From what I hear, this isn't only about repairing iPhones. In a previous court proceedings the man was ordered to remove the logos from Apple because he imported the parts from China to refurbish iPhones. These were not genuine parts and they were being sold as refurbished iPhones.
This court case bas brought on by Apple because he did not properly remove the Apple logos. He used a permanent marker to "remove" them from the parts. Apple did not agree that this was a proper way to do it.
As much as I am for the rights to repair. I would say that Apple has some grounds here.
So where do I get genuine parts? Oh right, Apple doesn't sell them and even prevents OEMs from selling them.
For many, many repairs the Genius bar just tells you that it is not repairable even though it is. A 2000$ device that you just bought a couple of months ago. What right to repair do we have if Apple doesn't offer repair, even if you bought Apple Care.MacBooks are designed to fail, a drop of water kills the machine, the fuses never blow, if a sensor dies the whole machine stops working, they admitted a keyboard design flaw and if you get it replaced they replace it with the exact same one...
If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case. If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case.
> For many, many repairs the Genius bar just tells you that it is not repairable even though it is.
Repairable by a random Genius bar person and repairable by Louis Rossmann are two very different things.
Yes, if you could hire enough Rossmanns cost-effectively and get them the proper equipment and training, then the Apple Stores could fix _everything_ on site.
But it's a few orders of magnitude easier to have iFixit style guides and tools for swapping whole logic boards to fix a single component. It's also WAY cheaper for Apple.
>And if you get it replaced they replace it with the exact same one...
Not to mention the free replacement is only valid for three times.
Would also like to add the thin cable that makes Screen stop working, Thunderbolt charging that fries the CPU etc etc.
And yes all of these are 2016 - 2019 MacBook. Apart from Staingate, 2015 MacBook Pro is pretty damn good.
Apple could have hide all of these "flaws" with a free repair given out to customers, making them feel better without actually acknowledging it. Instead they actively tries to price gouge customers with ridiculously expensive repairs.
I still remember you could get a brand new Keyboard on MacBook Pro if you ask for a battery replacement which is much cheaper than keyboard repair.
> For many, many repairs the Genius bar just tells you that it is not repairable even though it is. A 2000$ device that you just bought a couple of months ago.
If you bought your device a couple of months ago, wouldn't you still be covered by the warranty?
Technically, it’s a limited warranty. So they can deny your claim for certain reasons. One of which is water damage. Not a really good reason; if there’s water damage, replace the other damaged parts also, but it’s what their rule is.
Do you buy a new car every 3000 miles or do you get it serviced?
Do you buy a new car when one of your tires get punctured by a nail?
>>If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case.
>Given that this case is about importing counterfeit products from China...I disagree
This happens all the time in the automotive industry as well.
Why are aftermarkets parts allowed to exist?
What's the balance between aftermarket and counterfeits?
>>If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case.
>They do as long as your business is near an apple store.
Great, if they actually have properly trained/educated technicians at each store.
Quoting for $1200 on a 5 year old laptop, to replace the motherboard and display, all because of a defective cable (a $15 fix).
"... this case is about importing counterfeit products from China..."
Seems like a stretch to call the parts counterfeit. He imported refurbished displays that were original Apple displays with broken glass that had been replaced by a third party product. The original parts of the display still had Apple logos on them. So clearly they were refurbished, not counterfeit.
>>If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case.
> They do as long as your business is near an apple store.
No?
Apple Care doesn't cover liquid damaged devices. And often they claim the device was liquid damaged even when it wasn't.
And when Apple does fix your machine, how many times do you get your data back? ZERO times!
>> If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case.
> Why should they be serviceable?
Because I paid thousands of dollars for a premium machine with the tag "Pro". It is unacceptable to turn it into a paper weight if it breaks, many times without user error.
The issue here is that you cannot buy spare parts from apple, imagine if it was the same for cars and you could only go to s main dealer to replace a windscreen and if you got a guy in a van to replace it with one from a car no longer in use that guy gets sued. Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory, especially for high value and high environmental impact items like the iphone.
Apple absolutely needs to make their official spare parts accessible. I was in a situation where my phone somehow had the water detection strip turn red on a 6S (before waterproof). It was working fine, I just wanted to get my screen replaced officially at the Apple store. No luck. They have a policy where they won't replace screens if there has been signs of water damage. I'm forced to go with 3rd party screens. I haven't been able to find a repair shop that uses screens that feel as good as the original.
Have you seen the markup on car spare parts? If you want to build a normal German family sedan from just the spare parts, you'll be paying 20x the cost of a full car easily.
Not even speaking of the skullduggery the VAG consortium is doing, they use the exact same parts for a large portion of their cars, just with different serial numbers.
A widget for Premium Car costs 1000, the EXACT SAME WIDGET for Budget Car costs 100. You just need to know the magic number or have a friendly salesperson behind the counter.
There are abuses. But for cars, even with the insane markups, having car parts is still a win, specially compared to tech devices like iphones.
Also, cars are 1) a bit more complex 2) a bit more granular in design, which leads to more swappable components. This result in needing to replace just a few relatively small components in case of breakdowns (a pump, a filter, etc), and even with the markup, repair is often a good solution financially vs replacing the car. By contrast, on a phone, the individually swappable components are much bigger (a whole screen, a logic board, etc), making repairs less viable.
Last point is supplying spare parts is also quite complex logistically, which explains part of the markup. But not all of it, I agree, there has been numerous cases of price fixing/abuses, for example:
I believe that car manufacturers in the US are required by law to produce spare parts for 10 years after a model rolls off the assembly line. A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? Maybe the FCC could be setting those guidelines for mobile phones.
> A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line?
Doesn't matter. Just draw it and adjust it later on. At some point environmentalism is more important than profits and some reasonable support timespan of ~3-8 years is fairly obvious.
> A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line?
Does there need to be a line? Arguably small custom electronics manufacturers may not be able to do that, but surely something similar would apply to custom car makers.
Arguably small electronics manufacturers would have an easier job fulfilling this since they usually use off-the-shelf parts anyways.
"but then where do you draw the line?" wasn't asked out of concern for Apple or anyone like Apple. They obviously can afford to make their parts available. You can't draw a line anywhere that would be unsustainable for them.
The question was asked out of worry that some agressive rule targeted at a big guy, might have unintended consequences that hurt the little guys.
