HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

> Apple laptops and phones objectively last longer than the competition.

I'm not sure if you've spent much time watching Louis Rossman's youtube channel, but it is full of examples of Apple telling customers a device needs to be replaced when simple repairs are possible. [1][2][3]

Apple worked with US Customs and Border Patrol to seize replacement batteries for laptops that apple will no longer service. [4]

Rossman has a lot of videos so I did not find original sources for the following, but he has also called Apple support about replacing a charging port on a phone. Apple support told him the charging port was soldered to the motherboard and the phone needed to be replaced. But that charging port on that device is attached via a cable and is not soldered to the board. It can be replaced for a few dollars in five minutes.

Rossman also says that apple prevents third party chip manufacturers from selling to repair shops. So Rossman could repair certain macbooks with a $6 chip from (I believe) Intersil, but Apple (being an 800lb gorilla) has asked Intersil not to sell those chips to anyone else. So apple won't replace that chip on your motherboard but they also won't let anyone else do it.

It's great that apple will replace batteries, but I seem to recall there was significant consumer (or government?) pressure to offer those replacements. And I would be curious if they do that worldwide or only where legally required.

But watching Rossman's youtube channel, it is clear that repair is about much more than batteries. It's good that their products are long lasting, but at some point they will all eventually break. Millions of apple products must break each year. Apple could help extend the lives of those products, saving customers money and cutting down on waste. Instead, they seem eager to blame every problem on water damage and quote $1200 for repairs which could be done for a few dollars. (the first three video links make that clear)

I don't see the point in defending Apple here. I am sure other companies are bad too, but Apple is the industry leader and their failure to embrace repair sets expectations across the board. If it was consumer pressure that led to their battery replacement program, we may be able to apply similar pressures for right to repair. But only if we're willing to acknowledge the problems with their behavior and push back against them.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1A9y4S60kg

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7RXJP4mxCc

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw

⬐ dann0

I support RTR. I find Rossman annoying and abrasive, but he makes good points.

However, we are never going to live in a world of repaired devices. Feature development and performance increases happen too quickly.

Most people buy new phones every two years and upgrade not because the device isn't working or its become unusuable.

The better path, the one that Apple is pursuing, is improving the reclaim-ability of materials in devices.

I'd rather trade my old laptop in and buy a new one that has been made from the reclaimed materials of my old laptop, than have my older, slower, less capable one repaired.

⬐ TaylorAlexander

> However, we are never going to live in a world of repaired devices.

This is not a binary thing. Devices are repaired all the time. For example cracked screens are one thing that people still repair. We already live in a world with repaired devices. The question is whether or not we should allow big companies that profit from new device sales to lie to customers and interfere with third party repair.

> Most people buy new phones every two years

I would suspect that "most people" do not. I did that when I was 24 and obsessed with having the latest tech. Now my phone is 5 years old and fine. Most people in the USA for example do not earn enough money to buy a new phone every two years. Those folks would love to be able to repair things and use them a bit longer.

> The better path, the one that Apple is pursuing, is improving the reclaim-ability of materials in devices.

This is not an either/or choice. Remember the phrase is "reduce, reuse, recycle". Recycling is fine, but re-using uses less resources and so should be a component of a real sustainability program.

⬐ samatman

"Apple could do a lot better" isn't incompatible with "everyone else is even worse".

Everything you've objected to here falls under right to repair, which I support. I understand why Apple would want to exert control over the parts which go into their devices, because flaky secondary-market parts which fail will be blamed on Apple, not the fly-by-night chop shop which put them in; but I don't find it compelling and think the entire industry should be forced to allow it.

This is what a reply looks like, by the way. What you did wasn't so much a reply as using my post as a launch-point for your own rant.

In particular, not a word of what you said went to refute or even address the quoted part of my post. There's no if by the way: Apple has been replacing batteries since they popped out of devices, at no point has that service not been available, ever. Instead of looking this up, you used your own mental ambiguity to say a bunch of things which implied they're worse than they are. That's lazy.

DHS Seizes Aftermarket iPhone Screens From Prominent Right-to-Repair Advocate [1]

Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost [2]

[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-...

[2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-inde...

Edit: One more - Apple & Customs STOLE my batteries, that they won't even provide to AASPs https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw

⬐ dpkonofa

Do you know anything about any of those cases you just linked? None of them show that Apple prevented someone from trying to get their device repaired. All 3 of them are copyright issues, not having anything to do with the repair of devices.

1. DHS seized the screens from Jessa because they came from China and beared Apple logos. Apple doesn't sell any display parts so their copyright extends to the parts that bear their logo. Apple wasn't involved in seizure in any way except for holding legal protections for their products and logo. The article linked even says that she bought them from "grey market" shops in China.

