iFixit drops repairability score of iPhone 14

[suicidalfranco]

Summary

 In a news that surprises no one, confirmed apple hater iFixit drops the repairability score of the iPhone 14 from 7 out of 10 to an offending 4.

The notorious company blames their change of heart on Apple's safety features of software locking components making making part replacement impossible without their approval first.

 

Quotes

Quote

 Most major repairs on modern iPhones require Apple approval. You have to buy parts through their system, then have the repair validated via a chat system.

Today, you need one more thing: a software handshake, using Apple’s System Configuration tool.

One by one, the glitches and bugs add up to a broad strategy, a systematic plan to require Apple’s permission to perform any repair on the iPhone.

This laudable mechanical improvement is undermined by a raft of software obstacles.

 

My thoughts

 jokes aside: US corporation that always do bad, does something bad. More at 12.

 

Sources

 https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/2023/09/19/ifixit-drops-iphone-14-repair-score/

[BobVonBob]

This was always the biggest thing I thought was lacking from iFixit scores, they only scored the physical side of a repair, but software has become just as important to the repairability equation. Who cares how easy it is to get to switch the screen if doing so bricks the device?

 

Great change from them.

[Kisai]

11 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

This was always the biggest thing I thought was lacking from iFixit scores, they only scored the physical side of a repair, but software has become just as important to the repairability equation. Who cares how easy it is to get to switch the screen if doing so bricks the device?

 

Great change from them.

It should probably be a separate score.

 

Like "physical repairability" 7/10, but "right to repair" 4/10, where "BIOS, Operating System, or DRM may prevent this repair from being functional, even if the hardware is successfully repaired"

 

[Needfuldoer]

5 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Like "physical repairability" 7/10, but "right to repair" 4/10, where "BIOS, Operating System, or DRM may prevent this repair from being functional, even if the hardware is successfully repaired"

Why not just split the score between "Hardware" and "Software"?

 

"Hardware" includes metrics like parts and instruction availability, and how many kinds of glue you need to dissolve to take the thing apart. 

 

"Software" covers things like serial number locking, availability of firmware and drivers, and whether proprietary software tools are required.

[Avocado Diaboli]

56 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

Why not just split the score between "Hardware" and "Software"?

 

"Hardware" includes metrics like parts and instruction availability, and how many kinds of glue you need to dissolve to take the thing apart. 

 

"Software" covers things like serial number locking, availability of firmware and drivers, and whether proprietary software tools are required.

Splitting a score like that risks that some people might assume that they could still attempt a repair themselves only to end up shit creek without a paddle when the software won't cooperate. I feel like this is an instance where the lowest score you get on any metric is the score you get overall. No point in flattering Apple for making hardware repairs easy for their own technicians and certified corporate slaves when the end user isn't getting anything out of it.

[Thaldor]

27 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Splitting a score like that risks that some people might assume that they could still attempt a repair themselves only to end up shit creek without a paddle when the software won't cooperate. I feel like this is an instance where the lowest score you get on any metric is the score you get overall. No point in flattering Apple for making hardware repairs easy for their own technicians and certified corporate slaves when the end user isn't getting anything out of it.

This so much.

 

Even better would be that reviewers started to be more critical over things and bad things really affecting the score. Like if a product has a critical flaw that should really show in the score, not sugarcoat it with "but it has it's uses". If there's deadly flaw like the product fails at basic electrical safety, that is instant zero, no matter if it's the best product by lightyears, 90% magic and farts unicorns, it fails the basic electrical safety and so poses life threatening danger, that is 0/10, "do not buy, ever." Same thing here, if there's aspects that render the product basicly impossible to self-repair, that is 0/10, no sugarcoating it with "but the parts are easy to change" that doesn't matter if the software locks the product if parts are changed the product is impossible to be repaired. If you cannot get official spare parts, that's instant 1-3/10, "you can repair it but as the company doesn't want you to repair it, that's the score the product gets", there's no point having socketed CPU if you officially cannot get a CPU fitting that socket.

[jaslion]

Only a 4?

 

That would be a 0 in my book. If you have a known working screen in your hand and a phone where the glass is cracked on the screen but it works 100% fine otherwise and after swapping it refuses to work without having to PAY apple to allow it to work you have a non user servicable phone.

 

 

[Kisai]

43 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

This so much.