To which question I agree with "doesn't matter, draw it anywhere and adjust as needed" because there are easily identifiable reasonable ranges, and not knowing the final perfect answer is not a good enough excuse for not doing anything at all, and what we have now is already worse than a line that was drawn a bit off the mark. Waht we have now is a defacto line drawn 100% off the MAP.
> I believe that car manufacturers in the US are required by law to produce spare parts for 10 years after a model rolls off the assembly line.
With a car your spare parts are typically a small fraction of the value of the vehicle even used. With an iPhone, an official replacement screen will cost more than the 4 year old device is worth. Likewise the mainboard.
Really what I'd like to see is Apple doing a re-use campaign where they recover working parts from their own recycle chain, certify and resell them.
Then again, why is the device worth so little? Did it actually degrade that much? Or is it largely the product of the fact that it isn't supported any more, in both software and hardware? And, is that lack of support, in either the software or hardware domains, a fact of nature, or something under some interested parties conscious control?
There wouldn't be any $5 digital thermometers or $200 55" TVs after that.
Producing and storing spare parts for a widget that costs less than a Starbucks coffee will never be feasible. Neither is storing an unknown quantity of said widget in a warehouse somewhere for 10 years to provide people with replacements.
Also, making things serviceable is hard and requires planning and forethought on component placement etc. This incurs even more costs.
I'm all for repairability and long lived devices, but I'm in a privileged position and can afford the premium price. But is this a viable solution for the world?
I don't think so these days. I remember a little while ago, an update was pushed that bricked any phones with a third party screen (which I think included the finger print reader). The update was patched I believe but replacing the screen on a modern iPhone isn't as simple as replacing the glass anymore IIRC.
The aluminum iPhones (and other phones) were so beautiful. I have an old HTC M8 and it just looks and feels so nice compared to all glass Samsungs. Plus the front facing stereo speakers - truly practical.
IIRC anything with the fingerprint reader gets complicated because of the signing keys Apple uses to help protect the device against unlocking attacks.
There is nothing complicated about simply not having a fingerprint option. If the main machine knows it cannot trust the fingerprint secure enclave, then there is nothing complicated at all about simply, not trusting it. The user simply has to unlock the phone with a pin or pattern etc. This does not, in anybway, require bricking the device. That is simply a deliberate and hostile act of aggression against the user.
I don't think this is correct. They weren't re-using official apple parts, they were ordering fake parts directly from the manufactures. We know they are fake, because Apple would never allow their factories to re-sell extra parts to 3rd parties.
Same difference. Apple won't sell the parts, and won't allow manufacturers to make & sell the parts either.
So manufacturers do it anyways, and sell them in the grey market. I wound up with these parts myself after trying to buy a high-quality replacement display for an old phone (complete with blacked-out Apple logo). There is no legal alternative. They're not "fake" parts, but the parts aren't supposed to exist. (Seems like that issue would be between Apple and the manufacturer, but I digress.)
What good is a right to repair if the major companies can just make it illegal in practice?
They're not exactly fake if they come from the same manufacturer. Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute and the flow of electricity gives no shit about that.
I mean, even the use of the word 'fake' here is questionable. A replacement considered fake is not expected to work the same way the legit version does. It stubs that functionality out or makes it worse. If the chip does the same work and performs the same way it's not a fake, it's an alternative or a competitor. And if Apple are short-changing their Chinese sweatshops to produce these chips (and they absolutely are), then it's no surprise they try to seek a profit in the grey market.
I think "unlicensed" or "unofficial" might be better terms. I agree that the term "fake" seems inappropriate for surplus parts coming from the same production line, or even if they're factory rejects. (Those might be defective or flawed, but not fake).
The "fakes" are usually off pieces that didn't go through the official quality control.
The easiest way for you to demonstrate this is to get some official Legos. Then go on Aliexpress and order some no-brand knockoffs (Lepin or whatever they're called now). Both work as building blocks, both connect to themselves and each other.
But you can just feel that the knockoffs haven't been produced to the same exact standard as the officials, they're just a little bit off and squeaky and wonky.
Now if someone sold you the knockoffs as officials, it would affect the Lego brand. And this is why companies go to court for.
Refurbished parts are not fake. You can have an original screen that only the top layer is cracked, that top layer can be replaced or fixed, the people that fixed the screen did not erased the existing Apple logo.
Anyway this would not happen if Apple would allow selling of parts to third party.
> Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory
I find the situation where the state dictates private companies what to sell much more ludicrous.
To clarify, I don't think that it's a good practice, and it's one of the reasons I don't buy iPhones anymore. But as I would vote against company doing this idiotic thing with my wallet, I would still defend it's legal right to do that idiotic thing.
It's not the government place nor responsibility to solve such trivial problems, especially with products on very competitive markets that are almost a luxury item and in no way a basic neccessity. Consumers can figure it out on their own.
Well, “copyright” is a government regulation that interferes with a market-driven “free trade” in parts. If the government can stop third-parties from selling replacement/refurbished parts (especially give the doctrine of first-sale, etc), then I don’t see why it cannot equally well demand that Apple sell spare parts at fair rates. Both or nothing makes most sense.
I disagree, the government shouldn't require apple to produce parts, but their ability to sue should also be reduced if they don't produce spare parts.
I think consumer protections should provide nice long warranty periods that ensure you get what you paid for.
Phones are designed to be held in your hands, and hands occasionally drop things, so phones should be designed to withstand being dropped. You should be able to get a warranty replacement / repair for your phone if you drop it.
We would have stronger phones that last longer, and produce less waste.
That's taking away somebody's property, justifying it by misuse. Which means that it wasn't really property in full sense of a word in the first place.
Not necessarily. This trivial stuff can blow up into big things for society. This unavailability of spare parts translates into a lot of devices ending up in the landfill. That is an unmitigated environmental disaster. Free markets will not solve this problem without govt intervention.
The economic costs are not the only costs in a capitalist society. The other costs just don’t show up on the paper.
