Apple's Right-To-Repair Policy Was Forced By Green Investors and Regulatory Pressure (theverge.com) 61
"In the past, Apple has taken an opposing stance on letting consumers repair their devices. Some of that is changing with Apple's new announcement," writes Slashdot reader wakeboarder. "Apple will sell components like batteries and screens to allow consumers to repair their own devices. This will help reduce e-waste, but will also allow Apple to control the market for parts -- not exactly what right-to-repair activists have fought for."
With that said, Apple "didn't change its policy out of the goodness of its heart," writes The Verge's Maddie Stone. The timing of this announcement was "deliberate," considering Wednesday was a key deadline in the fight over a shareholder resolution environmental advocates filed with the company in September asking Apple to re-evaluate its stance on independent repair. The issue would've likely ended up at the Securities and Exchange Commission. From the report: Apple spokesperson Nick Leahy told The Verge that the program "has been in development for well over a year," describing it as "the next step in increasing customer access to Apple genuine parts, tools, and manuals." Leahy declined to say whether the timing of the announcement was influenced by shareholder pressure. Activist shareholders believe that it was. "The timing is definitely no coincidence," says Annalisa Tarizzo, an advocate with Green Century, the mutual fund company that filed the right-to-repair resolution with Apple in September. As a result of today's announcement, Green Century is withdrawing its resolution, which asked Apple to "reverse its anti repair practices" and evaluate the benefits of making parts and tools more available to consumers.
Apple's initial response to the Green Century resolution was less than conciliatory. Tarizzo says that on October 18 (30 days before the self service announcement), Apple submitted a "no action request" to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking the investor oversight body to block the proposal. According to Tarizzo, Apple's argument before the SEC was that the proposal -- that the company "prepare a report" on the environmental and social benefits of making its devices easier to fix -- ran afoul of shareholder proposal guidance by infringing on Apple's normal business operations. However, earlier this month, the SEC issued new guidance concerning no-action requests that includes a carve-out for proposals that raise "significant social policy issues." In other words, shareholders can bring resolutions that affect a company's day-to-day business operations if those proposals raise issues with significant societal impact. Tarizzo believes that this change made it much more likely the SEC would side with Green Century rather than Apple, particularly since the mutual fund company connected the dots between increased access to repair and the fight against climate change. (Using devices as long as possible through maintenance and repair is one of the best ways to reduce the climate impact of consumer technology since the majority of the emissions associated with our gadgets occur during the manufacturing stage.)
"It wasn't a guarantee that the SEC would side with us, but the new guidance indicates it's very likely we would prevail," Tarizzo says. "It effectively took away a lot of Apple's leverage in the process." Now, Apple seems to have regained some leverage by announcing its new Self Service Repair program on the same day that Green Century was required to respond to the no-action request. Instead of arguing that the SEC should allow the shareholder resolution to move forward, Green Century is now withdrawing the resolution entirely.
With that said, Apple "didn't change its policy out of the goodness of its heart," writes The Verge's Maddie Stone. The timing of this announcement was "deliberate," considering Wednesday was a key deadline in the fight over a shareholder resolution environmental advocates filed with the company in September asking Apple to re-evaluate its stance on independent repair. The issue would've likely ended up at the Securities and Exchange Commission. From the report: Apple spokesperson Nick Leahy told The Verge that the program "has been in development for well over a year," describing it as "the next step in increasing customer access to Apple genuine parts, tools, and manuals." Leahy declined to say whether the timing of the announcement was influenced by shareholder pressure. Activist shareholders believe that it was. "The timing is definitely no coincidence," says Annalisa Tarizzo, an advocate with Green Century, the mutual fund company that filed the right-to-repair resolution with Apple in September. As a result of today's announcement, Green Century is withdrawing its resolution, which asked Apple to "reverse its anti repair practices" and evaluate the benefits of making parts and tools more available to consumers.
