Apple Puts iPhone Durability Ahead of Easy Repairs, Exec Says 73
Apple prioritizes device durability over easier repairs, according to John Ternus, the company's head of hardware engineering, in a recent interview with YouTuber MKBHD. "It's objectively better for the customer to have that reliability," Ternus stated, adding that it is "ultimately better for the planet" due to significantly lower failure rates. Apple tests over 10,000 units of each product before release and incorporates real-world concerns into its testing suite.
Then why so thin? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If you really want repairability, there's always the fairphone. I seriously doubt their claims about being greener, though.
Re: Then why so thin? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You could apply that argument to cars as well.
Not really. A heavier car uses more fuel and causes more damage during accidents.
But there's no disadvantage to me in a slightly thicker phone since I'm putting it in a rugged case with a card caddy glued to the back. If the phone+case+caddy is already 12 mm thick, I don't really care about an extra 2 mm.
Re: (Score:3)
Heavier in the 80s?
The 1989 Accord was under 2,800lbs. The new one is 3,200lbs to 3,500lbs. Chevy Malibu's hovered around 3,200lbs since the 60s, but the 2013 8th gen hit 3,600lbs. The mid-80s BMW 3-series was 2,600lbs at its heaviest where the current version ranges from 3,200lbs to over 4,300lbs. That's just sedans. Equivalent SUVs are several hundred pounds heavier across the board. Funnily enough, curb weights had been declining over the past decade but EVs have bucked that trend in dramatic fashion.
Car
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, although Apple is a premium brand, there are plenty of less expensive phones where the cost of labor to repair one isn't worth it when a replacement can just be substituted. It might be economical to have the defective unit shipped back overseas to be refurbished, but eventually it'll be more economical to just disassemble it to reclaim valuable parts/materials.
Durability over serviceability is preferable where capital is chea
Re: (Score:2)
Then they'd need to put a bigger battery in and that costs more money.
Also, although Apple is a premium brand, there are plenty of less expensive phones where the cost of labor to repair one isn't worth it when a replacement can just be substituted. It might be economical to have the defective unit shipped back overseas to be refurbished, but eventually it'll be more economical to just disassemble it to reclaim valuable parts/materials.
Durability over serviceability is preferable where capital is cheap and labor is expensive. That's predominantly true in the markets that Apple is targeting.
Bigger battery?
You mean like THIS?
https://www.macrumors.com/2024... [macrumors.com]
https://www.macrumors.com/2024... [macrumors.com]
Disassemble to Reclaim Valuable Materials?
You mean like THIS?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Next Objection?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a thriving iPhone repair industry, despite Apple's attempts to kill it off. Clearly it very much is worth repairing them to many people.
Even just being able to replace the battery would extend the life of many devices considerably. The EU is doing the right thing by making that mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Prioritizing durability over ease of repairs makes a lot of sense: why spend money repairing things, when you can just make them so they don't *need* repairs in the first place? That tracks.
The problem is that they're also prioritizing a lot of other things over ease-of-repairs. Thin-ness and sleekness, lower manufacturing cost, speed, battery life, you name it, almost everything gets prioritized over ease-of-repair. There are marke
Re:Then why so thin? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that they're also prioritizing a lot of other things over ease-of-repairs. Thin-ness and sleekness, lower manufacturing cost, speed, battery life, you name it, almost everything gets prioritized over ease-of-repair.
They also prioritize difficulty of repairs over ease of repairs.
I can think of only a single example where they did something for robustness that makes repair harder, and that's gluing the front glass, digitizer, and LCD panel together as a sandwich. It makes repair more expensive, but not enough more expensive for me to care that much.
But the things they've done that make repair harder for the sake of making it harder include:
And so on.
Re: (Score:3)
The phones are repariable all right. Yes the technician needs more experience, but that's not a breaking problem. What makes Apple stuff difficult, and at times impossible to repair, is the unavailability of parts, and serialization. That is, for some parts, even if you get e.g. a chip from a donor board, it will not work unless you have Apple service software available to ok the serial number of that chip to work on the phone. Which you don't.
Compare this to the John Deere tractor, for which you can replac
Re: (Score:2)
Compare this to the John Deere tractor, for which you can replace a broken fuel line yourself, but the tractor will not start before the John Deere guy visits it with his laptop. The difference is that the John Deere guy is available to visit, even if after a week or two of wait.
By which time your crops are dead and you've lost millions of dollars. As a result, a lot of farmers are rejecting John Deere's newer tractors in favor of other brands, and John Deere is doing mass layoffs [michiganfarmnews.com] because of poor sales. Of course, John Deere is spinning this as being caused by a "declining farm economy and concerns over high interest rates", but meanwhile, major competitors like Kubota saw increased revenue in 2023.
