>When repairs are needed, authorized providers can ensure the quality, safety, and security of repairs for customers
Do you think this is reasonable when Apple tries as much as possible to minimise the alternative at the cost of consumer choice?
This is why you see a lot of Torx heads on electronics and automobiles.
As far as the penalobular screw goes… yeah, that is I think deliberately weird, but when you buy your replacement battery or screen or whatever part, the company will either include for free or minimal charge the pentalobular bit, so it isn't really stopping you from repairing. What I think the bit does prevent is consumers opening and peeking around in their phone. Curiosity is great for learning, but it generally doesn't come with a grounding strap. The ICs in the phone are trivially damaged, not necessarily immediately destroyed, but set on a path to future failure by static charges too small to be noticed by the curious finger. Apple finds themselves on the warranty hook to replace these failed boards. It is certainly in their interest to keep sight seers out of the phones.
But
Why won't they sell me a screwdriver?
And anyway, isn't it moot? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A0P3XUY/
If it's no longer under warranty then using the screwdriver wouldn't void the warranty.
I wasn't aware you could obtain drivers now.
http://www.cio.com/article/2411922/consumer-technology/the-c...
Besides, Apple wouldn't necessarily want devices to be unserviceable - repair fees are a source of income as well.
And the justification is that it's not at all anti-consumer. Allowing consumers to disassemble the devices will practically guarantee that they break (and in a manner that voids the warrantee). The only people who should be disassembling them are people specially trained to repair them, or experts who have a lot of practice disassembling electronics safely. The former have the screwdrivers already, and as I already said, it's not that hard for the latter to get their hands on the screwdrivers.
And if someone wants to void their warranty than that's their business. My Thinkpad is largely modular and designed to be disassembled/parts replaced. Several years now and somehow it's remained intact...
And yet it's a barrier to their repair. Is it excuseable? Is there a reason you felt the need to mention how "hard" it is to find these specially-designed screwdrivers, and yet don't at all give a good reason for why they're used in the first place?
>Allowing consumers to disassemble the devices will practically guarantee that they break
That's a responsibility for customers, not Apple. Better still, Apple could release the kind of documentation that would prevent customers from breaking devices when opening them up, but they've chosen not to do that. Do they really care about the danger of home repair, considering that?
>The only people who should be disassembling them are people specially trained to repair them
That should really be the choice of the customer. Apple devices are not in the common interest - your neighbour pulling apart their phone is none of your business. Why do you feel this shouldn't be available to whoever ends up owning the device?
It's not much of a barrier. If that stops you, then you probably weren't going to be able to fix anything inside the phone anyway.
This would be missing the point. There is a barrier in place. It hasn't been justified by anybody for technical reasons, so it exists only for the sake of being a barrier to repair. Is that acceptable behaviour from a company?
I think that as far as the actual repairability of Apple devices goes, focusing on the screws is bikeshedding. The screws are trivial to get around. Why not talk about the glued-together, soldered-on parts instead? Those seem like much bigger issues to me.
The screws aren't important as a barrier to repairability, but because they have no other purpose. It is not a consequence of product design to select a screw solely on the virtue that it makes user repair more difficult. On principle, the screws are more significant as a reflection of Apple's negative attitude towards its customers.
Ah. From experience, the only thing that stopped me from disassembling things as a youngster that I couldn't have gotten back together were often unusual screws. In my mind, that's a more reasonable reason to use specialized screws, because they aren't more than a token barrier to actually repairing the device. Since I don't have access to Apple's internal design documents, I have no idea if that's actually their stated reason, but it makes more sense to me than malice on Apple's part.
It's easier to get a hold of the necessary screwdrivers than to actually repair the device.
> That's a responsibility for customers, not Apple.
That's incredibly naïve. If Apple does nothing to make it hard to open up their devices, then consumers who don't know any better will decide to try and "maintain" their devices themselves (e.g. swapping the battery) and will end up breaking them. Apple has a responsibility to their customers to avoid making it easy to break their devices. And besides just protecting their customers, this also saves Apple money because they don't have to provide support to customers whose devices "just broke, no really I didn't open it up".
