I believe this is genuine support of the bill from Apple. Between Right to Repair winning in Massachusetts and the EU demanding compliance, I think Apple decided to flip the script. They would want to continue the illusion of customer friendly tech.
What are the holes that can be poked into this as written? I firmly believe Apple is still against repair that would eat into their new sales. So where does this, as written, give them the room to keep that going?
Is it just that they can continue to make their “screen issue = replace whole top shell of laptop” and similar the default and draw the line there, standardizing high-cost repairs even if it’s just a wire or small component replacement? If they don’t allow ANY standard repairs more granular than swap module for module, they don’t have to provide more granular resources than that. I’m not fully up on what repairs Apple authorizes.
This is definitely a win to some degree, though. But when your opponent goes to your side and draws a line, that always gives me the chills.
It could be Apple has concluded it’s going to get forced into this, so it’s pushing for laws that apply to all makers in order to avoid a law specific to itself.
Generally speaking a law that creates a responsibility can be a win if it also creates that same responsibility for everyone else.
Meaning it could be apple trying to ensure its competitors are also subject to any rulings.
That’s definitely my hope.
Nah, it is them trying to control the bill by saying they are for it - if only these concessions are made. The article shows what they dont want to give up, under the guise of safety and security and disallowing repairs that might weaken that. And since they have been increasing the number of parts that are serialised in the name of security I bet they would argue repairing these parts will weaken their security and therefore cannot be allowed. Also, they want to focus on authorised repair channels, which they already massively lock down to the point they are more shipping stations than actual repair places. But also want to force third parties to disclose when they use used or non genuine parts - which since they only sell whole assemblies rather than individual components will likely force everyone that is actually making repairs to advertise that they use used/refurbished parts.
So they still want control, they just realise they can have better control by claiming to be fighting for right to repair while undermining any useful impact any bills would otherwise have - all while claiming they are for right to repair.
They decided a law is coming and they have the margins to absorb the cost better than their competitors.
@Glaive0 @JoShmoe I really have no deep understanding of Apple but my guess is that they actually want to ensure repaired devices meet their specs for command and control of it, for purity of image, and experience of using it, and to reduce possible hassles dealing with people who complain about their now (possibly) off-spec device. I’m betting on some vision of purity (reputation) and control. Anyway, I don’t think the repaired for resale market would do much to sales.
It’s less the repaired retail market (which they control on Amazon at least) and more the “I could repair this for cheaper than half of a new phone” lost sales. They’ve been quietly letting that group slip by for years of progressively more expensive to “repair” (read, “swap modules”) while people who could get a basic repair done for cheap are pushed to buy new phones instead.
Next step: demand unlockable bootloaders without breaking warranty and easy rollback to a stock system.
After that: mandate that firmware source code be bundled with sales of devices.
We’re comin’ fo dat ass, Steve Apple.
We have to stop voting for neoliberals first, globally.
Hard agree
If the next iPhone has an unlockable bootloader, a USBC port, and a removable battery then I may just buy my very first iPhone (to run Linux on of course). With the work Asahi is doing for Mac hardware, an unlocked Apple Silicon iPhone could be an amazing Linux phone.
And then you have monstrosities like these. Don’t ever trust a word they preach.
Same crap they pulled with the iphone 14
A repair bill supported by Apple most likely not a bill I want. It is hard to imagine Apple will loosen it’s tight grip.
Yup, they basically said they will only support it as long as:
- it does not threaten the security/safety of the devices/consumer data. AKA will continue to let them lock out parts and software under the excuse of security.
- focus on docs, tools and parts for authorized repair channels. AKA what they currently do/want as they already control these sectors.
- force repair providers to disclose use of unauthorised or used parts. AKA force third parties to advertise they don’t use genuine/new parts as apple don’t and likely still wont make these parts available (just continue with expensive whole assembly repairs).
- only apply these rules to new products.
