3 major L's for Apple in Brazil - A third court decision in Brazil in two years earned Apple it's third fine, and power adapters are now mandatory

[Imbadatnames]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I know what I am not seeing clearly, and that's any logic in your arguments.  I don't know what Linus has said about any of this because I don't watch any of his content. 

 

The only thing you have said in this entire thread that is true is that everyone who is for right repair does have something to gain from it,  and that's the ability to repair their own devices and actually do some good for the environment.  I am for right to repair because I should be allowed to repair my own things.  That is the benefit of it for me.  If you think that is somehow bad and will negatively effect the environment then you are seriously so sucked into Apples PR that I may as well be trying to educate a tomato.

No they have money to gain from it. Linus for example literally owns a laptop brand and others have repair shops where they’d benefit from it. 
 

You literally have zero common sense dude. In what way does producing hundred of parts destined for a landfill benefit the environment?

[Imbadatnames]

9 hours ago, starsmine said:

It feels disingenuous to me, to argue that a whole division is profitable because one sku is likely profitable.
I dont think anyone is arguing that apple does not make profit off of a 300 dollar back glass replacement. But how is bringing that up an argument that apple makes money on repairs?

Im not arguing one way or the other, I am pointing out that the logic is not valid.

They don’t profit off the back glass replacement. The back glass “repair” for every model bar the base 14/+ is removing the display assembly from your phone and putting it into a new phone with a new battery, motherboard, chassis etc. The 14 is cheaper because you can just replace the back glass, don’t know if they still replace the battery too though. You’re literally getting a whole new phone, bar the display, for less than half of the cost of a new phone. 

[Senzelian]

15 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

They don’t profit off the back glass replacement.

They wouldn't do it that way if they wouldn't profit from it in some way or another. How the profit can be measured is debatable, but they definitely profit from it.

[KaitouX]

34 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

No they have money to gain from it. Linus for example literally owns a laptop brand and others have repair shops where they’d benefit from it. 
 

You literally have zero common sense dude. In what way does producing hundred of parts destined for a landfill benefit the environment?

I love how you say Apple doesn't profit from repairs but repair shops and Linus, who invested in a company whose one of the main points is the ease of upgrades/repair and reusable parts, would profit from it if they had access to proper documentation and spare parts.

[Blademaster91]

22 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

If apple doesn’t turn a profit repairing phones how would third parties do any different? 
 

Or you could just pay to repair the phone? Also recycling is an option.

Apple charges $200 for replacing the back glass on a phone, yet if you have applecare its $25, apple is obviously making profit on repairs.

And there needs to be an option besides paying apple for their overpriced repair,  recycling should be the last option because recycling isn't as good for the environment as apple likes to tell their consumers.

22 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Aside from apple does offer Repair for iPads? Also you do get a new one if it’s under warranty.

I recall there being a news article on Apple finally repairing ipads, but it was only for the newest ones,and they are known to give you a refurbished one if the screen breaks.

22 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

You have it wrong. A vast market for spares and a race to the bottom on those creates a gigantic amount of ewaste which dwarfs any repair you could possible do. You’re not thinking large enough. You’re thinking oh if I can repair this one phone that’s good without thinking of the 100 parts produces that you’re not using that will go into a landfill

It isn't a race to the bottom at all, and if you want less waste then you would support right to repair so phones would be easier to fix with parts designed to be user replaceable, not glued together with proprietary screws most people aren't going to have tools for. And if people kept their devices longer the parts supply wouldn't be thrown in a landfill because people would be fixing their stuff instead of throwing it away.

22 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Debatable. I would say replacing a car that does 16MPG and shits out 300g/km of CO2 with a hybrid is better for the environment. Car parts are also a lot more homogeneous. An O ring is an O ring, a tyre is a tyre and even several models have the same parts which are easy to replace. Even so if the engine shits itself and cracks the block you’re getting a new car if it’s more than 5 years old just due to economics. Phones however are very different even in the same product stack boards aren’t the same. Connections aren’t the same and parts aren’t the same. They’re also much higher strung as for as things go.