 

Even better would be that reviewers started to be more critical over things and bad things really affecting the score. Like if a product has a critical flaw that should really show in the score, not sugarcoat it with "but it has it's uses". If there's deadly flaw like the product fails at basic electrical safety, that is instant zero, no matter if it's the best product by lightyears, 90% magic and farts unicorns, it fails the basic electrical safety and so poses life threatening danger, that is 0/10, "do not buy, ever." Same thing here, if there's aspects that render the product basicly impossible to self-repair, that is 0/10, no sugarcoating it with "but the parts are easy to change" that doesn't matter if the software locks the product if parts are changed the product is impossible to be repaired. If you cannot get official spare parts, that's instant 1-3/10, "you can repair it but as the company doesn't want you to repair it, that's the score the product gets", there's no point having socketed CPU if you officially cannot get a CPU fitting that socket.

Nah, I disagree. Not every part guarantee's a successful fix. iFixit has repair guides for the screen, battery, as separate things.

 

Replacing the battery might be easy and require no tinkering, but replacing the screen might be more difficult and require more effort.

 

As an "overall" repair score, if a device can be repaired by the user, the score has to be non-zero. Doesn't matter if they have to call Apple and do hokey nonsense. 

 

If the hardware can be successfully repaired, then it doesn't deserve a score below 5, but if it's going to be hindered by Apple and rendered non-functional anyway, then why isn't it a zero?

 

Do you see the problem? Yes, the device can be repaired, and yes you can call Apple and have it successfully working, but the only reason to give it a zero is because you HAVE TO call apple? Really? Isn't the score about repairability and not political motivation?

 

This reminds of of some of the stupids around the GPL/Stallman political angle that "It's not free if it's not GPL" when in fact there are free-er licences than the GPL, they just don't serve the political agenda of the GPL.

 

If Right-to-Repair is to have any longevity and not be watered down by companies switching from "outright refusal" to "jumping through hoops to get things done", then these need to be separate scores.

 

One score is for how easy or difficult it is to repair the hardware, eg getting into the device, accessing the parts, acquiring replacement parts, re-assembly. The other score is for how much fiddly nonsense you have to do to get a replacement part to work.

 

Because, believe it or not, a laptop might have a repair score of 7 as well, but if you are replacing a hard drive, there is then a LOT of fiddly nonsense you end up doing that is exactly in line with this. You're not going to automatically give every Microsoft Surface a 4 now are you?

 

But if you're just replacing the screen or battery, there should be no fiddly nonsense to contend with.

 

I also understand why this is an issue, because there is a big market for stealing and chop-shopping stolen phones to sell the parts. That can only be discouraged by making sure stolen parts can't be reused, and the "jumping through hoops" allows Apple to send information to law enforcement/FBI to break these crime rings.

 

That's a mild inconvenience, that's still better than having your phones be repaired with stolen or fake parts that later result in the entire device failing. Apple should not care how you got those parts, only that you are made aware that the part isn't from an authorized source.

 

[ImWilly]

3 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

part replacement impossible without their approval first

I may have not been updated on Apple news, but isn't that they have done that practice since iPhone 12 back in 2020 (as shown in Hugh Jeffreys YouTube video)?

Are they dropping software lock until this year?

 

The software lock is basically the Apple way to ensure "After-sales service" retention sheep customer

 

 

[Thaldor]

20 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Nah, I disagree. Not every part guarantee's a successful fix. iFixit has repair guides for the screen, battery, as separate things.

 

Replacing the battery might be easy and require no tinkering, but replacing the screen might be more difficult and require more effort.

 

As an "overall" repair score, if a device can be repaired by the user, the score has to be non-zero. Doesn't matter if they have to call Apple and do hokey nonsense. 

 

If the hardware can be successfully repaired, then it doesn't deserve a score below 5, but if it's going to be hindered by Apple and rendered non-functional anyway, then why isn't it a zero?

 

Do you see the problem? Yes, the device can be repaired, and yes you can call Apple and have it successfully working, but the only reason to give it a zero is because you HAVE TO call apple? Really? Isn't the score about repairability and not political motivation?

 

This reminds of of some of the stupids around the GPL/Stallman political angle that "It's not free if it's not GPL" when in fact there are free-er licences than the GPL, they just don't serve the political agenda of the GPL.

 

If Right-to-Repair is to have any longevity and not be watered down by companies switching from "outright refusal" to "jumping through hoops to get things done", then these need to be separate scores.

 

One score is for how easy or difficult it is to repair the hardware, eg getting into the device, accessing the parts, acquiring replacement parts, re-assembly. The other score is for how much fiddly nonsense you have to do to get a replacement part to work.

 

Because, believe it or not, a laptop might have a repair score of 7 as well, but if you are replacing a hard drive, there is then a LOT of fiddly nonsense you end up doing that is exactly in line with this. You're not going to automatically give every Microsoft Surface a 4 now are you?

 

But if you're just replacing the screen or battery, there should be no fiddly nonsense to contend with.

 

I also understand why this is an issue, because there is a big market for stealing and chop-shopping stolen phones to sell the parts. That can only be discouraged by making sure stolen parts can't be reused, and the "jumping through hoops" allows Apple to send information to law enforcement/FBI to break these crime rings.

 

That's a mild inconvenience, that's still better than having your phones be repaired with stolen or fake parts that later result in the entire device failing. Apple should not care how you got those parts, only that you are made aware that the part isn't from an authorized source.

 

If you repair the hardware and the software says "no", did you actually repair anything because the device is still broken?

 

When it comes to Apple the whole mess is their own doing, that they have pretty much forever refused to sell spare parts and that has created blooming market for stolen Apple products broken down to parts isn't a problem of repairability, that's a problem of company policies and their results. Doesn't really help the company policy problems that official Apple repair has been more scam (as in, the only part swapping and then billing the same for new and refurbished spare parts and outside of Apple gracious warranty, that's fucking expensive for the consumer for basicly no reason other than Apples bottom line) for decades already.

If I need to call Apple, wait in the line, go around hoop after loop, plead and pray and all that just so that someone will press a button and things will work only because the Apple's repair policies have been shit for years, yeah, I give them 0 maybe 1 if I didn't need to install plethora of software and buy a Mac so the repair can be finished.

 

I will give the same 0 to 3 for Microsoft or anyone else if their products have same kind of artificial problems to solve the company's shitty policies. If I change the SSD in Surface and the machine goes *poof* and the reason isn't that I used some random SSD in which case the problem can be that the SSD has some non-standard stuff, I would give them 0-3. Definitive 0 if I was to replace the SSD with exact same model and exact same firmware and the Surface refuses to accept it because "it's not the original", that's a 0.

 

I do, however, make the difference if we would be talking about a device that the user must go through multiple hoops and loops to activate some security option that will render the device basicly unrepairable without going way past everything usual, you would need to call the manufacturer, get codes from the customer and whatever rain dances and ancient spells you must do. But that should never be the default, in business products sold strictly to businesses based on contracts is exception, but in normal consumer products, there should never be that kind of "security" activated on default.

(And before you say, that is because that kind of security features are way past even the word "excessive", I can understand some CEO or celebrity having burner phone that if stolen deletes everything and cannot be accessed, no matter what, but for general population that is more problems than it is a benefit. In some specific cases maybe but if someone finds themselves in a place where it's beneficial for them to sacrifice all of their data and everything in case their device gets to wrong hands, they can go through the hoops and activate the feature themselves so the non-techsavvy person doesn't need to question why broken screen means they need to loose their vacation photos which doesn't have backups. There's usecases for those kind of security features, but they are more trouble for 90% of the population.)

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

If you repair the hardware and the software says "no", did you actually repair anything because the device is still broken?

So should the Framework laptop get a 0/10 in repairability because if I for example swap the mainboard, the TPM will be different thus all my data may be gone (if FDE is used), and I will probably lose access to my Windows license (need to buy a new one) and so on?

 

Would you also go "why do I need to use an original part!?" if I said I wanted to replace the mainboard in a Framework laptop with a mainbroad from a Lenovo laptop?

 

Nuance is necessary, but I think it is a very bad idea to include "our perceived intention behind design choices" as one of the criteria when scoring. And in reality, the motivation for something shouldn't matter. The result is what matters. A good intention doesn't deserve a higher score than something done with bad intentions (or if the scorer assumes bad intentions) if the result is the same.

 

 

Edit:

I do think this complicates the scoring quite a bit. I can understand the frustration from users, but I also understand the motivation from Apple.

I genuinely don't think that they are doing this because they are comically evil, or because they want to make the most money possible, any means necessary. You don't have to look far to find a ton of counterfeit iPhone parts of very questionable quality. There have been plenty of stories where phones with really shoddy aftermarket batteries exploded and the phone manufacturer, not the third-party battery, got the blame. 

 

If I had a broken iPhone, chances are I would go to Apple and order the replacement part, depending on which part was broken of course. Assuming the price was good, I would have no reason to gamble and order something potentially shady from eBay or whatnot.

I would also appreciate a warning if the repair shop I left my phone at used these shoddy components as well, because I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of cheap phone repair places would order the cheapest batteries they could find to try and maximize profits (like all companies do to a certain extent).

 

In that situation, all I care about is "how easy is it for me with genuine Apple parts to replace let's say the battery". I don't care about how difficult it would be to replace the battery with a non-genuine part because that's not the situation I am in. 

 

 

 

But the above scenario assumes that repair is easy with genuine parts and that they are available for a reasonable price.

If repair is difficult with genuine parts, or the genuine parts are very expensive then I can see the frustration.