Apple's initial response to the Green Century resolution was less than conciliatory. Tarizzo says that on October 18 (30 days before the self service announcement), Apple submitted a "no action request" to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking the investor oversight body to block the proposal. According to Tarizzo, Apple's argument before the SEC was that the proposal -- that the company "prepare a report" on the environmental and social benefits of making its devices easier to fix -- ran afoul of shareholder proposal guidance by infringing on Apple's normal business operations. However, earlier this month, the SEC issued new guidance concerning no-action requests that includes a carve-out for proposals that raise "significant social policy issues." In other words, shareholders can bring resolutions that affect a company's day-to-day business operations if those proposals raise issues with significant societal impact. Tarizzo believes that this change made it much more likely the SEC would side with Green Century rather than Apple, particularly since the mutual fund company connected the dots between increased access to repair and the fight against climate change. (Using devices as long as possible through maintenance and repair is one of the best ways to reduce the climate impact of consumer technology since the majority of the emissions associated with our gadgets occur during the manufacturing stage.)
"It wasn't a guarantee that the SEC would side with us, but the new guidance indicates it's very likely we would prevail," Tarizzo says. "It effectively took away a lot of Apple's leverage in the process." Now, Apple seems to have regained some leverage by announcing its new Self Service Repair program on the same day that Green Century was required to respond to the no-action request. Instead of arguing that the SEC should allow the shareholder resolution to move forward, Green Century is now withdrawing the resolution entirely.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
There's one more reason why today's internet is worthless. Spam posting copy-pasta trollbots such as yourself. Maybe do an addendum to your standard post including that?
Re: Some reasons why today's Internet is worthless (Score:2)
Despite the fact that there is a law on the books which prevents Apple from rejecting consumer-fixed devices (Moss-Magnuson), after years of breaking this law, Apple has finally decided to sort of, kind of comply.
May we all get the same leeway when we encounter a law weâ(TM)d rather not follow.
Just, you know, donâ(TM)t hold you breath.
There's an old auto mechanic's poster that said: (Score:3)
"Repairs $20/hour OR $30/hour if you tried to fix it first"
No doubt given the Apple has made it clear that anyone who botches the job will pay handsomely for Apple to finally do it, they don't expect to lose too much to personal DIY work.
The reason why Apple has resisted right-to-repair is actually professional 3rd party repair shops (who probably know what they're doing) that can cut into Apple's actual service revenue. I'm guessing the program will be heavily tilted to avoid enabling those folks.
Re:There's an old auto mechanic's poster that said (Score:5, Insightful)
I don’t think Apple wants to be in the repair business. They want to be in the “sell a replacement unit” business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to to the rebirthing that happens with repair shops, telling customers about repairs they don't need, telling them the equipment is not repairable so that they take it.
While apple has taken a small step I do like that it involves the customer personally and would open a market for those who can't do it themselves will pay a professional for labour w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell... I'd give even odds that enough people will botch their repair jobs badly enough to require replacement that this will result in a net increase in device sales. These aren't the rather forgiving Heath kits and Radio Shack projects we all soldered together as kids. The tolerances and precision on most modern kit are insane, and give you many MANY more ways to much things up than there used to be. I gave up my electronics workbench, and assorted accessories, two moves ago and haven't missed them.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pixel 6 is relatively easy to repair. Apparently it is possible to make devices with tight tolerances and that are waterproof, and still make them repairable.
https://www.ifixit.com/News/55... [ifixit.com]
They did a couple of things that really help. The screen is glued on, but it's not too bad to repair. Just some heat and a pick. Crucially it's also got a plastic frame and clips, so you can remove it without damaging the OLED display relatively easily. From there everything is easily accessible, including the batte
Re: (Score:2)
> While this might still be difficult for a rando, if the
> parts are available then their local repair shop can
> probably do the job for a fraction of what Apple
> charges.
Perhaps. But my only sympathy here is with the end user; not the repair shop. Too much of the "right to repair" debate smells to me of not being about the rights of the end user at all. Rather, it stinks of businesses, not people, being cheap and lazy and trying to abuse the legal system to force Apple and others to allow th
Re:There's an old auto mechanic's poster that said (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not about average people repairing their own devices. This is about actual experts being able to do it without a license from Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Go away idiot. What I wrote was perfectly clear.
Your only VALID recourse (Score:1)
Your only valid recourse against a manufacturer not doing things the way you want is to not buy their product. They don't owe you anything, you don't owe them anything.