 

Also personally I don’t think people should be allowed to mess with safety critical parts on their cars without qualification. It’s frankly just dangerous to let people who don’t have a fucking clue what they’re doing to just mess with their brakes. 
 

Literally quotes from them under oath. Not like they can exactly get away with saying they make a loss if they’re not. 

Keeping a car that gets 16MPG is still less wasteful than buying a hybrid with a battery pack that will fail, and those usually cause people to get rid of the car instead of replacing the battery pack as replacing it can be more than the car is worth, or is more expensive than most people are willing to spend.

The parts on phones being different are on the fault of phone manufacturers, the design of phones don't need to change every year, and a battery or motherboard should fit every phone in the same lineup.

And requiring a certification to replace brake pads? That is so ridiculous, replacing brake pads is easy to do it takes like 5 mins to google and look at a how to guide for a specific vehicle, doing it takes like an hour at the most.

Also apple claiming something under oath doesn't mean much, because again they have a reputation for paying the legal system to win court cases.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

No they have money to gain from it. Linus for example literally owns a laptop brand and others have repair shops where they’d benefit from it. 
 

You literally have zero common sense dude. In what way does producing hundred of parts destined for a landfill benefit the environment?

 

Um,  I think you better check your logic.    You are now trying to argue that a company that intentionally makes its products easy to repair by anyone (doesn't have to go back to them for most repairs) is some how going to make more money from right to repair.  While at the same time you are trying to argue that apple not making parts available to end consumers is somehow better for the environment and will stop 3rd party trash parts from flooding the market. 

 

You are literally posting examples that evidence the point I am making.

[suicidalfranco]

10 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Literally been proven in court they’re not a monopoly

 

Quote

In that same June announcement, Tara Bunch, Apple’s vice president of AppleCare, said in a statement that when “a customer ever needs to repair their products, we want them to feel confident those repairs are done safely and correctly.”

But consumers should be allowed to decide on what terms they want to repair their gadgets, just as they would repair their car or lawnmower. And by stripping consumers of their ability to fully choose, Apple is—as is the case with many other tech giants—taking on the role of a “benevolent monopoly,” says Nathan Proctor, who leads the U.S. Public Interest Research Group’s Right to Repair campaign.

“They wouldn’t engineer their products this way, with a serial number on every part that talks to the computer in the phone, if they didn’t plan on using that engineering capacity for their own benefit,” Proctor tells Gizmodo by phone. “There’s a specific reason they engineered it that way. And if the application is to force repair through their authorized shops, then they’ve already engineered the monopoly.”

source: Apple's Favorite Anti-Right-to-Repair Argument Is Bullshit (gizmodo.com)

 

And by your own logic: since it's said in a court, by a public figure, it must the absolute truth, right?

11 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

The small repair shops do it with shitty parts, false advertising and paying people less. Again a $50 repair would be along the lines of using a 3rd party shitty IPS screen rather than the genuine OLED part. 

Sure, might happen just as it can happen that a third party has access to quality spare parts. I'd rather take a "might happen" over a one-way street set by a corporation.

And also:

Quote

consumers should be allowed to decide on what terms they want to repair their gadgets, just as they would repair their car or lawnmower

[...]

Replacement screens, for example, can run hundreds of dollars per job when performed by Apple. An iPhone X out-of-warranty replacement screen will put you out $279 at Apple’s price. But you can purchase all the tools to fix it yourself for about $155 from iFixit. (iFixit estimates the repair takes between one to two hours to complete.) An out-of-warranty iPhone X battery will run you $69 from Apple, but iFixit charges $45 for a replacement kit.

source: Apple's Favorite Anti-Right-to-Repair Argument Is Bullshit (gizmodo.com)

[Dracarris]

On 10/25/2022 at 2:16 AM, Blademaster91 said:

No you're missing the point completely, if phones were more easily repairable, not meant to be thrown away for a new one after 2 years, it would be a lot better for the environment.

