Apple Will Fight 'Right To Repair' Legislation (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Apple is planning to fight proposed electronics "Right to Repair" legislation being considered by the Nebraska state legislature, according to a source within the legislature who is familiar with the bill's path through the statehouse. The legislation would require Apple and other electronics manufacturers to sell repair parts to consumers and independent repair shops, and would require manufacturers to make diagnostic and service manuals available to the public. Nebraska is one of eight states that are considering right to repair bills; last month, Nebraska, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Wyoming introduced legislation. Last week, lawmakers in Illinois and Tennessee officially introduced similar bills. According to the source, an Apple representative, staffer, or lobbyist will testify against the bill at a hearing in Lincoln on March 9. ATT will also argue against the bill, the source said. The source told me that at least one of the companies plans to say that consumers who repair their own phones could cause lithium batteries to catch fire. So far, Nebraska is the only state to schedule a hearing for its legislation.

Comments

the real reason theyre arguing it.

[nimbius]

consumers who repair their own phones could cause lithium batteries to catch fire.

yep, and changing the oil on my motorcycle could cause scalding hot oil to burn me, but well documented processes from the vendor generally limit this risk. Repairing the power regulator for my refrigerator could have caused a shock, however repair manuals clearly instructed me to unplug and de-energize the appliance.

the reason these bills are being fought incessantly is because modern consumer capitalism is predicated on brand consumption, not product consumption, and includes concessions to allow for the hedonic treadmill to spin freely. Sure, Apple may be forced to support older architectures that do not support the latest whizbang features but the real argument is that they would have to support the idea that the user owns the device instead of rents it until the next model comes out. being able to repair a cellphone or tablet, or even a macbook for that matter erodes the concept of the brand as an experience and slowly drags apple back to the earthly realm of hardware manufacturer and not a lifestyle. Owning a product, and not a brand in the 21st century is a slow death for any company.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[Mr D from 63]

I thought Apple was a pretty capable company, but they can't design a phone that isn't a hazard to repair?

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[dgatwood]

It's actually pretty easy. They just have to not glue the battery to the case....

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[Opportunist]

That's pretty much what I understood from the summary. Apple products are so insecure that they cannot be repaired without presenting a hazard, maybe we should remove them from circulation.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[TheGratefulNet]

its a lie.

it has nothing to do with hazzards, other than the 'hazzard' of the company losing BIG PROFITS from captive repair bills.

apple is really looking bad, here. there is nothing credible they could state to defend this 'you shall not be allowed to repair things you actually own' bullshit.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[coastwalker]

Apple are a cult purchase for the masses. The truth is that they have been making excess profits for rather a long time and are no better and in some respects worse than other companies. They do not allow battery replacement because their designs sacrifice repair-ability in order to enhance the appearance of their devices. It also means that they make a fat profit on repairs. I hope they lose this court case as it will benefit the consumers they are gouging.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[dgatwood]

You're full of it. It has nothing to do with brand consumption. The truth is that the tradeoff for cheap, reliable, waterproof and sort of shock resistant is to make things with glue and not with screws.

Maybe for the watch, but not for the phone. There's nothing glued in the iPhone other than the battery. The case has snap tabs and screws holding it together, and all the complex parts are fastened in place using screws. There's absolutely no good reason for the battery to be glued in there, either. They could just as easily:

• Use compressible foam to hold it in place so that it doesn't rattle. Manufacturers have been doing that in battery compartments for most of a century.
• Bond it to a thin, stiff plastic layer and fasten that in with screws from the top so that it hangs suspended by glue in the middle of the battery compartment area.
• Bond it to a thin, stiff plastic layer that slides into a tiny track from one end. Bond the plastic layer to the bottom or top part of the case, allowing you to slide it out the bottom without even removing the back. Connect it with a couple of small spring contacts on the end of the battery.
• Glue it to the back part of the case (or a portion thereof), and offer that entire piece as a replacement part.

It's the height of laziness to say, "We can't make it this small without holding everything together with glue." It isn't that they can't make them easy to repair, nor is it that it would make them much more expensive or bigger or anything else. The reality is that Apple doesn't want their products to be easy to repair.

