Apple's Independent Repair Program is Invasive To Shops and Their Customers, Contract Shows (vice.com) 71
The contract states independent repair shops must agree to audits and inspections by Apple, even if they leave the program. From a report: Last August, in what was widely hailed a victory for the right-to-repair movement, Apple announced it would begin selling parts, tools, and diagnostic services to independent repair shops in addition to its "authorized" repair partners. Apple's so-called Independent Repair Provider (IRP) program had its limitations, but was still seen as a step forward for a company that's fought independent repair for years. Recently, Motherboard obtained a copy of the contract businesses are required to sign before being admitted to Apple's IRP Program. The contract, which has not previously been made public, sheds new light on a program Apple initially touted as increasing access to repair but has been remarkably silent on ever since.
It contains terms that lawyers and repair advocates described as "onerous" and "crazy"; terms that could give Apple significant control over businesses that choose to participate. Concerningly, the contract is also invasive from a consumer privacy standpoint. In order to join the program, the contract states independent repair shops must agree to unannounced audits and inspections by Apple, which are intended, at least in part, to search for and identify the use of "prohibited" repair parts, which Apple can impose fines for. If they leave the program, Apple reserves the right to continue inspecting repair shops for up to five years after a repair shop leaves the program. Apple also requires repair shops in the program to share information about their customers at Apple's request, including names, phone numbers, and home addresses.
It contains terms that lawyers and repair advocates described as "onerous" and "crazy"; terms that could give Apple significant control over businesses that choose to participate. Concerningly, the contract is also invasive from a consumer privacy standpoint. In order to join the program, the contract states independent repair shops must agree to unannounced audits and inspections by Apple, which are intended, at least in part, to search for and identify the use of "prohibited" repair parts, which Apple can impose fines for. If they leave the program, Apple reserves the right to continue inspecting repair shops for up to five years after a repair shop leaves the program. Apple also requires repair shops in the program to share information about their customers at Apple's request, including names, phone numbers, and home addresses.
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are legally required to let you repair our stuff, we will at least make it so inconvenient for you that you just don't want to.
Explainin' to do (Score:4, Funny)
, and home addresses.
In a New York Italian accent: How else can we send Guido and his boys by to 'splain to peoples dat you just don't go to no independent repair shops?
Re: (Score:1)
That's funny, but more likely they want to track repairs (especially under warranty) are actually from legitimate users and not just parts being resold on eBay.
Re:Explainin' to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the Magnusson-Moss warranty act prohibits voiding the warranty just because a third party did the work... unless Apple has filed for and received an exception which has been published in the Federal Register.
On parts, not labor (Score:2)
I believe that's true of the warranty on parts, not on labor.
So Apple could charge for the service of fixing a phone after non-OEM parts have been installed, they can't charge for replacement *parts* they put in under the parts half of the warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
I went and looked at the actual code (15 usc 2302(c) [cornell.edu]), it's on either but the prohibition is only in effect if the parts/labor are not free. So it looks like as long as the warranty work is free they can require that the work be done by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that part is true. If you have it done by somei lse even though it's free, I think the effect is they can cancel only the labor part of the warranty going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the Magnusson-Moss warranty act prohibits voiding the warranty just because a third party did the work... unless Apple has filed for and received an exception which has been published in the Federal Register.
It certainly wouldn't fly in the EU. Apple would have to prove the unauthorized repair broke the device to get out of warranty, and even that would only get them out of repairing the stuff broken by third-parties, not other unrelated failures.
Re: (Score:1)
If the phone is still under warranty, I'd imagine that having it fixed by a 3rd party repair shop would void that warranty (and that's fair enough)
Not the case here in Oz [accc.gov.au] The whole void warranty sticker is bs to consumer expectations of product lifetime and factory defects known or unknown. Here we don't need to purchase the mostly "forced" upon consumers of "extended warranties" as they are mostly money for an Americanized system, hence a rip off here to the unlearned.
Re: (Score:2)
If the phone is still under warranty, I'd imagine that having it fixed by a 3rd party repair shop would void that warranty (and that's fair enough)
Not the case here in Oz [accc.gov.au] The whole void warranty sticker is bs to consumer expectations of product lifetime and factory defects known or unknown. Here we don't need to purchase the mostly "forced" upon consumers of "extended warranties" as they are mostly money for an Americanized system, hence a rip off here to the unlearned.
