonnes of e-waste generated prematurely and, frankly, unnecessarily as a side-effect of the intentional (and avoidable) deletion of modular product design by Apple and by other companies who are engaging in the same.

I do, however, suspect that prospect — to see more bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements generating sanctions against corporate tech trusts — is much further away without a dramatic political shift than, say, the EU, PRC, and/or India imposing their own anti-trust sanctions.

 

[filu_]

The first to come to mind is, of course, the European Union, given its formalized establishment as a multi-national market.

This:

Circular economy action plan

The EU’s new circular action plan paves the way for a cleaner and more competitive Europe.

ec.europa.eu

Actions

The new Circular Economy Action presents measures to:

• Make sustainable products the norm in the EU;
• Empower consumers and public buyers;
• Focus on the sectors that use most resources and where the potential for circularity is high such as: electronics and ICT; batteries and vehicles; packaging; plastics; textiles; construction and buildings; food; water and nutrients;
• Ensure less waste;
• Make circularity work for people, regions and cities,
• Lead global efforts on circular economy.

But if it is to work like the regulations in the car market, with the overarching goal of reducing CO2, then I'm skeptical.

For example, VW withdrew a few years ago gasoline engines with a capacity of 1.6 (known primarily from the Golf IV gen.).

Compact and city cars are sold with 3 cylinder 1 liter engines, in more expensive versions with an added turbo - all to meet the emission requirement of 95g CO2 / km.

We can have long debates about the reparability of these cars. Meanwhile, in Russia, just outside the EU, VW sells a 1.6 engine in cars from the Skoda group.

Ecology from Brussels ...

 

[B S Magnet]

This:

Circular economy action plan

The EU’s new circular action plan paves the way for a cleaner and more competitive Europe.

ec.europa.eu

But if it is to work like the regulations in the car market, with the overarching goal of reducing CO2, then I'm skeptical.

For example, VW withdrew a few years ago gasoline engines with a capacity of 1.6 (known primarily from the Golf IV gen.).

Compact and city cars are sold with 3 cylinder 1 liter engines, in more expensive versions with an added turbo - all to meet the emission requirement of 95g CO2 / km.

We can have long debates about the reparability of these cars. Meanwhile, in Russia, just outside the EU, VW sells a 1.6 engine in cars from the Skoda group.

Ecology from Brussels ...

No, it isn’t.

Again, I focus on the the trust qualifier here.

Volkswagen doesn’t build a product line which requires its own fuel infrastructure (vis-à-vis the App Store), using metal machined by a Volkswagen mill (vis-à-vis hardware manufacturing), rolling on tires manufactured by Volkswagen (vis-à-vis a consumable like a battery), able to operate only on proprietary paving material provided by Volkswagen (vis-à-vis MagSafe adapters supplying electricity), whose entire vehicle must be replaced when the part needing replacing is something like a control arm or a water pump (vis-à-vis internals like display, SSD, RAM, DC-in board, etc.), and whose repair can only happen at a Volkswagen dealership, provided one is within 100km of one’s home, and not at an independent garage specializing in Volkswagen products (vis-à-vis the “Genius Bar”). And should the car “die” due to a faulty engine and the current owner no longer sees it being roadworthy, none of the parts can be used on another Volkswagen model of the same series/year/line (vis-à-vis the conscious removal of modular design).

When a corporate trust exists, the entire ecosystem becomes proprietary, compulsory, and unavoidable.

Needless waste from having to manufacture new complete units as a replacement for a faulty component in an existing unit impacts the environment at the moment of raw materials extraction, the moment of manufacture, the moment of transport, and the moment of disposal. It impacts localities and communities who are harmed by polluted ecosystems (both in the mining of raw materials and in the disposal of non-modular units), kept impoverished by this ecological apartheid, and made to endure inhumane labour practices. When a proprietary culture of anti-competition assures that the cycle of product manufacturing keeps this destructive cycle going and external competition is unlikely to change that, then the party responsible for that closed, proprietary, and disposable culture is a trust.

That’s why, when one stresses the imperative foundation for which “right-to-repair” advocates, this discussion cannot continue until and unless one works back to the root of issues giving rise to both the inability to repair (with repair shop choices), replace, or even sell one’s own equipment (because of a T2-chip), as well as how the decision for a corporate interest with the will, might, and force to impose this paradigm on its consumers (both institutional and individual) is also harming entire communities at the moments of extraction, manufacture, transport, and disposal of entire units and not individual components.

Apple, at a nearly $2 trillion market cap, are a corporate trust.