2. Apple did not lose the case. That's misrepresenting what happened. The lawsuit alleged that the repair shop owner was advertising using genuine OEM Apple parts. According to the archive.org archive of their site, this is true and the archive is still up so you can see it. The court did not rule in favor of the store, it dismissed the case because it determined that the logos that would mistakenly identify the parts as "genuine" Apple parts would be on the insides of the devices and not viewable by consumers once repairs are completed. They made this ruling under the directive that the shop owner had to stop advertising as using genuine OEM Apple parts and he has since removed that language from his site. Apple is appealing the dismissal because they believe that someone seeing the Apple logo may be convinced that the parts are genuine Apple parts when they have, in fact, been replaced with inferior parts including digitizers, glass, and displays.

3. This is the same situation as the first one and, of course, you're only proving my point by linking to a Louis Rossman video. Apple didn't steal his batteries. Customs seized them because they bear Apple's logo on them but aren't actually sourced from Apple. It's a copyright and trademark issue, not a RTR issue.

The fact that you can't argue against what Apple's doing without wildly misrepresenting each of these cases is telling. If you actually read the bills being proposed, it should be obvious why they're not pro-consumer nor are they fair to companies like Apple. The main exception is John Deere who software locks all repairs and prevents machines that have been repaired by third parties from starting or being usable. Apple not only doesn't do that but they warn you when third-party components force them to disable components like Touch ID and Face ID which, in my mind, is very pro-consumer. I don't ever want there to be a chance where Touch ID or Face ID are considered genuine when there's no mechanism in place to verify that the hardware chain is still secure.

⬐ vinceguidry

Neither copyright nor trademark laws should apply if the parts are genuine Apple products. They seize without verifying.

⬐ dpkonofa

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9bfa5834-b8dc...

This is the ruling that says that "genuine" Apple parts that have had parts replaced with inferior replacements need to scrub the Apple logo off of them or risk infringing on copyright.

⬐ dpkonofa

That's not true. DHS maintains a listing of what sources Apple's genuine products come from. If they don't match upon inspection, the items are seized. Please provide a source that shows that DHS seizes items without verifying.

If they have Apple's logo on them and they're not Apple's, then they're counterfeit.

⬐ vinceguidry

If I yank a bunch of Apple batteries from Apple phones, those batteries are genuine. They have Apple part numbers, Apple design, Apple-approved manufacturing. The only thing different is that Apple didn't actually sell them. The entity selling the parts cannot be the sole determinant of their authenticity.

⬐ dpkonofa

That's not what happened, though, and I have to assume that you know that if you've even taken a casual look at any of these situations. If you take those batteries and replace a few of their cells with an inferior third party product and package them up and sell them as "Apple batteries" with the logo and everything, you'd be lying and potentially harming Apple's brand.

Apple's entire case against PCKompaniet stems from the fact that the company was refurbishing Apple displays with third-party glass and digitizers (that did not meet the original specs of their OEM parts) but was not removing the Apple logo and was advertising as using genuine Apple parts. The only reason the case was dismissed by the court was that the shop agreed to remove that language from their website and advertising and the court decided that the logo was a non-issue because, if a repair was completed with the part, the logos were on the inside of the device and the consumer never sees them. There's nothing on the outside of the part that identifies it as a genuine Apple product so, if there's no advertising suggesting that, there's nothing that would give the consumer the impression that it was a genuine Apple part.

There's a huge difference between selling a part from a phone, batteries included, without modifying it. It's a whole different animal to make changes and then claim it's the same part.

https://youtu.be/AVL65qwBGnw?t=43

⬐ AnthonyMouse

That's kind of ambiguous. He could mean original spec, as opposed to some junk using completely different components which is merely electrically compatible.

The fact that he's then comparing "original" with "counterfeit" goes against that a little, but it feels more like confusion than malice, or using the same word in two different contexts. Saying these are original-spec components without Apple logos and not counterfeit might be true even if the reason they're not counterfeit is that they don't have Apple logos rather than because they followed the spec.

⬐ neotek

There's nothing ambiguous about it at all, they are indisputably not original components even if they adhere perfectly to the original spec.

⬐ AnthonyMouse

That's what I mean by using the same word in different contexts. Think AuthenticAMD rather than GenuineIntel. You have someone manufacturing components they're not claiming are Apple components, then they're original -- not original Apple, original That Other Company.