Forcing them to do it your way — against their will — is tyranny. Shareholders have more leverage, but customers do not. (Unless the manufacturer lied to them, of course.)
Re: (Score:2)
However, people can still publicly complain about stuff and encourage others to not buy the product, whether the product itself sucks or the manufacturer is an asshole in some other way.
Also, people can ask the government to pass a law, in a democratic country the government should at least consider doing it if enough people want it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. We live in a society with rules. When companies do something that harms society like exploiting workers or poisoning the environment, or making stuff that explodes, we don't just refrain from buying their stuff. We make laws, and enforce them.
They work within the society we, the people create and rule over (in a democratic society). If they don't like that, they can leave. And we can refuse to admit their product through the border if they're so clever to think that moving will escape oversight.
St
Re: (Score:3)
The whole "well, whaddya gonna do" attitude is the chief reason things have gone as wrong as they have. Businesses may or may not owe customers anything, but they most definitely owe everything to the society that allows them to operate without roving gangs burning down their factories and stores. "Law and order" doesn't just apply to the 'rabble'.
Re: (Score:2)
Extra points for the collectivism-totalitarian pairing by the way, it's like you slept through most of a semester of political theory class and are regurgitating some words you sort of remember being tossed around.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm reasonably — and otherwise — sure, you're an asshole, so what?
The fact remains: businessmen do not need your permission to run their businesses. Doing so is their right.
Re: (Score:1)
The workers' only valid recourse is to change jobs — and work for someone nicer.
Poisoning environment causes actual harm, yes — our legal system has tort litigation just for that!
Citations?
Security (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No need.
Apple knows you want to repair the screen so you get a replacement screen. The fingerprint sensor and/or depth camera have a serial number on them. When you replace the screen, the pairing happens because Apple noted that you were changing the screen and the new part serial number can be associated with.
As opposed to say, LEOs replacing the screen for you with their own hacked fingerprint or camera sensor. Since that was unauthorized, Apple can lock out the sensors so those things won't work
The vuln
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for shills like SuperKendall to talk about how this would lead to increased vulnerabilities in Apple products, and that walled gardens of all sorts are great.
Simple solution: Stop whining like the little bitch you are, and go buy something else. That'll show 'em!
And Walled Gardens are 100% off-topic here. You're just piling-on.
that was my very first reaction (Score:2)
What's making Apple do this ?
There a big fucking company that's going to greenwash just like the rest of big fucking companies do.
Well it's a small step, but as many have pointed out, and rightly so, it's not good enough.
And it's important to keep the big picture in mind here, reducing waste is better than recycling waste.
it's going to be very difficult to force these companies, especially the electronics, to stop being a bunch of garbage generators, we can't even make them stop using styrofoam.
their whole
Shareholder activism worked? (Score:3, Interesting)
This has to be a first.
OTOH, it was always a bit strange that people thought Tim Cook gave a fuck about repair revenue. Apple is a publicly traded company with publicly available revenue figures. The money makers are clearly the App stores, iOS devices, and Macs, in roughly that order. Tim Cook was not fucking with Lois Rossman's repair business to make more money, Tim Cook was fucking with Louis Rossman's shop because change is work and Tim Cook is lazy. With the shareholder proposal Tim Cook can either engage in a lengthy and nasty dispute with his shareholders, whilst fighting Rossman-inspired Right to Repair bills nation-wide, or he can just tell some dude three levels below him to put in some OT to appease the shareholder activists.
It remains to be seen whether the actual repair policy, as executed by Apple employees dealing with Apple customers, is enough to appease Louis Rossman. I haven't watched his videos on that, but the subject lines was "Watch's the Catch"? [youtube.com] so he seems pretty skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
Next step was going to be waterboarding. Where you force the subject to try to breathe through a damp rag.
Re: Shareholder activism worked? (Score:1)
There is also the pouring the water on that rag as it covers his entire face including his eyes so he does not know when the next drench is coming. (don't try this at home).
Needless to say, there is a great possibility of the torture victim drowning during a waterboard session.
Re: Shareholder activism worked? (Score:2)
I don't know why this is modded down as people need to know what our government does in "the war on terror", and it's not hard at all to find out how waterboarding is done.
If it makes people uncomfortable enough to downmod a post like this, then they know what our own government is doing is wrong and they need to put a stop to it.
