Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisMarshallNY | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure what's newsworthy, here. This is quite typical of any place, that both sells and repairs stuff.

The cost of repair is calculated to be just below, or at, the cost of replacement. It's unusual, but not unheard-of, to have it more than the cost of replacement.

I've encountered this with TVs, phones, VCRs, stereos, non-Apple computers, cars, and I have heard stories of this applying to buildings and homes, as well.

And I find that infuriating, as it leads to waste.

View on HN

Not sure this is all that typical. While repair costs can get to a fairly large percentage of the purchase price and thus not making sense in some situations, it's not always the case.

I recently repaired a Sony soundbar system for about 30% of the purchase price, so definitely not "at the cost of replacement". Replaced a phone screen for 10% the cost of a new one etc.

Depends on where the repairs are done.

Today, I'm returning a leased car. I had a small crack in the front bumper (trailer hitch in a parking lot). It isn't one of the new sensor-packed bumpers; just a vanilla one.

It cost $1,000 to repair, because they replaced the entire front bumper, and the paint cost more than the part.

It also had to be done at the dealer, because of the lease requirements. The body shop down the road would have done it for half that. I have since found out that the dealer sends the car to a body shop anyway, and they probably only charged half, so the dealer pocketed the difference.

I am never leasing a vehicle, ever again. This was my first, and last time.

Which brand did you lease? I've leased Toyota's before and had no such restriction. I could go to any auto body shop they just had to use genuine Toyota parts for the repair. With my last lease I had to have the rear bumper replaced Toyota didn't care where I got it done.

It was a Subaru. The lease was very cheap. When I went to the body shop, they were the ones that told me it needed to be done by the dealership.

All in all, it was quite cheap. I probably saved a lot of money, but I don’t like surprises. I’ll gladly pay more, for no surprises.

> I have heard stories of this applying to buildings and homes, as well.

I foresee a future Black Mirror episode about Apple Home: $1m for a $250k condo. When the fridge breaks that’s gonna cost you $990k to repair. Might as well just buy a whole new home.

The problem here is that Apple's stuff is so un-repairable that they almost _have_ to fully replace a larger part. With most other electronics there's still a chance (though diminishing) that the part can be repaired. It's almost as if Apple is seeing this as another revenue source.

I agree, but would suggest that it's newsworthy simply by virtue of it not being unusual (as well as the current holes Apple seems to be digging deeper into). Everyone will read the post with a different set of eyes, so there could be any facet that stands out to someone. One of those is that they seem quite happy to do a specific repair as long as it's under warranty, and will replace literally every major component multiple times before replacing the computer. I've also updated the post with a reference to a previous repair bill that was covered under warranty.

Good point. I always get AppleCare, and, unfortunately, have needed to use it, quite often.

In one case, I had a laptop that developed a few, simultaneous problems. It had the notorious "stickyyyy keyyyyyyboard" issue, as well as a loose Thunderbolt port, and issues with the EFI system.

They basically replaced the entire computer. The only thing that didn't change was the screen.

Since it was under warranty, it didn't cost me a dime, but the report said it was about two grand's worth of repairs.

Something unconscionable is newsworthy even when it is common.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com