TechCrunch is Full of It: Repair Is Exactly What Consumers Need
An article on TechCrunch by Matt Burns responded rather forcefully to our criticism of the new iPad. Burns says that Apple shouldn’t make the iPad user-serviceable. He explains, “If Apple made the iPad user-serviceable, tablets could fail.” Heavens to Betsy! We didn’t realize we were going to kill Apple!
It’s better, he says, for consumers to have throw-away hardware that lasts two or three years. That way, Apple can innovate faster because they don’t have to support old products. This rapid innovation cycle will allow (insert sarcasm here) consumers to support the burgeoning tablet market. And soon, we’ll all be able to move from the antiquated modular PC market to the brave new world of “appliance” electronics—that is, if I understand Burns correctly, electronics with software so intuitive and self-sustaining that we won’t even need to think about the supporting hardware anymore.
I know that Apple’s consumer electronics vision has changed the world. I’m writing this on my MacBook on an airplane with Wi-Fi, somewhere above Utah. The woman on my left is reading on a Nook. Across the aisle, two young boys are playing a game on an iPad while their dad works on a ThinkPad. Portability, intuitive user interface design, and affordability are important issues for consumers, including me. I’m a techno-utopian, too. Advances in technology make lives all around the world better.
But serviceability and innovation are not mutually exclusive, as Burns suggests. Even Apple is still making awesome repairable products: we’ve recently given both the Apple TV and Mac Mini very high repairability scores.
Yes, perhaps the iPad would have to be slightly thicker if it were held shut with clips rather than glue. But how many people do you know who wouldn’t buy an iPad if it were two millimeters thicker? I’m sure you know many more people who have dropped a smartphone or tablet on the unforgiving concrete. And you probably know more people who have retired an iPod because the battery died right after the warranty expired. All these people have been infantilized out of a relationship with their hardware.
Revolutionary new technology “appliances” don’t eliminate the need for repair. If I spend $600 on any hardware, I expect that it will last me a good long time. If it breaks, I expect to be able to fix it (or get it fixed). I would never buy a car with the hood welded shut—and neither would Burns. And if I call a repairman to come fix my dishwasher, I don’t expect that he’ll need to spend two hours loosening the seal with a heat gun just to get to the motor. That’s ridiculous.
What’s even more ridiculous is to suggest that making it easy to open up our own stuff is somehow anti-consumer. Last time I checked, saving money is something consumers love. iPads aren’t cheap; the latest version runs $500-$800 dollars, which is more than many people spend on rent. Burns argues that it’s worth it, because Apple has a “very slow but methodical release cycle”—meaning Apple products spend just enough time basking in the glow of high-functionality before they become obsolete.
But when did two to three years become the standard for a slow and methodical release cycle? And what if consumers don’t want to rush to the store to buy something as soon as Apple releases a new update? In Burns’s model, it seems like they wouldn’t have a choice. Once the warranty expires, there would be no way to save the device. But repair can save that device from obsolescence, which in turn saves people money. How in the world is saving people money anti-consumer?
Of course, Apple knows a thing or two about the average consumer. Apple has muscled their way to the top of the industry with a simple strategy: make customers happy. The iPhone regularly tops customer satisfaction indexes. They have proven that if you make the best product, people will respond. But there’s one critical chink in their industry-leading customer friendliness, and that’s post-warranty hardware support. Ask anyone who’s broken an iPhone screen or dealt with a failing battery how frustrating and inconvenient Apple’s support process is, especially if you don’t live near a retail store.
It’s possible that someone inside Apple made the calculation that designing an iPad that pushes consumers to replace it in a few years rather than replacing consumables would help sales. It’s equally possible that a sustainable, repairable product design was on the table, but got de-prioritized in the efforts to slim the iPad down. Whatever the reason, this was a short-sighted decision.
American automotive manufacturers learned the hard way that making repairable, long lasting products was critical to maintaining resale value and driving retail sales. It’s equally important for the electronics manufacturers we trust to take care of all of their users, whether they bought the product first-hand or third-hand. Repairability impacts resale value—I’m far more willing to spend money on something that I know I’ll be able to resell in a couple years than on something with a non-replaceable consumable and little resale value.
And speaking of cars, Burns says that the iPad doesn’t have any consumables equivalent to a belt in a car. That’s simply not true—it doesn’t say this on the packaging, but the iPad battery has a 1000-cycle lifetime. The iPhone’s battery only lasts 500 cycles.
Turning a blind eye to hardware limitations doesn’t mean they disappear. A battery is a consumable, just like a print cartridge or the tires on your car. Sure, Apple will replace your iPad if your battery dies within your warranty period. But what happens after the warranty runs out? What happens when, three years from now, you upgrade and want to give your kid your iPad—which still works, save its dying battery? We’ve helped hundreds of parents install new batteries and resurrect dead iPods for their kids because Apple left them high and dry. We’ve even helped a few kids resurrect iPods for their parents.