So the way I read it - Apple see they are losing the right to repair fight so now want to flip sides so they can better control the laws that get put in place to better quite their needs by cutting off the teeth of any bills all the while claiming they are supporting right to repair for PR purposes.
New Anti-Consumer MacBook Pros - Teardown And Repair Assessment - Apple Silicon M1/M2
Proofed. Support a defective bill and create an anti-repair product.
Apple isn’t in charge of Right to Repair.
We probably want it, but can get more with another
Kind of like they support this because they want to stop or slow down a more broad bill from passing in the near future
Or loose more. The devil is in the details.
deleted by creator
There must be a loophole in the bill. Hopefully people find it and sound the alarm before the bill passes.
Either that, or it’s become clear they can’t win, and they’re trying to look good and gaslight people into believing they were always on the right side of this.
Pretty hard to imagine a megacorporation not winning.
In the US sure, with all its legalised bribery.
But they’ll have a much harder time with it in the EU where they cannot as easily buy people off. Plus it’s actually a crime in the EU, so if they get caught trying they’ll be in trouble, so perhaps they’ve concluded it isn’t worth the risk.
IMO, they have realised they cannot win - so have now switched sides for the PR boost and so they have more sway over the bills that get passed. This way they can look like they support the right to repair while knocking the teeth off the bills proposed under the argument of safety and security.
This is what I was thinking. Seems to be the simplest answer as well.
The law only says they have to sell replacement pieces, they are still going to make a killing selling stuff.
Oh you lost a screw … Let me see … That will be $3k for the screw but we do have a cool new iPhone too you know!
It’s Apple.
What’s the catch?
My exact thoughts.
The last time they “supported” rtr, they locked parts to the firmware. Yeah, you can switch between them, but then had to take it to Apple to reregister the parts, which they would only do if they were brand new and genuine. Apple is a snake in tall grass.
I see EU mentioned somewhere. The legislation here was created to give the end consumer the right to repair by their own means; if they are to pull a stunt like that it is probably going to blow on their hands.
I hope you’re right. But apple has a tendency of skirting these law.
It’s simple. They see the writing on the wall and are going to act like it was what they wanted all along.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
deleted by creator
On top of my head,
- You can repair but really expensive through their kits, geniuses or at Apple store.
- You probably can but really hard you broke it then you buy a new one…
- Open it but so tricky it explode 50%of the time…
Is it even possible for them to lobby a lawmaker at this stage of the bill?
deleted by creator
I’m guessing it doesn’t stop them putting DRM in parts and making parts cost more than a new phone.
While this is very much welcome news, I am a little skeptical because this might still be a PR stunt.
Apple has shown they have the engineering capacity to design their devices to be virtually unfixable, all while still technically being compliant with this proposed piece of legislation.
Nonetheless, this show of support might finally be a means for us to end the ongoing culture war on repairability. It has been too much of a polarized debate lately, where opponents seem to be under the impression that a lack of repairability is a good thing for everyone, when it is really just having a choice that matters most.
Now that Apple has officially put in writing it’s support for repairability of consumer electronics, we can finally stop debating wether or not repairability is a good thing, and instead how we’re going to ensure the new situation works for everyone involved. Hopefully.
Those people you are talking about sound like the „willfully ignorant“. People who can’t be bothered to understand a topic they’re talking about. Oh, and sociopaths who just like others to suffer.
Agreed, they’re usually influenced by their emotional attachment to the Apple brand (or [insert fashionable electronics manufacturer here]). And my hunch is they respond to valid criticism with a defense along the lines of “they obviously know what they’re doing” or “tech is hard/dangerous/intellectual property, we can’t have just anybody working on it”.
The reality is, they often fail to see the bigger picture because they’re blinded by what they’ve convinced themselves is the truth. This unfortunately also means that clowning on them is counterproductive, as they won’t see the light without being eased into it.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t judge people for believing soldering an SSD to the motherboard is somehow innovative and progress, but it is hard to accompany our laughter with the patience to actually explain to them in a respectful manner that this is not the way.