P.S and I’ll argue that smartphones are necessary in today’s world. They are the primary form of computing, communication and fulfilling bureaucratic work for large sections of the population on the planet. In India, you’ll have a tough time in life if you don’t have a smartphone. You can survive? Yes. But it will be a PITA to communicate with others, deal with govt, banking or utilities etc
well, it depends on how that protection is implemented. sure, if the government is blocking certain deals then it better be sure that those are actually a bad deals. i agree with you on the downside of that
but the government doesn't need to know that something is a bad deal if instead it provides for ways to revert the deal once it's discovered to be bad.
for example in the EU any online purchase can be reverted within 14 days without requiring any explanation, because it is assumed that bad deals may not become aparent until after the purchase.
Many private enterprises implement money-back guarantees on their own, without any requirement from the law. Which tells me that government in these matters requirements is not necessary, and therefore, shouldn't exist.
clearly a lot of people have already been burned by bad purchases, otherwise this law wouldn't exist. laws like this are generally made in response to existing problems, not in speculation of potential problems.
the issue with your claim is that it is less likely that bad actors give a money back guarantee. and those are the ones why such a law is needed. or from the other side: those businesses that do offer s money back guarantee are more likely those that do not need it. it's for the other ones that this law was made.
I don't disagree with anything you said, except for conclusion.
That's because you seem to operate out of an unspokem assumption that if government can change something in society for the better, it should.
This core assumption is the only thing I disagree about. Every additional little thing that government gets involved, brings unseen debt of increasing power of monopolic beurocratic apparatus with absolute authority and very ineffective oversight.
I believe that government should be involved only in things that can absolutely cannot be resolved without it. Being able to merely do some good is not a good enough reason. Yes, the phone situation is probably better with such legislation, but it's not a good enough reason for people to give up more of their power to the state and state-like institutions.
> As Huseby puts it, Apple uses copyright law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce copyright.
The grey market didn't put the logos on. The parts in question were screens where the glass had been broken but the display panels were still functional. The glass was replaced and the units are sold as refurbished. The Apple logos on them were on the display panels and placed there when originally manufactured for Apple.
They don't. Apple puts logos on their parts and then someone uses them in a "refurbished" part and doesn't scrub the logos. It's not a problem in China, because they don't care, but in more legally-observant parts of the world it becomes a trademark issue, because you have a part that isn't entirely from Apple (and is thus not an official Apple product) but has their logos on it.
I bought a new apple battery with the apple logo from online vendor - turned out to be total junk. Amazon used to be filled with these junk apple parts - I tried so hard to buy a real apple charger etc and you just get junk (with an apple logo).
Despite the claims here that all this trash is "refurbished" real apple product it is not.
Apple has some lawsuits going about this issue. 90% of the items they bought from amazon that were "genuine" turned out to be fakes.
Apple has tried to crack down a bit. You used to be able to drop a crappy third party battery into a used iphone and the buyer would see that battery had no degradation (it often died months later). Now if a bogus battery is installed you get some kind of warning.
It at the very least shows "good faith" as in, no one can claim they were trying to misrepresent something as a new Apple part or product, when they not only didn't create an unauthorized logo themselves, but even took an active measure to obscure a logo that already existed that Apple put there THEMselves.
article explains this later; sounds like the logos are from apple-mfred parts that end up in larger (overall refurb) parts. unless you were contradicting the article's saying so, in which case "yeah probably unideal, but the lower court said he wasn't advertising them as genuine apple anyway"
Whether they have grounds or not, this is a PR disaster for Apple. Lots of people who love technology will see this as a monopoly move against a little guy by a huge company with more cash reserves than a small country.
Not surprised that the top comment on HN is a comment defending Apple either.
I just responded with the reason why your comments are not welcome here. If you keep this up, your comments are going to be flagged, not just downvoted. You don't comment much, so you're going to have to go beyond personal attacks if you want people to take you and your comments seriously. See the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You're certainly not the first, nor do I have any misconceptions that you will be the last, person to claim this. As my evidently readily accessible resume shows, I do not work for Apple, though I did for two brief periods in the past. To round out this "disclosure" I hold no stake in the company other than perhaps what might be part of VLXVX, which I haven't looked at all that closely.
But back to the point: I have not "suppressed" the comments; in fact I chose to respond in good faith to a fairly clear violation of Hacker News's guidelines (which interestingly enough happened to be an accusation lobbied at 'Improvotter, not me) as I am a bit reluctant to use the other tools such as downvoting or flagging. You're free to dig through my 13,000 comments if you'd like to discover cases where I have done this even when the topic is not Apple.
As I described previously, I don't think I have a conflict of interest. Bias? Sure, but I had one prior to being employed there as well. In many respects I think it was stronger then than it is now. That isn't to say that I'm not open to suggestions that I should make this more apparent, but I'm really not satisfied with solutions that would cause me to preface any comment on something involving a previous employer with a disclaimer, or shove my entire memoir of my life in my profile. People who actually care can find that information in seconds, anyhow.
thank you! and thank you Saagar for reminding me to policies. I just saw them. Either way, my point is simple. If a person pays for the device, they should have the right to do whatever they want with that device. A business should be able to replace with after market parts, just like any car (where I don't go to showroom to replace the original part, but after market because sometimes they are equally good or i could afford to break my glass twice instead of paying hefty for apple care! its that simple. I am all for freedom of choice as a user. If the business brands it as original iphone part, then they have the right to sue them, but in this case its not!
That shows that Saagar works for Apple, not that Improvotter works for Apple which was your original claim. At least get your own ravings straight. Saagar’s objection wasn’t perfectly reasonable. Your trolling and invective has no place here.
I can only verify as he had public profile, I am 51% sure the improvetter probably is also. but saying that is against policy. So, I keep my mouth shut. I can only see some bias going on here. all I am saying is user should have the freedom and business should have freedom to repair as long as they are not claiming its apple original part or using their brand in any means and this case it doesn't look like!
So to summarise you have no evidence at all that Imporvotter works for Apple or not, and when an Apple employee objected to you using 'Apple Employee' effectively as an insult you don't think he has a right to be offended by that.
Oh boy. Thanks the heavens I don't have the misfortune of knowing you in person.
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable judgement. It sounds like he was passing off non-apple parts as actual apple parts (by not properly removing the logo), which would fall under (at least) trademark law (in my layman opinion), if not fraud.
