General > General Technical Chat
What ever happened to TV technicians?
<< < (13/17) > >>
Brumby:

--- Quote from: VK3DRB on May 07, 2022, 02:10:42 pm ---Apple purposely makes their products unrepairable.
--- End quote ---
If you are referring to the construction of their products, then I would have to disagree to a point.  To provide the functionality in a form factor that the market will accept, space saving alternatives are mandatory.  This does have the result of making repair more difficult - requiring a higher level of skill and/or equipment to do so - but not impossible.

If you are talking about post-purchase support, then there is a case to answer - especially when Apple take active steps to block access to resources

--- Quote ---Apple even got caught providing firmware updates that purposely slowed your phone down so you go out and buy a new Apple phone.
--- End quote ---
That was unconscionable.


--- Quote ---Apple is a company run by wankers.

--- End quote ---
Some may agree with you, others will not.  Considering the company's value and brand loyalty, they must be doing something right.


--- Quote from: bd139 on May 07, 2022, 05:43:46 pm ---Um no. They have an official parts store and rent proper equipment to you to repair stuff with and provide service manuals:

https://www.selfservicerepair.com/
--- End quote ---
Apple did much the same sort of thing for third party repair service people - their "Authorized Service Provider Program" - but it was little more than lip service.  For those service people, the facilities provided were abysmal and the demands made upon them were draconian, to say the least.  It made a good PR stunt for those who don't read past the headlines.

How much better will this be?


--- Quote ---This is fairly new on the scene but they are scaling it out to most of their devices at the moment.
--- End quote ---
Breadth is nice, but how about depth?  More devices is great, but how much detail will they go into for each of those devices?


--- Quote ---Here’s the service manual for what I’m writing this on: https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/2000/MA2074/en_US/iphone-13-pro-07300324A-repair.pdf
--- End quote ---
The "Orderable Parts" list is rather short, IMHO.  I would like to see that expand.  It is also painfully devoid of any technical detail.

Do we know if Apple will ease on their stance regarding (for example) prohibiting chip suppliers from selling to third party repairers?


--- Quote ---They also give you cash back for broken parts returned so they don’t end up on the grey market and people get ripped off.

--- End quote ---
That is sensible and I applaud that move.  I see it as a brand protection move more than anything else - but they do have a brand worth protecting.
CJay:

--- Quote from: bd139 on May 07, 2022, 05:43:46 pm ---They also give you cash back for broken parts returned so they don’t end up on the grey market and people get ripped off.

--- End quote ---

That right there is exactly how Apple maintain an iron grip on their products whilst still appearing to support right to repair.

They stick a huge premium on 'repair' parts which is then discounted on return of the faulty bits, they've been doing it for *decades*.

It's nothing to do with protecting people from getting ripped off and everything to do with trying to ensure that nobody else can repair their stuff.

I've been on the non Apple side of that shady practice and was eventually forced out of business by their repeated, baseless legal claims.
bd139:
I disagree. I think you need to look at the customer side of things and work back rather than the right to repair. The customer story is simply:

I want my phone to work like it was before I broke it.

The third party repair market has long been a race to the bottom on cost which leads to some quite horrible outcomes. The third party clone cameras and screens are generally shitty. Even if there is a genuine repair supply chain available, the independent repairers will supply the shitty parts to maintain margins. And that's where the customers walked away from it, other than the desperate and those who can't afford a reliable repairer. The outcome is a net negative for the customer almost universally.

Everyone I know has been burned at least once by this, myself inlcuded, and wants to go down the official repairs business route now. That means authorised or vendor provided repair services where possible. And Apple has become incredibly popular because it does a really good job of repairs and provides an affordable insurance hedge policy if you break your premium device which surpasses independent insurers and network insurance.

No one out there other than us cares or understands right to repair. They hire a plumber when the tap stops working. They hire a roofer when the roof leaks.

The reality is that right to repair is actually a pretty stupid thing because it compromises on numerous things: Firstly it allows the vendor to shift liability onto the end user quickly. 1y warranty, then on your own for service. Secondly it doesn't solve the problem which is device longevity and service support. Thirdly, it still pushes the environmental responsibility of the device onto the end user rather than the vendor.

We should throw right to repair in the hype bin where it belongs and force vendors to support the device for a reasonable lifetime on the software and hardware front (5 years minimum) and if they do not fulfil their obligation have a pro-rata return refund for anything that isn't serviceable ore replaceable. At the end of life, they should give you cash back and be forced to recycle it for materials.

This applies to more than just phones for ref. Everything from washing machines to cars needs environmental and consumer protection legislation, not an empty marketing policy of "right to repair"

tl;dr: we've been conned by marketing of self repair nostalgia into accepting a worst environmental and customer-centric outcome.
bd139:

--- Quote from: Brumby on May 10, 2022, 01:44:28 am ---The "Orderable Parts" list is rather short, IMHO.  I would like to see that expand.  It is also painfully devoid of any technical detail.

Do we know if Apple will ease on their stance regarding (for example) prohibiting chip suppliers from selling to third party repairers?

--- End quote ---

That's the nature of modern devices and a big point of this thread.

At a high level, the only realistically serviceable components are at module level at this point. When I say realistically, I mean in a commercially viable scenario. No vendor is going to set up a supply chain for individual parts for board level repair. It makes no economic sense whatsoever to do this when the post-repair manufacturing test cases would need to be executed on rather large and expensive kit. What you end up with board level repair is an unvalidated system and the vendor would not risk their reputation on shipping that. Independent repairers (and I've pissed off Rossman on here before) do not do that validation and do not necessarily provide working kit after repair. It looks like it works but might not. Enough for data recovery, yes, but that's about it.

It's being terribly dishonest that a mechanical board level repair on a complex SoC is fit for purpose when you have no way of validating that other than it POSTing.

Also the default nature of supply chains is exclusive and is concerned with protecting intellectual property. If you start selling chips then your entire supply chain and IP is compromised. I certainly wouldn't entertain that approach if I was bringing a product to market that I was selling. Incidentally some of the parts, at least in my MacBook Pro are off the shelf and shipped by TI and Intel. The ASICs are however ASICs and the supply chain is not open. I have insurance and an expected lifespan, which is the correct approach to handling assets like that.
Brumby:

--- Quote from: bd139 on May 10, 2022, 10:38:22 am ---Also the default nature of supply chains is exclusive and is concerned with protecting intellectual property. If you start selling chips then your entire supply chain and IP is compromised.

--- End quote ---
Sorry.  I don't see that as a valid concern in any way, shape or form.

Why? ... Simple.  You've already sold the chip when you sell the product!

Anybody that would be in a position to compromise IP wouldn't have a problem buying a device and ripping into the chips.  Preventing the direct sale of chips does NOTHING the protect intellectual property since the chips are already out in the wild.

Please ... tell me how you think it would.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod