posted by
Fnord666
on Saturday November 23 2019, @06:20PM
from the make-it-right-the-first-time dept.
from the make-it-right-the-first-time dept.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956_
Right to repair advocates have described Apple's recent claim to lose money on repairs as 'absurd' and 'misleading.'
Apple made the claim to a Congressional judiciary committee investigating, among other things, whether Apple's locked-down approach to device repairs is anti-competitive...
Apple has always insisted that its control of the repair process is for reasons of safety and reliability. Others have, however, argued that Apple is deliberately preventing customers from obtaining lower-cost repairs from independent shops in order to force them to use Apple Stores.
Source: https://9to5mac.com/2019/11/21/lose-money-on-repairs/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Lose Money on Repairs, Apple? an Absurd Claim, Say Critics
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 27 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by choose another one on Saturday November 23 2019, @06:22PM (2 children)
Every iPhone repaired is a new iPhone sale lost, so of course it loses money.
It just isn't about to admit that that is the game...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by zoward on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:12PM
That's assuming that after having their phone break and being forced to have Apple itself repair it for an absurd cost, customers don't go out and buy a Samsung or LG instead. It's happening more often than it used to now that Apple's brand name isn't quite as pristine as it was a decade ago.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Sunday November 24 2019, @03:31AM
Exactly...
If they can charge you for a new $2500 MacBook instead of just plugging the video cable back in or replacing a $100 battery or whatever, they will certainly make more money....
:facepalm:
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:02PM (11 children)
The term 'misleading" is not strong enough. They claim they have a RIGHT to profit from their product breaking. That is a LIE.
What if we were talking about something much less complicated, like a doorstop? So you break your doorstop. Should you be forbidden from sloppily sloshing on some super glue just so a doorstop manufacturer can make money? Should you be forbidden from taking your doorstop to some non-"authorized" repairman (you must really like that doorstop) because of some nebulous "quality" risk? Even if there were a risk, wouldn't you want the choice?
They already do a damn good job of getting consumertards to throw everything away every couple of years and buy all new stuff. Somehow these days they even think throwing old stuff away is "good for the planet" as long as they put it in the green bin. But I'd never buy a doorstop in the first place that required me to buy an entirely new house every time one broke.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:08PM (1 child)
People replace computers no more frequently now than ever in the last forty years. Perhaps even _less_ often than in the past, actually.
This perennial gripe is more persistent than Moore’s law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:31PM
As an infrequent hardware buyer, i can tell you it is has gotten into lightbulb territory, many software vendors, especially those tied to a hardware cycle are only concerned with the leading edge of tech. For all the constant security updates required these days, one would think some hardware drivers warranted updates at least once in 15 years.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:25PM (7 children)
Are you sure? Reading about it a bit suggests Planned obsolescence [wikipedia.org] isn't illegal and is barely regulated in the US outside the automobile industry.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Saturday November 23 2019, @10:54PM (5 children)
At most, they have a "right to try to profit" subject to the legal constraints imposed on their business; but not an actual "right to profit".
A "right to profit" would suggest that if a course of action such as a law forcing them to authorize 3rd party repairs with 3rd party parts violates their right to profit, and the law should be struck down. And that would be absurd.
A "right to try and profit" would mean, that the same law above would pass without dispute, and apple would be free to try and find ways of staying within the law while still making profit. For example, they could price replacement parts competitively with 3rd parties, advertise the 'benefits' of using OEM parts, to try and eke some profit from the repair process.
No company ever has a right to profit, and any attempt to assert one should be smacked down HARD.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday November 24 2019, @11:16PM (4 children)
Did they say they have an absolute right for profits? Is there a law saying they don't have a "right to profit"? The way the US laws work is that you have every possible right unless specifically told otherwise by a "legal constraints imposed on their business". That is, they're not lying if they're saying they have such a right. They're just being redundant and misleading. Which again, probably isn't illegal.
Regardless, it's very likely the US will require 3-5years warranties and parts supply as a way to stifle overseas competition in consumer products and electronics and Apple will be the first to profit from this. So all this smells like a dog and pony show.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday November 25 2019, @04:41AM (3 children)
If there was such a thing as a 'right to profit' then a business could not lose money without that right being violated.