Disclaimer: I'm an Apple fan, and have previously interviewed there, but I am quite critical of many of their actions like the lockdown on iOS (although I am a huge fan of the mandatory sandboxing)
> It sounds like he was passing off non-apple parts as actual apple parts (by not properly removing the logo)
From the article, it doesn't sound like that to me at all. It sounds like Apple deliberately put the logo on individual parts to try and make this claim later. But the logo on the part itself presumably isn't visible on the finished product. Even if it were, it would still not be passing off because the part did originally come from Apple!
> As Huseby puts it, Apple uses copyright law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce copyright.
It seems to me that something like the exhaustion doctrine[1] should be made to apply here (but presumably doesn't in Norway). Once a part is legally sold, even if as part of a bigger product, IP law should not be able to be used to prevent the buyer from doing what they want with the part, including using it in a different product that is then sold as a refurbishment part. The only exception should be to prevent others from being misled about the origin of the product; that doesn't appear to have been happening here.
This is a trademark issue and not copyright. Replacement parts passing themselves off as genuine OEM shouldn't be tolerated. Markings aren't required for the electronics to work. They're just there to deceive the consumer.
This is a complete bastardisation of the trademark law and it's original purpose - the consumer was not mislead as to the origin of good or their purpose, and has never seen the trademark.
This isn't passing off. The logo was placed on the part by Apple. The consumer isn't being deceived; the consumer never even sees the logo! This is discussed elsewhere here already.
Because the article says "...the Oslo District Court ruled in 2018 that Huseby did not violate Apple’s trademark, because Huseby never claimed to be using unused original spare parts".
A court found that the customer wasn't being deceived, and this specific finding has not been overturned on appeal. The issue is about IP rights unrelated to customer deception.
Odd question. As I understand it, Apple flouts EU rules regarding standards ( Lightning charge cable comes to mind ). If a company does not play by the same rules as others, can't it simply be barred from the markets that offer them the legal protections ( just as it demands basic compliance ). Or is this a case of too big to regulate.
There are some legitimate and common-sense applications of "terms of service" in physical products. You wouldn't want someone removing a battery from one device to try and retrofit into another and then sell the refurbished device as safe. Inevitable problems could be both a safety issue and injure the reputation of the company.
Whether a phone or watch generally is one of those sorts of products though is certainly something to debate.
> You wouldn't want someone removing a battery from one device to try and retrofit into another and then sell the refurbished device as safe.
I feel like you've never had your car repaired before...
This is exactly something we're fine with protecting and encouraging. The manufacturer of the defective part is at fault, and depending on circumstances the repair person, not the company who originally built the device. Go ahead and try to get Chevy to sell you a brake master cylinder for a 1970 C10, your only options are after market parts manufacturers and that's fine, we've dealt with this for literally as long as there has been n > 1 blacksmiths in a town.
Certainly, this is why I've not made a universal claim above. I have indeed partially rebuilt a couple cars. I generally support right to repair. I recognise that anything against that is anathema here but there's some cases where we need to be able to make exceptions.
Someone buying a refurbished powerbank, for example, may end up lighting something on fire because it was repaired incorrectly.
Yes it'd maybe be on the manufacturer of a replacement regulator if an insulin pump was 3rd-party repaired and failed, but would it maybe be safer to say that the device should be modified or repaired only within its certified supply chain?
There's CE and UL listings for communications and electrical devices to in part protect consumers against poor manufacturing leading to irradiated or electrocuted people.
Could we agree that there's a difference between a bushing and a microcontroller?
I would want exactly this. Lately I got an older model of a smartphone. It was used to present the product, so I'm the first owner. It's ok but the internal battery sucks.
Original batteries aren't some magical spec devices that other batteries can't substitute. Most of them are made by the same few manufacturers and it is trivial to find a replacement with similar specs.
I'm not privy to anything specifically about batteries, and you may be right about the batteries all effectively being the same.
However, I do know - in general - component manufacturers are notorious for cutting corners to save a few cents, doing additional factory runs after hours, altering chemistry, faking specs, etc. It's a shady business climate that needs constant QC.
Also a fair amount of what you pay for is a known chain of custody from component manufacturer to your device. From what I can tell for many components there isn't a clear feedback loop to end customers, as parts travel through several intermediaries, which means its less likely bad quality will lead to repercussions to the component manufacturer. It goes all the way to the repair place, who's typically doing a one-off order for a customer rather than having an ongoing customer relationship, and who may never see a failure 6 months down the line.
As far as batteries, and this may be a hypothetical as I do not know about who's manufacturing what and at what quality, but there's also legitimate safety concerns which is why a higher than typical level of scrutiny is required.
These are all conditions that could lead to potentially higher failure rates. How much higher is debatable, it may be only a percent or two, and for many folks a small additional risk may be worth saving some cash for.
Personally? For older devices I wouldn't care. A newer device, I would.
That's all fine. If you want a known chain of custody, you could exclusively use a manufacturer-authorized repairer, or use a third party repairer who guarantees to only use manufacturer-authorized parts, and so on.
For competition however, I maintain that the consumer should have the ability to choose to do business with a repairer with no supply relationship with the manufacturer who claims to be able to do better. As long as the consumer isn't being misled, the consumer should be entitled to choose to take that risk.
Realistically this would be far less of a problem if Apple didn't pretend that their devices (like everything else in this world) get old, and supported a robust economy around servicing older devices. Why can't I just buy an iPhone SE battery right off Apple.com? Why can't my third party repairer? How about an authorized repairer? Where are the publicly available service manuals? How about some schematics?
Back in the day, high-end electronics (particularly audio equipment) had full-blown schematics, for repair. While reflow re-soldering BGA devices is way out of reach for the average non-technical home users today, with a steady hand, and the right tools, replacing an iPhone battery is only slightly more complicated than changing a tire.
Most of this fear of "something bad could happen if you buy a device with replaced parts" is due to manufacturers making it hard for people to get the original replacement part and service the device. They do this because it increases their profits and because they can get away with it.
It's to control business & brand risk. I believe this explains all downstream choices: how devices are designed and how easy they are to repair, whether they supply repair groups with adequate info, parts availability, etc.
Remember engineers love anything that loosens constraints. Making things easy to repair is a pretty challenging constraint to juggle with all the other constraints like manufacturability, chassis design, thermals, etc.
They say they don't make profit on repairs. I've no particular reason to not believe this. They could design products to be easier to repair and thus cost less to repair, but the fundamental rationale always points back to controlling brand risk, because a drop in customer satisfaction by even 1% is worth billions.
