Leaked guide outlines how Apple decides to repair or replace iPhones

[suicidalfranco]

40 minutes ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

Assembling is the easy part of the manufacturing process. When you have to diagnose, disassemble and repair a specific part, the labor goes up hence the expensive repair cost. Changing out the whole part is the most time efficient way for the manufacturers since, like auto repair, pay is based on how much you work on per work day. I've also seen that video and he had to go to special vendors with special machines to assemble the parts he bought. And also, most of those parts are from broken iPhones, which, I hope, manufacturers aren't using on repairs.

special machine that wouldn't be hard for every major manufacturer to equip their tech support center with, the only time he went to a special was to fix the broken display assembly he had bought and replace the front glass at the same time, If a small shop in china could do it, i don't see why a manufacturer who have access to every required part, can't.

and they even asked for less than what most displays go for.

[ResidentRad]

Apple is anti consumer and has the worst customer service? Wat? Is OP high?

Those guidelines are wholly reasonable and unremarkable, theyre very common sense with no surprises. What the hell is this OP on? 

[dizmo]

Yet another ridiculous post by you. There's nothing wrong with those guidelines at all, and they fall right in line with what every other phone maker, as well as electronics maker would do. 

 

What are you even thinking posting something contrary to that? 

 

1 hour ago, Leshya said:

Wait; I thought "bent enclosure" wasn't covered even in warranty? Both Apple and my retailer are refusing to fix it even tho it's inside the resellers (legit business) warranty. *thinking*

It's not... 

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

 

Apple has terrible customer support and their warranty is frankly awful.

 

I have been a recipient of Apple customer support and my brother has been a recipient of Apple warranty in the past and it was outrageous.

The industry standard of not covering accidental damage is not consumer friendly and is not what OEMs should provide.

If a product is too fragile so that it obliterates if dropped then that's Apple's fault. The consumer is not at fault for poor decisions made by companies.

 

If a product fails to serve the function it is supposed to then warranty should be provided to the maximum extent permissible by the law.

If you drop glass, it breaks. Get a case. Be more careful with your expensive toys. I've owned well over a dozen phones, I've only ever broken 2. It was fully my fault, not the companies, so they shouldn't have to pay for it. 

 

What? Sounds like you're more butt hurt than anything. 

[ScratchCat]

1 hour ago, themctipers said:

Yeah I swear on my life that my phone hasn't touched water, ever. 

What about the water molecules in the air ?

At least they cover single hairline cracks , they can sometimes appear when a screen protector doesn't fully do its job.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

31 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

special machine that wouldn't be hard for every major manufacturer to equip their tech support center with, the only time he went to a special was to fix the broken display assembly he had bought and replace the front glass at the same time, If a small shop in china could do it, i don't see why a manufacturer who have access to every required part, can't.

and they even asked for less than what most displays go for.

Agreed, but unfortunately the shops in the western hemisphere will still mark-up the prices for repairs because customers aren't aware of such processes. There are alternatives to sending it out to Apple for repair (if not covered by warranty) such as the friendly guy in a mall kiosk.

 

Completely off-topic: Hehe, 69(th post). 

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, Dissitesuxba11s said:

Agreed, but unfortunately the shops in the western hemisphere will still mark-up the prices for repairs because customers aren't aware of such processes. There are alternatives to sending it out to Apple for repair (if not covered by warranty) such as the friendly guy in a mall kiosk.

 

Completely off-topic: Hehe, 69(th post). 

Imo they should move to just repairing instead of replacing the entire part or device, specially here in the EU where the concept of circular economy is being pushed hard by the Union and it's members

[Dissitesuxba11s]

3 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Imo they should move to just repairing instead of replacing the entire part or device, specially here in the EU where the concept of circular economy is being pushed hard by the Union and it's members

They should, but time is the deciding factor for some of these businesses, and time is money. It takes longer to repair a part than to replace the whole thing.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Ya, because everyone will admit to the phone being in contact with water.

They do say what to do if the user denies it.

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Do they cover phones that have come into contact with Gallium? 

that seems oddly specific

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

It's your fault for droping the thing, not the companies fault for not making the phone strong enough to withstand drops.

Only to a point. Phones are designed to stay with users at all times, in their pocket or handbag. Small hits are to be expected, and an overly fragile device is poorly designed. Of course, if it falls from the third floor you can't blame the phone if it breaks, but if it falls from 50cm you'd expect it to withstand it. At least, you would on a phone that cost like a moped.

1 hour ago, hey_yo_ said:

Also, iPhones are fragile? Oh come on!

