Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rotten Apple: Right to Repair Roundup

nakedcapitalism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–166 of 166 posts

Re: Rotten Apple: Right to Repair Roundup

#161

Post by ChickeNES »

michaelt wrote: post #115
ChickeNES wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's to prevent people from taking old batteries and modifying them to appear new. >So you would want to know if the phone was blessed by an apple genius when you buy/sell ? Very much so, I don't want my phone catching fire in my pocket or while charging, or people with little technical knowledge being scammed. Would you want to know if the home you were buying was wired by a licensed electrician, designed by a lic…

That's to prevent people from taking old batteries and modifying them to appear new. Strange that, for all their security chops, Apple can't make or buy a battery fuel gauge with a trustworthy cycle count.

You mean like they just did with this change?

Re: Rotten Apple: Right to Repair Roundup

#162

Post by kuzehanka »

esmi wrote: post #155
kuzehanka wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe it wasn’t stored properly. Then it has a smaller capacity than a brand new battery should, but still larger than a heavily used battery. It's something the phone can report on, and android phones do. Apple can't guarantee your replacement battery was 'stored properly' either. All they can do is run their little programming tool to remove the warning regardless. This scenario is completely outside the realm of…

So if Apple rephrased this message to state, “unable to verify the health of this battery,” but still had the exact same system response, you would be happy?

It would still be a lie. And it would still be ransomware since there's no way for the user to remove that message without paying a ransom to Apple.

I don't need apple to change anything to be happy. I vote with my wallet.

Re: Rotten Apple: Right to Repair Roundup

#163

Post by sjwright »

godelski wrote: post #35
sjwright wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your sentiment, because it assumes that Rossmann can read the minds of Apple product designers and warranty service managers. The "Rossmann" method of device repair might be useful for short term disaster recovery, consumer asset loss mitigation and data recovery, but how reliable are his repairs long term? We never know. How scalable is this method of repair across thousand of cities? Probably very p…

Apple's job is to get the device through warranty, at minimum. They look better if they last longer though. Remember how Apple used to be known for a computer that lasted 5 years instead of 2 years? The problem now is that they aren't made that much higher quality than other products (if at all). But if we look at Rossmann he frequently does jobs like retinning connectors. I wouldn't call this disaster recovery since…

Your Toyota analogy doesn't make sense.

Oil changes—Apple devices don't need equivalent routine hardware maintenance.

Warranty repairs/recalls—Whether Toyota or Apple, the manufacturer is obliged to perform (or pay a third party to perform) the rectification.

Smash repairs—Neither Apple nor Toyota is responsible for impact damage that wasn't caused by manufacturer negligence. In both cases you'd go to a third party repair shop to mitigate asset loss.

Re: Rotten Apple: Right to Repair Roundup

#164

Post by sjwright »

sumedh wrote: post #114
sjwright wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your sentiment, because it assumes that Rossmann can read the minds of Apple product designers and warranty service managers. The "Rossmann" method of device repair might be useful for short term disaster recovery, consumer asset loss mitigation and data recovery, but how reliable are his repairs long term? We never know. How scalable is this method of repair across thousand of cities? Probably very p…

> but how reliable are his repairs long term? So the alternative is to listen to Apple's advice and buy a new device just because they think the device cannot be repaired?

I didn't say that individuals shouldn't seek such repairs. I'm just talking about whether it makes sense for Apple to offer them.

Re: Rotten Apple: Right to Repair Roundup

#165

Post by VvR-Ox »

arsenico wrote: post #73
VvR-Ox wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for clarifying this. It's not an excuse for Apples policy to fight "the right to repair" etc. but it's less worse than I thought. Of course if you own new Apple products you are completely screwed when in need of repairs and no store is in sight. That's why I still like to use the MBP from 2012 (the one with all the great ports that can be repaired still). They've done a really shitty job in the development…

I'm just curious - what are your alternatives, when you actually need more processing power/GPU, than your 2012 MBP?

1. GPUs can be used as external devices did you know that? 2. I don't. 3. If I would, there are plenty other computers to buy that I can still repair way easier than this crap from Apple.

Re: Rotten Apple: Right to Repair Roundup

#166

Post by jyounker »

microtonal wrote: post #71
ChickeNES wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remember that old iPhones are frequently resold. You're going to want to know if it has OEM parts. I think this is lost on the HN audience. There's a lot of people out there being scammed by counterfeit parts, recycled parts, shoddy repair jobs, and straight up cobbled together FrankenPhones. Not to mention the danger in using lithium batteries from unknown provenance.

...which is caused by making batteries irreplaceable to start with. If a phone's battery is user-repleacable, the user could buy it from Apple or any other reliable manufacturer. Now they have to go to either Apple or some third-party show who may use problematic batteries.

We in the geek community tend to forget that Apple is in the business of making reliable things with a long life cycle.

We tend to forget that Apple is the company that made the original mass-produced open platform. We forget that Apple's closed ecosystem is a response to the failures of that original experience.

Supporting the wide variety of hardware and software restricted the speed at which they could introduce new hardware and software features while simultaneously increasing their customer support costs and decreasing the perceived reliability of their products.

We forget that abandoning that open ethic is what allowed them to repeatedly capture the most lucrative portion of the consumer market for high technology products.

Post reply on HN