Still waiting to see if Louis finds any problems though
Years back I replaced the battery on my iPhone (I tried to have Apple replace it ... it's a long, infuriating story). But I took it in for a charge port recall due to the port losing connection to the cable. It was completely unrelated issue but they wouldn't replace it under recall due to prior third party repairs. It's similar to Ford not replacing your recalled alternator because you replaced your radiator with a third party. In any case I haven't bought an iPhone since because of the frustration this experience left me with.
So this is definitely a positive step in the right direction but hopefully it doesn't end without amendments to their warranty and recall policies.
Unless, of course, a way to remotely verify no damage occurred to the device while repairing it existed, which isn’t the case.
And if Apple doesn't want to do the repair themselves under recall due to 3rd party repairs, sure, just send me the part and I'll do it. One part per phone. Just don't tell me to pound sand and eat the full cost of part+repair. Sounds straightforward, though perhaps there's something I'm missing.
E.g, We'll allow this, but you must (without exception) follow our procedures to the letter. I mean, AASP exists so they already have a framework for the Independent Repair Providers to adhere to as a way of enforcing QC among shops in a uniform way.
Seems like an area where creating a closed system would be advantageous...
So where do 99% of people go to get their phone repaired? The same places they were going before: Apple's overpriced and shitty repair shops, or independent repair shops that don't have access to genuine parts because Apple refuses to sell to them (and prevents suppliers from selling parts to anyone but them).
This announcement does nothing in the grand scheme of things, even if it is a marginal improvement over the previous situation. What I think is important to notice about this situation is that the only thing that caused Apple to take this (extremely tiny) pro-consumer and pro-environment step was regulatory pressure. They would not have done this on their own if it wasn't for the pressure put on by people like Louis Rossman.
The logical conclusion of course is that if we want Apple to stop destroying the planet and exploiting consumers while doing it, then we need to apply more pressure. Apple is going to do shit unless we force them to. (this can also be seen with their App store monopoly, where they reduced the fee a while back only after the pressure from lawmakers and Epic's lawsuit).
So you'd be able order a battery or screen and go to some place and they'd swap it. Edit: just noticed Rossmann has released a video suspecting pretty much the same.
or you could link to just one video which explains his position. Not everyone has time to watch 1000 videos.
Not in the least. If anything, this will HELP his business with people who purchase parts then discover that they're not actually capable of doing the work themselves and turn to him to do the work with official parts they've already purchased.
The vast majority of people might be able to do the repairs themselves - eventually after hours of frustration and fear ("I just killed my phone!") and after purchasing additional equipment they don't normally have, just as the vast majority of people could eventually learn to do the same technology-related work that many of us here make livings on.
The always-DIYers fraction of a percent are not the customers anyone's looking for. The vast majority that are willing to pay to have someone else do that hard part are the customers everyone's looking for. It's like plumbing - everyone CAN do it, few want to do it themselves (and take on the risks).
I fully support right-to-repair but I despise that he's become the face of it.
But lying is a pretty big claim, and not that I've seen all his content but I've never had a reason to believe that he has intentionally deceived people on any of his public platforms.
I'd be happy to see an example where you believe he did.
A big one that comes to mind is his remarks on the PCKompaniet case where he continued to say that Apple was suing a mom and pop repair shop for doing third-party repairs that weren't authorized. Not only did Apple not sue them for doing repairs (they sued them for copyright infringement and counterfeiting) but people repeatedly showed Rossmann that the store owner had actually advertised the parts as "genuine OEM" parts on his website and had only changed that advertisement after his parts from China were seized (the page was archived by archive.org).
Another one was a story that was similar about parts being seized by Apple in the US (that actually, at one point, dealt with Rossmann directly as it was his order). Apple didn't seize anything, it was U.S. Customs that seized the parts because the import documentation didn't match and the batteries themselves had Apple logos on them and they contacted Apple to verify the authenticity of the parts. Rossmann continued to claim that Apple had seized the parts as retaliation and continued to claim that they were "original parts" despite actually coming from grey markets in China that refurbished and replaced components (which, legally, make them non-original parts).
Overall, the sad thing is that I agree with him on the general right to repair argument but I feel like he purposely misrepresents certain things to garner sympathy from the right to repair "movement" and I feel like that hurts the movement as a whole. I feel the same way about Linus Tech Tips and their mischaracterizations. If your argument is sound and your principle is strong, you shouldn't need to do that in order to make your argument.
Like?