 

 

The article doesn't mention it, but what are the consequences of these "software limitations"? In the screenshots it seems like it's just a warning that you can dismiss. I know from previous nes articles that if someone for example replaces the fingerprint scanner, that function doesn't work anymore and that seems somewhat reasonable to me, since it's a security risk. But if all that a third-party battery does is give you a warning saying "unable to verify if this phone has a genuine Apple battery", and you can just click OK then I fail to see the big deal. In fact, I think that's a good thing because then the user is informed but not hindered in any way.

Like I said, if I turned the phone into a third-party repair then I'd like to be informed if the repair was made in a way that makes it different from a "genuine Apple repair", like if they used a third-party battery that may not be the same quality as the original one.

If clicking "OK" on the warning message does something like shut the phone off, and you can't use it, then I see where the outrage comes from.

[jagdtigger]

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So should the Framework laptop get a 0/10 in repairability because if I for example swap the mainboard, the TPM will be different thus all my data may be gone (if FDE is used), and I will probably lose access to my Windows license (need to buy a new one) and so on?

Obviously not because that is a choice you made, not something that was forced on you by the manufacturer.

[soldier_ph]

Screw Apple, buy a Fairphone instead. I can swap out the Battery on my Fairphone in literally under 2 Minutes, from turning it off to on again. And unlike Apple, Fairphone encourages people to repair their own devices and doesn't throw roadblocks in their way.

[OhioYJ]

So will this score get updated (lowered again) later when these servers go offline or Apple decides you can no longer do these repairs as they no longer want to support what they determine is to old of a device? 

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Do you see the problem? Yes, the device can be repaired, and yes you can call Apple and have it successfully working, but the only reason to give it a zero is because you HAVE TO call apple? Really? Isn't the score about repairability and not political motivation?

From what I've seen, you HAVE TO repair it with Apple Genuine parts in order for them to allow you to use their chat option.

 

If you buy a 3rd party battery, it's then "impossible" to repair correctly.  I'm okay with the concept of lets say having an one time message, and in some of the system settings have a "non genuine part" kind of flag.

 

While I could be wrong but with the self repair program as well didn't they prevent 3rd party repair shops from buying it in advance; which puts the options given to customers as follow:

1) Bring your phone to Apple itself to be repaired

2) Bring it to a 3rd party and told it will be a few weeks

3) Buy a new phone.

 

The other issue is that Apple in general is getting worse and worse when it comes to linking parts and then not having replacements or having to purchase it through them. (With no known time of how long the program will be supported for)

 

I do think that at least them selling a majority of the parts that could break is good and should lead to a higher score; but that doesn't stop the fact that they require Apple only parts.

 

Could the knock off ones be bad?  Yes, absolutely, but that shouldn't prevent people from using them and having features not related to them be blocked.

 

As another example, if lets say a repair shop had an iPhone with a broken mainboard (lets say they purchased/did a trade in with someone).  Even though it was a perfectly good screen, and perfectly good battery the repair shop wouldn't be able to swap in any of those components because from my understanding Apple wouldn't "authorize" it

 

The tl;dr it's more than just "call them".  It's about the fact that it forces you to buy Apple repair products, and it potentially forces you to use Apple to do the repair if you don't want to wait for the part to arrive.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

So should the Framework laptop get a 0/10 in repairability because if I for example swap the mainboard, the TPM will be different thus all my data may be gone (if FDE is used), and I will probably lose access to my Windows license (need to buy a new one) and so on?

There is a clear difference between using an optional technology, and the easy ability to make a backup and restore from the backup.  Compared to swapping a battery and then losing some "features" related to the battery just because Apple doesn't recognize it as genuine.

 

No you will not probably lose access to your Windows License; I've found Windows to be pretty lenient in regards to all this stuff...where they don't have issues of reactivation unless if lets say they notice the other system was online.  I found less issues when backing up, and then restoring from backup on a new system as well.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Nuance is necessary, but I think it is a very bad idea to include "our perceived intention behind design choices" as one of the criteria when scoring. And in reality, the motivation for something shouldn't matter. The result is what matters. A good intention doesn't deserve a higher score than something done with bad intentions (or if the scorer assumes bad intentions) if the result is the same.

It's not about intention, no one mentioned judging on intention.  What has been mentioned is their ACTIONS, which are clearly definable.

 

Apples ACTIONS are the ones that are being discussed.  Having a warning come up I think is fine, but Apple doesn't stop there.  They needlessly have introduced software update after software update which hurts people who have had items repaired by 3rd parties (with 3rd party parts or even genuine Apple parts but not "authorized" to be used for the repair).