In the last video you linked the 6s' screen pops out from pocket height. That by itself might make it uneligible for warranty service. And of course, the cracks from the head height drop would definitely make it uneligible.

[Commodus]

I'm sorry, but between this, the Hurricane Harvey donation thread and comments inside of them, it's pretty clear that this is scrounging to find excuses to attack Apple:

 

- Apple made it easy to donate to Harvey relief, but didn't publicly announce a donation?  Horrible monster.

- Apple won't repair your accidental damage for free, even though virtually no one else does?  Atrocious.

- Apple doesn't make near-indestructible products that always survive drops intact?  Devil incarnate.

 

See a recurring theme?  It's holding Apple to an increasingly unreasonable standard, and then blasting it when it invariably fails to meet that standard.  It's moving the goal posts to make sure Apple can't win.

 

The irony is that the OP probably owns many products from companies whose policies are similar or worse, but doesn't talk about them because, of course, they're Not Apple (and that's all that matters).  If he were consistent... well, we wouldn't hear from him, because he would boycott all electronic devices.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, Sauron said:

In the last video you linked the 6s' screen pops out from pocket height. That by itself might make it uneligible for warranty service. And of course, the cracks from the head height drop would definitely make it uneligible.

But how many drops it took to have the 6s screen to pop out? A lot. Besides, nowhere in Apple's website do they claim that their phones are rugged so yeah, it will get damaged at some point especially after sustained drops. I don't know what @AluminiumTech is whining about customer care and iPhones being fragile as if a single waist drop would brick it.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

But how many drops it took to have the 6s screen to pop out? A lot. 

3 drops, only one of which was face down. By the second drop (on the side, which is more realistic than either face up or face down) there were still scratches which disqualify it from warranty repair should anything else happen to it, even spontaneously. I'd rate that as fairly fragile. With that said the warranty doesn't seem that terrible to me, if anything I would say it just covers the bare minimum.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Jrock said:

Apples phones are designed to be pretty.

 

They are not designed to break. Stop pulling arguments out of your ass.

When Microsoft fucks things up so badly that you cant possibly defend them, then your last resort is to start pulling things out of your ass to make everyone else look worse thereby making microsoft look better.

[Senzelian]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Only to a point. Phones are designed to stay with users at all times, in their pocket or handbag. Small hits are to be expected, and an overly fragile device is poorly designed. Of course, if it falls from the third floor you can't blame the phone if it breaks, but if it falls from 50cm you'd expect it to withstand it. At least, you would on a phone that cost like a moped.

It doesn't matter what the customer expects.
What matters is what the company advertises.

 

Does Apple advertise the phone to be able to withstand a 50cm drop?

[Sauron]

42 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

It doesn't matter what the customer expects.
What matters is what the company advertises.

 

Does Apple advertise the phone to be able to withstand a 50cm drop?

Who cares what they advertise? If it doesn't offer a minimum of durability I won't buy it nor recommend it. Nobody is accusing them of false advertisement.

[79wjd]

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Who cares what they advertise? If it doesn't offer a minimum of durability I won't buy it nor recommend it. 

That's not an issue that's exclusive to Apple though, the vast majority of smartphones -- even flagships aren't exactly durable. 

[Commodus]

Just now, Sauron said:

Who cares what they advertise? If it doesn't offer a minimum of durability I won't buy it nor recommend it. Nobody is accusing them of false advertisement.

They're not, but there's a difference between the "not my cup of tea" view and the OP's argument, which is to accuse Apple of a conspiracy by making a phone that (gasp) breaks if you drop it.

[Sauron]

23 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

That's not an issue that's exclusive to Apple though, the vast majority of smartphones -- even flagships aren't exactly durable. 

That's true. I have a very hard time recommending 700$+ phones in general and this is one of the reasons.

22 minutes ago, Commodus said:

They're not, but there's a difference between the "not my cup of tea" view and the OP's argument, which is to accuse Apple of a conspiracy by making a phone that (gasp) breaks if you drop it.

It's obvious that apple vales looks over durability. Now, whether they do this, specifically or at least in part, for it to break on you and force you to buy a new model is up to speculation. I did not take a stance on this though, simply because I can't know for sure.

[Mr.Meerkat]

4 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Apple deliberately designs phones in such a way that they are fragile and can easily be damaged.

So what you're saying is you'd like a phone with a plastic screen...after all, the most common death/damage on a phone is the glass screen cracking...