Using custom screws is a fairly minor roadblock all things considered. It won't stop anyone who knows what they're doing, but it will prevent the average customer from trying to muck with their device and breaking it.
> Apple could release the kind of documentation that would prevent customers from breaking devices when opening them up
Haha no they couldn't. There's not a chance in hell that Apple could provide any sort of documentation that would prevent the average customer from destroying their device, unless that documentation simply said "DO NOT OPEN YOUR DEVICE". Apple devices are not designed with end-user repair in mind, and the only people that should be opening them up are people with expertise in disassembling electronics, not average consumers.
> That should really be the choice of the customer.
What choice? "Do I want to break my device, or not?" That's not a useful choice.
> your neighbour pulling apart their phone is none of your business
Not my business, no, but it definitely is Apple's business. Not only does Apple not want to see its customer destroy their phone, but Apple also doesn't want to have to provide support to that customer now that they've done that.
What is this in response to? That's exactly what we're talking about - the use of proprietary screws to try and prevent users from opening up their devices. Nobody is debating what the choice of screwhead is for.
>Using custom screws is a fairly minor roadblock all things considered. It won't stop anyone who knows what they're doing, but it will prevent the average customer from trying to muck with their device and breaking it.
And yet you also state that the screw is not a real barrier. If someone is determined enough to replace their battery that they're willing to open up their phone to do it, what about the act of buying a special screwdriver online to do it is suddenly too much? It seems to me that the screws don't really help to protect against customers at all.
> Apple devices are not designed with end-user repair in mind
Which is the original point of contention - by designing devices which are not intended to be repaired at home, Apple takes away from the rights of its customers, with the added benefit of lining its own pockets with repair fees and replacements. The excuse of "making your device harder to repair" shouldn't be "we don't want you to repair it", if you're trying to defend on principle the idea that Apple isn't deliberately trying to hamper home repair.
If they are, then there's no point continuing the original discussion - Apple's difficulty of repair doesn't come from its great design, but because they are made to be unrepairable, and Apple is guilty of all the shameful practises they're being accused of in the first place.
It's a response to you saying "… and yet don't at all give a good reason for why they're used in the first place?".
> It seems to me that the screws don't really help to protect against customers at all.
I really don't get what you're trying to argue here. Yes, people can get around it. That doesn't mean it does nothing. It's a deterrent.
> Which is the original point of contention - by designing devices which are not intended to be repaired at home, Apple takes away from the rights of its customers, with the added benefit of lining its own pockets with repair fees and replacements.
Are you kidding? Or do you really believe that Apple is making money off repairs?
Repairing devices is not a profit center for Apple. I'm sure they try to also make it not a cost center, but Apple is not maliciously forcing people to get repairs through them out of a desire for money. To Apple, the ideal device is one that never needs repairs.
Hell, Apple is literally famous for giving out free out-of-warrantee repairs to people. How does that match up with your claim that they're trying to line their pockets?
> if you're trying to defend on principle the idea that Apple isn't deliberately trying to hamper home repair.
What? No, of course Apple is deliberately trying to hamper home repair. I don't see how you could have read my comments and got the idea that Apple wasn't trying to do that. In fact, my central point about the screws is Apple's trying to deter people from repairing devices at home. They're not making it impossible (in fact, they're not even making it particularly hard), but they are definitely trying to encourage people not to attempt home repair.
> If they are, then there's no point continuing the original discussion - Apple's difficulty of repair doesn't come from its great design, but because they are made to be unrepairable, and Apple is guilty of all the shameful practises they're being accused of in the first place.
This is complete bullshit. Apple does not design their devices to be unrepairable. They just don't design them to be repairable. Unfortunately, designing devices to be small, not waste any space whatsoever, and get the best battery life and performance possible, also has a tendency to make the device hard to repair, because components are placed in such a way as to maximize the aforementioned goals rather than to be accessible for repair. This also leads to things like soldering components so you can avoid mounting brackets (and this probably also makes repair less likely, because the soldered component won't come unseated), which is a far bigger issue for repairability than the damn screws you're obsessed with.
