I simply meant that only Apple being able to import genuine Apple-branded parts is anti-competitive
That's not news, that's how things work. Spare parts cost a LOT extra, due to the far more complex logistics and completely different cost and labor structure of spare parts.Who in sane mind replaces very expensive Mobo, CPU and RAM as a single part? (again, each of those is removable). It's a freaking computer, 30 minute labor of computer technician doesn't cost several thousands of $.
Quotediscovered that service parts cost a LOT more than those parts do when sold as part of a finished product.First Apple would not fix it at all because LCD could not be ordered. And again, why the hell they cannot replace motherboard separately and replace basically all internals when any other MFG can do this for an order of magnitude cheaper products.
Also why in the hell they do not allow AASPs to keep components in stock?
QuoteAll of us here understand why it is that when we order 10 pieces of a component from Digi-Key, we are paying far more per piece than an electronics vendor who orders 10 million pieces directly from the manufacturer. It's the exact same thing with subassemblies of a computer. But Linus's business is getting clicks, and whining about Apple is a reliable way to do that.Why basically anyone else do not have this issue while selling much wider range of products?
Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, in many countries, only the manufacturer (or their designated assignees) can import their products, regardless of provenance.
The concept you're referring to (that the manufacturer has no say, once they've sold it) is, in the United States, enshrined in law as the "first sale doctrine", and initially, I assumed this would apply. But apparently, it does NOT apply outside of USA, so if the sale occurred outside USA, then the US first sale doctrine cannot apply (SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and decided it cannot apply, as it would be extra-jurisdictional application of US law). And so then the aforementioned US Code section applies, regarding trademark.
I don't like this situation, but legally it's fairly clear. :/Doesn't this conflict with anti-monopoly law ?I don't think so, in that anti-monopoly (antitrust) laws are designed to address an industry. Apple clearly does not hold a monopoly in any major industry they operate in (having a minority market share in personal computers, mobile phones, set-top boxes, media streaming, etc). Other vendors sell such items as well, so there's no monopoly issue here. Microsoft ran into issues with antitrust laws in the 90s when Windows and IE each held >90% market share, and it was successfully argued that Microsoft had accomplished that through anticompetitive measures like requiring PC vendors to buy a Windows license for every single PC they sold, even if the customer actually wanted an alternative OS like OS/2, OpenStep, or another UNIX variant.
Quotediscovered that service parts cost a LOT more than those parts do when sold as part of a finished product.First Apple would not fix it at all because LCD could not be ordered. And again, why the hell they cannot replace motherboard separately and replace basically all internals when any other MFG can do this for an order of magnitude cheaper products.Was the screen not offered as a service part at all, or was it just delayed?
As for the "why the hell…" thing: If the repair costs more than a new unit, why do it?!?
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.
QuoteAll of us here understand why it is that when we order 10 pieces of a component from Digi-Key, we are paying far more per piece than an electronics vendor who orders 10 million pieces directly from the manufacturer. It's the exact same thing with subassemblies of a computer. But Linus's business is getting clicks, and whining about Apple is a reliable way to do that.Why basically anyone else do not have this issue while selling much wider range of products?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.
Apple puts logos on every little part (including internal ones where it will never be seen by a user) to prevent anybody else from repairing their devices, playing the counterfeit card if they are bought used.
Knowing there are no other substitutes, this effectively prevents independent repair.
Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, in many countries, only the manufacturer (or their designated assignees) can import their products, regardless of provenance.
The concept you're referring to (that the manufacturer has no say, once they've sold it) is, in the United States, enshrined in law as the "first sale doctrine", and initially, I assumed this would apply. But apparently, it does NOT apply outside of USA, so if the sale occurred outside USA, then the US first sale doctrine cannot apply (SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and decided it cannot apply, as it would be extra-jurisdictional application of US law). And so then the aforementioned US Code section applies, regarding trademark.
I don't like this situation, but legally it's fairly clear. :/
Apple puts logos on every little part (including internal ones where it will never be seen by a user) to prevent anybody else from repairing their devices, playing the counterfeit card if they are bought used.
Knowing there are no other substitutes, this effectively prevents independent repair.This was common practice with all the manufacturers that can afford volume production, HP used to have all the ICs used in test equipment labeled with HP part number, every single one of them, including common TTL, ECL, OpAmp, etc.
PCKompaniet has never removed the coverup of the Apple logo on the screens that have been imported and has no interest in doing so. PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.
This has nothing to do with Right to Repair. You cannot import trademarked products without the written consent of the trademark owner, plain and simple.
Exactly.
It's real simple Louis, buy Chinese batteries that aren't marked as "Apple" batteries. Generic labeled batteries work just as well as the brand-labeled ones. If unmarked ones aren't available you could even have your Chinese supplier scrape the fake Apple label off before sending them.
Or where you planning on re-selling them to unsuspecting customers as a genuine Apple product??? Since I doubt that you needed fifty battery packs for your own use.