I'll illustrate why this is the case with a story. My parents recently took their iPhone 5s to Apple for repairs because its battery life had turned to crap. Apple looked at the device and said that they couldn't repair it because the battery was bulged, and it would be dangerous to remove it (because it is glued in). They wanted... either two or three hundred dollars to replace what was approximately a $30 battery.

Why would Apple want to make it easy to replace that $30 battery when they can glue the battery in place and use that as an excuse to cheat their customers out of hundreds of dollars, then take the defective hardware, ship it somewhere, rip the battery out in spite of the safety concerns, glue a new one in, and make even more money selling that refurbished phone to some other poor sucker whose battery dared to swell up? No, the irreparability of these devices means big money for Apple and they know it. IMO, these laws can't come soon enough and don't go far enough.

It should be illegal to glue a battery into any device, period, full stop.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The point is that once a company has enough control of the market to restrict supply chains and/or information about how the device works, they can effectively limit compatibility, prevent repairs and other long-term maintenance, and ultimately constrain the continued use of the device, even if such use would otherwise be viable.

That leads directly to problems like built-in obsolescence, excessive repair charges for devices that fail earlier than might reasonably have been expected, wastage of limited natural resources used in manufacture, and devices that are hard to recycle or otherwise dispose of in safe and environmentally friendly ways.

Hardware producers in the tech industry have become very, very bad at these kinds of things, and they've made a lot of money as a result, and so now it looks like legal/regulatory action is needed. This is hardly a new concern and they've had years to get their own houses in order and have failed to do so, so I have no sympathy for them at all.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The lack of repairability is not some kind of conspiracy.

Right, just like there is no ulterior motive when tech firms change connectors for each new generation of products even if the new ones do essentially the same things as the old ones, use unusual components where standard ones could have done the same job, or even remove most standard connectors altogether and maybe provide custom adapters or wireless devices with questionable reliability at much higher prices instead.

It's true that there is some merit in the argument that using custom components or things like glue instead of screws allows for making devices that are better in some way, but there is precious little evidence that the those improvements are significant or wanted by the market.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[Chris Mattern]

Apple doesn't want to design a phone that isn't a hazard to repair.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Nothing stops you from cracking it open, removing the ROM components and replacing the software.

Part of the problem is that it's hard to know how true that is any more.

The right-to-repair debate obviously covers much broader interests than just Apple products, and elsewhere we've seen things like farmers' ability to maintain their tractors being impaired by intellectual property laws. I'm not sure what promoting invention, discovery and new creative works has to do with preventing tractor repair, but somehow I doubt that's how the original proponents of those laws or the public intended them to be used.

Whether Apple could or would employ any similar tactics to undermine efforts to repair Apple products is a different question, but looking at the way they've treated iFixit as an example, the way they manage their supply chains and their choices of components, or indeed their opposition to the proposals we're talking about here, the signs aren't exactly good.

But how about instead supporting manufacturers that do what you want?

Some of us do. But when you reach a point where most or all of the major suppliers in a particular market are employing similar tactics, you often reach a point where the general public just gives up and accepts the tactics as inevitable. This is exactly why we have regulatory oversight and consumer protection rules backed by the force of law.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[jonwil]

Good luck completly replacing the ROM contents on any current Apple device.
Every device Apple currently sells (including the iPhone, iPod, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Watch and all Mac models) have firmware that will only run if its digitally signed by keys hardcoded into the CPU (not sure if the Macs require signatures for the entire firmware or just for the Intel Management Engine, that would probably depend on exactly which CPU is in a given product but either way you cant just replace the ROM chips and have a working system)

Re: the real reason theyre arguing it.

[AC-x]

A battery compartment is for removable batteries, and maybe if the Note 7 actually had a removable battery it wouldn't have been such a disaster for them.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[SuricouRaven]

If you set aside cynicism for moment, they do have a valid concern in that area. Any competent person can repair a phone safely - but how many repairs would be carried out by people who have never held a soldering iron before, and are following a tutorial video on youtube? It's quite possible for an inexperienced person to botch the procedure and leave the battery in an unsafe condition.

