The screen was not offered at all. Apple held the device for a period of time after agreeing to service it and then outright refused all support. This is what caused Linus' initial outrage.
OK, without really wanting to get into all the details of the Linus debacle, since I think he's a clickbait prick with questionable ethics, but I checked a few different summaries of what happened, and the gist of it is this:
1. Apple releases iMac Pro
2. Linus cracks the screen, and in investigating that, also breaks the logic board and PSU. This voids the warranty.
3. Linus goes to Apple to request repair and gets an estimate which is already at the cost of a whole new unit. (So the prices for repairs are already established.)
4. It turns out Apple has not yet, at that point, made all of the module-level parts available yet. (Presumably, warranty repairs at this point would be fulfilled by simply replacing the whole unit, which could be refurbished at a later date.)
5. Apple informs Linus that they can't perform out of warranty repairs at this time.
6. Linus makes video, since Apple-hating gets clicks.
7. Profit!
The situation does raise the question of how Apple would handle accidental damage cases at that time. Presumably, for sensible repairs (i.e. ones that don't approach or exceed the cost of a new machine), they'd do what they've done in the past, and simply offered a whole machine swap for the price of just the repair that is needed.
They didn't want to do that with Linus's machine because the damage was too extensive, and it was entirely self-inflicted damage. The machine's warranty was voided, and they were under no obligation to perform that repair, even if he was willing to pay.
I don't blame them. If someone showed up with a box of parts (as apparently was essentially what they did) and said "how much to fix this" I'd probably tell them to go away, too.
As for the "why the hell…" thing: If the repair costs more than a new unit, why do it?!?
It doesn't, the Apple OEM components (replacing everything) would still cost less than a new unit.
The cost of providing a customer a finished machine is FAR lower than that of essentially shipping it piecemeal and assembling it in the store. Do you not understand that spare parts DO NOT cost the same? They must be packaged individually, warehoused individually, orders collected and shipped, and then the returned parts must be diagnosed, repaired if necessary, retested, packaged, and warehoused to prepare them to re-enter the parts inventory? All of that is COST which must be added onto the cost of the part itself.
And that's before even considering the labor to order and install the replacement parts, take the old ones and ship them back, plus the labor to interact with the customer, store overhead, etc. It all costs money.
Also why in the hell they do not allow AASPs to keep components in stock?
They do allow it, they just make it prohibitively expensive. But honestly, I don't know why they do this, to me it makes no sense.
They do this to control the supply chain and prevent third party access to "Apple authorized" components.
Yes, but AASPs aren't allowed to sell spare parts anyway. They're only allowed to sell them as part of a repair.
What? Uhhh, in ANY mass-produced product that can be repaired, the spare parts cost FAR more as spares than as a part of a finished product!! Whether it's a car, a TV, a kitchen mixer, a phone, a computer, a piece of furniture, clothing, or literally ANYTHING ELSE that is made up of individual parts, you WILL pay more (usually FAR more) per part when buying them as spares than you pay for that part when buying the finished product. This is not particular to Apple, it is literally a core principle in mass-produced products: making them in large amounts so you benefit from economies of scale. The economies of scale vanish when you have to create alternative, low-volume supply chains for spare parts, which must be individually packaged and sold.
This is only accurate if you are comparing Third Party pricing for the spare parts.
Completely untrue, read on:
First Party pricing costs little more than the original assembly of the unit (there are added shipping costs for parts).
No. You are confusing the
cost of the part in mass production vs. the
cost of a part as a spare part. When a company (say, Apple) orders 500,000 modules at $10 each from a supplier, they're bulk-shipped, directly to the factory that will integrate them into a finished product. The bulk-packed modules enter the assembly line and are installed into products, combined with all the other parts that constitute the product. The finished products are packaged and shipped. (Apple keeps a very lean supply chain, so finished goods do not sit around at the factory for more than a day or so, but even parts are only around for a few days before being built into a product.)
Now, suppose Apple diverts 10% of those modules for spare parts. Now, each of those modules must be transferred from bulk packaging to spare parts packaging, such as an individual box. Each box is labeled. Then they must sit in a warehouse somewhere (because you don't know how many spares will be needed), for up to the 7 years required by some jurisdictions. Then, when ordered, it must be prepared for shipment, including order picking (handling) and shipped. All of that takes labor. All of this costs money. A lot of money. So now, that $10 part may have had another $30 in costs added to it, and that's before making a cent of profit on the sale of that part. Now imagine doing the same thing for every single part in the product. It's a TON of added cost. (And yes, companies do add profit margins onto spare parts, and that's not unreasonable.)
Another approach would be to place separate spare parts orders from the supplier, with them already pre-packaged. So maybe it'd be $15 per module instead of $10. But the warehousing and logistics are still going to add on a lot and you'll end up with perhaps $25 total cost instead of $30.
There seems to be a misconception that Apple is selling these devices for less than it costs them to make. Apple doesn't pull Sony/Microsoft console moves with their devices (Xboxs and Playstations are sold at a loss but make back their money via game liscensing). Apple makes a large margin off every device and the actual device cost for them is far lower than the sticker price consumers end up paying.
Exactly
nobody is saying that. What you don't understand is the difference between a
part and a
spare part. They have radically different cost structures.
There is no possible way that even with replacing every single component it would "cost more to repair than buy a new device". The reason they push for a "it is too broken you need to buy new" is that they make far more money from that than they would the repair service. This is why Right to Repair is so important.
Humor me: choose a current car model you like. Any brand. Get a service manual for it. Compile a complete list of all the parts you need to build that car. Now go to the dealer's spare parts counter and get an estimate for that list of parts. You'll find that it exceeds the cost of buying the finished car, many times over. And that's before you even spent dozens of hours assembling it.
It's the same with
any mass-produced product. You're getting a massive savings buying the finished good versus a complete set of spare parts.
This is, by the way, precisely why cars get stolen: they are worth FAR more as parts than it is as assembled cars,
even when already used. This is absolutely true of Apple gadgets, too, so I'm sure that some units are purchased simply to be parted out for repairs.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