QuoteAll of us here understand why it is that when we order 10 pieces of a component from Digi-Key, we are paying far more per piece than an electronics vendor who orders 10 million pieces directly from the manufacturer. It's the exact same thing with subassemblies of a computer. But Linus's business is getting clicks, and whining about Apple is a reliable way to do that.Why basically anyone else do not have this issue while selling much wider range of products?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.
People who say this is just hating on Apple should read this news:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-independent-iphone-repair-shop-owner-and-lost
Apple puts logos on every little part (including internal ones where it will never be seen by a user) to prevent anybody else from repairing their devices, playing the counterfeit card if they are bought used. Knowing there are no other substitutes, this effectively prevents independent repair. Apple also lobbies against the right to repair.
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.
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.
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.
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.
First Party pricing costs little more than the original assembly of the unit (there are added shipping costs for parts).
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.
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.
Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, in many countries, only the manufacturer (or their designated assignees) can import their products, regardless of provenance.
The concept you're referring to (that the manufacturer has no say, once they've sold it) is, in the United States, enshrined in law as the "first sale doctrine", and initially, I assumed this would apply. But apparently, it does NOT apply outside of USA, so if the sale occurred outside USA, then the US first sale doctrine cannot apply (SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and decided it cannot apply, as it would be extra-jurisdictional application of US law). And so then the aforementioned US Code section applies, regarding trademark.
I don't like this situation, but legally it's fairly clear. :/
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.
No humor there. Other manufacturer components are expensive but they don't ship them in such bundles to make repair even remotely not viable. Other manufacturers don't help doing 3rd party repairs but do not proactively prevent them either, and even if they do, not to this surreal extent. Servicing car comparison is irrelevant, it takes much more time to begin with. Motherboard swap is not something you'll spend several hours to do. FYI, for 2 of such MACs you can buy a brand new car, with a lot more parts to replace.
Humor everyone:
How many third party car repair shops have been sued by the original car manufacturer?.......for repair works related to trademark breach i guess zero!?
The car thats get stolen for parts is not average Joe car Nissan Micra those Baltic , Polish (not so much anymore) Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian, thief clans goes only after very specific cars, at least here they do, less specific they are stolen assembled. Nissan Micras not stolen at all, so "any brand" is not stolen for parts or assembled. BMW and Apple can be said to be specific brands.
The top 14 most replaced parts on the second most stolen vehicle in the U.S., the 2016 Nissan Altima, amount to $14,236, excluding labor, according to NICB. Given the $20,000 price of a 2016 Altima on the used market, it's easy to see how it's much easier for criminals to deal in parts alone.
No humor there. Other manufacturer components are expensive but they don't ship them in such bundles to make repair even remotely not viable. Other manufacturers don't help doing 3rd party repairs but do not proactively prevent them either, and even if they do, not to this surreal extent. Servicing car comparison is irrelevant, it takes much more time to begin with. Motherboard swap is not something you'll spend several hours to do. FYI, for 2 of such MACs you can buy a brand new car, with a lot more parts to replace.
Actually, diagnosing computer problems can be extremely time-consuming. Several hours is absolutely a realistic amount of time for diagnosing many problems. And many car companies ARE only selling larger and larger modules and fewer individual components, so the trend in both industries is exactly the same. I'd say the car and computer industries are far more alike than they are different, in this regard.
It's not realistic to expect every tech to be as skilled as Louis, he's clearly an expert in this particular area.
No humor there. Other manufacturer components are expensive but they don't ship them in such bundles to make repair even remotely not viable. Other manufacturers don't help doing 3rd party repairs but do not proactively prevent them either, and even if they do, not to this surreal extent. Servicing car comparison is irrelevant, it takes much more time to begin with. Motherboard swap is not something you'll spend several hours to do. FYI, for 2 of such MACs you can buy a brand new car, with a lot more parts to replace.
Actually, diagnosing computer problems can be extremely time-consuming. Several hours is absolutely a realistic amount of time for diagnosing many problems. And many car companies ARE only selling larger and larger modules and fewer individual components, so the trend in both industries is exactly the same. I'd say the car and computer industries are far more alike than they are different, in this regard.Then please explain how How Louis can make a living from doing component level repairs. Are apple techniciansnot able to distinguish their head from their assso dumb they cannot figure out if it's either motherboard, RAM or CPU is faulty in a reasonable amount of time? FYI computer tecnichians are usually paid <15$/h, even in expensive areas. If they replace $1000 mobo for $2000 and spend a whole day doing that on single computer, they still would be profitable.
No, they are supposed to be so dumb (according to apple) they need to replace mobo/RAM/CPU altogether .
Also I disagree about time needed for diagnosis. I have some repair department experience myself and you quickly learn what the common defects are. The first diagnosis of a new device / unknown fault may take long but subsequent devices with the same symptoms are repaired quickly.
It's not realistic to expect every tech to be as skilled as Louis, he's clearly an expert in this particular area.Perhaps, but Louis appears to be able to teach repair techniques to a wide variety of ordinary citizens without any formal electronics training, from primary-school kids to bored grandmothers. Louis himself has no formal technical education, IIRC.