Basically, the way I would interpret things, John Deere got too greedy, and en mas
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly sounds great and all, except for that obsession with making each generation of phone thinner than the previous one. The thinness comes at the cost of durability. If they made them just a tad thicker they could give us durability and serviceability all in one chonky package.
Apple has been making iPhones Thicker since the iPhone 7.
Get your facts straight.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't even true for years. The thinnest iPhone was the iPhone 6. Since then every generation was thicker than the generation before. In fact iPhones have become bricks.
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly sounds great and all, except for that obsession with making each generation of phone thinner than the previous one. The thinness comes at the cost of durability. If they made them just a tad thicker they could give us durability and serviceability all in one chonky package.
They didn't say durability was a priority, they just said it was more of a priority than ease of repair... Which given the number of broken Iphones I've seen I'm guessing isn't a priority.
Ultimately better for the planet to be disposable (Score:5, Informative)
Right. We've all heard this tired line for far too long. It is objectively better for the planet to repair something rather than to throw it away.
"It's objectively better for our customers to have to throw a thing away and spend $1500 on a new one rather than to put a new $12 battery in it."
Right.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. We've all heard this tired line for far too long. It is objectively better for the planet to repair something rather than to throw it away.
"It's objectively better for our customers to have to throw a thing away and spend $1500 on a new one rather than to put a new $12 battery in it."
Right.
Battery replacement for my iPhone 11 is $89 at Apple. There are cheaper 3rd parties and of course you can do it yourself.
Or you can throw it away and spend $1500 on a new one. Up to you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is only true if the phones software doesn't flag your third party battery as "unidentifiable part" which then makes the rest of the phone have issues thanks to the software flag.
OK, then $89 at Apple. Either way I don't need a new phone.
I used to replace my own batteries with ones off Amazon but I started to worry about if they were likely to catch fire
Re: (Score:2)
IME, third party batteries are usually Chinese junk that will last 1/3rd of the time of an Apple battery. Not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IME, third party batteries are usually Chinese junk that will last 1/3rd of the time of an Apple battery. Not worth it.
I've always used third-party batteries, and they usually last about as long as the Apple batteries. Unfortunately, that means replacing it about every 1.5 to 2 years, because tiny pouch cells stink on ice in the context of a hot cell phone wrapped inside a case, but that's a bigger design problem.
well that does kind of make sense (Score:2)
Would you rather it be easy to repair, or less likely to break in the first place?
I suspect most users would prefer it to not break in the first place, so they don't have to bother with trying to FIX it.
Of course having both would be nice, but often you have to make compromises if you want it thin and light, which again most consumers will prefer.
I don't believe this "culture of unrepairable gadgets" is the manufacturer's fault. I see this as mostly a "customer demand" driven situation. Maybe consider it
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Would you rather it be easy to repair, or less likely to break in the first place?
False dichotomy.
Your choice is easier to repair and slightly more likely to break in the first place. Or very difficult to repair and slightly less likely to break. Most breaking is physical damage or battery wear and are relatively unaffected by whether it is built with screws or glues.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe consider it a "tragedy of the masses" irony? The group doesn't want it, but enough of the individuals want it, so that's what everybody gets in the end. They're just giving us what we actually want.
This. 100% This.
Serviceability and repairability (yes, two distinct measures) are definitely high on the designers' and manufacturers' lists of requirements, but durability is indubitably higher on that list of priorities because everybody in the pipeline actually wants that more... especially at the MSRP launch prices!
As a consumer, if I'm going to pay $1500 USD for a newest-gen named-brand smartphone, I hope it lasts 3-5-7+ years! But if I'm going to pay $99 USD for a white-labeled device with limited
iPhone 11 has been very durable (Score:2)
I bought four iPhone 11's in 2019. They all work perfectly and no broken screens in all that time.
Apple Exec says fuck you (Score:2, Informative)
and to replace your device with a smile when the planned obsolescence kicks in.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you smoking? The iPhone 6S still gets regular OS patches and updates and it was released in 2015. Nobody on the planet is walking around with a circa 2015 Android running with a current OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, let's get our facts straight. The iPhone X is the oldest iPhone to support the latest iOS. Older phones still receive security updates from time to time, but not what I'd call regular OS patches.
That said, no other vendor offers 15 years of security updates. Not even close. Not even close to their promises.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and to replace your device with a smile when the planned obsolescence kicks in.
Oh FUCK OFF, Liar!