It's still just an excuse Apple are using, but it's at least a plausible excuse. My problem with it is that it boils down to the standard of the lowest: "You can't be trusted to repair your own equipment because somewhere, someone else might screw it up."

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

That would require the use of screws, which would increase the thickness by a tenth of a milimeter. Marketing dept says that is not acceptable.

That part always confused me.

Cell phone company busts its ass to shave 2mm off the thickness of the phone.

I immediately put it in a case that's three times the size of the phone, because I don't want to risk breaking the thing that cost several hundred dollars.

Like I'm gonna notice the millimeters you shaved off?

Re: the real reason theyre arguing it.

[Holi]

Pretty sure we have Motorola to thank for the cellphone as a status symbol. Remember the Razr.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[DickBreath]

I would pick a slightly thicker phone with significantly more battery life over an excessively thin phone with poor battery life that is just for pure fashion. Function BEFORE Form. If you're doing it the other way, then it is wrong.

Seriously, I don't care who thinks what of my phone. I didn't buy it to make everyone around me happy. Its purpose is to improve MY LIFE. Make ME more productive. Instant access to information. Entertainment. Etc.

Apple used to be a great company back in the day. (80's and most of 90's) I was a card carrying Apple fanboy. The "user friendly" that started in 1982 and saw some realization with the 1983 Lisa and 1984 Mac was about empowering people. Making ordinary people more productive and empowered. It was NOT NOT NOT about fashion. Apple has lost its way. And its mind.

Re: the real reason theyre arguing it.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Bullshit. Ask me how I know.

Alright. How do you know?

Because for 50+ years I've used thousands of devices that had battery compartments (including mobile devices) and 99.9% of them consisted of a simple plastic enclosure that worked fine and didn't require a Masters degree to design.

In fact, for decades the default design was a battery compartment with removable batteries- it's only recently that manufacturers have started fucking shit up by sealing batteries in the device and making it non-replaceable.

If anyone thinks that advances in technology have somehow made it harder to build battery compartments then they're simply mistaken.

It's the result of trying to save money in parts and the breathless pursuit of a thinner case.

FACT: Most people don't give a shit if their phone is 1mm thicker or thinner, and many would happily trade a millimeter or two of thickness for a larger battery. But somehow the Powers That Be have decided that what people want isn't as important as saving a dollar in production costs.

Seriously, please don't give me this stuff about "battery compartments are really difficult". They're not.

We've walked on the Moon, and we routinely replace hearts, livers, and hip joints. Thousands of people go in to have their eyes lasered into 20-20 vision every day. We've landed a fucking research probe on a comet. We can put 1.7billion transistors on a chip and sell it for $30.

In light of all that, somehow the "battery compartments are really difficult" argument just doesn't wash.

Re:the real reason theyre arguing it.

[TheFakeTimCook]

Apple from the days of the 128k Mac has discouraged consumer tampering. They want to control the repair eco system. That's not incompetence it is policy.

Bullshit.

Fighting it is evil

[Baron_Yam]

If you SELL me something, it's mine. You don't have to sell me documentation, you don't have to make replacement parts available, but there's only one reason to stop me from repairing it myself and that's so you can squeeze more money out of me.

Try renting instead of selling, then you can do whatever the hell you want, otherwise all you get to do is void any remaining warranty and refuse responsibility for damage caused by end-user repair.

It's about time consumers started lynching CEOs over shit like this.

Re:Fighting it is evil

[galabar]

I think the legislation would force the company to provide documentation and replacement parts. So, I guess you are... against it?

Re:Fighting it is evil

[edtice1559]

I think that you may be the only one who is confused. Right to repair laws don't require any design changes in order to make things easier to repair. They simply require that parts are available for purchase and instructions are obtainable.

Re:Fighting it is evil

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'd be fine with, "Manufacturers can prohibit personal and 3rd-party repair of devices sold for the advertised lifetime of the device, if and only if they provide free repair parts and services for that same period".