Still waiting for your statement regarding my answer to this:

On 10/25/2022 at 9:52 AM, Dracarris said:

..

[Imbadatnames]

6 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

source: Apple's Favorite Anti-Right-to-Repair Argument Is Bullshit (gizmodo.com)

 

And by your own logic: since it's said in a court, by a public figure, it must the absolute truth, right?

Sure, might happen just as it can happen that a third party has access to quality spare parts. I'd rather take a "might happen" over a one-way street set by a corporation.

And also:

source: Apple's Favorite Anti-Right-to-Repair Argument Is Bullshit (gizmodo.com)

At yes because Gizmodo is a better source of validation than a court of law. 

[Imbadatnames]

5 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Still waiting for your statement regarding my answer to this:

Answer what? That’s just ..

[Imbadatnames]

On 10/26/2022 at 1:01 PM, mr moose said:

 

Um,  I think you better check your logic.    You are now trying to argue that a company that intentionally makes its products easy to repair by anyone (doesn't have to go back to them for most repairs) is some how going to make more money from right to repair.  While at the same time you are trying to argue that apple not making parts available to end consumers is somehow better for the environment and will stop 3rd party trash parts from flooding the market. 

 

You are literally posting examples that evidence the point I am making.

I think you need to check yours. Because where do you get parts for framework? The ones that frequently break like the keyboard, display, ports etc are all only available from them, the boards are only available from them too. They’re using soldered CPUs so you have to buy their boards too. 

 

On 10/26/2022 at 2:40 AM, Senzelian said:

They wouldn't do it that way if they wouldn't profit from it in some way or another. How the profit can be measured is debatable, but they definitely profit from it.

They literally make a loss on the repair centre. They would rather take a loss and preserve the brand identify and customer satisfaction. But that’s still making a loss where allowing 3rd party repairs would be profitable for them as they could just sell parts and cut the amount of employees at service centre.

 

On 10/26/2022 at 2:53 AM, KaitouX said:

I love how you say Apple doesn't profit from repairs but repair shops and Linus, who invested in a company whose one of the main points is the ease of upgrades/repair and reusable parts, would profit from it if they had access to proper documentation and spare parts.

Cost of parts and payment of employees mainly. Repair shops generally use poor quality parts, pay their employees less and those who do board level repair are the biggest scam artists on the planet. 
 

Frameworks business is selling you an overpriced laptop, overpriced add ons and then aiming to sell you an overpriced mainboard in a few years. They’re about as user repairable as most laptops just with poorer build quality and a cost premium. 

[Senzelian]

56 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

brand identify and customer satisfaction

There's your profit.

 

57 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

They literally make a loss on the repair centre.

Show me the numbers.

[Birblover12]

1 hour ago, Imbadatnames said:

Frameworks business is selling you an overpriced laptop, overpriced add ons and then aiming to sell you an overpriced mainboard in a few years. They’re about as user repairable as most laptops just with poorer build quality and a cost premium. 

Won't comment on the first part of your comment, but this part I just disagree with.

 

Frameworks is designed to be a very future proof capable laptop for non-techy people. The thing that sets Frameworks aside from other manufacturers is the ease of repairability. They have QR Codes on every repairable part that the average consumer would ever want to replace. 

 

Keyword "average". Most people don't watch PC/Laptop build guides religiously, they just want a laptop which they can upgrade the RAM or SSD in years down the line if they want to and have the resources immediately available for it.

 

The whole point of Frameworks is literally to be MORE repairable then "other laptops", which from what I can tell it seems like they are. Thus invalidating your statement...

[Dracarris]

14 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Answer what? That’s just ..

That's intentional. The reply in question is linked in the quote.

[mr moose]

15 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

I think you need to check yours. Because where do you get parts for framework? The ones that frequently break like the keyboard, display, ports etc are all only available from them, the boards are only available from them too. They’re using soldered CPUs so you have to buy their boards too. 