(For perspective, Standard Oil, had it not been broken up by anti-trust in 1911, would probably have had a roughly $1 trillion-dollar market cap, adjusted for inflation, had it been left alone until the 2000s. Apple, by comparison, reached the $1 trillion market cap in 2018.)

Anti-trust action is a cornerstone of competition law.

 

[filu_]

Ok, but I didn't mean the Apple-Volkswagen comparison.

The EU was cited as an example of a regulated market that could exert pressure on corporations.

I pointed to the new EU policy, i.e. the circular economy - incidentally, it indicates ecectronics and batteries as an area that requires care.

The assumptions are noble as usual, but life goes its own way. In practice, the EU has pushed a large part of industrial production beyond its borders, for example to Asia due to lower labor costs and environmental neglect, including CO2 emissions, and to countries with large markets such as Russia.

VW is just an example of the fact that in the EU, it produces and offers low-emission single-use cars from a small engine, and that it still sells outdated technology just abroad. At this point, I do not even judge the "morality of VW" but only the naivety of the EU.

BTW - in my broken Seat I had to replace the entire climate control module in the car. It was not cheap, fortunately I could do it outside the VW service ...

Edit:
What the EU declares - it's one thing, what it does - another, and what comes out of it - is a completely different story ..

 

[B S Magnet]

The EU was cited as an example of a regulated market that could exert pressure on corporations.

The point:

the EU (and other bodies) could exert legal pressure with political support from its constituents, much as it did with developing the GDPR.

 

[Willo34]

David, your experience is anecdotal. Just because you have not had issues with you Apple products doesn't mean that others have not. It's not important to you so you come to the conclusion that it's not important to others. If it's not important to you why would you not want federal Right to Repair laws for computers?

If you have Apple products that last for decades then good for you. If someone else can not get their 5 year old MacBook fixed then federal Right to Repair laws are significant and would make repairing their computer easier. Why do you want to fight them on it? Third party repair shops have easily fixed my 2010 MacBook Pro. If it doesn't affect you, great, but then why do you insist on making it difficult for someone else to fix their own broken computer?

Also, Louis having an agenda is laughable? He is just the most vocal. Every Apple repair shop is on his side. Dr. Brendan is another excellent repair shop that I have used extensively and they too point out Apple's draconian repair practices. Have you seen the videos where Louis hovers over the computer board for two hours and explains the intentional shortcomings by Apple in a straight forward and logical manner? "This is what's wrong with this computer. This is how I will fix it. This is how Apple is making it difficult for me to fix."

You said that, "tablets can become smaller, thinner, lighter and faster." No. Glue and solder does not make computers smaller, thinner, lighter and faster. This would've happened regardless of Right to Repair. It's simply technology moving forward. In fact, most Apple users are tired of the smaller, thinner, and lighter agenda. It's a hand that's been played out years ago. If you were to take a poll and ask millions of Mac users if they want computers that are fast, reliable, and fixable after warranty, most if not all would vote "yes" on all counts.

What gets me is you, like the other Apple defenders here, are saying that it's O.K. for me to spend $3,000 on a MacBook Pro but I will never own it. Apple still reserves the right to make it inoperable after the warranty period ends.

Do you work for Apple?

I think you got it spot on here.

 

[B S Magnet]

Apropos to earlier discussion above on the subject of Right to Repair, this day (the 17th) is designated International Repair Day by the Open Repair Alliance.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Another nail in the coffin for Right to Repair !!! iPhone 12 camera unfixable. Apple smiles.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Here's another video that shows how Apple is undermining your Right to Repair !!! I don't get it, if I spend $1,000 on a phone I OWN the phone. I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Apple makes the iPhone 12 impossible to fix once it is broken. Just awful.

 

[B S Magnet]

Here's another video that shows how Apple is undermining your Right to Repair !!! I don't get it, if I spend $1,000 on a phone I OWN the phone. I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Apple makes the iPhone 12 impossible to fix once it is broken. Just awful.

This is one small exhibit of a much wider commission toward an broader company strategy of anti-competition, both laterally and vertically (here, against third-party authorized *or* unauthorized repair, and against first-party *or* third-party parts replacement). It is also antithetical to any closing of carbon production or recycling — or boasting thereto in marketing language — in the waste stream.

I smell the groundwork for a much wider case of anti-trust legal action against Apple.

 

[nickdalzell1]

It's not so much Apple I'm upset with regarding this, but other companies such as Google, Samsung and Motorola among others that copy the same playbook. When Apple removed the headphone jack, others quickly followed suit. Samsung was late but eventually caved as well, same regarding notches, removable batteries, etc. Nowadays even Android has rounded corners throughout the UI, copying another Apple UI design move. Guess who went flat once iOS 7 came out? yes, Android.