Let's just remember that the reason behind these "innovations" are strictly coming because of external pressures, if it wasn't for those, they would probably make the phones implode into a tiny black hole and charge you an implosion fee for that.
Cool that they are doing this but it's not out of their own kind heart.
I think it's important to recognize that morality does not apply to any corporation. Corporations respond to incentives and disincentives, that's it. If we want to change the way a corporation behaves we need to arrange things so that its incentives align with our own.
People like to ascribe malice to Apple's history of making difficult-to-repair devices. I think that's wrong-headed. It's more appropriate to say that Apple had higher priorities such as miniaturization, performance, battery life, and ease of manufacture.
Now that the right to repair movement has been gaining steam and regulations are being drafted, Apple has been given the incentive to prioritize repairability. Thus they are responding to that incentive with the iPhone 16 (with its new battery adhesive), the repair kits, and the documentation they've provided. They likely also see the opportunity to get ahead of their competitors and tout repairability as a competitive advantage. I would not be surprised at all to see future models have even higher repairability scores with Apple aiming to become the market leader.
As for the serial numbering and activation of replacement parts: that also has a simple explanation that doesn't involve a nefarious lock-in plot. Witness the recent attacks in Lebanon. How were they carried out? By a supply-chain attack! This sort of capability represents more than a physical danger from explosives or chemical weapons, it's also a major cyber security and privacy threat. Supply-chain attacks via counterfeit, backdoored parts is a huge area of concern for Apple. The potential is there for the company to suffer severe reputational damage should a large-scale attack occur.
Downplaying how much Apple fought to prevent R2R around the world.
Meanwhile Steam chose to make the Steam Deck as reparable as possible then revised it to be even easier.
Both of these options exist, but Apple is one of the greediest companies in the world.
> tout repairability as a competitive advantage
Haha, can't wait for "Repairability. That's iPhone" ads. I won't even be mad when it happens. Go for it Tim!
Best part is that when their devices are repairable, they'll turn their lobbying might towards supporting repairability legislation. That way they ensure they're not paying a cost in terms of manufacturing ease, or thickness that their competitors aren't. Again, fine by me. As long as all our devices become repairable over time, that's a win for all of us.
I really don't see why we should refrain from judging a corporation on its values. Morality applies to people, and corporations are (still) entirely driven by people. If Apple's C-suite and a couple activist shareholders wanted to make it an eco-friendly company, they surely could. Instead, Apple has spend many years lobbying against any kind of regulations around repairability.
> Apple had higher priorities such as miniaturization, performance, battery life, and ease of manufacture.
You forgot profit at the head of that list!
Switching from torx screws to pentalobe on iPhones is completely inexcusable. More expensive, less available tooling, no torque advantage. [0]
[0]: https://www.ifixit.com/News/14279/apples-diabolical-plan-to-...
If that was how Apple behaved, it would actually excusable but it did oh so many things which make absolutely no sense other than "business sense". Why did they have to use some super strong glue for their batteries when a tape or a set of screws did the job in the past? Why use some screws from hell which take 1 wrong twist to mess up? Why require 10 pressure points to be pressed at the same time with thin clamps normally not available to anyone?
Nobody really complains about parts having to be changed completely because they are too minuterized: that's the price of having a tiny form factor, we get that. But it's all the BS around it, which often was shown to work just fine in the past, that irks many about Apple's practices.
What you are describing would be totally fine, if corporations would not be able to spend money on branding and/or humans were not susceptible to that.
This is much needed nuance that is sorely missing from these discussions. I'm sure it will fall on mostly deaf ears, but thank you for that.
There's a lot of criticism against Apple for not doing things in the right order. Repairability is one of them. Would it have been better for their devices to be easier to repair from the original iPhone? Sure. Would it have been better for you, me, or Apple to focus on repairability above all else? Absolutely not.