It takes a hard reality check in the form of their data being gone when their SSD inevitably dies someday, and recovery not being an option “because you should have paid for an iCloud subscription”. Or it takes a way for “them” not to see “us” as the enemy when we’re advocating for Apple and competitors not to pull us further into a dystopian technological hellscape where devices are single use. Try convincing a cultists that they’re in a cult and they’ll see you as a threat. We have to make sure this doesn’t escalate into polarizing tech culture war any further than it already has.
We need repairability and sustainability to be the basis for consumer electronics going forward. Corporate profits don’t justify wasting resources on single-use electronics.
Very well thought out statement imo, thank you.
I agree that the hardcore apple people are kind of cult like. But next comes where I disagree: We can’t teach a cult member that his cult is bad without being a trained therapist (most times).
So imo we need to start earlier and outlaw the formation of these cults. They‘re not healthy and definitely not necessary as marketers would like you to believe.
Think about it: sports teams, digital games, consoles. They all are cult like and all of them take away critical thinking. People go nuts over their favorite sports team and will often complain (in my experience) of spending too much money on them, even if they struggle to keep stuff running smoothly.
The counter argument will be: „but that strengthens morale and keeps them going!“ No, wrong. It is one form of socializing that could have been done without alcohol in a better setting. It also keeps a lot of them on the hook.
The counter argument again is: „But not everyone has that kind of problem. No need to ruin it for everyone!“ Again, wrong. This argument is also self defeating as it implies that the person using it has no regard for people who fall victim to these practices. Also, I don’t want to outlaw soccer teams but the marketing strategies behind them. The aggravating language, the false sense of purpose behind owning a certain console and so on.
Interesting take, mind if I dig a little deeper?
The key part of Apple’s success is that they make idiotproof devices for people who want something to “just work” (insert linux desktop memes here). The way I’ve come to understand it in the last couple years (having relatives who’ve drank the cool-aid and are starting to spot the cracks in the facade), is that they have been pulled in by values way up high in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. They are locked into the ecosystem, believing that their current solution is somehow ideal and they seem most of all afraid that anything else will completely turn their world upside down. The weird part is that Apple manages somehow to convince people they are the only ones capable of providing an experience that will cover those needs.
The thing is: Being convinced that there is no greener grass elsewhere puts up a barrier to entry into the unknown. I really do wonder if the solution there is cracking down on marketing, as it would require broad sweeping legislation that would likely defeat the purpose.
Sure, companies will put forth the occasional blatant lie, misrepresenting their product, but oftentimes the heavy lifting is done by the established brand image. I would not know where to begin preventing such an image from forming in the first place without community pushback.
And that is where my original point comes in: If we push back by ridiculing the userbase we’ll have a culture war on our hands. The trick is to be smarter than that and actually show them that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Every time the consumer gets fucked over by corporate greed, it is because we’ve let it happen by accepting the slippery slope brought upon us. (Publicly traded) companies will only listen to financial consequences from their actions, which means we have the power to stop their bullshit by not buying into it. Doing so requires a large enough group of people to start spending money elsewhere.
Problem is: The current market is affected by Apple’s shenanigans (though examples of the same pattern are also found in other industries). Which means other manufacturers are copying all the anti-consumer design decisions and you’re not left with much of a choice.
This is where legislation comes in. By providing basic consumer protections like in the proposed right to repair bills, we can at least be sure to have the option of choosing our own repair provider.
Though I’m curious if there is an additional angle we need to explore as consumers. Having said all the above, would you still disagree that educating our peers in a respectful manner will lead to people changing their behaviour, and if so, why?
Thanks again for explaining ans elaborating in depth.
I‘ve been saying this for years and I might sound like a broken record by now:
As someone who has spent 18 yrs in marketing I have the strong suspicion that „occasional blatant misrepresentations“ are not the problem. They are pretty easy to spot.