[Commodus]

59 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It's obvious that apple vales looks over durability. Now, whether they do this, specifically or at least in part, for it to break on you and force you to buy a new model is up to speculation. I did not take a stance on this though, simply because I can't know for sure.

As I like to say: the truth is often more boring than you want it to be.  Most likely, Apple just valued aesthetics and features over durability.  It'd be very ridiculous for a company to design phones with out-of-warranty repair costs as a key part of the business model.  It's like basing your retirement on risky stock bets... it's way, way too unpredictable to be a reliable source of income.

 

What I'd like to know is what phone the OP uses... unless it's a rugged phone, there will be a tremendous level of irony to all this.

 

 

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

It'd be very ridiculous for a company to design phones with out-of-warranty repair costs as a key part of the business model.

 

 

Kinda sounds like it would be ridiculous not to capitalize on the material, design and manufacturing choices for the product. A public corporation has only 1 goal - maximize profits, by any means available. Would be a huge waste to not play on the absolutly monsterous amount of goodwill and mindshare.

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Are you drunk?
That has nothing to do with "terrible warranty" and everything I see on that Picture makes sense.

The warranty takes care of problems that are caused by the product, not problems that are intentionally or unintentionally caused by the consumer.

 

 

 

I generally hate apple products but I would have to agree. This is just a company only wanting to fix products that were defective not products that break because of user error. I mean why would someone having their phone impact damage be covered under warranty? 

[Commodus]

30 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Kinda sounds like it would be ridiculous not to capitalize on the material, design and manufacturing choices for the product. A public corporation has only 1 goal - maximize profits, by any means available. Would be a huge waste to not play on the absolutly monsterous amount of goodwill and mindshare.

The problem is that those design choices will still have been made for other reasons.  Well, our design ended up being relatively fragile, so let's make a profit from it (whether or not Apple does isn't clear).  The OP, however, is implying that Apple intentionally made the phone breakable so it could profit when people come in for repairs.    I don't dispute that Apple charges a lot for out-of-warranty fixes; my beef is with the notion that Apple baked this into the iPhone's sales model, as if it needed enough handsets to break to generate the profit it does.

 

Besides, even if it were true, couldn't Apple also stand to profit by lowering its own repair costs?  Fewer repairs means fewer repair techs, customer service reps and replacement phones.

[hobobobo]

25 minutes ago, Commodus said:

The problem is that those design choices will still have been made for other reasons.  Well, our design ended up being relatively fragile, so let's make a profit from it (whether or not Apple does isn't clear).  The OP, however, is implying that Apple intentionally made the phone breakable so it could profit when people come in for repairs.    I don't dispute that Apple charges a lot for out-of-warranty fixes; my beef is with the notion that Apple baked this into the iPhone's sales model, as if it needed enough handsets to break to generate the profit it does.

 

Besides, even if it were true, couldn't Apple also stand to profit by lowering its own repair costs?  Fewer repairs means fewer repair techs, customer service reps and replacement phones.

Dunno, to me it seems his view is driven by apple baking forced absolution into their brand image and being ruthles in their fight for every dollar, like a good corporation is supposed to do(which is another discussion and kinda the underlying issue here as i see it). They are not the only offender, but the only one with a cult level goodwill to exploit

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

As I like to say: the truth is often more boring than you want it to be.  Most likely, Apple just valued aesthetics and features over durability.  It'd be very ridiculous for a company to design phones with out-of-warranty repair costs as a key part of the business model.  It's like basing your retirement on risky stock bets... it's way, way too unpredictable to be a reliable source of income.

 

What I'd like to know is what phone the OP uses... unless it's a rugged phone, there will be a tremendous level of irony to all this.

You're missing the point - the profit would be in pushing the user to upgrade to a newer iPhone one or two years after purchasing the last one instead of, say, 6 years.

 

As for what he's using, even if it isn't a rugged phone it may be a much cheaper phone than what Apple offers - in which case tradeoffs are to be expected.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

What I'd like to know is what phone the OP uses... unless it's a rugged phone, there will be a tremendous level of irony to all this.

The best kind of durable phone -- one that doesn't work (because Windows Mobile!) and so is never on you and is never used so it can never be broken. 

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You're missing the point - the profit would be in pushing the user to upgrade to a newer iPhone one or two years after purchasing the last one instead of, say, 6 years.

 

As for what he's using, even if it isn't a rugged phone it may be a much cheaper phone than what Apple offers - in which case tradeoffs are to be expected.

People who buy flagship phones tend to upgrade frequently anyway, so I don't really believe that either. 

 

I think they really just prioritize aesthetics and performance and everything else is secondary.