In the meantime, Apple have built a device service model that looks like this for the average consumer:
Having a high degree of confidence that the product will be serviceable with OEM parts, which do not impact the resale value by causing buyer confusion, guarantees of these replacement parts working, having these parts available for years and years, and that the company is not going to disappear, through a network of nearby first and third party repair shops, at a transparent and reasonable price.
Like most criticism of Apple, there is a concentrated yelling at one particular tree, while missing the forest around. It can be valid criticism and missing the bigger picture at the same time.
Apples main objective is to make tech jewelry. Thats what made their company successful, and they have no reason to switch from that. With every iPhone or Mac release, their software is still is absolute trash compared to Android or Linux (My S24 can be plugged into a display and used as a computer with Samsung Dex for example), and thats by design - people who buy these devices don't make
Exclusivity is a big part of that. They want to keep things in house to make sure that their devices are seen as "the best". If you can buy a used iPhone and get it repaired for cheap, that means that people of lower income can have these devices, which decreases their standing. Preventing this is a well known marketing strategy with luxury items, from watches, to cars, to clothes. That is why they have serial numbers/activation, not because of supply chain attacks, which are not an issue for any developed country due to mechanisms in place.
The moment you spread fud, to keep on doing the bad behaviour you are showing and try to political destroy the mechanisms that prevent your bad behaviour, it is intentional behaviour. DOT.ENTER.SEND.
This has long been a kind of systematic public relations problem for the EU; generally, the fruits of EU regulation become, in the minds of the consumer, an example of corporate benevolence, with the EU's role being solely as a thing to blame when things go wrong.
The problem with EU regulation is basically that it regulates foreign companies and products without creating domestic products.
I think for many Europeans, we 100% know that these changes are thanks to the EU: GDPR, right to be forgotten, right to repair, etc.
I think it's some people from the outside (i.e. the US) who are absolutely anti-government but pro corporations-as-a-government which can't see that a for-profit company is like a wheel: it needs a stick for it to go straight.
The EU being EUseful.
All product development is essentially from external pressure. Whether it's from customers, competitors or regulators.
Of course they'd rather sell you the same thing every year without any R&D expenses, if they could. Anyone would. Pointing this out isn't really saying anything
No company does things out of the kindness of their own heart. That's just not how enterprise is designed to work, and it is a mistake to ever assume otherwise. Regulation needs to always be the driving force for something like this.
There are companies built around sustainability and other concepts which are for the consumer.
The difference here is for-profit and for-profit at all costs.
Are they seriously praising apple for repairability ?
The same company that locks people people and third party company out of repairing their phone with parts that are serial coded. I don't know any other company that does that.
And they can't even pretend it's for security like with faceid, it would be possible to wipe the phone when a part is not recognized. I'm sure people would be fine with it.
I believe they are only making these changes to appease the law makers, and in the case of the battery because Europe said they will need to be replaceable.
This is just corporate doing corporate stuff, nothing to praise.
For me the day they locked me out of my apple watch because I dared to replace it's broken screen is when I realized apple is full of shit when it's about repairability and especially about environment.
The reason they do the serial coding is to reduce the incentive for stealing iPhones. Due to locking, you can't really sell a stolen iPhone. Instead, thieves break it apart and sell the parts. Serial coding disincentives this. I know many people that had their iPhone stolen and it is an awful experience.
I'm a simple man, I'd never have the ability to solder and fix my own phone. Instead of repairing it myself, I'd always go to an official repair shop. I'm not benefitting from non-coded parts. On the other hand, reducing the likelihood of people stealing my phone is a huge upside for me. So for me, and people like me, these measures that Apple takes are a net benefit. I understand that for tinkerers it is a different equation - but you have to agree that for the majority of iPhone owners the equation might also tip in favour of not having to worry about stolen phones instead of being able to fix their own hardware (which most normal people also would never do).
>As for the serial numbering and activation of replacement parts: that also has a simple explanation that doesn't involve a nefarious lock-in plot.
People really need to use their brain more.