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I genuinely don't think that they are doing this because they are comically evil, or because they want to make the most money possible, any means necessary. You don't have to look far to find a ton of counterfeit iPhone parts of very questionable quality. There have been plenty of stories where phones with really shoddy aftermarket batteries exploded and the phone manufacturer, not the third-party battery, got the blame. 

Apple has had a history of intentionally, very intentionally, locking people into their ecosystem and trying to force people to only use their things in an effort for profits.  Remember, this is also the company that imprints the Apple logo onto everything (even small ribbon cables) and abuses it to prevent refurbished screens from entering into the market (they have the item seized as counterfeit goods).

 

There also is the general issue of Apple not even "realizing" what is "broken" and just quoting numbers where it's cheaper to just buy a new one.

 

Yes the counterfeit issue with questionable quality is a thing, but Apple isn't JUST putting a warning about "non-genuine parts" (If it popped up a few times I don't think people would have an issue with that).  They also have a history of locking out features.  Replace a screen, while leaving the camera...too bad you don't get FaceID anymore...because Apple tied FaceID to the ID of the screen (the screen components aren't doing any of the processing).

 

As said above as well, this applies to actual Apple parts as well.  From my understanding  the only "authorized" parts are the one ones you buy from their store (and wait for them to be delivered) and replaced on your phone.  At least from my understanding a 3rd party repair shop can't just have 5 genuine batteries from the self repair program...I think they essentially require the "linking" before the purchase otherwise the chat option won't allow you to.

 

The whole repairability with Apple has always been an issue, where they effectively force a JIT process for parts for even authorized Apple partners which slows down the repair time.

 

To that end, I think it's better to say that it's not about "genuine" parts.  It's about Apple "authorized" repairs; as again, you can use 100% genuine Apple parts and not be allowed to "fix" the final bit in software if Apple didn't approve that part.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The article doesn't mention it, but what are the consequences of these "software limitations"?

It depends on the years, model and the updates.  Apple has had a history of "accidently" issuing updates that affect "non-authorized repairs".

 

At the moment, for batteries on 12; it seems like the limitations are in regards to battery life/battery health...where it doesn't want to list the state of the battery.

Not sure if still the case, but before swapping the screen (not the camera), would disable FaceID.

Not sure if still the case, swapping the camera would disable FaceID (not just disable it for the next login attempt or just having the requirement that you reregister your face, but permanently disabling the feature)

Error 53; users who had swapped their home button (apparently even when the button came from donor phone) had their phones bricked after an update [the Apple store fix didn't have this issue]

 

There are I think more things as well but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

 

[ewitte]

not touching an apple phone, haven't had one since 2009ish (3gs).

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

From what I've seen, you HAVE TO repair it with Apple Genuine parts in order for them to allow you to use their chat option.

 

 

Again, the issue is Apple should, and maybe even be required to track repairs, because ultimately they get blamed for problems caused by bad repairs and counterfeit parts being used.

 

If a user buys a counterfeit/remanufactured battery from China and puts it in their phone, at their own expense, then Apple should be able to go "no you can't" only "okay, but it's your fault if it blows up, are you sure?"

 

At least you can get the authorized parts. The problem again, is that people do this:

side note: sponsored by ifixit.

 

So because of people doing this, Apple has to prevent people from making counterfeit phones from stolen parts.

 

https://www.engadget.com/2018-10-10-iphone-chop-shop-parts-ring-china.html

 

Can't blame them for wanting to solve a problem that was directly taking advantage of the warranty program.

 

[Dracarris]

How nice of Apple. So the usual suspects here again have sth to drool about, while in reality nobody cares and just buys their replacement parts from Apple.

[Fasterthannothing]

Umm if it literally bricks the phone when changing parts the score should be 0 change my mind 

[TetraSky]

32 minutes ago, Fasterthannothing said:

Umm if it literally bricks the phone when changing parts the score should be 0 change my mind 

Well it doesn't "brick" the phone AFAIK. It just shows an annoying message saying the part isn't genuine... Which is really just unnecessary DRM from Apple in order for them to extort more money from their sheep who happen to break their expensive device. 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Obviously not because that is a choice you made, not something that was forced on you by the manufacturer.

Are you really going to say it was "my choice" to buy the computer with Windows so therefore it is on me?

That is the same argument people make when they try to justify shitty behavior from Apple because "you chose to buy it and if you didn't want it then you should have gotten Android".

The fact of the matter is that Framework sell laptops with Windows preinstalled. If I change the mainboard, my Windows license is most likely gone and I have to pay them money to get the laptop back to a "working state" (software wise) again.