A deterrent how? Scenario: you want to repair your Apple device. You go online to order a new component, conveniently at the same time you get a cheap screwhead to open the device, and everything goes on as expected. If you don't know any better not to open this incredibly fragile device, nowhere along the way have you had a learning experience.
>Repairing devices is not a profit center for Apple. >To Apple, the ideal device is one that never needs repairs.
These are strong assertions about how Apple operates on the inside. But on the outside, an iPhone screen repair out of warranty can still run in the region of $150, and screen repairs are on the cheap side of services Apple provides. I sincerely doubt that Apple doesn't generate a profit with prices like that.
https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/screen-damage
>Apple does not design their devices to be unrepairable. They just don't design them to be repairable.
These statements are, to me, identical. Repair factors into the design of devices - Apple engineers didn't suddenly forget about it while making an iPhone. If the device isn't meant to be repairable, you're instead intended to replace it, which is wasteful and also a boost to Apple's profits.
I don't get it. You're arguing both that using custom screws is some horrendous thing that Apple's doing to screw over customers, and that it's not even a deterrent at all because you can buy screwdrivers for it. You can't have it both ways.
> I sincerely doubt that Apple doesn't generate a profit with prices like that.
Why do you doubt that? Do you have any information about what the BOM is for the repair (and don't forget, replacing the screen also means replacing the Touch ID sensor too). Do you have any information about how long it takes for an Apple repair technician to actually perform the repair, and how much they get paid? Do you actually have any information at all as to what it costs Apple to perform repairs? Because it doesn't sound like you do.
That said, it's certainly possible that an individual out-of-warranty repair might cost more than strictly necessary, but if so this would presumably be to offset the cost of in-warranty repairs. I really have no idea if any individual Apple repair costs more than strictly necessary, but repairs as a whole are not something Apple does for a profit.
> These statements are, to me, identical.
Then you have an awfully rigid black & white view of the world, and there's not much more to discuss here.
I certainly can, because my argument doesn't rest on the screws being effective. The only important part is that Apple chose a screwhead on the sole basis that it tried to be a barrier to customers, which is a principle that I take issue with. If the screws were later easily bypassed, more power to the consumer, but it doesn't excuse the design choice.
But you need to see things from the perspective of the average consumer. The only reason the average consumer would want to open up an iPhone or a MacBook is to do something like swap out the battery. And since these devices aren't designed with that in mind, the average consumer is very likely to damage or destroy their device in attempting to do so. Apple has a responsibility to remove the obvious easy ways for a customer to accidentally destroy their device. In this way, using custom screws is no different than trying to make the screen less likely to crack when dropped.
But Apple isn't making it impossible to open their devices. They're just making it so the average consumer can't do it. It's not that hard to get pentalobe screwdrivers. Heck, ifixit.com even sells them. Here's a screwdriver bit you can buy for just $4.95 (https://www.ifixit.com/Store/Tools/Tri-point-Y000-Screwdrive...). It's not that big of a deal.
It's been true of all hacker/tech forums since well before the "no wifi, less space than a Nomad. Lame" era.
I think that the average consumer is more likely to go buy a new one, or put up with the nuisance of a short battery life. Almost all the Apple replacement batteries that I see on Amazon come with the special screwdrivers anyhow. So if they're determined enough to actually order a battery, it's almost inevitable that they'll also get the tools to do whatever damage they can.
> Apple has a responsibility to remove the obvious easy ways for a customer to accidentally destroy their device.
I don't think that Apple has a responsibility to protect customers from their own conscious actions, but I think some of the minor roadblocks make sense from a business perspective; no manufacturer wants to deal with a customer that "repaired" their own device and expects the company to still honor the warranty.
Remember the (probably apocryphal) stories about Van Halen's contract requiring a bowl of M&M's with one color removed? It was supposedly a signal to them that somebody had actually read their contract closely.
Maybe there's something similar going on with the screws. Could it be a way for Apple to better ensure that Foxconn is using the hardware that the contract specifically calls for?