Why Apple Uses Pentalobe Screws In Its Devices

There's no such thing as a simple repair on a current Apple device. They're simply not built to be very field-serviceable, because Apple's customers would rather have a thinner or lighter device than one that's easier to repair. Open up anything in their current line and you'll find fragile ribbon cables, delicate connectors, wafer-thin pieces of glass and fragile things glued to other fragile things. Ifixit's guides are peppered with warnings about things that can be broken with slightly too much force or by prying in the wrong place.<p>From Apple's perspective, amateur repairs are potentially a source of serious damage to their brand. The effects of inept repair are likely to reflect at least as badly on Apple as they do on the repairer. One bad third-party battery could be enough to trigger a global media shitstorm, in spite of it being nothing to do with Apple. Their customers don't expect iDevices to be user-serviceable, so raising the barriers to entry for repairers is a clear win for Apple.

This is more like gossip than news. Its quite likely that Apple does use the new screws to lock you out of the device. But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices.<p>The entire article rests on one person's speculation. Yeah, the source is credible when it comes to DIY Apple repairs but he's still in no position to say definitively that "Yes, this is the reason they're doing this".<p>I don't take issue with the premise of the article. Like I said, its quite likely to be true. What I take issue with is how misleading the article is. It tried to spin speculation into fact with a few lines spritzed throughout that they can point back at and say "well, we didn't <i>actually</i> say it was a fact". I just think its pretty lame to do this sort of thing. If it was called "Why <i>Does</i> Apple Use Pentalobe Screws in its Devices?" and pose it as a question, and make it clear that the article is pure speculation, that would be a much better start.<p>EDIT: As of right now, every single reply to my comment has missed the point entirely. Quit getting hung up on the screws or my half assed counter suggestion that they're using it for another reason. The point I'm trying to make is that this post is misleading people to believe something that is speculation is fact. No matter how much sense it makes for Apple to use these screws to keep people out there is still no reliable evidence or any sources to support that. Only speculation. Its very possible that there are other explanations but the big idea here is that its upsetting to see speculation passed off as fact and people falling all over themselves to believe it.

What I don't understand is why manufacturers were able to do something as crazy as reverse-engineer the lightning bolt encryption mechanisms so they could start selling after-market lightning bolt cables, but something as simple (to my uneducated mind) as reverse engineering a screw driver just hasn't happened.<p>I would think by now there would be at least _one_ vendor in a country with fewer qualms around intellectual property who would be willing to violate whatever licenses/patents/copyrights there are on this pentalobe screwdriver form, and make them available at a very healthy markup to the many, many iphone/ipad repair shops out there (not to mention those interested hobbyists who would like to open up their own phone)<p>Particularly if that vendor was already manufacturing an assortment of other screwdriver bits, I would have to believe the marginal additional cost of analyzing these new screws, and creating a screw driver that could map to it properly, shouldn't be that great a challenge.<p>Are there any mechanical engineers with more knowledge than me who might be able to explain why this hasn't happened?

While I'm not a great fan of Apple's regard of their users fixing their own devices, I can offer, what I believe to be, a plausible other explanation.<p>"Why use this design, and why use it only on the outside?"<p>It is plausible that it reduces the cost of final assembly on the device.<p>1: By using rounded "lobes", rather than sharp-profiled edges, they can use a driver with a soft plastic lobes that have no sharp surfaces on them. The lobes are large enough that the connecting material to the main shaft of the tool will provide a desired level of strength. In fact, I would bet that the lobe connecting material thickness was specifically designed to exceed the required torque rating of the screw.* A square receptacle would not be sufficient, as the 90' edges of the tool would quickly wear down, the tool has to present all round surfaces for this to work.<p>2: By using a driver with no sharp surfaces, and made of a material softer than the enclosure of the device, they reduce the number of scratches made in the surface of the enclosure by workers who will, and I promise you this, miss the screw quite regularly if they don't get it properly torqued before removing the tool.<p>As the device enclosures are often one-piece, milled and surfaced aluminum, the custom tool and screws would likely have less overall cost than a common miss-rate or miss-error level with a metal tool.<p>I would also posit why so many are having difficulty manufacturing the tool, is because they're trying to make them out of metal.<p>If the above happens to be true, I would think the choice of screw design is an act of manufacturing efficiency genius.<p>* - Having had the misfortune of using plastic versions of all of torx, flat, and phillips head screw-drivers, yes, I can say they don't last long.

This article seems quite dated now. Doesn't seem to be too hard to source drivers for these screws now.

My initial thought was that while I've never done any 3D printing so I'm not how hard the plastic is, it might be possible to print something in the right shape and use it to unscrew these? Its an interesting idea, but the screws are likely in tight enough that only a solid metal screwdriver would be able to remove them.

This was published in Jan 2012.

Realistically, how many people repair Android or non-Apple phones? How many iPhone users would, when faced with a broken phone, try to fix it themselves rather than take it to the Apple store for repairs?<p>I've got no data on it, but my gut tells me it's a tiny, tiny percentage. I would also bet that switching the entire massive operation over to using pentalobe screws (not to mention the presumably higher cost of the screws themselves) cost more than the revenue they're "losing" to people who would repair old phones themselves.<p>Isn't it more likely that the pentalobe screws, with higher internal surface area than a phillips screw, offer some other benefit? Looking at them I would bet that they stay on automatic screw drivers better than a phillips-head screw.<p>If they really wanted to make it impossible to un-screw them they'd make a screw whose head was in the shape of an Apple logo or something that <i>nobody</i> makes a driver for. It's not really hard to find a pentalobe screwdriver so if they were trying to keep people out it's not working. (Actually, using an Apple logo as the screw-head shape would be kind of interesting, because they might be able to sue anyone who made a matching driver for using their trademark...)

Wasn't it either the Apple II or early Macintoshes that had proprietary screws as well. I think it was Woz in an interview that said he disliked how they wanted to prevent DIYers from messing with the internals.

I'm kinda amazed Apple still have screws at all. I wouldn't be surprised to see them disappear from the exterior of the device in a year or two.

TIL you can post an almost 2 year old article (that has no current merit) and it is actively discussed on HN.