>Apple can trivially comply with Right To Repair by just selling parts, documentation and any software needed to pair new parts.

... which they do! It's $69.00 for the iPhone 13 mini battery or $70.99 for the kit which also includes a replacement display adhesive and a set of spare security screws. In both cases, you can get $24.15 credit when you return your old battery.

You don't have to get the toolkit; you can put together your own tools and do whatever crazy shit you want with a hairdryer or whatever.

Are you seriously saying that Apple's decision to both sell and rent (on what I'm pretty sure must be a loss-making basis) the tools that they themselves use for the repairs is ... malicious?

It's designed to make the process complicated and financially risky. That is the malicious part.

What? Let me get this clear: Apple provides no tools - you are OK with this. Apple provides optional tools, which are the ones they use - this "make[s] the process complicated and financially risky".

Is that what you are saying? Can you walk me through your logic because it's escaping me.

Objectively, it is a risky process to do without the right tools based on feedback from people who have actually done it on a regular basis; ref. the poster upthread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31457776

My problem with this process is that it's a low-volume, just-in-time system where you have to order the part, do the repair and send back your old part in a limited timeframe otherwise you are overcharged, not to mention the final step of having Apple support pair the new part to your phone to disable the warnings.

It's unnecessarily annoying and admin-heavy. Compare that to just buying a handful of batteries and keeping them "just in case" so you can then do the repair in your own time as needed. I currently do that but have to use grey-market parts as Apple won't sell them to me without the aforementioned restrictions.

I mean, I don't even know what to say, how often do you think consumers are having to replace the batteries in their phones? The idea that people would keep stock on hand is just beyond absurd.

Returning cores for a price rebate is a totally standard industry practice. You apparently get 18 days to initiate the return and Apple gives you a free return label.

I'm not saying people should be keeping stock on-hand. I'm saying that their current system is clearly malicious compliance as all that admin also costs them more, so the only reason I can see is extra annoyance to make self-repair less attractive (and prevent third-party shops from using this program as a source of genuine parts).

> Returning cores for a price rebate is a totally standard industry practice.

Depends for what. A worn down (or outright destroyed, if you screwed up and couldn't get it out intact) battery has zero value beyond its raw materials, which are much less than the cost of shipping it back (the eco-friendly option here is to drop it off at a local recycler which will collect and ship them in bulk).

Browsing https://selfservicerepair.com/home, it seems to me they do more or less exactly that (the parts sometimes are bundled with mounting screws, the manuals assume you have professional tools, and you’ll have to call them to DRM ‘register’ your new part with the other hardware.

I can’t find the requirement to rent this set of tools on that site (disclaimer: I can’t fully emulate a sale, as the site asks for an IMEI, and I don’t have a device for which they sell parts)

So, from my browsing, renting the tools seems optional.

Did you even research the program? Apple’s SSR store will happily sell you the parts without the toolkit if you want to improvise and use the iFixIt method of repair. You are not required to buy or rent any tools when placing an order.

> Did you even research the program?

Yes, I did. I summarized my thoughts on it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31458161

I still stand by my opinion that this is malicious compliance to prevent formal Right To Repair legislation - not necessarily about the tooling (indeed, optionally providing tooling is a good move) but the fact that besides the problems mentioned in the linked comment, the actual selection of parts is minimal, hopefully for the time being.