OTOH, you most likely pay more upfront to cover the expected warranty claims due to NZ law. The costs are borne by all purchasers since Apple isn’t doing repairs for free; they just collect their money upfront. If fewer repairs are needed than planned it’s extra money for them; in the case of higher costs they eat them.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK having a third party repair your phone does not affect the warranty unless the subsequent failure is due to that repair work.
If it were any other way then pretty much anything would void your warranty. Someone dinged your car and you got the paint touched up? Warranty void.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Explainin' to do (Score:2)
Why does that matter for a verification? Your name and address are a matter of public record for most people unless you actively go out of your way to hide it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's not legitimate about selling parts on ebay?
Re: Explainin' to do (Score:2)
What I meant was shops like this claiming to Apple to do repairs, they get the parts for free, then they turn around and sell the unused parts on eBay.
That's basically what Louis Rossman wants to do - he wants Apple to supply him with any parts he needs for free or cheap so he can make a profit on the sale and repair.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of a few reasons for this.
1) Apple wants to maintain competent repair shops. If they're going to repair Apple stuff, they will be competent at doing so. This includes technicians who are trained and have the tools and all that.
2) Apple wants to ensure consistency - so if you're going to repair Apple's stuff, you're going to be forced to use Apple's genuine parts. Even if it's out of warranty, you can't offer the customer a cheaper third party alternative part instead.
3) Apple has a right to audi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
i was slightly mis-remembering the quote, my apologies. i really should add an ellipsis.
anyway, it's meant as a joke about how you can take quotes out of context (clearly Chomsky was referring to the mentality of the oppressors), but also a reference to how Chomsky does engage in some mild rhetoric to engage his audience, despite his claims not to.
i guess you can call that disinformation. most jokes are, technically.
Re: (Score:1)
you have no "right" to repair
they have no right to outlaw it
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "outlawed". It's just that Apple has no responsibility to facilitate third-party repairs.
Re: (Score:2)
yes. or, as i said, "you have no right to repair". they're equivalent if you think about it for two seconds. Apple doesn't have to repair your device either, though they may choose to do so if it's in their interests.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is, you don't have a right to repair because you have no recourse if a device is irreparable, even if the manufacturer made it irreparable on purpose. If the device cannot be repaired by anyone but Apple, then all you can do about it is not buy the device. You have no right to force Apple to make it reparable by a third party, nor do you have a right to force Apple to make it reparable by you yourself, nor finally do you have a right to force Apple to repair it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
(apart from whatever mandated warranty period. I should have mentioned that, but since we're talking about third-party repairs it's safe to assume the device is out of warranty so it's a moot point.)
Re:Makes me even more confident when I buy apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple profits enough off of making people pay to replace their devices over minor, repairable damage that it's worth it for them to aggressively defend the practice with lawyers. Think how many people they must be fucking over for that to be the case.
Re:Makes me even more confident when I buy apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Makes me even more confident when I buy apple (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t think âoespamâ means what you think it does.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Makes me even more confident when I buy apple (Score:2)
Do youâ(TM)d rather not know that a repair shop just stuck a pulled part into your phone, didnâ(TM)t trll you, and sold it to you at list price?
Whatevs.
Re: Makes me even more confident when I buy appl (Score:1)
If apple didn't go full asshole mode in making sure you can't buy genuine parts, you wouldn't have that issue.
Ffs, they even forbid factories from selling chips to anyone but them. If the $10 charging chip of an iPhone dies, you have two choices : buy a new phone (the apple way), or buy a charging case, rip the chip from it, and throw now useless battery of the charging case away.
Whether you want it if not, apple is the piece of shit here, especially in these days when reducing waste and consumption should
Re: Makes me even more confident when I buy apple (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I should be fair. In some cases they do let you transplant parts from other phones. They just spam you with an iOS notification that says the part is suspect. This is not based on any internal quality measurement of the part or whether the part is an Apple part or not, but whether the part was signed off on by an Apple-certified technician. Because that's what matters: that Apple got paid the certification fee. Not whether the part is good or not.
