Two parts of their statement stand out to me.<p>First is "to enable the repairs performed by authorised repair channels", which indicates they don't really want to make parts available to the average joe, and likely also hampers independent repair shops who don't want to participate in (pay for) a manufacturer programme.<p>Second is "repair providers disclose the use on non-genuine or used parts" which indicates they may try to continue the serialisation of parts to force the repairer to buy replacement new parts, rather than being able to swap in known-working used or non-oem bits.<p>Taken together, it sounds like they want you to buy new replacement parts only from them, to only repair the bits they allow you to repair, as long as you sign an authorised repair contract with them. Which doesn't seem that different to their existing authorised repair programme?<p>Overall I think there is some progress, but I don't think Apple is switching to be pro-RtR yet. Maybe I'm just skeptical based on their past actions, but I hope I'm wrong.
Don't fall for it. Apple's modus operandi with respect to R2R has always been malicious compliance. It's happened multiple times before just like now. They are trying to retain control as much as possible in a world where repairability becomes mandatory, not make repairs easier.
I posted this before, but...they have played this game before; creating RTR "friendly" programs and then forcing signing of strict NDAs, and requirements that leave repair shops worse then they would without the program. [1-4]<p>1: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/18/we-are-losing-money-companies-in-apples-repair-program-say-they-cant-compete-with-tech-giant" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/18/we-are-lo...</a><p>2: <a href="https://www.howtogeek.com/894168/apples-self-repair-program-is-even-worse-now/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.howtogeek.com/894168/apples-self-repair-program-...</a><p>3: <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdjnv/apples-independent-repair-program-is-invasive-to-shops-and-their-customers-contract-shows" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdjnv/apples-independent-re...</a><p>4: <a href="https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/28/apple_selfservice_slammed/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/28/apple_selfservice_sla...</a>
99% chance it'll be the usual scummy big tech tactic of claiming to support potential regulation that is gaining enough momentum to possibly actually affect them so they can hijack the movement to push a watered down more convenient version framing the original movement as being full of extremists.<p>And as usual because there's an Apple on it, most of this place will eat it up even though it hasn't been that long since OpenAI blatantly tried the same thing regarding AI regulation.
There are several way different groups are viewing right to repair, that I find isn’t getting much coverage.<p>Consumer: right to repair means fixing my broken display will be a DIY job for $50? Sweet!<p>Repair shop: right to repair means I can source a display from lowest bidder, charge $150 for broken screen, and make $120 in profit? Let’s go!<p>Apple: right to repair means you must buy $275 display module to fix a broken display.<p>Apple being world’s most valuable company, is not going to willingly allow consumer or repair shop to get advantage over itself without kicking and screaming.<p>A smartphone is not a device of yore, where components cost make up vast majority of its price. Instead it is almost pure margin. Every device repaired without handing cash to Apple handsomely is one less device they can sell.
> Apple supports<p>If Apple supports something, it 99% of the time means they already have a way to exploit for it. They've been doing it for decades sadly, if Apple endorses regulation it almost always implies their bottom line won't be impacted from it.
Doesn't really seem like they came around to some great moral realization. I think they just saw the writing on the wall and decided to put on a friendly face to try and get a few favorable provisions thrown in.
The cynic in me can't see this in any way other than some kind of malicious compliance from Apple - the monkey's paw clutching in the background.<p>It's been 20 years since Casey Neistat's "iPod's Dirty Secret" [1]. If they've fought against RtR for so long, surely they won't give up so easily?<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuTcavAzopg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuTcavAzopg</a>
If you haven't seen it, Louis Rossmann has a nice video discussing this [1].<p>[1]: <a href="https://youtu.be/0tB3t7xGWjk" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://youtu.be/0tB3t7xGWjk</a>
I have 2 phones that are practically useless for daily use: iPhone XS and iPhone X - my iPhone XS face id stopped working after bigger moisture in SE Asia, my sister iPhone X screen was broken and after screen replacement also face id stopped working.<p>Authorised apple repair shops quoted ~300 euro for face id replacement - with a caveat that if they detect any moisture they won't fix it at all. For that price I can buy any of those phones second hand.<p>Unauthorised shops told me they have no way to replace face id.<p>With android phones at least you can unlock your phone not with pin code but with gesture or unlock with cheap smart mi band. I knew apple watch can be used to unlock your phone but it WONT work if you face id or touch id IS broken.<p>So all those phones are just sitting on a shelf and I use one just for app testing.<p>With apple serialising parts I think things are just getting worse, not better - what's the point when you are forced to buy genuine parts from apple (instead of genuine but from donor devices) and still have to go through authorised repair shop and this is economically just not worth it?<p>What's the point of your 'right to repair' but you have to pay 50-100% of you (second-hand) device price?
> The big exceptions are video game consoles and alarm systems.<p>This part is the most interesting to me. Alarm systems I understand, though this looks like security by obscurity, but video game consoles? Are legislators willing to go that far to protect Sony's DRM?
