5 ms·

Forcing people who have broken their new iPhone's screen to trade it in for a refurb because no third party repair shop can swap out a serialized display isn't

by _xy8h 5y ago

Forcing people who have broken their new iPhone's screen to trade it in for a refurb because no third party repair shop can swap out a serialized display isn't user hostile?

psutor 5y ago
You are saying that the "why" of Apple doing these things is purely "user hostility", which is highly implausible. A company does not make decisions based on a pure "will to be evil". They probably think that the reputation hit from not allowing repair is less damaging than the reputation hit from users dissatisfied with repairs. Other design choices can be for cost cutting in design or production. So sure, it is not nice for the user, but the reason is not a desire to spite users. They likely simply think the additional costs, tangible and intangible, of being repair-friendly are not worth it.
- techrat 5y ago
  > A company does not make decisions based on a pure "will to be evil". That goes against the messaging on here whenever Google does something that contradicts "Don't be evil." > They probably think that the reputation hit from not allowing repair is less damaging than the reputation hit from users dissatisfied with repairs. Other design choices can be for cost cutting in design or production. Adding code and microchips to enforce serial paring of batteries, screens and camera modules to the device it was originally installed in... is a cost cutting measure? Usually when one wants to cut costs, you SIMPLIFY the hardware... not make it more complex. > So sure, it is not nice for the user, but the reason is not a desire to spite users. Right off the top of my head, how they refused to implement a battery replacement program for iPods until they got massive negative media attention for it (since your iPod is functionally useless when the battery dies, even if it's plugged in) is one example of Apple's extremely long line of ongoing actions that are extremely hostile to the end user. Refusing to adopt USBC for some devices after YEARS seems spiteful, especially when people have been asking for it. Shutting down iOS emulation projects seems spiteful. Sending C&D's to an open source project for using the term 'App Store' in a completely different context seems spiteful. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/06/apple-hit-small-open-source-project-with-cease-and-desist https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/06/apple-hit-small-open-sou... 'You're holding it wrong' also seems spiteful. Hell, Jobs' existence was built upon being spiteful. His daughter. Pencil sharpener remark for people who asked for a smaller iPad. It's impossible to not imagine how his attitude bled into the company culture. But it's not deliberate,... right? Despite the fact that these hardware lockdowns and anti repair tactics continue to happen, and with more severity, each and every hardware iteration for decades now?
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I really do think you're ascribing emotion and malice to decisions where it doesn't make sense to do so. > Shutting down iOS emulation projects seems spiteful. No, it's because Apple "pays" for OS development by selling hardware. Emulation projects cut into that. It's not spiteful; it's a logical business decision, regardless of whether or not we like it.
  - thebruce87m 5y ago
    > Adding code and microchips to enforce serial paring of batteries, screens and camera modules to the device it was originally installed in... is a cost cutting measure? This absolutely can be the case. What is the engineering cost of supporting third party components? What happens to apples image if a crucial calibration is not performed after swapping a component? They might lose that customer forever because “Face-ID doesn’t work”. What is the cost if your PR image is damaged as a result of third party battery fires? “iPhones explode” would be the headline and third-party batteries would be the footnote.

by _xy8h 5y ago

Forcing people who have broken their new iPhone's screen to trade it in for a refurb because no third party repair shop can swap out a serialized display isn't user hostile?

psutor 5y ago

You are saying that the "why" of Apple doing these things is purely "user hostility", which is highly implausible. A company does not make decisions based on a pure "will to be evil". They probably think that the reputation hit from not allowing repair is less damaging than the reputation hit from users dissatisfied with repairs. Other design choices can be for cost cutting in design or production. So sure, it is not nice for the user, but the reason is not a desire to spite users. They likely simply think the additional costs, tangible and intangible, of being repair-friendly are not worth it.

techrat 5y ago
> A company does not make decisions based on a pure "will to be evil". That goes against the messaging on here whenever Google does something that contradicts "Don't be evil." > They probably think that the reputation hit from not allowing repair is less damaging than the reputation hit from users dissatisfied with repairs. Other design choices can be for cost cutting in design or production. Adding code and microchips to enforce serial paring of batteries, screens and camera modules to the device it was originally installed in... is a cost cutting measure? Usually when one wants to cut costs, you SIMPLIFY the hardware... not make it more complex. > So sure, it is not nice for the user, but the reason is not a desire to spite users. Right off the top of my head, how they refused to implement a battery replacement program for iPods until they got massive negative media attention for it (since your iPod is functionally useless when the battery dies, even if it's plugged in) is one example of Apple's extremely long line of ongoing actions that are extremely hostile to the end user. Refusing to adopt USBC for some devices after YEARS seems spiteful, especially when people have been asking for it. Shutting down iOS emulation projects seems spiteful. Sending C&D's to an open source project for using the term 'App Store' in a completely different context seems spiteful. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/06/apple-hit-small-open-source-project-with-cease-and-desist https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/06/apple-hit-small-open-sou... 'You're holding it wrong' also seems spiteful. Hell, Jobs' existence was built upon being spiteful. His daughter. Pencil sharpener remark for people who asked for a smaller iPad. It's impossible to not imagine how his attitude bled into the company culture. But it's not deliberate,... right? Despite the fact that these hardware lockdowns and anti repair tactics continue to happen, and with more severity, each and every hardware iteration for decades now?
- kelnos 5y ago
  I really do think you're ascribing emotion and malice to decisions where it doesn't make sense to do so. > Shutting down iOS emulation projects seems spiteful. No, it's because Apple "pays" for OS development by selling hardware. Emulation projects cut into that. It's not spiteful; it's a logical business decision, regardless of whether or not we like it.
- thebruce87m 5y ago
  > Adding code and microchips to enforce serial paring of batteries, screens and camera modules to the device it was originally installed in... is a cost cutting measure? This absolutely can be the case. What is the engineering cost of supporting third party components? What happens to apples image if a crucial calibration is not performed after swapping a component? They might lose that customer forever because “Face-ID doesn’t work”. What is the cost if your PR image is damaged as a result of third party battery fires? “iPhones explode” would be the headline and third-party batteries would be the footnote.