So... yes. Businesses absolutely do NOT have a right to profit, and no such right to profit exists.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday November 25 2019, @04:32PM (2 children)
Implicitly, you're failing to distinguish between absolute rights and rights. You have the right to pursue happiness; But not if it's hurting other people. You have the right to free speech; Unless it violates someones' copyrights / trademarks / patents; You have the right to bear arms; Unless it's field artillery on capital hill. You have a right to live; But not at someone's expense. Well, more or less. That one hasn't been framed too well.
Explicitly, the right to profit can be seen as an amalgamation of the right for life and the right to pursue of happiness: Income supports existence. Growth and prosperity gives rise to the opportunities that can afford you happiness. Living without profits means living without a chance to pursue happiness since every moment and resource must be dedicate to survival.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday November 25 2019, @05:37PM (1 child)
"You have the right to pursue happiness; But not if it's hurting other people."
"Explicitly, the right to profit can be seen as an amalgamation of the right for life and the right to pursue of happiness"
Corporations can exist practically indefinitely, with virtually nothing dedicated to 'survival'.
Corporations as legal constructs do not feel "happy".
I don't really think your argument here is convincing.
Nevertheless, I actually already agreed a corporation has a "right to pursue profit". This is not the same as a "right to profit". Just as your example "right to PURSUE happiness" is not a "right to BE happy"; and for the same rationale -- if you are unhappy you don't automatically get to assert your rights have been violated. Society doesn't owe you happiness. There is an implicit understanding that people should be allowed to pursue happiness, but society is not obligated to lift a finger if you don't get it.
Contrast that with the right to life and the right to free speech where you are owed both by default. In those cases if society deprives you of either then society better have a damned good reason, because in those cases the default is that you should have them. There is no equivalent default that society needs to make you happy or profitable.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday November 25 2019, @09:38PM
Try this: A business's life line is their profitability. Its happiness is wealth and prosperity. Take the profits and the right to pursue them, and you've taken both their food and their right to get more food so you've condemned them to death.
Mind you, I know this is bullshit. But, in principle, so long as the law attributes individual rights to corporations, that's what you get. Of course, there's other laws and regulations. But still, it is what it is.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 24 2019, @06:37PM
You may or may not know but there was an attempt to make planned obsolescence MANDATORY in the US. Thankfully it failed.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:29PM
That is a LIE.
And in front of congress? Don't we have a thing about that?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:45PM (2 children)
Only Welfare Niggers carry $2000 iPhones.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @11:56PM (1 child)
Any faux affluent individuals try and pretend they are hip by owning Apple products. It's been that way since the 1990s, outside of a few desktop publishing professionals for whom it made sense.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 24 2019, @01:55AM
Remember when Michael David Crawford was alive and coding exclusively for Apple products used by faux affluent individuals to try and pretend they are hip? Those were the days.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nuke on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:55PM (2 children)
The main purpose of the Apple repair front desk (the "Genius Bar") is to hum and har over a customer's broken iThing and then quote a crazy high price to repair it. They then say that a new one would be cheaper, or even if not that a new one would be a better spend in the long run. It would not matter if the repair operation lost money if considered in isolation because in reality they are part of the sales team to sell new stuff and make money for the company as a whole.
Nevertheless, I suspect that even if only a few customers take up their exobitantly priced repair offers, they would make some eye-watering profits anyway, unless their workshops' incompetence is monumental.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 25 2019, @02:43AM (1 child)
You're forgetting about the licensing costs of running that repair centre. Every repair sees a large license fee paid to some company in the Cayman Isles which has to pay some company in Ireland etc. So that $500 repair at the Apple Repair Center breaks down to $10 for parts, $50 for labour and $490 paid for being able to use the Apple name. Then there's rent etc. So yes the Apple Repair Center loses so much money that they pay negative tax and Apple has to supplement their income.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday November 25 2019, @01:50PM
As I said, Apple strive not to do repairs and the Genius Bar's main function is to persuade customers to buy new stuff instead of a repair. You can say the Genius Bar and the necessary minimal workshops behind it are losing money, but because they are in reality mainly a sales force, they only "lose" money like any salesman "loses" money in that his salary is a debit on the books.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Hartree on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:56PM
The old saying had to be updated for the digital economy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @08:37PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YVTXG5-8h0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by toddestan on Sunday November 24 2019, @02:37AM (1 child)
I find it absurd that Apple would argue that they are losing money on repairs, when their repair prices - like everything else they sell, are obviously set at carefully chosen price points. If it really was a repair service, the quoted costs would be something like (price of parts) + (cost of labor), and you'd see all kinds of odd dollar amounts. Instead, everything is priced at amounts that end in 9, $X9, $XX9, etc. and it's clear - similar to how they price their products, that the amounts quoted have little to do with how much it actually costs them to perform the repair.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 25 2019, @02:50AM
It's probably the just the way the costs of using the Apple name are calculated. You don't think Apple would allow their repair division to use their name and logo for free do you?