I think you as a user should be able to make this choice, but the parent comment is talking about another scenario, where the person you're buying a refurbished iPhone from has silently replaced parts. I think that at least warrants some sort of disclaimer.
Refurbished means previously broken and hopefully fixed. In today's reality, fixing is generally by replacing components. If Apple doesn't make repair parts available, they're either coming from other phones, non-oem manufacturing, or possibly grey/black market overproduction.
Refurbished products should always tell you who refurbished them, and you can draw conclusions about the supplies from there. Ideally, they'd also tell you what was replaced, but it can be difficult to track that with the item.
> the person you're buying a refurbished iPhone from has silently replaced parts
Silently? Unless they're passing off a refurbished iPhone as a new one, replacing parts as necessary is exactly what refurbishment means!
As a buyer I might be interested to know if they used only genuine Apple parts, but I'm happy that the market can take care of that and the only legal intervention should be if there was a deliberate misrepresentation. It's perfectly fine for a repairer to use third party parts without having to specifically call it out. This has been done in every other market since the beginning of time, so this would not be misleading anyone.
You may remember Louis Rossmann testifying in this case. To his credit, he published this video about the different ways he was wrong. Unfortunately, you probably didn't see the retraction bc the original testimony got 13x the views. Not through any fault of Louis, simply due to how things spread online.
Can you summarize the video, or give a link to text? It's not a great medium for citing in a discussion.
As the article describes it, the parts are only counterfeit in the sense that an original Apple part was broken, re-furbished by a Chinese manufacturer (e.g., replacing a piece of glass), and then imported into Norway without having the Apple logos sufficiently scrubbed off. It would be reasonable to call these parts "counterfeit" if anyone was actually being deceived into thinking they were genuine new Apple parts. But if no one in the supply chain thinks they are genuine, it seems wrong to call this counterfeit, which implies deception. It's like saying monopoly money is "counterfeit".
But is it "allowed" (by Apple or by law) at all, to manufacture/sell 3rd party parts of iPhone (I mean by not pretending to be genuine parts)?
If not, and combined with the fact Apple don't sell their genuine parts to basically anybody, the situation still sounds ridiculous to customers at the end of the day.
Edit: by the way, what's the legal status of reclycled parts from genuine iPhones?
It's crazy to me that the EU is wasting their time making Apple use the same ports as other smartphones (https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/02/02/what-the-eu-manda...) when they could make it easier to replace _any_ Apple component with an equivalent. I see the other comments saying that this guy deserved to lose this specific case since he was calling the parts "refurbished" but it's not clear that there's any way for him to use aftermarket parts legally.
Can someone explain to me what's in this for Apple? Surely the money that they get from forcing people to go the authorized way isn't that significant to their bottom line? And it's not like they risk impacting their quality reputation either since the repair shops don't advertise that they provide genuine Apple part. So why risk people's goodwill on things like this?
The broader effect of aggressively controlling such third-party interactions is to lock-in users, and convert what one would normally think of as a “product” into something more like a “service” — which then gives the company much more power with pricing, market segmentation, etc. (including Apple care/warranties, value of returns or refurbished devices, upgrade cycle of devices, etc). Functionally, yet another way of exerting monopolistic effects.
This strategy applies beyond this particular example, and is probably one of the strong business motivations for Apple’s vertical integration.
Business-wise, this is yet another way to boost the “lifetime value” of a customer and ensure it is far more than the price of a single product, which I’m sure is a significant factor in the high valuations (and revenues) of Apple. The fact that they invest so much into marketing/advertising the Apple ecosystem as a lifestyle brand also means that they are pushed towards a business model where their customers need to have a large lifetime value to offset the customer acquisition/retention costs.
Because they don't want devices to be repaired, they want devices to become obsolete or irreparable within 5 years so that consumers can buy a new device.
Also note how Apple pretends to care about their environmental impact, while being actively hostile towards repair efforts, that would reduce the amount of e-waste generated. Absolute hypocrites.
I'm not an Apple apologist by any measure, but I don't think that's really true. At least last time I looked into it, Apple supported their devices with software updates for longer than the majority of other vendors in the market (for the majority of their devices at least).
Of course Apple is a company that likes to keep a tight control of their market and their image, and you could maybe say they go to the point of control freakiness in that regard. Any potential loss in image regarding the quality of their products is a significant cost to them; being able to charge a premium for replacement parts probably doesn't hurt either. If independent repair shops and consumers lose something in repair costs and freedom, that probably doesn't tip Apple's scale in any way. For the rest of the society it could, and if needed, Apple (or any company) needs to be able to be criticized for that, and legislation needs to cater to that and not to the needs of any single corporation.
Edit: It might be worth pointing out that while yes, Apple would probably like you to buy a new phone within five years, e.g. many Android devices aren't supported for more than a couple of years. I agree you shouldn't necessarily be forced to buy a new device even every five years, but most other vendors aren't any better in that regard.
>Apple supported their devices with software updates for longer than the majority of other vendors
The situation is exactly the opposite when it comes to computers/laptops. I can still have latest version of Windows on my father's 2011 laptop.
Secondly, this whole 'loss is image' is a giant smoke screen. Consider that you can repair a BMW in a random garage with unauthorised parts and incompetent repairmen - and you might even die as a result. Does BMW's image suffer? Is their brand worth nothing?
The consumer can comprehend the consequences of repairing his device where he chooses, this is not medical equipment. Using copyright to restrict repairs is a bastardisation of copyright law - it's intended purpose is wholly different.
I didn't say I agree with preventing unauthorized repairs. I don't, and my comment wasn't meant as apologetics.
I was merely speculating on why it might make sense for Apple to want that kind of control even if it isn't in the best interests of anybody else. The costs to everybody else just have no weight to them, as long as their customers keep paying, and thus even a small potential matter of image could weigh more to them. That doesn't mean you, me or anybody else should support that line of though.
BMW might not mind having that kind of control either if their customers and the legislation were to put up with it.
Really? They do this just to work at cross-purposes to their other teams which spend time and money to maintain software updates for older phones, 4-5 years longer than competitors do? How do you explain that one?