Re: Apple Exec says fuck you (Score:3)
Apple famously stated that they had to throttle phones with old batteries to keep them working because the older batteries couldn't provide enough current to avoid voltage drops.
This means either they chose to design the phones such that they would get into that condition during the usable life of the phone and battery, or that they are incompetent. Given that Apple users believe the myth of Apple competence despite the repeated and glaring evidence that they are no more competent than average, the only exp
Re: (Score:2)
At least they don't catch fire.
What's your point? Rehashing 10 year old stories forever in those forums?
Re: Apple Exec says fuck you (Score:2)
My point is that the GP is deep in iFanboy denial and accusing others of being liars, but that event occurred so he is either ignorant or himself a liar, much like Apple is either hostile or incompetent. The whole thread is right there and this should be obvious from the context.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that the GP is deep in iFanboy denial and accusing others of being liars, but that event occurred so he is either ignorant or himself a liar, much like Apple is either hostile or incompetent. The whole thread is right there and this should be obvious from the context.
Get off it!
I know you know enough to know that all secondary (rechargeable) Batteries lose Capacity as they age. Their Internal Resistance goes up, which causes them to lose Instantaneous Current Capacity; which can, under spiky load and/or low temperatures, cause the voltage to dip and the Device to Crash/Reboot.
Apple just thought it would be preferable to slow your phone a little for a few seconds, or even a few milliseconds, rather than have it crash when you're trying to call a tow truck with your last
Re: (Score:2)
I know you know enough to know that all secondary (rechargeable) Batteries lose Capacity as they age.
Yep. You are right.
Apple just thought it would be preferable to slow your phone a little for a few seconds, or even a few milliseconds, rather than have it crash when you're trying to call a tow truck with your last 8% of Battery to pull you out of the snowdrift in the middle of nowhere. . .
The performance hit was bad enough that Apple fans were complaining about it.
The only reason you don't notice it as much with Android is that most of those Unsupported Shitboxes Lie Useless in a Landfill long before their Failing Batteries become a Problem!
I've certainly had some Android phones go bad, in total about $800 worth... for three devices. I didn't pay full price for the relatively expensive one (a Nexus 4/LG E960) and even so I swore it would be the last LG device I bought.
I now have a $250 (with insurance) Moto G Power (2021) and it does all of the usual phone things gracefully except that it doesn't have wireless charging, but I wouldn't be using that
Re: (Score:2)
Apple famously stated that they had to throttle phones with old batteries to keep them working because the older batteries couldn't provide enough current to avoid voltage drops.
This means either they chose to design the phones such that they would get into that condition during the usable life of the phone and battery, or that they are incompetent.
Neither. I can think of a decent amount of Apple behavior that qualifies as planned obsolescence, but that isn't one. When lithium ion batteries age, some of them form dendrites that basically short out parts of the battery. This means when the battery hits a certain discharge level, the voltage can suddenly and rapidly drop off. This is *not* considered normal degradation. It is a battery defect. And every single one of those batteries is in a bad state and needs to be replaced, because continuing to
Durability? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is laughably absurd
Apple is in the fashion business and expects its users to regularly replace their stuff
They don't want durability, repairability or long life, they want disposable, fast fashion
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet to this date Apple has supported iPhones with software updates far longer the competition. Google only recently has started promising to support their Pixel devices for a comparable length of time (and only time will tell whether they actually do so).
Apple might like it if its customers replaced their phones frequently, but so would every phone manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that they are the only phone vendor to have supported their phones for 7 years (to the latest OS) and 14 years (for security updates)
None of the competition is half as good. But don't let facts break down your little fantasy.
Not ideal, but I get it. (Score:2)
Do I like the repairability of older devices? Absolutely. I replaced the screens and batteries on both my 3gs and my 5. Do I like the modern form factor? Absolutely.
Now if you put the choice to me, I have a dilemma. Would I sacrifice the modern presentation in favour of ease of repair? The answer isn't as clear as one might presume. It absolutely is a compromise.
I really like my iPhone 12. Size, aesthetics, functionality... it's easily the best phone I've ever owned. If another phone could provide me the sa
Sure, Buddy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"encasing the phone in glass" - While I understand your disdain, I'm looking at my iPhone now, and the only part that has glass is the part I have to see through. What are you proposing as a substitute?
Re: (Score:2)
An ounce of prevention (Score:2)
Apple puts disposability ahead of easy repairs (Score:2)
There, FIFY.
And (Score:3)
If you wasn't cheap as possible - then that is your metric. If you want a phone that is repairable forever, then you'll have to adjust what is your most important thing iin the world.