 

 

By the way, I am not saying Framework laptops should be punished for how Microsoft has made their software work. I am using this as an example of how drawing hard lines might be a bad idea, but also that I think people arguing for these hard lines will probably find excuses for why some company (they don't like) should get a certain type of score, and then another company (that they do like) should not have to follow the same guidelines because of some minute details that an end customer like my mom doesn't care about, and the end result (you have to pay extra to unlock software and get it back into a working state after a repair) is the same. "This gets a repairaibility score of X because if you don't use these optional features then it might in certain cases be easy repair". If we take that logic to the extreme, using the camera on the iPhone is an optional feature. Would you say that if Apple made a really repairable phone, but as soon as you used the camera once, it became full of software locks that made it impossible to repair, would it still deserve a 10/10 on iFixit? I don't think it would deserve that, even if it is very repairable if you avoid certain "optional features".

 

For us discussing this, I think the whole "who is to blame" is interesting, but for an end customer they do not give a crap about whose fault it is, they just care about the result. If turning on an optional feature makes the device less reparable, should that be considered in the score or not? 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There is a clear difference between using an optional technology, and the easy ability to make a backup and restore from the backup.  Compared to swapping a battery and then losing some "features" related to the battery just because Apple doesn't recognize it as genuine.

 

No you will not probably lose access to your Windows License; I've found Windows to be pretty lenient in regards to all this stuff...where they don't have issues of reactivation unless if lets say they notice the other system was online.  I found less issues when backing up, and then restoring from backup on a new system as well.

Oh I see. So after the repair, you would have to call Microsoft and then have them "authorize the repair" by giving you a new code after explaining what had happened?

Should that not be factored into the repairability score? That the software on the machine detect if I swap a part and then require I call them up if I want to continue using my device legally?

 

That sounds very similar to what the person I replied to said he didn't want to happen:  

8 hours ago, Thaldor said:

you would need to call the manufacturer, get codes from the customer and whatever rain dances and ancient spells you must do.

 

 

And no, a mainboard swap will usually require reactivating Windows. There are some situations where the reactivation can be done fairly seamlessly, but that requires using optional functions and isn't always enabled by default, which just makes the situation even more complicated when trying to boil it down to a single numerical score.

You just have to ask someone like Linus why so many of their testbenches don't have an activated copy of Windows. It's because swapping hardware often results in losing the activation, and it is the same situation with repairing laptops.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's not about intention, no one mentioned judging on intention.  What has been mentioned is their ACTIONS, which are clearly definable.

That was a response to someone earlier who 

 

I am somewhat playing Devil's advocate here, but I think the situation is a lot more complicated than some people seem to think it is. In fact, I'd go as far as to say some posters in this thread has an almost child-like view of the world and as a result lacks any and all nuance.

It should be very obvious that such a complex topic as "how easy is it to repair this device" can't be boiled down to a single numerical value that adequately gives a precise indicator of how easy something is to repair. It's just way to many variables and "ifs" and "buts" for that. iFixit tries their best but I question if they should even have a single score at all. 

 

What even does "repair" entail? Does "repair" entail fixing software issues? Because I think some people would argue that it does. Not many on this forum, because people seem allergic to programming here, but should iFixit rank the readability and availability of BIOS source codes and factor that into the score? If they don't include that because "it's software so it doesn't count", why should they factor in software things that may trigger after repairs? What if the BIOS bug is related to the function of a hardware peripheral?

 

Again, I just want people to understand that this is a complicated subject that can be looked at from various angles. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It depends on the years, model and the updates.  Apple has had a history of "accidently" issuing updates that affect "non-authorized repairs".

 

At the moment, for batteries on 12; it seems like the limitations are in regards to battery life/battery health...where it doesn't want to list the state of the battery.

Not sure if still the case, but before swapping the screen (not the camera), would disable FaceID.

Not sure if still the case, swapping the camera would disable FaceID (not just disable it for the next login attempt or just having the requirement that you reregister your face, but permanently disabling the feature)

Error 53; users who had swapped their home button (apparently even when the button came from donor phone) had their phones bricked after an update [the Apple store fix didn't have this issue]

 

There are I think more things as well but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

That's a lot of "not sure" and "it seems like".

Some of those sound reasonable to me (like not showing battery health if it's not verified by Apple).

Some sound like they could be mistakes but might not be (like replacing the fingerprint scanner) causing the device to be bricked. I would want more information about the specific details before passing judgment on that.

Not allowing FaceID after the camera has been replaced also sounds like it might be for security reasons, not just Apple wanting to fuck with users. May or may not have legitimate reasons.

 

But that raises the same question I asked earlier. Should intentions be weighted into the score? If a change makes something harder to repair, but it's done because let's say a previous model had major security flaws. Should that matter?