What isn’t as easy to spot is the following:
- Having tons of fun while drinking an alcoholic beverage
- Being so cool and free when smoking a cigarette
Those are two types of ads that don’t „misrepresent“ the product but still play with your desires (being accepted and having status).
Now people always go like „but thats how you make ads!“ Not true. Thats how you make them now. It used to be (google it) and in parts still is a product representation instead of a lifestyle brand thing.
This is where I see the danger, especially for young and/or vulnerable people. They are told that „cool, connected people need this“ and their subconscious gobbles it up.
Now a lot of people go „but I am not like this.“ Wrong, you and I and everyone else is like this. You just may not be as susceptible to it than others are, hurray! This argument still makes you unempathetic towards the endless number of people who are less mentally strong than you are.
I could go on for days. Probably should write a q & a about it and link to it at some point.
Some facts:
- companies use mental health professionals to analyse how to break our critical thinking to sell us more stuff, regardless if we need it
- alcohol and tobacco ads are banned in some countries for the exact reason that they were so successful (and deadly) with the lifestyle idea
- it is easy to break this by disallowing closed ecosystems, proprietary protocols and forcing interoperability and open standards
- outlawing lifestyle ads and any kind of misleading/easily misunderstandable language or pictures will stop pulling in non tech people into buying or wanting a phone they cant even use fully.
That was awesome, thanks for sharing.
I fully get what you’re saying and I think I know a thing or two about how lifestyle branding consumes people’s lives to the point where they’re fully absorbed.
Social media platforms seem to be by far the worst offenders of stimulating this kind of addiction (let’s just name it for what it is).
Coming from a background of designing products, as opposed to selling them I tend to be focused on product representation, rather than selling an idea. Which is not actually the route to making stupid amounts of money.
You’ve convinced me that marketing is definitely part of the problem. Here in the Netherlands they’ve recently (about two years ago) relaxed some legislation on online gambling (gambling itself is legal, just the ads weren’t) and since we’ve seen a surge of ads on television and social media featuring sports icons and influencers. The result has been a giant increase in profits, which directly corelates to figures of increased debt, prevalent mostly in young adults. I firmly believe this is toxic and needs to be fixed asap.
If you do decide to host a Q&A I’ll be sure to have a look for more cool insights.
Thank you very much! I appreciate the acknowledgment.
You‘re correct and then some, Social Media is more or less a giant ad platform, at least conventional ones are. The fediverse has no real „ads“ but a lot of jerks try to advertise for free here. That’s hardly gonna be a real problem (I hope).
Product design sounds like a cool job as well. Still tech or something else entirely?
The issue with marketing is precedent:
- you go to mcd‘s or any other burger restaurant, the image shows giant burgers.
- your mouth waters, you order a burger
- what arrives bears no resemblance with the picture. This should be outlawed!
From there we have precedent that we are allowed to lie „a little bit“. Not keep information for us like a good salesman but outright misrepresent the product.
The same goes for all other products. You see a motor drill in a hardware store prospect: 39,99* Farther down the page, it says „if you are gold member [and we sell your data], otherwise 139.99.“
And there you have it again, precedent. If we allow giant companies to market like this, we shouldn’t wonder why they bullshit us in every other alley (taxes, labor laws, environment).
Thanks for encouraging me to make a q&a, will definitely let you know if I do. But since you‘re seemingly one of three people on the internet who is open to learn stuff, how would you think some kind of podcast/blog? Would you participate?
All they are doing is shifting the argument because they have realised they cannot outright go against it any more. Now their argument will be they are for right to repair, so long as it does not compromise on security, only focus on authorised channels, and force people to declare the use of used and non genuine parts. All of those points they make in this support letter. And all give them control to stifle the repairability of their devices.
You can see this already with the amount of parts that are serialised already - they will just continue to argue that you cannot replace these parts are it will compromise the security of the product. Or that parts will only be made available to authorised places - where they have to sign a whole bunch of documents giving up on a lot of your rights to enter. Then offer no real useful parts except some expensive whole assemblies.