Why not? It is a big company, with different teams having somewhat different priorities. It is perfectly reasonable for the upper management to leave the tech department supporting the devices for a long time, and thus maintain and increase the brand value, while keep the anti-consumer anti-environment business policies regarding repair. They can brag about how the Apple devices are great and long lived, and sell lots of new units/repairs every cycle. It makes perfect sense.
In the mobile space Apple is transitioning to a services and ecosystem business as the space commodifies. You buy an iPhone and then get Apple Music, TV+, News+, AirPod, Watch, Glass etc.
If you look at the Android OEMs they don't even support phones after 2 years. And Apple would likely increase upgrade support for more than 5 years if those phones weren't massively underpowered.
You've got a point about Android manufacturers not bothering with supporting their models for long. At the same time, Apple does make it complicated to do cheap repairs. Why would that be... they have to keep the brand status... and also new units to sell, just as Android manufacturers do.
Contrary to the inflated anti-competitive suspicions by others below (or that "Apple has an army of staff attorneys with nothing better to do"), there are pretty legit reasons for Apple to object.
If you've ever looked at buying a used or refurbished phone, it's a total wild west out there with people claiming (or being purposefully deceiving) that the phones are refurbed to the quality of Apple or similar. Or you find out after buying that you end up getting a poor quality uneven brightness display from prior-generation China factories, microphones that don't work right, etc. The guy in the story was importing counterfeit parts.
Apple (and other manufacturers) have a big interest to not have people feel that their hardware is shitty.
And if Apple were really trying to make people's technology obsolete, why would they support the OS of legacy phones for multiple (4-5) years longer than most other phone manufacturers? I guess they're so evil they're trying to confuse us with good cop/bad cop.
> Apple (and other manufacturers) have a big interest to not have people feel that their hardware is shitty.
I haven't heard anyone claim Apple does this because they have indigestion or really like the smell of landfills. Of course they have interests.
They are not, however necessarily legitimate interests, or ones that outweigh the interests of those who purchase their devices.
We, as a species, have a lot of history with artifacts we make and trade with one another. And by and large, we've come to the conclusion that if I sell you something, I cease having a legitimate interest in what you do with it.
This notion has been blurred by the need for operating system updates (hammers didn't need those) and the proliferation of "cloud"/OPC services. And now we are trying to find the right balance.
But there's a pretty good bet that abusing trademark law to control a secondary market with what amounts to literally an engineered legal argument is a pretty good indication that Apple is... getting creative, and I think the fact of the matter is that "we" won't put up with that shit long-term. Most humans value their property rights over HugeCo's reputational concerns.
They may have a big interest, but should they have a big legal right to deny someone the opportunity to do something stupid with property that person owns.
If apple (and other manufacturers) did not want to make people technology obsolete they would support right to repair, provide open access to parts and schematics, and allow independent repair shops to do board level repairs with out threat of lawsuit
They created the environment where counterfeits and shady dealers are required by prohibiting any official ways to repair things
So I do not have any sympathy for your argument. The day I can go to apple.com to buy a capacitor and order a schematic is the day I will agree with you
It's your last argument on the other hand, given its (maybe deliberately) extreme position, that I can't find much sympathy for. How far does Apple or another manufacturer have to go to satisfy your increasingly unrealistic demands?
Do they have to sell you a replacement secure enclave chip, enable you to solder it in, provide the certificates to match it up to the rest of the phone? Sell you their source code so you can make your own patches and mix and match parts as you like? What if they only sell the main board as a whole component? What if their pricing for it is 2/3 the cost of the new phone? Do you mandate that they sell it to you for a certain cost too?
It starts to get a little ridiculous and out of sync with how electronics are built and operate, if you take this to where some people would insist that it go.
Maybe they should stop selling devices then and only lease them.
When I BUY a device I should have access to all the schematics, all of the components, etc. otherwise I do not OWN it, I am simply borrowing it
I fail to see why electronics should hold a special place that other manufactured goods do not, for example we disallowed car manufactures from locking down the cars we own and they used the EXACT same excuses that modern electronics manufacturers do
Now we are starting to see modern car companies, like Tesla, want to bring back those Anti-Consumer policies to the automotive world
I am sadden that soo many people want to BUY a product but still have the manufacture get complete control over it. That is not ownership, that is serfdom
Apple's products have FAR higher resale and expected life than almost any competitors.
Your insistence that folks buy trash phones that get thrown away (and are totally unsupported software side almost from date of mfg) is ridiculous and actively harms the environment.
By increasing confidence in their products, including used products, apple does a LOT to enhance the perceived long term value of their product. There is a very active apple refurb market, and you can take your phone and get new batteries etc from apple.
They have a huge retail presence with walk in repairs. They have authorized third party repairs. And they have mail in repairs.
> FAR higher resale and expected life than almost any competitors.
Possibly in mobile space, but not in PC/desktop space. My desktop has 2x the lifespan of any macbook/iMac/whatever, will be on the latest of Windows/Linux for 20 years and every nut and bolt is replaceable. Even a single component, like graphics card, can be repaired on a chip-by-chip if need be.
Gaming rigs enjoy high resale value, it roughly tracks their performance compared to whatever is currently available on the market + 10% discount for being used.
Ohh Please. the "higher resale value" is simply a product of their insane new price, charging 100's of dollars for $30 of ram for example
as to their retail stores and "authorized repair" centers, I urge you to look at any of investigative reports on these place, or any of Louis Rossmann's video's, or read any of the 1000's of reports from consumer who have been denied repair or quoted repair costs that exceed the replacement cost of the device, or have been told that repair can not include data recovery, or about 100 other things
Apple stores and apple "Authorized repair" shops are not Repair centers, they are board replacement houses. It is akin to having a fouled plug in my engine and the dealership telling me the only way to fix that is to replace the engine then they walk me over to the showroom to sell me a shiny new car... That is what the apple store is
It's extremely straightforward: Apple is in the user experience business. People buy Apple products because they 'just work'. That reputation is worth hundreds of billions of dollars because most people have frustrating experiences with tech.
Unreliable devices damage Apple's hard-earned reputation. An end user won't know why the Apple device they're holding is unreliable - they may not even know it has been repaired if they acquired it from someone else. They'll just know it's an Apple device, and thus it must be Apple's fault. When that person talks to someone a day or a month down the line about their experience, they will not have as good things to say. In sum, this reputation will depress sales and customer satisfaction, which are the two key metrics for how Apple measures success.