If a car doesn't require a key to unlock the doors, it is probably very easy to repair the door if it breaks.

If next year's model includes a key to unlock the car, it gets a lot harder to repair.

 

Obviously silly example, but do you get my point?

I don't think there are any right or wrong answers to these questions, and that's okay. People can feel different, but what I don't like are the people saying "no, people should think like me and therefore it should get score X".

[wanderingfool2]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Oh I see. So after the repair, you would have to call Microsoft and then have them "authorize the repair" by giving you a new code after explaining what had happened?

The majority of the time you will not have to, unless you are actively swapping out components...I've done it plenty and only twice in my whole career ever had to pick  up the phone can call Microsoft.  The biggest trigger is having old components that get called back to MS as still being active after the reactivation has been done (or constantly swapping it out)

 

If you want to make the MS argument; it would be like saying that the surface has to use genuine surface parts or else MS will limit the features of Windows (and they block Linux from running on it).

 

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's a lot of "not sure" and "it seems like".

Some of those sound reasonable to me (like not showing battery health if it's not verified by Apple).

Some sound like they could be mistakes but might not be (like replacing the fingerprint scanner) causing the device to be bricked. I would want more information about the specific details before passing judgment on that.

Not allowing FaceID after the camera has been replaced also sounds like it might be for security reasons, not just Apple wanting to fuck with users. May or may not have legitimate reasons.

And you are here claiming "nuance".  Yes I used the words "not sure"; but that's because I don't know if they still do it in their current rendition of their software.  It's like me saying, I'm not sure if Unity will charge for re-installs...because I haven't looked at the most current statement; that doesn't change the fact that at one point their statement was they did.

 

So yes, I use the words not sure because I don't know if they do or don't still have it in place.

 

The battery one is unacceptable in that it disables the feature unless you literally bought the repair battery from Apple.  You lose the functionality if you bought two iPhones and swapped their batteries...so no it's not "reasonable".

Not allowing FaceID after a swap for "security reasons" is not a good justification for  permanently disabling the feature.  After recognizing a swap, totally understandable (prevents someone putting in a "fake" camera that simulates the persons face).  After it's swapped, they could easily just make it so you re-register your face.  There is very little practical security concern about replacing a camera, if you just require them to re-register their face after a swap.

The whole "mistakes" though have been quite common for Apple.  Like the home button fiasco, or the 3rd party screens (although in that case it's understandable at least).

 

The general point that you seemed to have missed is that it's not in a steady state in terms of what features you may or may not get in regards to this.  It varies by update, and can vary by model.

 

Again, Apple is restricting the parts you can get your hands on.  From my understanding you cannot buy an Apple battery from the self service and put it in someone else's phone and not have the issues listed above.

 

We are talking about genuine Apple parts that you could buy and still be getting these "issues" because you didn't do it the Apple authorized way.

 

57 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And no, a mainboard swap will usually require reactivating Windows. There are some situations where the reactivation can be done fairly seamlessly, but that requires using optional functions and isn't always enabled by default, which just makes the situation even more complicated when trying to boil it down to a single numerical score.

You just have to ask someone like Linus why so many of their testbenches don't have an activated copy of Windows. It's because swapping hardware often results in losing the activation, and it is the same situation with repairing laptops.

Again like above, I've done plenty of MB/CPU swaps with zero issue.  The "reactivating" of Windows usually just is clicking activate Windows if it pops back up.  Again, I've only had to do it twice and never for my personal PC's (of which I have swapped the MB/CPU combo plenty over the years)  [Back at least before as well, MS would usually have something like a 3 activation grace before requiring calling in as well].

 

Linus' test benches trigger the warnings because you have lots of "activations" sent to MS in a short period of time all using the same MS key.

 

And again, you seem to be lacking the nuance that you HAVE to buy Apple's repair products to even have the option with Apple.  If you buy a genuine battery, screen, button, speaker, camera, etc but you sourced it from lets say a phone that was a donor phone you DO NOT get that privilege from my understanding.

[StDragon]

13 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Splitting a score like that risks that some people might assume that they could still attempt a repair themselves only to end up shit creek without a paddle when the software won't cooperate. I feel like this is an instance where the lowest score you get on any metric is the score you get overall.

Do both! Example..

Hardware = 8
Software = 2
Repair score = 2

No averaging them out, just the lowest score of the two. This way the consumer knows it's really difficult and the reason why. 

A poor software score (signed hardware) means any repair from the vendor can be expected to always be a 2 with this and any other future behavior; because it's by design.

A poor hardware score could be malintent, but generally an artifact to simplify manufacturing and to keep up with the mantra of thinner, lighter, water resistant (or proof), etc. Caveat emptor when it comes to past and future product development as that score could change in either direction.

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Are you really going to say it was "my choice" to buy the computer with Windows so therefore it is on me?

Is it only available with windows? Is it the only option? Plus bitlocker AFAIK is not enabled by default.

Edited September 22, 2023 by jagdtigger

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

And no, a mainboard swap will usually require reactivating Windows

It will ALWAYS require re-activation if the hardware identifier changes.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There are some situations where the reactivation can be done fairly seamlessly

It is ALWAYS seamless unless the activity is detected as abnormal or suspicious which a motherboard swap itself is not. Having to contact Microsoft after a motherboard swap is exceedingly rare, it is the exception and requires more than just one or two motherboard swaps in a short span of time.

 

As long as you have your product key or your Microsoft Account that was linked to your device and has your license associated with it online re-activation will be no issue at all, in fact done silently and automatically in the case of using a Microsoft Account.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You just have to ask someone like Linus why so many of their testbenches don't have an activated copy of Windows. It's because swapping hardware often results in losing the activation, and it is the same situation with repairing laptops.

No it is not the same. You don't carry an existing Windows install between 10's to 100's of device hardware ID's and back again constantly that will always violate the re-activation thresholds when repairing a specific laptop with a specific Windows license (one to one). The reason why their test benches are not activated is because they don't go through the hassle of calling Microsoft to get the activation block removed. Linus has stated in a video about this, they have full retail copies of Windows with product keys to cover every test bench install they do and would be in the clear if Microsoft ever decided to audit them.

 

Having to re-activate isn't at all the issue and is not why their test benches are not activated, in spite of them all having valid product keys.

 

Saying this is the same situation as repairing laptops is like saying baking bread at home is the same as baking bread to supply all the local supermarkets in a city, it is in fact not the same regardless of the fact anyone wants to argue that both situation involve baking bread.

 

The situation that would be a problem, and this is the user choice aspect, would be if you enabled Bitlocker and do not have a copy of your product key and had to do a motherboard swap. But there is the counter point to this, you can in fact change the motherboard serial number to match the original which is in the documented service repair steps from HP, HPE, Dell, Lenovo, Acer etc and not require re-activation or will allow seamless activation linked by the device hardware identifier if you had to reinstall Windows. If this is a DIY system then you can contact the support for your motherboard and get this done too, serial numbers can be changed and motherboards can be made so that they present the same hardware identifiers maintaining both Windows hardware ID's and activation as well as 3rd party hardware device licensing. This last point however must be a motherboard replacement with the exact same one, not a different model/vendor/brand.

 

End user device servicing and repair as well as server servicing and repair is something I have a lot of experience doing, it's all very well handled by everyone involved so long as it's OEM/ODM built systems. It's only DIY you might get in to problems but nothing that can't be solved unless the support from the hardware vendor is useless, which can/is a problem in DIY land.

 

With all that said if you want to try and guarantee that you will be able to recover a Windows Product Key and be able to activate create a Microsoft account, link a device and activate it. Then if you don't want any of that tied in to your device anymore, for whatever reason, reinstall Windows, do not login/tether with your Microsoft account, online activate Windows (automatic) and it will be licensed and activated. Taking the effort to do this means you have a way to get support from Microsoft and evidence of your Windows license if this ever becomes your only source of Windows license proof.

 

I don't think it's a good idea personally to go down the Windows activation discussion path, it's not as problematic as you might be thinking and it's also a minefield of technicalities that ultimately don't matter.

 

Back to the Bitlocker thing, far as I know it's not widely used by consumers. Whereas Apple device encryption is inherent to their systems, it is not optional, so every consumer has this and will always be part of repair consideration. However Bitlocker isn't really a hinderance to repair, only data access, as per above.

 

As to the topic, reparability score must always factor in these details. If a hardware repair is dependent on the device vendor approving it in-line with the repair, meaning they must be involved to achieve it, then this is a factor of concern. You can't always guarantee good support so a legitimate repair could be denied or may go wrong in some way caused by this process that the consumer has no recourse to get resolved. This process could be put in to End Of Life for a device generation resulting in all devices no longer being able to be repaired. There are quite a number of potential problems, more than I can be bothered to think about, however I always recommend getting device repairs done by authorized repairers even if you have to suffer multiple weeks of extra time. Go the official support route always, only do something else if this is no longer available, it's just not worth the risk.

 

TL;DR A device that requires part replacement authorization should score lower than a device that does not in this aspect and should be accounted for in the overall score. I don't know how much that should factor because I think it also matters what the expected device life is and expected replacement cycle is. This should be a larger factor for say a vehicle or house alarm system than a phone.