1. In 2016, Rossman claimed that Apple was filing suit against him, and was seeking to shut down his YouTube channel. In actuality, one of his videos had shown a schematic, that Rossman illegally obtained, and Apple requested that the schematic be removed from the video. [0]

2. In 2016, Rossman claimed that Apple had a 4 Gigabyte memory chip buffer on their webcams. He speculates that this is due to a nefarious intent on Apple's part. In actuality, it is a 4 Gigabit (512 MB) chip that acts as a buffer. [1]

3. In 2018, Rossman claimed that Apple had contacted Customs and Border Protection to have his import shipment of Apple batteries seized. He claimed that they were genuine OEM batteries, maybe scavenged from old devices. [2] In actuality, the devices really were counterfeit. Rossman had contracted an OEM manufacturer to build batteries to Apple's original spec, which bore Apple's logo, most likely without Apple's knowledge. [3]

[0] - https://www.gamerevolution.com/features/12677-free-speech-un...

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw3-j_RaX74

[2] - https://youtu.be/AVL65qwBGnw

[3] - https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman...

⬐ Someone1234

No.1 you essentially admit, and cite, that what he claimed was accurate (that Apple threatened to sue/get his channel shut down) but you feel it was his fault.

No.2 dude messed up. No disagreement there. But you are spinning his confusion into: "due to a nefarious intent on Apple's part." That wasn't the tone of the video at all.

No.3 you say, and cite, that what he claimed was true (that a shipment of Apple compatible batteries he had imported was seized). In the original video he said quite clearly they weren't OEM because Apple no longer supplies these "vintage" batteries to even authorized repair centers. Here's the YT transcript (as is):

> the Apple store and I say I would like to buy this battery can i buy this battery please they say no if I become an Apple authorized service provider and I wish to obtain parts to a machine that has been considered vintage Apple will say no if I talk to somebody in China who says hey these are not those knockoff batteries where we take you know where we just like put apple logos on a bunch of crappy cells and send it to you these are the good batteries these are the batteries that are responsible for us being 4.9 out of five

But you said: "He claimed that they were genuine OEM batteries" the transcript above from the video you linked paints a very different picture.

Your original claim was:

> deep a history of twisting facts to make Apple look bad.

But you haven't made that case here.

Your position on the guy feels a little "cart before the horse." You dislike what the guy believes/stands for/his criticism, and then went out looking for reasons to justify that belief.

Your post essentially implies he's a criminal for using "stolen" schematics to repair customer's own equipment and making compatible batteries (which, I'll fully admit, shouldn't have had the Apple logo on them: not cool).

⬐ bubblethink

>he's a criminal for using "stolen" schematics to repair customer's own equipment and making compatible batteries

Sounds a lot like Terry Gilliam's Brazil.

⬐ wetpaws

Life imitates art

⬐ oflannabhra

I don't really know if you read anything that I linked. I think a clear pattern of "twisting facts" emerges when you look at Rossmann's original claims, and then see how those claims are walked back or "clarified" by further statements.

1. Rossmann claims that Apple is suing him, that his entire channel is going to be shut down, and that his business might disappear. Later, Rossmann clarifies that Apple just wanted him to take down, or edit out a single video that showed their IP.

3. Rossman claims that Apple contacted CBP to have his shipment of batteries seized in retaliation for a story he did with the CBC. Rossman states they are "good" batteries, that they could be refurbished or scavenged from old machines. He claims that they are not counterfeit. Later, Rossman admits that they are not refurbished or scavenged, but are newly manufactured, but not authorized by Apple, even though they bear Apple's logo. That is literally a counterfeit.

I'm not trying to cast Rossmann in a bad light, I was asked to provide examples of how Rossmann twists facts to make Apple seem more nefarious than they are. That list is why I take everything Rossmann says with a large grain of salt.

It is not the case that one side is right, and the other is wrong. I am not attempting to make the case that Apple should be uncriticized.

⬐ Someone1234

> I don't really know if you read anything that I linked.

I read what you linked. Your links don't support your claims.

> I think a clear pattern of "twisting facts" emerges when you look at Rossmann's original claims, and then see how those claims are walked back or "clarified" by further statements.

You haven't given an example of that. In examples you did give you mischaracterized his original statements several times. You can still watch the original videos as you linked as evidence of that (and or read the transcripts, like the excerpt I provided above).

> 1. Rossmann claims that Apple is suing him, that his entire channel is going to be shut down, and that his business might disappear. Later, Rossmann clarifies that Apple just wanted him to take down, or edit out a single video that showed their IP.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Apple made a threat (i.e. lawsuit, take-down on his channel) and then "settled" for him just removing certain content they found objectionable.