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Sunday November 24 2019, @05:00PM (1 child)
I played this game from 2005 to 2011 or so in various jobs.
I ran the repair departmnet for the maxprts network out of columbia mo for a time. We were a 'ship to' for independent techs. I was responsible for our stores repairs and shipping parts to the remote independent techs who used our shipto for a fee/cut. I saw how incredibly difficult it is for non-apple people to make any money on repairs.
MESSAGE TO APPLE: RESTRICTING DIAGNOSTIC PARTS ORDERS OR LIMITING THEM TO ONE BASED UPON YOUR ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT AS TO WHAT THE CORRECT DIAGNOSIS IS FROM THE DOCUMENTATION IS PREDATORY. MULTIPLE PART FAILURES ARE A REALITY NOT FANTASY. SCORING YOUR TECHS ON PARTS ORDERS AS A WAY TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH TO PAY IS SOME SHADY SHIT. FLAT RATE REPAIR FEES FOR WILDLY INCONGRUENT AND INACCURATE ESTIMATED REPAIR TIMES IS A FORM OF SLAVERY. LOSING MONEY WHEN YOUR PRODUCT FAILS IS THE CORRECT MARKET RESPONSE NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN HAND WAVE AWAY AND FOIST COSTS TO OTHERS.
So for an ibook that was locking up, it could be the drive or the cable, or both, and so for every ibook repair you were taking a 50% chance of taking a ding to your score. They literally do not allow in their repair plan for the chance of multiple parts to fail, and in this case, tens of thousands of ibooks under warranty had their hard drives fried by the errors caused by the bad cables.
Fast forward to hawaii I was living on a balcony and cycling to work in traffic, when punaho school district was threatening apple that they were going to buy a bunch of thinkpads or sonys when the entire punaho class threw their ibooks in their swimming pools because they were so unreliable. And the new black/white ones were coming out and apple sales really wanted that.
Trouble was, on my first day of the job at computer doctor, they had 40 or so ibooks *in 5' stacks on the floor*, all with catastrophic damage and punaho wanted repair quotes by the end of the week. My boss's boss said I had to make all shortcuts, just eyeball it. My apple contact who was taking a daily interest on how the *repairs were coming along* and making sure I was following apple procedures. And I had to do all of the diagnostics with paperwork, and only 2 recent high school graduates to help, who were not certified and so could not do anything, but my boss's boss said they have to, but I have to lie to apple.
Whew stressful just writing about it. I got the job through express personell, and then they even lowered my hourly wage arbitrarily after negotiation. (really fuck express personel)
(my entire employment history was leaked with the federal application breach in 2015, so this is no secret to anybody)
I say all this to say that what I saw from apple was that the beauty of the design of the computers, which comes from jobs himself being a real designer, was totally corrupted by the economic procedures of the subdepartments. I doubt any of the finer points of the diagnostic process ever reached their way to steve, these details were stuck in their by accountants who designed them to appear as persnickety details mr. jobs would never stoop himself to consider, even as his company was earning an awful abusive reputation among the actual techs who were most enthusastic about it.
And that's how we got here, where the apple brand is meaningless. It has become *nearly* as ugly and clunky and bloated and poorly designed as any microsoft product.
And the best power connector ever invented has been removed from the market, and you would get sued if you tried to make one. (correct me if im wrong about magsafe)
Idk, here is a meme I made a couple days ago, that I think kindof shows a lot of what we are seeing here, about how this way of doing business is centralized and predatory. If even the guys who are smart enough to work on these repairs are being squeezed to near minimum wage, no wonder so many people are homeless.
https://archive.is/6uwoN [archive.is]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 25 2019, @10:38PM
So, you lied to Apple with regards to how much was damaged? How it was damaged? Or what, exactly? That was pretty incomprehensible.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"