I wish waterboarding was the worst thing our government does, but everyone knows it gets way more grizzly than this. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
but everyone knows it gets way more grizzly than this.
I couldn't bear to hear the details.
Re: Shareholder activism worked? (Score:2)
I don't either. I already know the grizzly details and I'm not trying to let my imagination fill in the ones I don't know about.
Re: (Score:2)
This has to be a first.
Shareholder activism has worked before on C-suite pay levels and corporate governance because those hit shareholders in the wallet.
This is a rare example of successful shareholder activism for the environment and customer rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Tim Cook was fucking with Louis Rossman's shop because change is work and Tim Cook is lazy.
Tim Cook was fucking with Louis Rossman's shop because repairing devices means fewer people buy new ones, reducing Apple's profit of selling them.
If Tim Cook was just lazy, newer Apple devices would not be made even more difficult to repair - after all, designing the hardware and software to make sure that screens and batteries cannot be replaced by Luis costs money and even makes the parts more expensive.
It remains to be seen whether the actual repair policy, as executed by Apple employees dealing with Apple customers, is enough to appease Louis Rossman. I haven't watched his videos on that, but the subject lines was "Watch's the Catch"? so he seems pretty skeptical.
Because Apple did something like this before (Independent repair program or something like that) and it
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever needed an Apple device repaired? And then taken it to the Apple Store?
I've had to take in 2 phones. One was my iPhone 6—the first couple people that looked at it didn't see much wrong with it, but the last person said that the battery was obviously messed up, it was discolouring my screen, and she gave me a new one on the spot. This was a couple weeks before my AppleCare+ coverage ran out.
The second time, again, my AppleCare+ coverage was running out, and I dropped and cracked my screen.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a couple weeks before my AppleCare+ coverage ran out.
I assume that this is some kind of insurance or extended warranty thing. If so, yeah, while it is in effect the company has to repair your device for free (or whatever is specified in the contract).
From what I understand, the problem is 1) when the device is out of warranty and 2) component level repair. For example, if the charging port breaks, Apple wants the authorized repair shop to replace the whole motherboard instead of just soldering a new charge port. Same with some chip.
The fact that people like L
Re: (Score:2)
Applecare+ is their own warranty thing, yes, but it basically just reduces the price of an incident. It's not that you don't pay for a repair, it's that it largely defrays the cost of the repair. A battery replacement is zero dollars under the plan, but giving you a new phone isn't usually part of the deal. A cracked screen has an in-warranty cost and a much higher out-of-warranty cost.
My feeling is that third-party repair shops will do things for you when nobody else CAN. If your Mac is 8 years old and off
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody there can repair your device. Louis is pretty skilled; he can repair things that will foil most authorized shops.
The way I understand it, Apple specifically forbids authorized service centers from doing the types of repairs that Louis does. They may even conduct audits looking for parts the repair center is not supposed to have (like those chips).
Apple trying to break people's phones or make them unrepairable to try to win back business is really counter-productive.
That may be true, but there is some value in encouraging users to upgrade sooner than they would like. I remember a backlash a few years ago, when it turned out that Apple has been slowing old phones down (with new updates). Apple said that it was done to increase stability a
Re: (Score:2)
My actual experience with Apple is similar to Dixie_flatline's. I actually got a full motherboard replacement for free just because I was being a nice customer and some other chintzy-ass part was replaceable under a "we fucked this up" repair program. I told them I spilled Dr Pepper on the keyboard and that's why it didn't work, and then when they were cataloging my devices problems prior to shipping I pointed out one that qualified for a free repair, so I got a lot more work than I deserved. The closest th
Re: (Score:2)
It remains to be seen whether the actual repair policy, as executed by Apple employees dealing with Apple customers, is enough to appease Louis Rossman. I haven't watched his videos on that, but the subject lines was "Watch's the Catch"? [youtube.com] so he seems pretty skeptical.
The whole Right to Repair movement is so irrational that expecting Rossman to have a reasonable response to anything is ridiculous.
Ever since his lying BBC-enabled "expose", he has no other goal than self-aggrandizement.