We used to call that a warranty.

Those used to be worth something.

And they used to last for a reasonable working lifetime for a device, not provide the bare minimum standard of protection required by law to private customers, and provide even less to business customers as an incentive to sign-up for overpriced maintenance contracts on top of the original purchase price.

Whaaaaat?

[Opportunist]

An innovative technology company like Apple wants to increase the amount of technology garbage instead of going green and supporting the tinkering and repairing community?

That's so un-hipster! My beard is bristling enough to make my turtleneck feel tight!

if they want to rent then landload needs to repair

[Joe_Dragon]

if they want to rent then landlord needs to repair it for free!

Fighting what they once were

[HalAtWork]

Apple, once founded by tinkerers, is now fighting the tinkerers

Re:Fighting what they once were

[drinkypoo]

Apple, once founded by tinkerers, is now fighting the tinkerers

Jobs didn't want the Mac to have any expandability. He wanted a sealed case that couldn't be improved in any way so that people had to buy a new machine if they wanted any upgrades. The first Macintosh didn't even have an expansion slot, and people had to resort to slotting something into the CPU socket and piggybacking the CPU in order to expand it. It was less expandable than an Apple 2 or a Lisa!

What can I say...

[sgage]

... except fuck Apple. Their whole business model seems to be planned obsolescence and non-repairability. Hey, just buy a new one!

My TRS-80 rocked

[Snotnose]

Not only did Radio Shack give me all the software information I could want, I bought the technical manual that had the schematics and how it all worked. I used that info, I learned CS from that info. I made a career out of that info.

Apple can suck a petrified mammoth dick over this move.

Re: car to be dealership only service

[Anonymous Coward]

This is it exactly, only, if I recall correctly, in Nebraska for farm equipment that operates on the same repair scheme as apple. In other words, the farmer is not allowed to fix their own tractor.

This won't solve anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it actually goes through, Apple will just jack up the price of their replacement parts to the point that it'd be cheaper to buy a new computer.

They already charge obscene prices for components, it's just that the repair centres don't pay anything as long as they ship back the defective component. For example, when I bought my 2010 Mac Pro, it came with a defective LG burner. That part cost around $20 to buy, apart from the Apple firmware customizations, which made it a $750 drive. The repair centre didn't actually pay $750 for a replacement part- it didn't cost them anything, because they shipped the defective part back to Apple.

So Apple could quite easily double or quadruple the "price" of their replacement parts, and it wouldn't change anything service centre wise. It'd just fuck over the public, which is exactly what they'll do if they're forced to do anything.

PS: What is there to replace in a modern day Mac? Everything is soldered to the main board. I guess the iMacs have a separate PSU module and a small DC fan, but that's about it, and you still need to cut that horrible foam striping around the LCD panel just to pull out the monitor so you can replace stuff, and then you need a replacement foam kit just to seal it back up again (remember that time the LCD glass panel was held on by magnets and removable by suction cups?). It's like people want to repair computers that are purposefully built to be as unrepairable as possible, which doesn't make much sense...

Re:The point?

[bigfinger76]

If this were just about computers/devices, you might have a point. But this legislation got it's start with farm equipment, and new EULAs that forbade fixing it yourself. Which is historically how smaller farmers were able to afford to use heavy equipment - they repaired it themselves. Apple is just the one complaining the loudest, because this would ostensibly affect them, too.
It's not just about Apple. This legislation has merit.

Take a page from Google

[ShoulderOfOrion]

Just "software upgrade" the device into uselessness, like Google did with my Nexus 7. No hardware repair necessary.

Ban iPhone from planes

[Bruce66423]

Apple has clearly announced that their product is dangerous, so the TSA should ban them.

I hope a legislator at one of these state legislators makes this point if an Apple employee is stupid enough to raise this.

Repairs?

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

I agree, except with the 'make big bucks on repairs' thing.
I get the impression they aren't interested in repairs at all. Not by them and sure as hell not (gasp) by yourself!
Just buy the latest new iPhone already. And yes if Apple tells you you need to buy a new headset for that, you do that too!