Building reliable tech that just works is hard enough. Non-OEM components and third party repair shops add additional business risk, which is why Apple takes a pretty restrictive stance.
This is hilarious as the only Apple related Videos I know of are those of this repair guy who cheaply fixes parts that were obviously made to break and be repaired at ridiculous costs pushing the customer to buy a new device.
Nobody who goes to a private fix it shop would blame Apple. But they might hear about those strange parts that were build to break and this is where they may indeed lose reputation. Reputation they do not deserve in the first place.
> it's not like they risk impacting their quality reputation either since the repair shops don't advertise that they provide genuine Apple part
If the end consumer winds up confused, it still hurts Apple. That is the matter of this case. The repair shop didn’t make it clear enough that these are not genuine parts.
How did you conclude it's not clear enough? Is there any actual person under impression that when they get their phone fixed for $50 it's using original parts in mint new condition? Because if such people exist, I've never met them.
> Surely the money that they get from forcing people to go the authorized way isn't that significant to their bottom line?
In the car business, a large part of the profit that a manufacturer makes is actually made after the car is sold, in the form of replacement parts. Basically, by buying a car you enter into a relationship with the manufacturer to buy replacement parts for your car. Some are being manufactured independently, but many aren't available. I guess it's similar in the case of phones.
This is almost nothing like the very low margin auto business. Apple makes ~35-40% margins on the devices at time of sale, and make additional profits on services. Repairs are barely profitable IIRC.
What if they want to change that and make massive profits on repairs as well? You can't do that if you have competitors undercutting you. Once they are gone you can charge what you want.
It's in Apple's best interest to maintain high customer satisfaction, because that's how they get repeat business.
This question is in the same vein as hypothetical questions like 'what prevents Apple from violating people's privacy to sell/use their data'. The answer is always the same: pick a business model that aligns customer and company interests, and these things won't happen.
Apple thinks in long term customer relationships measured in customer lifetime value, which can be 10s of thousands of dollars over decades of customer relationship. To sacrifice that for a few extra bucks on screen repair would be really dumb.
> 10s of thousands of dollars over decades of customer relationship. To sacrifice that for a few extra bucks on screen repair would be really dumb.
Have we never seen management prioritise short term gains and next quarterly report over long term profits? Think of 2008 and the Boeing disasters. Almost everyone involved knew that this will blow up one day, and yet they kept going.
You're making a general point about a specific company. Look at the history of Apple, what it says, how it acts, and how that has changed or not over the past 44 years.
It's always possible to conjure up the hundreds of ways businesses can fail, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue at hand.
Third-party repair shops working with screens and touchID/faceID sensors have an opportunity to install surveillance hardware inside iPhones that could be used by organized crime and governments to commit harm upon citizens. Denying official parts for these security-critical components to uncertified vendors would protect users from these “evil maid” threat vectors, as the certification can be used to enforce compliance with strict auditing and process controls designed to minimize the threat of harm to users.
I only accept first party spying! And also governmental of course. And to a lesser extent the companies who make my apps. But heaven forfend the Yakuza infiltrate my fingerprint scanner and steal my secret fingerprints.
Any repair shop "authorized" or not has the same opportunity to do whatever they want to your device, regardless of the "strict auditing" or w/e that's in place.
As does Apple when they manufacture and sell you the device. If you trust nothing, LibrePhone is your only option. If you wish to evaluate trust and risk management as a spectrum — rather than as an all-or-nothing proposition — then you have a wider array of choices. Certification is useful for decreasing the probability of risks.
And car repairmen could install a tracking device, a hidden microphone, disable the alarm system with a remote command and sell my car's location to car thieves.
Or they could cut the breaks and get me killed.
In fact, even a car wash could do that when I leave the car keys with them and pick up a clean car the next day.
If you store your private keys and wallet in the car, you might not be so unconcerned by the risks you describe. Phones contain far more sensitive data than cars.
I am far less likely to die in my car than I am to die outside of it, but I treat my one-ton metal conveyance with the utmost care and respect, preferring to spend less on the car itself and more on maintenance and repairs to ensure that I do not die an unlikely death from shoddy parts or labor.
You assume that nothing on my phone could result in my death. That privilege is not available to me. Personal beliefs, medical history, and other aspects of my self that are stored in digital form on my device could kill me if viewed by the wrong people.
As far as I understand it, Apple prefers that they not show up in the news as "iPhone EXPLODES" because the part where it says the customer bought some cheap third-party replacement is going to be buried ten lines into the article.
If their problem is with reporters then taking out independent repair shops is a lot of collateral damage on the way to preventing things Apple actually cares about.
Apple cares about how their brand is perceived. Similarly, I doubt there are people at Apple who cackle maniacally when they lock down their operating systems; these are just a result of trying to protect their image at the expense of user freedom.
It’s not about money, but about ensuring that the repair shops have up to date information and tools to execute the repairs and that they’re delivering a decent quality.
Without the certification you won’t get access to the special tools and diagnose software.
> Apple claimed that Huseby was allegedly importing “counterfeit” iPhone screens. Huseby denied this, saying that he simply used refurbished iPhone screens that he never advertised to the public as “genuine” parts from Apple.
I'm no fan of Apple's crackdown on repairers in general, but this sure sounds like he had third-party screens that he called "refurbished iPhone screens," which sounds pretty misleading to me. If someone told me something was a "refurbished iPhone screen," my assumption would be that it was originally a genuine Apple part, and it doesn't sound like that's what he was using.
Just leaving out the word "genuine" doesn't make it not-misleading.
> ...this sure sounds like he had third-party screens that he called "refurbished iPhone screens,"
It doesn't sound like that to me at all. From the article I get the impression he was selling "refurbished iPhones" or offering to "repair your iPhone". In both of those cases I don't think using non-Apple parts is misleading - because as the article says "he simply used refurbished iPhone screens that he never advertised to the public as “genuine” parts from Apple".
> Just leaving out the word "genuine" doesn't make it not-misleading.
agree on this point - in english there would be some distinction between 'refurbished iPhone screens' vs 'refurbished screens for iPhones', where the former implies some kind of 'official screen' and the latter implies a 'compatible part'
but - and I don't know the labelling used or norwegian - what if there is no native language construct that captures this subtle distinction?
