I don't think it's incumbent upon Apple to invent a new set of tools for self-service repairs.
Assuming these are the tools they actually use, rather than a cumbersome set they invented just to be insufferable, then making the tools available seems like a fair way to (reluctantly) satisfy the right-to-repair demand.
I think a better indication of whether they're really honoring the right to repair is if they keep doing things like inventing new screws that existing tools can't open. Time will tell.
This actually really upset me when Apple first released their Self Service Repair program.
Apple said it was the exact same tools their repair technicians use, and offered all the tools for a $49 rental (which, honestly, probably doesn't even cover shipping for 77 lbs. of equipment). The Verge, iFixit, Ars Technica, and others claimed Apple deliberately designed and priced their repair program to make self-service repair not worth it, even if there wasn't the part serialization.
Which... what malarkey. Of course repairs are cheaper when you don't need to rent the toolkit every time and can reuse tools. According to Apple, the parts are the same cost the Apple Stores and their repair partners get, and according to congressional testimony this is not a profitable program, so what do you expect? Apple to sell parts publicly for cheaper than they get themselves? Do you want Apple to send you the repair tools for free and have cheaper parts? That's what they were saying - the parts should be cheaper and the tools should be less complicated even though that is what Apple literally uses. You think Apple repairs screens with guitar picks and are upset Apple doesn't ship those instead? It was really disappointing.
Imagine if Apple was a car company. They wanted the ability to repair their cars, so Apple agreed to loan them for $249 hundreds of pounds of equipment for repairing just about anything on their cars. Then imagine if people cried this made car repair too complicated by design. Right to Repair does not encompass right to simple, idiot-proof, no-tools repair.
If I am to believe Louis Rossmann ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tB3t7xGWjk ), this would still be a marked improvement over the current state of affairs, where Apple ostensibly offers tools, but the terms end up forbidding their use in serious repair shops. If they actually offer a good selection of OEM parts, that'd be good for the end user.
It's not all that hard to find screwdrivers for the fancy screws that Apple (and other companies) use.
And the justification is that it's not at all anti-consumer. Allowing consumers to disassemble the devices will practically guarantee that they break (and in a manner that voids the warrantee). The only people who should be disassembling them are people specially trained to repair them, or experts who have a lot of practice disassembling electronics safely. The former have the screwdrivers already, and as I already said, it's not that hard for the latter to get their hands on the screwdrivers.
Or alternatively it was absurd for hobbyist repairers to ask for these tools in the first place, and if they’re upset now when they are given what they asked for, maybe that’s on them, not Apple.
It could be, but it also seems to be a satisfactory compromise from all sides. Customers get independent repair services with genuine parts, repair services don't need to jump through as many hoops to be considered first-class, and Apple avoids getting attacked as much over right-to-repair laws.
Apple can trivially comply with Right To Repair by just selling parts, documentation and any software needed to pair new parts.
They don't have to provide tools, just like car manufacturers don't provide tools when you buy parts.
This repair programme is purely a PR move to maliciously (attempt) to comply with Right to Repair and try to prevent actual regulation all while putting the spotlight on how complicated, dangerous and time-consuming repair to discourage people from ever trying it.
Increased repairability != enough repairability, as per the comments here. Beyond the article, Apple products still aren’t as repairable as the Right to Repair Movement would like, because people still have to peruse thousand-page highly technical manuals and buy specialized equipment if they wanted to fix certain parts of their Apple devices.
The cynic in me wonders if Apple is simply reading the room on Right to Repair laws and throwing the crowd a bone so that they can say, "You don't need those laws! Apple already provides numerous ways for you to repair your own devices!"
Monitor in the coming months how much they continue to spend on anti-RTR lobbying. That would be the better litmus test of their sincerity.
These are good points and interesting, I’ve never seen such analysis, but imo their support of right to repair is because they’ve steered the discussion into a direction they are comfortable with.
The apple self service program is apples ideal of right to repair. A shitty program where you can buy board assemblies and larger parts for fairly high prices with no changes to their software approach whatsoever. A battery change through this program is ~$120 up front (if you rent the tools, which you probably should) with a $30 refund when you return your dead battery. A battery change via the apple store is $99. You can only buy parts if you give them the device serial number up front (so fuck independent shops) and you need to call apple at the end to pair the part on their end.
A pointless program with tons of waste still created. A short on your laptop motherboard? Better buy a new motherboard. An issue with the camera on your MacBook? Better buy a new lcd assembly.
They will suddenly become very against right to repair the moment it starts to actually fight for things like schematics and board diagram access, component availability and not just parts assemblies, parts pairing that’s done in a consumer friendly way, etc.
imagine legislation that says apple has to change parts pairing so that if a consumer unlocks their phone the parts have to be able to be sold as well? Or that they can no longer enter a contract with Texas Instruments to buy 100% of their stock of a usb c controller ic for a MacBook Pro so repair shops can’t buy it on digikey or mouser? Etc. they will fight that hard and then just find a way to circumvent it (like making their own usb c controller ic)
Yeah, let's not lose sight of how the right-to-repair movement made this possible. And we still have long way to go as even iFixit notes:
> There is of course the elephant in the room: parts pairing. As it stands, despite the increasingly repairable designs, the software locks that Apple maintains will result in waste as otherwise-useful components end up in landfills instead of being repurposed. The useful life of our devices will also be limited to Apple’s hardware support—whatever they decide that may be. Once support is dropped for a device, those software locks will remain in place which means even if a third-party manufacturer is willing to step in with replacement parts, those parts may be restricted in functionality.