My son caught the Android phone bug, and his phones are more expensive than my iPhones (and my present ride is a 13 Pro Max) and he goes through at least 2 phones for everyone one I ever buy. But of course there are cheaper Androids available.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want cheap as possible - then that is your metric.
fscking spell correct! ... FTFM
Re: (Score:2)
How does making it less repairable make it more durable though?
iPhones aren't very waterproof, they still have warranty-denying moisture sensors inside. The screens shatter as easily as any others. The next most likely part to get damaged is the USB port, which isn't protected any better than any other device on the market.
Cheap Android phones often come with a screen protector pre-applied and a soft case in the box. Those things do actually make them more durable, so if Apple cares why don't they supply th
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap Android phones often come with a screen protector pre-applied and a soft case in the box. Those things do actually make them more durable, so if Apple cares why don't they supply those things too?
The most of all come with 1 year of software update. It doesn't matter that they won't break, your zero days won't ever get fixed on a device that holds many many personal things.
Re: (Score:2)
How does making it less repairable make it more durable though?
iPhones aren't very waterproof, they still have warranty-denying moisture sensors inside. The screens shatter as easily as any others. The next most likely part to get damaged is the USB port, which isn't protected any better than any other device on the market.
Cheap Android phones often come with a screen protector pre-applied and a soft case in the box. Those things do actually make them more durable, so if Apple cares why don't they supply those things too?
If this is the extent of the durability improvements Apple has been able to devise, it makes more sense to prioritize repairability.
Well, I always buy waterproof cases for my iPhones - I'm around salt water a lot. It is great that even cheap Androids are water proof and only need a screen protector and a soft case.
Why is that even an Android flex? I'm doubting that the cheap ones are waterproof.
If I want a repairable phone - I'll buy a Pine. That's how repairable phones are made.
You believe that one? (Score:3)
Then send me a check and I'll transfer full ownership of the Brooklyn bridge to you.
Ha ha ha ha ha!!! (Score:2)
Not mutually exclusive (Score:2)
Durability is very possible with serviceability. I'd argue that serviceability improves durability, because if one part breaks, you can swap it out and continue using the parts that still work. If you can't repair your device, then the first thing that goes wrong, forces you to throw your device away. That does NOT improve durability.
Why a zero-sum game? (Score:2)
Are durability and repairability really diametrically opposing characteristics? Perhaps for marketing folks but not so for engineering folks.
For users who are willing to buy a new device when their phone fails, a very low failure rate coupled with a very low repair rate works. Those who prefer not to spend money in this manner are willing to sacrifice a modest increase in an already very low failure rate in exchange for a significant increase in repairability.
The unspoken truth is that Apple (and other ph
Toughbooks (Score:2)
Toughbooks are easy to repair and replace parts and are hella durable.
To me, durable = "long lasting" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Humm, in the old days all phones had replaceable batteries, before they had touch screens. I never changed my battery. My old laptops were the same way. The only times I would take the batteries out would be to do a hard restart. But I have empathy with what you are saying, if you use a phone a lot and if it is old it will not not last the day. I guess I'm just not the road warrior type.
I didn't on my phone, but I did on my laptop. I had three batteries for my PowerBook G3 Series (Pismo), and because of the way they worked, you could cycle out the dead battery while the live one kept the machine running. That was the only Mac I ever owned that gave me all-day battery life up until I got my M1 MacBook Pro just a couple of years ago. Literally the entire Intel period from Apple was a step down.
Fun fact: The day I watched Steve Jobs announce the Intel hardware, I blew off the rest of the d
Perfectly plausible (Score:2)
Over the years Apple's iFixit repairability scores have bounced from one end of the scale to the other from one product to the next and sometimes from one generation to the next. Sometimes it's even been the case that different SKUs within one product and generation have had different scores. The iPhone 14 is an example here, ranging from 4 to 7 depending on *which* iPhone 14 you own. There's no reason for the variation unless ease or difficulty of end-user repairability is simply not a high priority fac
He's not wrong (Score:2)
Remember how Apple made a keyboard that sucked and constantly needed to be replaced a few years back? That was notable for the sheer number of repairs and returns. It was very out of the ordinary for an Apple product to have such an obvious point of failure, and for so long.
I don't know that Apple products always last significantly longer than anything else--I'm sure that you can find stats that say one thing or the other to some degree--but reliability has never been my issue with my Apple products. My iPh
Trust (Score:2)
Yes, it’s objectively better to be at the mercy of a for-profit company whose main goal is to keep you using their products for as long as possible, instead of buying their new products.
Totally makes sense.