It is great that Apple's legal threats didn't come to full fruition, but they existed. This just isn't a strong example of what you're claiming, there was nothing mislead about saying an actual legal threat with actual legal consequences was received relating to his work with "right to repair."

> Later, Rossman admits that they are not refurbished or scavenged, but are newly manufactured, but not authorized by Apple, even though they bear Apple's logo.

He said that in the original video about the incident you yourself linked. I provided the transcript above.

I'm referring to tactics like Rossmann described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw where US Customs is seizing imports of genuine Apple parts - for laptops they don't repair themselves anymore!

I see your point though, there are plenty of untrustworthy third-party repairers.

⬐ sjwright

This is just the stupidest thing. All Louis had to do is purchase non-genuine third-party laptop batteries that don't have an Apple logo printed on them. He could have his batteries, he could perform the repairs, everyone would be happy.

With his complaint he is effectively saying is that trademarks mean shit and anyone can use anyone else's brand whenever they want. It's absurd. And it's a loser case. If he tries to fight Apple, he won't win.

⬐ jordanthoms

His claim is that the parts have the apple logo on them because they are in fact genuine parts, do you have reason to think he is lying about that?

⬐ sjwright

"Lous Rossman, on his own reddit account in a comment, says that he commissioned the batteries from a factory in China that was no longer authorized to make those batteries, because likely they lost the bid/contract to do so."

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman...

⬐ bitreign33

At no point does that post by Rossman state "The batteries in this shipment were counterfeit". If the batteries were built to Apple's specifications explicitly for the purpose of going into an Apple device and were not used, does that make them counterfeit?

If he is getting the same kind of of surplus parts we get here in Europe (everything comes from Shenzhen anyway...) then there is functionally no difference between them and the parts installed in an Apple device, because that is the specification they were built to/what their intended use at production was. I doubt an Apple engineer could reliably distinguish between parts used in a machine then recovered and the kind of surplus you get from decent resellers in China, they are for all intents and purposes the exact same part.

⬐ sjwright

> If the batteries were built to Apple's specifications explicitly for the purpose of going into an Apple device and were not used, does that make them counterfeit?

That's pretty much the exact definition of counterfeit. The product doesn't need to be inferior or even different in order to qualify. Counterfeits could be absolutely identical.

If I went to a company that was capable of manufacturing US currency to the exact same quality and standard as the US Federal Reserve, how perfect would they need to be before they stop being counterfeit? Trick question: they are always counterfeit, because they were not issued by the US Federal Reserve.

This company may be manufacturing batteries to Apple's specification and possibly even maintaining Apple's level of quality control. And they are allowed to do that. They can sell their batteries to Louis. But they can't print the Apple logo on them.

⬐ Faark

> This company may be manufacturing batteries to Apple's specification [...]. And they are allowed to do that. They can sell their batteries to Louis.

Can they? I'd expect Apple trying very hard to prevent that via patents, "only sell to us"-contracts, not offering specifications, laws against reverse engineering, etc. I'd expect Louis would want to buy them, if available. So why isn't he / aren't they available?

⬐ sjwright

> So why isn't he / aren't they available?

That's a great question. Why aren't these non-genuine parts manufacturers able to produce these parts without also printing the Apple logo on them? I mean it shouldn't be that hard to not print the Apple logo on something.

⬐ TomMarius

> patents

Yep, viable choice. Patents definitely are standing in the way of many things, IMO, but this is the very reason of its existence, so we need to decide whether we want to protect companies (and spur innovation, at least that's the theory - we definitely should revisit it and measure it) or if we want to allow people to start new companies making now-not-patented cheap hardware.

> "only sell to us"-contracts, not offering specifications

What's wrong about that?

> laws against reverse engineering

Are there any? I'm not aware. Can you elaborate?

> why [...] aren't they available?

Probably because making counterfeit (as defined by law) hardware isn't that profitable anymore and the market is too small for legal newcomers.

What I really don't understand is why the company he bought from had to stick an Apple logo on it. It wouldn't be counterfeit if they didn't.

⬐ jordanthoms

Ok, looks like this is more nuanced than I had realized.

⬐ sjwright

Louis on the law:

"The reason is that, if you are not “authorized” to buy an original part, it is considered counterfeit, regardless of the content of the actual part. The way the law works right now, if I bought five iPhone 5C from the Apple store, flew to China, took the five screens off and shipped them to an unauthorized repair shop in Jacksonville – they would be taken as “counterfeit” for having Apple logos. I personally believe this to be wrong, regardless of what the law says – but it is the world we live in, and the vendors deal with that reality the way they do."