The inclusion of DeWalt got me thinking, because I own several DeWalt power tools. Arguably, these are contractor grade tools made to stand up to some abuse. I buy them because it's a well regarded brand name (for the reason above), but typically only after I've validated my need for a specific tool by breaking a cheap one from repeated use. Truth be told, I've never thought about having to repair it (which I could probably do, because I do know there are parts available for them) or sending it off for repair, because even after owning some of them for 10+ years and subjecting them to countless loanings and abuse, none of them have failed on me.
I agree that there is a trade off, but I think it is this: I bought from a respected brand, so that in the event of failure, I can bring it back to the manufacturer (who will probably still be in business), and they can/will fix it (often under an extended warranty, and it's also not unheard of to find tool manufacturers specifically that will repair or replace tools under a lifetime warranty) rather than say something to the effect of "well, we can't fix that, you'll need to buy a new one". If the cost to me as a consumer for this privelege is that they feel the need to take measures that might prevent someone without the right tools from taking it apart so that they can ensure some revenue to keep their parts/repair services running, than I'm okay with that (as long as they aren't trying to sue people for making repairs).
This whole thing conjures up the Apple mindset of providing a consistent user experience, and locking down a device to ensure that consistency. Unfortunately, a combination of factors (outdated legal frameworks, pricing models, etc.) seem to conspire against people who want both a quality product manufactured to a high standard and the ability to tinker and repair (ie. HN users).
Remember, such criticisms exposing Apple's weak and hollow commitment to "right to repair" is essential to maintain public pressure on the regulators and the corporates to protect consumer rights. For example, activists and regulators should now highlight how ridiculous it is that you need ridiculous, expensive and specialised tools for Apple devices for simple repairs like battery replacement, when tried and tested alternatives designs for removable battery are already doable. Or how just using screws instead of adhesives, easily increases the repairability of devices. The pressure should be to make Apple (and other BigTech) to ensure ease of repairability should be a focus during the design of the product. E.g. the FrameWork laptop ( https://frame.work/ ), and not just an after thought to get around regulatory requirement.
One way regulators can go about ensuring this is to tag an additional "e-wastage" tax inversely tied to the "repairability index" ( https://repair.eu/news/the-french-repair-index-challenges-an... ) of a device . The less repairable a device is, the higher the "e-wastage" tax should be. This should appeal to some who think the consumer should be allowed to spend their money as they want. If some really want to splurge on a device that is hard to repair, let them also bear the burden for the environmental impact the waste creates.
Obvious right-to-repair defense/play, and not a terrible one. Apple is a leader and if you can own the repair ecosystem while providing some semblance of 'choice'...
I think all of Apple's "support" for Right to Repair has been carefully calculated to undermine it. They think the level of support they have to provide for repairability voluntarily is less than what they would have to do if it were mandatory.
Right... I agree. I think Apple could do a better job - but I think the pro-repair side is way, way too ready to just say "evil corporation bad and greedy" instead of asking what legitimate reasons might be behind an action, even if one doesn't agree with the action. For example, the Face ID lockout: Imagine if one could just pipe an AI-generated map of your face, straight into the Face ID port, to unlock your phone using a fake sensor - or, have a fake modified sensor record your facial data for later use. Lockout? I don't necessarily agree, but I get it, whereas nobody on the "right to repair" even tries to figure out reasoning like this.
It's easy to strawman "evil corporation," but addressing the real reasons why Apple would do something like this, and finding a reasonable compromise, is much harder. Unfortunately, as long as they keep ignoring Apple's actual argument and reasons, I doubt they will make any headroom legislatively and they will actually be partly to blame for that. Radicals, most of the time, don't win. If they came up with a compromise that kept anti-theft while improving repairability, that may win.
Edit: For example, this sentence: "Steve Jobs didn’t want people to be able to get inside his devices saying that they’ll just “screw things up”. When viewed from this lens, it’s easy to see how Apple might justify serialization and restrictions on repair. It’s all done in order to bring us, the ignorant and incompetent masses, the perfect smartphone-cum-fashion statement."
No. It's not, at least not nearly to the degree as that. Stop doing that - or accept that any failure to gain legislative wins is partially self-inflicted.
I have been of the same opinion (and I guess I still am, albeit less strongly). However, user wants aside, easily repairable products are better ecology-wise.
I want Apple to be allowed to create any device they want, but I think iPhone and Mac repairability can be currently improved without noticably hurting features. Prioritizing it would be the right trade off to do. In that case they should go for it (as they apparently decided to do).
Even without fighting for regulation, we can still celebrate companies when they decide to create repairable products with long term software support and complain about them when they don't.
A regulation that I would like to see would be to perhaps force 'makers' to sell genuine spare parts to anyone (same goes for Tesla and others).
It's nice to see that Apple is trying to help people repair parts. I personally see nothing wrong with Apple choosing to do this itself and simultaneously saying that it doesn't want the government stepping in.
Assuming these are the tools they actually use, rather than a cumbersome set they invented just to be insufferable, then making the tools available seems like a fair way to (reluctantly) satisfy the right-to-repair demand.
I think a better indication of whether they're really honoring the right to repair is if they keep doing things like inventing new screws that existing tools can't open. Time will tell.
reply