Apple's CEO (Score:2)
Sitting in the huge the big executive chair, huge desk in front of him, he is wearing a pinstripe suit and smoking a Cuban cigar. Finally in the giant wood paneled boardroom he mutters "All right, we will give the little bastards their (mocking) "Right to repair" (/mocking), but we still control the supply chain! Got it?"
Re: (Score:1)
Sitting in the huge the big executive chair, huge desk in front of him, he is wearing a pinstripe suit and smoking a Cuban cigar. Finally in the giant wood paneled boardroom he mutters "All right, we will give the little bastards their (mocking) "Right to repair" (/mocking), but we still control the supply chain! Got it?"
LOL, If that little pip squeak took a drag off of a Cuban he'd be coughing for a week. I bet he'd go right over to the trash can. Same thing with Jobs. Now the Woz could smoke a Cuban I bet.
I know. I had a boss that used to smoke Cigars during the managers meeting. We'd always know if someone was trying to fake it. We'd watch them just about turn green. Fun times.
Long term.... (Score:2)
I doubt this will amount to much? I mean, as the Mac lineup moves away from Intel architecture and towards their own M1 series ARM processors? They've integrated the RAM and the GPU into the CPU. That means, you now have a motherboard that exists just to run that one (big) chip, plus the mass storage device(s) and ports.
If you succeed in forcing Apple to put the M1 series chip on a socket vs soldering it, you're still talking about a component that comprises most of the computer. So how cost-effective is
And now...power draw as a metric (Score:1)
"Using devices as long as possible through maintenance and repair is one of the best ways to reduce the climate impact of consumer technology since the majority of the emissions associated with our gadgets occur during the manufacturing stage."
Apple IIe (1983): 20 watts power draw
Apple Mac Pro (2020): 100 to 200 watts power draw
So we should go back about 38 years in computing and use Apple IIe's. Gotta dust off that old TRS-80 too. According to Green Century, upgrading technology is totally unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait! (Score:2)
You mean.... they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts?
Well, knock me over with a feather!
Bullshit (Score:1)
The question to follow is.. (Score:2)
What are they going to charge for the parts?
I was quoted us$750 for an old MacBook pro motherboard and $350 for labor.
The laptop was already a good couple of years old, so a working and used one was way less than that.
Oh forgot, the âoegenius âoe also said âoejust buy a new oneâ
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What are they going to charge for the parts?
I was quoted us$750 for an old MacBook pro motherboard and $350 for labor.
The laptop was already a good couple of years old, so a working and used one was way less than that.
Oh forgot, the âoegenius âoe also said âoejust buy a new oneâ
But what you don't know is how much the Labor Cost for Troubleshooting and Component-Level Repair would be. At today's bench-tech rates, you might well be begging for that Mobo swap!
The reason why Apple doesn't offer sone sort of "Flat Rate" repair is that even they don't do component-level troubleshooting and repair. It just doesn't make sense to spend 4 hours finding one bad BGA solder connection, open resistor, micro-cracked PCB, etc. it just doesn't.
Shareholders ARE the owners (Score:4, Informative)
Shareholders are the owners of the company, not the CEO and friends.
The CEO's job is to do what the shareholders want, not what s/he wants.
"Activist shareholders" are share-owners of the company who understand that they are the owners, and that the CEO is their lackey. The share-holders express their will over how their investment should be handled, and the boot-licking business 'news' outlets report it as some rogue, anti-capitalist 'activists' causing trouble. It is, in reality, the owners expressing their will. Owners exerting their will over their companies is what capitalism is all about, folks.
Any C-level who expresses disdain at what the fucking owners of the company want should be summarily dismissed.
American CEOs have done a great job of bamboozling the public into thinking that they are the masters of their companies' fate. They are not. They are employees of the company-of-shareholders, and serve at the share-holders' feet.
Yeah. This is currently BS. (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/2jCtVDCiY_8 [youtu.be]
The video above explains why this is a worthless bit of virtue signaling to make the regulatory bodies go away.
So, unless something changes, this is a fan-wank.
Wrong fight (Score:1)
"Right to repair" without "Designed to be repaired" is useless. Apple will make *more* money now in new items that will replace the item that was screwed up by the attempted repair, not to mention the now useless parts you bought.