All they are doing is shifting the responsibility and liability into you.
They want to control the discussion about R2R. Rather than having pro-consumer groups set the rules, they rather have their influence dictate the rules to R2R from the inside. They know that participating in the process both makes them look good, but also let’s them control the discussion.
They want you using authorized Apple parts using authorized Apple tools and installing authorized Apple software. But using your labor to do it. Probably one of the biggest bottlenecks in the phone repair chain is the labor to open up and repair the phone. So for Apple it is a win-win to off-load that manual labor onto the user. If they fuck up the phone, then it is a win for Apple because that person now needs a new phone. If the repair goes successfully, it is still a win for Apple because the user is still locked into their ecosystem and they just bought some highly marked-up parts and didn’t give more work to their probably overloaded repair supply chain.
Same as oil companies claiming they care about going green now after denying the mere existence of climate change tooth and nail for decades. Apple even already confirmed that they’ll weasle their way out of the EU law for replacable phone batteries with the waterproof loophole.
I could only find a rumour that they were trying to circumvent it.
i hadn’t heard of it before but i found a verge article that says
The battery regulation contains an exemption for devices “that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion.”
the actual legislation (linked in the verge article) says
… this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users.
im far from being a legal expert and i know apple has its own private army of lawyers, but it seems like it will be an uphill battle to say the iphone qualifies for that exemption.
Louis Rossmann’s video is a good take on this. Basically the anti-repair stance they have held for so long is evolving into a passive approach where it is either too costly or too difficult to repair
What they are saying is that Apple is now fine with people repairing their own devices because the cost of the equipment/parts to replace parts in their own devices likely is more expensive than the average Joe is willing to sink into a DIY project, with none guaranteed results, as opposed to just send it to Apple for a repair.
Sure people can now send it to a third party for a fix but if the cost for a repair at a third party shop is marginally lower than an Apple repair, Apple is betting that a customer will likely choose them vs. a third party.
Apple will be gatekeepers over NEW replacement parts for their devices so it’s a win win win for them. They win if you buy their parts to replace parts, they win if you take it to a third party and you buy their parts and they win if you take it to Apple for service and repairs.
Labor is too expensive, better to push it back on to the consumer and make bank on the parts
