Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks, now I've skimmed the verge piece and read your summary and have to admit: wasn't the main point of the verge that it's absolute ridiculous that the "apple approved"-way of fixing things requires two peli-cases of custom tools. This doesn't scale FOR THEM and one of the main points of criticisim in the verge revolved around that! The whole process is just designed so that in 3-4 years Apple will go to their fa…
The article made it seem like Apple is forcing anyone to get these tools, when they are not. The article heavily falls into the exactly that trap.
The conclusion of the article is literally:
>The more I think about it, the more I realize Apple’s Self-Service Repair program is the perfect way to make it look like the company supports right-to-repair policies without actually encouraging them at all. Apple can say it’s giving consumers access to everything, even the same tools its technicians use, while scaring them away with high prices, complexity, and the risk of losing a $1,200 deposit. This way, Apple gets credit for walking you through an 80-page repair, instead of building phones where — say — you don’t need to remove the phone’s most delicate components and two different types of security screws just to replace a battery.
> I don’t think Apple expects anyone to seriously take it up on the offer of self-service repair kits. It stacked the deck in favor of taking your phone to an Apple Store, where it can tempt you to buy something new instead. The real victory will come months or years down the road, though. That’s when Apple can tell legislators it tried to give right-to-repair advocates what they wanted — but that consumers overwhelmingly decided Apple knows best.
The whole tone of the article is clearly that it's absurd to rent these tools, and that the option to do so is a red herring.