If parts pairing was to deter theft, then it would work like this - any time a stolen part is detected in a non paired phone, it would notify the user and Apple, and allow that part to be tracked down. Or, just make the phone completely inoperable.
It doesn't work like this. Swapping to a unpaired display makes the display still work plenty fine with some limitations.
EVERY SINGLE DECISION that Apple makes is for revenue gathering, and keeping their devices in the status of high end tech jewelry. They will never be a company that gives a fuck about things like right to repair, or offering more features to consumers for free.
I see this argument constantly, but how many times have people had their phone stolen?
Isn't it a better option to just have the phone have proper robust security preventing people without proper permissions to access personal data?
It just seems a bit much just to prevent an unlikely scenario. I think that its purpose is for Apple to control who repairs and gain revenue from it.
Wait, how is this a benefit for you or a deterent for thieves? iPhones get stolen all the time. Leave your iPhone unattended in a public space and I guarantee it will disappear in no time. Where do you see the reduction in iPhone thefts? This feels like a myth that keeps being spread around HN.
This would be a valid response if first party parts were easily available to be bought directly from manufacturers.
> I don't know any other company that does that.
It's common in the car industry as well. Seems to be the reason my airbags are still in place after 10 years while a certain popular german brand here is uninsurable because it's not a question if but when the airbags will be stolen.
Yeah, wasn't it an Audi a few series back where the headlights were ridiculously expensive, but you didn't even need to unlock the car to remove the whole light fixture? If you had a long metal rod you could reach in under the light, release a hook and then just walk off with the lights.
Well, they just introduced the “Repair Assistant” which allows you to pair new parts after a repair. They talk about it in this article, had you read it.
But, yeah, about fucking time, I agree on that.
i did read it in full but i knew too well apple to not trust it, i believe it's going to be another half done attempt that is overcomplicated and totally inefficient.
Like, i don't know... the recent self repair program. cost as much as sending your device to apple but you get to do the manual labor and take the risk to break it. WHAT A DEAL !
Edit: went to look on the Repair Assistant, it sounded promising until i read that it requires you (who repair the phone) to be able to authenticate with the Apple Account of the owner of the phone that you are taking a part of.
Basically it means that every iphone thrown away that the owner didn't take the time to remove it's apple account, and god knows people don't care about this even if they should, is useless.
You also can't buy a part on the internet because how do you know it's been taken from a phone that got it's apple id logged off ? it throws away 90% of the available phone to scavenge.
And most important, you can't buy third party parts. Why can i replace the shaft drive on my bmw, which is deadly important part, with third party shaft drive yet i can't replace iphone battery with a non apple one ?? Does apple consider us to be that retarded that we can't buy batteries from genuine reseller ?
It's good that we go in a direction where we have accessibility to the devices components and the high end technology. I can't assess how easy it is for the layman to repair an iPhone, but the inertia is there to make a device longer usable.
How about they just get rid of that nonsense instead?
All this just means that replacement parts are expensive, repairs are expensive and Apple continues to control the ecosystem. I can't believe people are praising Apple for it.
This is a significant step forward for Apple. As someone who's struggled with battery replacements in the past, I'm impressed by this innovation. The use of electrically debonding adhesive is clever and could be a game-changer for repairability.
However, I'm curious about the long-term implications. Will this adhesive maintain its properties over the device's lifespan? And what about the environmental impact of this new material?
I'm actually curious what would happen if the adhesive did stop working? The phone is so tightly packed, it doesn't seem like there is any room for the battery to move around anyway.
Related:
Apple Shares Full iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Pro Repair Manuals
More discussion on the iFixit post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41623251
This was mentioned in the Apple environmental report. They want their devices to be more repairable.
Or, crazy idea: Just use adhevise that isn't unnecessarily strong.
How does your crazy idea perform when that adhesive comes loose after being exposed to 100 hours of vibration?
The battery is still held in there pretty well even without any adhesive. See also: Any phone battery before ~2015.
Always cool to see innovative solutions like this
Forgot the /s
No.