It would be too expensive to put complicated authentication chips on each part. Instead they went for the simplest solution. ROM chips with nothing more then serial-numbers which are paired to the device at the factory. These chips could easily be dumped and spoofed so just because they have an authentic apple serial doesn't mean the part is genuine. An apple-certified shop has the tools to pair a new piece of hardware (otherwise they wouldn't be able to do any repairs) and that's why all the ominous terms
Re: (Score:1)
You can replace many parts in any device with any number of pieces. The problem is the warranty, security and privacy implications. If you can put in any screen or thumbprint reader or camera, you can easily subvert the security of the system.
With batteries it's even worse, you go to an 'authorized' repair person, they put in a cheap part from China (like that Louis Rossmann on YouTube does), the thing explodes and it's all Apple's fault. Apple had this happen several years ago, they were being blamed for M
Re:Makes me even more confident when I buy apple (Score:4, Informative)
That's more or less crap ... spoofing a moving image of a face, a fingerprint, etc is actually much more difficult than it sounds. This is just Apple's excuse for consumer-unfriendly policies.
BTW - I also had a genuine MacBook charger (original with the laptop) that frayed and caught fire.
Re: (Score:1)
And parts handled by people who wipe their behind using the wrong hand, not that it's any more relevant than your 'point'.
Re: (Score:2)
There are three parties, The Criminal, The Victim and The Enforcer. When V joins hands with E it is possible to prevent crime. Example theft, burglaries, etc
Enforcement is difficult when V does not cooperate with E. Example: If you consider prostitutes and drug addicts as victims of the crime, it is very difficult.
In this case, if you consider Apple users to be V, they cooperate with your nominal C. Till t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how charging Li-ion batteries works and is not why they explode or catch fire. Li-ion batteries are charged exactly the same as lead-acid batteries are, just with different voltages. The voltage curves look broadly similar, too. Ni-MH batteries are the kind which have the annoyingly flat curve, but this just means that you have to keep charging for a while after it reaches full voltage. You have to charge Ni-MH batteries in constant current mode and monitor the voltage to know when to stop charg
Re:Makes me even more confident when I buy apple (Score:4, Insightful)
A resold part is not counterfeit.
I want outta here! (Score:3)
Five year requirement? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple -- if you leave the repair program, change the holding company that owns the shop. A new LLC won't be liable to a contract with Apple "allowing" for inspections for five more years. If an Apple rep still tries to push their way in, castle doctrine applies...
Changing holding companies to get out of contracts is generally frowned upon by courts.
Re: (Score:2)
So is indentured servitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Closing your business and starting a different one is perfectly legal.
Sure it is, but closing a business and then opening a similar one to escape contractual obligations, while not illegal, doesn't generally get you out of those obligations.
Re: (Score:1)
It does when said contractual obligations are fucking outrageous.
Re: (Score:2)
It does when said contractual obligations are fucking outrageous.
True, but that’s a court’s call; and a court is likely to take a dim view of changing the LLC just to get out of a contract. Especially since the new company is still at the same location, using the same equipment and inventory, paying rent to the same landlord, etc.
No Wonder (Score:2)
Force to give customer details - illegal in Europe (Score:2)
A shop can no longer insist on name, address, etc, before they sell you something. They can only do it if it is necessary for the sale; just because Apple wants it I doubt that this would be deemed necessary. All thanks to the GDPR.
Help Louis Rossmann (Score:3, Informative)
Fuck Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Ditto. And Ajit Pai, let us not forget that pile of steaming excrement.
Re: (Score:1)
It's trolls like you who give Apple a bad name.
Who didn't see this coming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, who didn't see this coming? Raise your hand....anyone?
"Sure, you can repair our stuff as long as you meet this 500-page list of nutball shit and also give us the right to fuck your wives, daughters, and infants, or pimp them out as we see fit."
no Apple fan boys (Score:1)
l never got how anyone could be fan of Apple or any other large corporation. Sure, when you have shares... Or when you're rooting for the underdog. But this story shows the true face of the dominating corporation that Apple is. They have no need for fans. So stop being that.
Why oh Why (Score:1)