 

Do I detect a false dichotomy or continuum fallacy?    I am talking about the most common things that require replacing, like the battery and screen.   It may be true that if you run over your phone with a 24 ton dump truck you'd need parts only available from apple, however that does not change the fact that availability of screens and batteries keep devices working longer thus is better for the environment. 

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:50 AM, mr moose said:

 

Do I detect a false dichotomy or continuum fallacy?    I am talking about the most common things that require replacing, like the battery and screen.   It may be true that if you run over your phone with a 24 ton dump truck you'd need parts only available from apple, however that does not change the fact that availability of screens and batteries keep devices working longer thus is better for the environment. 

 

 

Neither of which are the most common replacement. Most laptops are thrown away when the board becomes too slow. The percentage that undergo battery and screen replacement is minimal.

 

Also again NO. Production of 3rd party options would again outweigh anything. Plus you’re acting like you can’t just go to apple and get it repaired, which you can. 
 

Your hate hard on is stopping you using common sense. 

[mr moose]

17 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Neither of which are the most common replacement. Most laptops are thrown away when the board becomes too slow. The percentage that undergo battery and screen replacement is minimal.

When the board becomes slow?    What are you even talking about now?   You seem to be under the impression you can take rare or extreme events and make that an absolute for every situation.   Again the two most common failures on a phone are the battery and screen, on a laptop I don't know, but I would assume battery degradation is high on the list of upgrade reasons.  Especially now you can't just buy a new battery and click it in like you used to be able to.   They are just as hard to replace as phone batteries for the common consumer.

 

 

17 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Also again NO. Production of 3rd party options would again outweigh anything. Plus you’re acting like you can’t just go to apple and get it repaired, which you can. 
 

No you can't always "just go to apple to get it repaired"  and people shouldn't be forced to have only one place to go for repairs.

 

17 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Your hate hard on is stopping you using common sense. 

I think you will find your desire for apple to do no wrong is blinding you to reality.

 

I don't hate apple any more than I hate any other company, I always give credit where it is due, but I am not about to let them have a free pass on what is the most obvious case of lip service and virtue signalling to the environment when the reality is all they are interested in doing is saving money by reducing the component count in the box.

 

 

 

 

[yolosnail]

You know, until recently I wasn't too bothered about the lack of chargers with phones. But I just recently got a Galaxy ZFlip 4 and was astounded to find out that I would have to buy yet another charger if I wanted to charge faster than 12W! 

 

Despite having many USB-PD 65W chargers that I use for my laptop, SteamDeck etc. because they don't have PPS, they're essentially useless for a Samsung phone unless I want slow charging.

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, yolosnail said:

unless I want slow charging.

Which is much healthier for your battery. I still charge my phone with a 5W brick over night, recent iOS versions additionally don't charge past 80% until shortly before you normally use the device.

 

I get that there may be occasions where a quick charge is required for on-the-go, but apart from those exceptions I think it's much more sustainable to buy a phone that lasts more than a typical day on a single charge and slow charge it over night.

[yolosnail]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

Which is much healthier for your battery. I still charge my phone with a 5W brick over night, recent iOS versions additionally don't charge past 80% until shortly before you normally use the device.

 

I get that there may be occasions where a quick charge is required for on-the-go, but apart from those exceptions I think it's much more sustainable to buy a phone that lasts more than a typical day on a single charge and slow charge it over night.

 

I typically slow charge overnight, but when I'm out and about, I like to give it a quick top up when I'm having lunch, or on the bus. 

Battery isn't usually a problem, I easily get through a full day with normal usage on my Flip4, but when I'm out I'm often tethering to my laptop and that drains the battery super fast.

[MarvinKMooney]

Personally I don’t care if there is a wall wart or not included with a phone purchase, I end up buying a better quality one.

 

the Cable on the other hand they better never stop providing one with the phone if they keep the stupid proprietary one.

[LogicalDrm]

*** Thread locked ***

 

I see no reason to keep this open as the discussion has been shifted towards other subject matters about Apple than just chargers and Brazilian court decisions.