I don’t think this changes their stance on right to repair at all - now they are just arguing the same points they always have been but from the other side. So they have better sway over the bills and look better to the public. I don’t see this changing anything.
Apple doesn’t care if you repair it because they know their operating system will make it unusable anyways.
A little hyperbole, they will make it look crappy-er compared to their new stuff and abandon it progressively, as people fall to fomo.
I know they ritualistically make third party software and tech incompatible, but we do have recent cases in our favor.
HP had designed the scanning functionality to not operate if the printer didn’t have any ink.
Someone in there finally said, “We can sell them the parts, and then the ones that fail to fix it either have to buy a new one or send the old one to us to fix at even more cost!”
Their lawyers probably found a loophole.
Apple ? Right to repair ? I must be in a parallel universe. Still bullshit corpo talk because the only parallel universe where apple wouldn’t be the pinnacle of anti-consumerism would be if it never existed in the first place.
Lol they are the ones that this bill is directed against. This is like police suddenly supporting defund the police.
I still do think that the bill is more about having the right to repair from more sources, as opposed to the right to an easy repair. I definitely do encourage devices to be engineered in a way that allows them to be repaired by as many people as possible, and that the skills to work with hardware should definitely be taught more in schools. But I still think that there’s a lot of people who don’t know the whole process of finding decent quality parts, and will just stoop to somewhere like Wish or AliExpress for something like a battery because they don’t feel like paying for something they don’t fully understand, they just know that they need a new one. And then put themselves at risk if the battery in question wasn’t made up to the correct safety standards. So I do think it’s somewhat of a responsibility to warn people about shopping for parts. But there should definitely be less restrictions on Apple hardware and the law should be rewritten to put price caps on genuine parts to keep them within reach of most people.
I still do think that the bill is more about having the right to repair from more sources, as opposed to the right to an easy repair.
Starting with the consumer themselves.
This is starting to sound a lot like the time the auto manufacturer tried to void warranties if the cars were to be taken to anywhere but the official service.
Ford, VW, Volvo, Renault, Mercedes and BMW had their asses handed to them by the EU as it was deemed lockout: the owner had the right to seek service wherever they wanted and get parts from what ever source they chose.
Not to start on the implications of disloyal competition…
[…] But I still think that there’s a lot of people who don’t know the whole process of finding decent quality parts, and will just stoop to somewhere like Wish or AliExpress for something like a battery because they don’t feel like paying for something they don’t fully understand, they just know that they need a new one.
Anyone should be able to buy anything wherever they choose.
If someone finds a better deal on a chinese retailer, good. If the part turns out good, better. If not, learn the lesson and try again.
And then put themselves at risk if the battery in question wasn’t made up to the correct safety standards.
It’s a bit iffy to argue on the basis of poor or absent safety standards. Unless we are speaking of going out to find the dingiest shop on an online retailer, 99% of manufactured goods follow the same standards.
Yes, bad batches exist but batteries are one of those things where counterfeiting is not worth the trouble; the moment the parts can be sourced from any number of manufacturers, all will go by similar quality.
So I do think it’s somewhat of a responsibility to warn people about shopping for parts. But there should definitely be less restrictions on Apple hardware and the law should be rewritten to put price caps on genuine parts to keep them within reach of most people.
I’m all in favor in limiting commercial margins but even I consider meddling when it comes to law setting prices to consumer goods.
In the end, only those who want to will buy. Yes, Apple products are basically highway robbery but nobody is being forced to buy the crap they make nor need it to survive.
It’s a phone, not food, fuel or shelter. If it’s too expensive, buy cheaper.
Yes, because they’ve already been working on it.
They’ve already seen the writing on the wall. And now that they have made decent progress on their end, their competition will be scrambling to catch up when the bill becomes law.
Isn’t the program that requires you to fill a form to order a serialized display and send the old one back? That’s still monopoly, just shift from service to sales. The essence remains the same.
What competitors? I genuinely don’t know of any other tech companies with exclusive ports.