And for what it's worth he even acknowledges the possibility that they fit his personal definition of counterfeit:

"This is Chinese market, which is known for counterfeits. It is possible something is fake. This is also an industry where everything is done to place roadblocks to people like me getting parts - I realize he is jumping through hoops and could've made a mistake. Since I have not seen the box prior to it being confiscated, there’s no way for me to tell what is in there..."

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman...

⬐ oceanghost

I'm with Rossmann.

If you look at the wider issue, EVERYTHING in the Apple ecosystem is broken. This isn't just an issue about repair. OSX is buggy. iOS is buggy. iTunes is buggy. Photos is buggy... etc etc.

The hardware used to be solid at least. I have a 12-year-old MacBook that's still running. But, my new machines don't last.

It used to be that Apple would fix stuff, so you didn't really worry about the hardware so much. But now, they'll refuse to fix things in warranty, even.

So we've arrived at a point where Apple's software doesn't work, Apple's hardware doesn't work, and Apple won't acknowledge it-- and it's all at a premium price.

⬐ sschueller

Would any of these right to repair bills prevent this? If not it will be quite difficult to repair devices if the parts are not made available.

⬐ odensc

I believe most of the proposed right to repair bills include a provision requiring manufacturers to provide diagnostic tools and replacement parts under "reasonable terms."

⬐ zeusk

I find his claim dubitable at best whereas there can be real concerns from Apple's side about possibly counterfeit or ill-gotten merchandise that isn't up to their standards making it into a customer's machine and ending up in a fire or something.

He should really be complaining about Apple not offering service parts from a first party /trusted source.

⬐ clouddrover

He does complain about that in the video. He says Apple won't service these machines or sell him the parts so he can service them.

⬐ pentae

Did you watch the video? The main argument is about them not offering service parts.

⬐ kiallmacinnes

I find parts of his claim dubious... Specifically the Apple + CBP timing conspiracy.

However, the rest seems more than fair - Apple won't even sell the parts to authorized repair shops, nor will they repair the laptops themselves.

He believes the batteries he ordered are genuine Apple parts, and I see no reason to doubt that. Shenzhen has entire buildings filled with both genuine and fake Apple parts.

⬐ JohnTHaller

Apple: We refuse to sell you parts

Also Apple: These parts you imported are probably counterfeit because you didn't buy them from us

⬐ oliwarner

CBP says that because these parts are imported through non-official channels and bear trademarks, they're most likely counterfeit. Louis says they're original.

Having your stuff taken sounds shitty but I'm not sure that's a significant problem here. The batteries were seized, not destroyed. Louis has (albeit deeply inconvenient) recourse available to get them back, but at some point, somebody is going to have to decide that these are genuine, or they'll be destroyed.

This structure is in place because there are floods of fake parts out there pretending to be genuine. That much should be obvious when anybody can have their phone screen replaced for a fully-branded replacement for $20.

And yes, it's the branding here that's the most obvious catch. If these were unlabelled (video comments talk about just crossing the logo out with a Sharpie), it would be a much harder thing for CBP to assume.

But yeah, these parts should all be on general sale, from Apple. And if they don't want to do it, they need to allow their suppliers to supply those parts to market.

⬐ equalunique

Just discovered his YouTube channel today. Fantastic.

⬐ Krasnol

Poor Rossmann getting too much attention lately.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple tries to finish him off.

⬐ andrewmcwatters

He's been sued by Apple before, and Apple failed.

⬐ officialchicken

Apple's repair policies are terrible for the environment, entirely anti-consumer, and violate anything close to resembling the hacker ethic. But I doubt Rossmann's claim that the CBC video was the cause for Apple's action. It was probably his work in Albany on the Right to Repair bill where he was repairing legislators and staff laptops, on site, in the lobby of the building.

⬐ quizme2000

Long time watcher of LR, he's been calling out a$$le on their shitty behavior for awhile. The right to repair fight is going to go red hot next year. A$$le is quickly moving to refusing all repairs and bricking anything that is repaired.

The main issue is not that a$$le does this, but they do set an industry standard (e.g. killing headphone jacks to sell ear tampons). John D$$re, $ony, and a few others have been trying to do this quietly, but a$$le is starting to do it in the open now. $ chars used to avoid copyright claims against free speech.

⬐ thatguy0900

I really hope the $ doesn't catch on again, I thought it was dumb in Microsoft but at least they actually had an s

⬐ quizme2000

Sorry that was just me being irritated, and not very clever.

⬐ ObsoleteNerd

The ending was quite inspiring. He's not backing down, and is willing to take this to court. It could end up being a pretty big case considering he's not exactly a no-one, and should be able to rally up some pretty big support if it does go to court.