Apple likely discovered that with minor modifications (like the right to prominently discredit "unlicensed" spare parts) they can:<p>1.) prominently "devalue" parts where Apple is not earning money, apply the "Licensed by Apple" model from accessories (which comes with annual member fees, steep certification costs and per-unit revenue share) to component manufacturers, which then charge a premium for components to not trigger the "non-genuine part" alarm on the device...<p>1.) create an UBER-like business model for "Apple-recommended" repair shops, where Apple has even less obligation than now, with all costs of compliance to their blessing covered by individual shops, and Apple earning revenue-share from every Apple-customer related transaction in those shops (by only allowing use of licensed parts)...<p>After all, if Apple moves to USB-C on the iPhone, and the EU regulation has no loop-hole for them to only allow "Apple-licensed" USB-C cables, they need to compensate for that loss of revenue...
Apple is leveling the playing field and this moves makes perfect sense for Apple and everyone else. Apple management (probably like the rest of the industry) under the assumption that the company that's selling repair friendly products will inevitably lose revenue and market share, is less competitive than the rest. So it's a game of "first one who moves, dies first".<p>If a company wanted to change the market, the only viable option is to go through legislation, because the internal company goals that might actually be repair friendly is then forced on all the competition as well. Leveling the playing field.
I feel like the bit about not disabling security features will provide some crucial limitation to apple's advantage. They have a habit of bleeding security into hardware components.<p>I guess they're maybe opening up to authorized repair places and just that.
It's one thing to "support" it, it's another to make components actually available to make repairs. I remember some people testing out a direct screen swap between two identical iphones, only to find out they didn't work after the swap. So even if you can get a replacement component, do you have the management software to update the eeprom to say "hey, the screen with this serial is good to go".
> Chamberlain explained that parts pairing is used by Apple to confirm whether parts were purchased through their authorized network and have a record of repairs, while console makers may use it to "assume that a disk drive is original and trustworthy."<p>> "To eliminate parts pairing entirely, they need to find new technical ways of meeting these goals without limiting repair," she told Ars. "Until then, our best compromise is in SB 244: If manufacturers use parts pairing, they need to make their pairing software tool available to the public."<p>This section seems a little vague...does this mean that Apple will still be able to block you from swapping in a part that they dont deem as "valid" for whatever reason? What does that software tool that theyre supposed to make public do? verify "authenticity"?
It seems like Apple might have an advantage here over other manufacturers since they have a relatively limited product lineup and sell in such massive volumes. For example, the per-unit cost of compliance for their handful of iPhone models they release every year could be less than for Samsung and their 50+ phone models they release every year [1]. Budget online sellers like "ZICOROOP" (chosen at random from Amazon [2]) might be unable to support the requirements altogether, and be forced not to sell in California.<p>I could also see Apple customers being more willing to pay a premium for geniune Apple parts than budget smartphone and PC users, which could be a new source of revenue.<p>Apple has also shifted more toward selling services in recent years, and seems content to let people continue to use their old hardware longer if it means they subscribe to iCloud Storage, Apple Music, Apple TV+, etc.<p>Finally, whether you believe them or not, Apple makes a fairly big show of caring about the environment [3]. They devote a fair amount of time in all their major product announcements to talking about environmental impact. And supporting this bill is on brand for them.<p>[1] <a href="https://thelec.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=3574" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://thelec.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=3574</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/ZICOROOP-Bluetooth-Speakers-Waterproof-Long-Lasting/dp/B0C4KYXYBC/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.amazon.com/ZICOROOP-Bluetooth-Speakers-Waterproo...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.apple.com/environment/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.apple.com/environment/</a>
I too have changed my mind and do want to do the washing up, ten minutes after realising that I have clearly lost the argument with my wife that it's my turn and desperately trying to redeem some credit for it.
Anytime a big company supports more regulation, it means they are doing it anti-competitively. Small businesses should not have to adhere to the provisions < X revenue + Y employees.
This is Apple we are talking about. If it's compliance, it's most certainly malicious compliance.<p>There are good reasons to prefer Apple but repairability is not one of them.
that's US public policy - fight everything good (democracy) until it becomes clear that we've lost the fight, then at the last moment switch our public stance and say we were for it the whole time - we just wanted some tweaks.<p>privately, we oppose everything good all the time, from beginning to end -- only the public stance changes.<p>i'm sure that's the same for Apple and every other big tech firm, every tech firm, every firm.
Apple didn't want to replace the keyboard on an m1 macbook I have. It was only a couple years old at the time. The guy at the Genius Bar just said no.
They realized they can now sell us apple branded custom hardware tools? And maybe that if you just fuse everything together onto the mainboard and just keep the primary core swappable/pricy, then to facilitate the new policy design you have an opportunity to morph your terms of service to reduce your own support costs and perhaps even reduced RMA liability.
Given that the RAM and hard drive are both still soldered, at best this is just compliance. Only the most fervent cult members would see it as support.
With anyone unfamiliar with hardware trends, they've been biding their time.<p>The latest generation of hardware is now designed and optimized for repair and they're at the point where they've been preparing for a long, long time.<p>The next few launches of Apple hardware will be light-years ahead of competition in design and engineering to make the repair experience delightful.<p>If you want to see hints at it, the latest Apple Watch Ultra has four screws -- a sign of things to come.<p>Further, their industrial design has moved to a flat, extruded shape with mid frame designs, perfect for accessing batteries and screen components.