>>After having paid fees for his appeals, he now faces severe financial consequences, which include paying his own legal team and €23,000 to Apple.
I guess €23,000 passes for severe in Norway. He's lucky he's not in USA.
The court might have just done its job, as the laws stands Apple wins. The politicians should pass laws forcing Apple to allow repairs, if they want to sell iPhones.
For the past 5 years, I've been relying on cheap Android mid tier phones. I currently use a Redmi Note 8 Pro (I bought the first one shipped to my country) for a little over $250, and I wouldn't feel bad about buying a new phone if this one breaks. These phones are often made to not be repaired in the first place. The spare parts are quite difficult to come by because nobody bothers to even make them. The manufacturer in fact sends a plastic case for the phone because customers are u likely to find one elsewhere.
Most of the repair shops here (I'm in East Asia now), get broken iPhones, or higher and lower end Samsung phones. I can understand Apple being constantly hostile towards the repair shops can easily put customers out of option to repair their own devices from cheaper places, and the repair shop lot of business because they simply can't source spare parts.
I think Louis Rossman was very vocal about the issue (a New York based YouTuber and a repair shop owner), that is probably worth a look.
> We are now holding the European Commission to its commitment to “a Right to Repair” in the Circular Economy Action Plan, to ensure universal access to affordable genuine spare parts for all electronics for both repair professionals and consumers.
Does that mean there's a European Citizens Initiative? A petition? Or what is this referencing ?
I don't really know how EU policymaking works (although I guess I should, as I'm a EU citizen), but it seems to be more of a broad but approved plan than just an initiative or a petition.
Been at the broken Apple-Glass(tm) enough to know how insane their prices are. This alone is enough for me to stay away from Apple devices. I used to own some but now have switched to different bands for every piece of hardware (Android, Linux and Windows PC's etc). I can't for the life of me understand how people can support this but I guess it is me living in my hacker/geek bubble.
I get your point. However, different people want different things. Some people could not care less about manufacturer's updates, but care a lot about hardware durability and price.
Aye so you can suffer through shitty half arsed third party repairers who either write your phone off as water damaged even though it wasn’t (thanks Motorola) or glue it back together because they broke all the clips opening it (thanks dude down the local repair shop).
Well I suppose I was thinking more of the fact that my phone cost me about a third the price of an iphone. A year ago I cracked the screen, I'd driven several miles when I realised I'd forgotten it, it was when I swung the car round to go back that I heard it come off the roof. Works fine still. (Little adhesive card wallet had kept it on the roof) To paraphrase Apple I typed this message on my Moto g6
It was a Moto G (3 I think) I sent in for repair under warranty after it kept overheating. They triggered the water label, refused to fix it and held it until I’d paid a £30 ransom charge. It wasn’t economical for them to fix it so they broke it. And it took them two weeks of pissing around to get that far.
How do I know it wasn’t water damaged? Bought new from amazon, only used for testing android apps.
As for repairs you can do all that with Apple handsets. However with all third party parts you really never know what the bell you’re going to get. A friend of mine has a Sony handset which they took to a high street repairer who did a bodge with a 3rd party screen. Literally the touch point calibration is completely off, the thing isn’t gorilla glass as the corner cracked trim finger pressure and the thing doesn’t fit properly.
YMMV but my phone pays the bills so it’s mid range iPhone with AppleCare thanks.
I’m perfectly capable of doing repairs myself but I’d rather someone else did it where if they screw it up or encounter an issue I’ve got an exit plan. Apple when they screwed up my 6s repair on warranty just gave me a whole new handset. This was while I was having a coffee up the road. <2h.
I you have some time, try replacing the screen yourself. There are tons of instruction videos (probably also for your model) and a new screen is surprisingly cheap (for an Android phone).
There are poor quality parts, but few problems around them. The good mechanics know to avoid said parts and people know to avoid bad mechanics, all without Ford taking them to Supreme Court.
My son broke the screen of his Android phone twice. Each time I ordered a replacement screen on ebay for 35€ and repaired it myself. The second time I had become quite good at it and it only took me about half an hour.
Do you mean that everything in the news should be dominated by a single topic?
Not only is it somewhat nearsighted (if perhaps sometimes tempting) to suggest that everything and everyone should put their focus on a single matter and stop focusing on anything else, it also leads to people getting weary really fast.
I was assuming you might have referred to the covid-19 epidemic. And if that were the case then yes, I definitely do think there should also be other topics at the top. It's not like we're starving for news, or like feeding ourselves more is going to do much good after a certain point. Too much of it just becomes noise.
Of course you might be referring to the issues of racism and police brutality. While those -- especially racism -- are significant matters on the global scale, the current events are mostly a U.S. thing, and not everyone is American.
I agree those topics should be getting high visibility regardless, but I don't necessarily agree with the idea that we should just drop everything else we were doing and are interested in, or that it would be automatically sad if the top posts on a tech-oriented international forum don't happen to revolve around the current hot topic in the U.S.
We could talk about systemic racism in the tech industry ...
And, that's, just like, your opinion, man. Clearly a lot of people all around the world agree with me that systemic racism is worth discussing, based on the various protests in Paris, etc.
I certainly am not arguing anyone has to agree with me.
I'd like you to point out where I denied the validity of "the" discussion, or any discussion.
I disagreed with the idea that a single topic needs to be always at the top, or that it's somehow a bad thing if it isn't, or that it should be to the exclusion of other things. That's not at all the same as denying the validity of discussion about anything else unless you live in a black and white world.
I literally said "I agree those topics should be getting high visibility regardless", and now I'm apparently "denying the validity of the discussion".
This site and other similar ones are governed by algorithms and people who intentionally push some topics and some trending patterns down or away. Not really a reason to get concerned. You can use link 'new' in the header above to get an idea on the real interest of people here (assuming it is not manipulated).
If it brings you any delight, I screenshotted that comment along with the article title and sent it to a friend as "hacker news dot png" since picking a keyword from the article title and posting a prepared comment about it is such a quintessential Hacker News quirk.
This court case bas brought on by Apple because he did not properly remove the Apple logos. He used a permanent marker to "remove" them from the parts. Apple did not agree that this was a proper way to do it.
As much as I am for the rights to repair. I would say that Apple has some grounds here.