Tablets, because they’re so new and relatively expensive, are not yet showing up in e-waste dumps and secondhand markets such as Alaba and Lajpat Rai. But if the tablet revolution happens the way Matt Burns says it will, and “appliance” electronics replace PCs, that will be a tragedy for developing countries. Internet usage is exploding across Africa, and almost everyone is using secondhand computers and mobile devices. None of my friends in Nairobi buy new phones—they get inexpensive secondhand phones from local repair shops. The most accessible—and most environmentally friendly—electronics are the ones that we’ve already made. The best way to bridge the digital divide and get our incredible technology in the hands of the people who need it is to keep the stuff we’ve already got functional. A five-year-old laptop could change the life of a small business owner in the developing world.
The first consumer is the only one from whom Apple makes significant money, of course. But Apple’s anti-repair perspective is already costing them these customers. I regularly hear from people that refuse to buy easy-to-break, difficult to fix products. Are these people statistically significant enough to make a difference to Apple? I hope so. That’s why we think it’s worthwhile to make a big stink about the repairability of the iPad.
Making stuff repairable isn’t living in the past, and it’s not just about saving money. Repair will make the electronics of today accessible to the developing world of the future.
Comments
I agree with the sentiment in this article, but 2 additional mm would be very significant if added to the thickness of an iPad. Lots of people are making hay online about the fact that the new iPad is 0.6mm thicker, 2mm is over 3x that much.
2mm would not be significant. People will complain about any specification they feel does not improve, even they can’t actually discern a difference. Most Americans don’t even have a concept of how big or little .6mm is (24/1000 of an inch), let alone 2mm. They just don’t like seeing it in print, actually they couldn’t see it in print without help, the resolution of the human eye is about .2mm.
TechCrunch is out to get as many clicks as they can, so they post stories that espouse a particular viewpoint no matter how ridiculous the position just because they know people will eat it up.
If Matt Burns wants to go on record and say that the company that revolutionized digital music, mobile computing, human-computer interaction, and a number of other significant fields can not produce a product that is simultaneously stunning yet repair/reuse friendly, I would be even more skeptical of his credentials as a “tech blogger” than I already am.
Of course, until repair/reuse is Apple’s priority, it won’t happen. The way things are going it looks like they’ll keep trying to make their iDevices as difficult as possible to get into.
I already commented on this topic in your last take on the new iPad. You don’t have to study industrial design to understand that if you want a more serviceable iPad the device would get thicker. In addition the sealing with the adhesive has other advantages as well. I wrote about this on Google+ :
https://plus.google.com/114803535673127097372/posts/UHQjpZdumJR
My problem is that iFixit “demands” a better serviceable iPad for a fringe group of tech savvy users at the expense of a top notch product design which all customers would come to enjoy all the time.
well there goes the repair business
OH wait I forgot I repair PC’s “whew” that was a close call, I think I still have some time before someone does that to a PC.
Thanks for responding, Elizabeth! You have a very solid take on the situation and I applaud iFixit and the countless other groups advancing the cause of fixing broken gadgets. Just hours after I wrote my piece on TechCrunch, I combined three different dead netbooks to make a working one for my garage. I noted it on Facebook if you want a bit of confirmation.
http://www.facebook.com/MattBurns/posts/411583952201257
I truly believe what I wrote, though. Apple has mostly moved past the age of reparable goods in an effort to reach a broader audience more quickly. Their products reach within key demographics that do not care nor would ever repair their broken items. As I note in my original post, it’s a bit sad for those that like to maintain older items.
There will be repairable electronic goods for the foreseeable future. But Apple in its quest for global domination is quickly moving away from them to produce products aimed at the general consumer rather than the computer owner. They simply expect different things and being able to swap a dead component is a key difference.
Thanks for continuing the conversation. It’s nice to know someone is listening that cares enough to respond.
Matt Burns: “They simply expect different things and being able to swap a dead component is a key difference.”
Here I object. I think repair skills and tech versatility are likely to broaden for each year. The number of people rooting their Android phones are increasing. Tutorials on how to hack and modify your tech are getting more coverage and are of higher quality. The number of people willing to fix their Ipads will also rise. The problem with your argument is that it doesn’t make environmental sense.
I hope we’ll quickly move towards strict global reuse and recycling regulations. Any tablet that isn’t made maximally repairable should be be tagged by an “environmental impact tax”.
Markus,
Perhaps iFixit comes across as demanding, but I don’t demand much from electronic companies; I just stop buying if they don’t please my requests. Their loss, I have many other choices. And thickness is not a big deal to me, I have FSHD, and I have weak arms, so if I can live with a bigger device, so can you. It’s not just for techy people, I fix other people’s devices, it makes a ripple effect, which gets big fast.
And to Matt,
like I said earlier, I repair friends’ devices. I don’t buy apple, but others do, and that’s why I care. I am currently repairing a bad screen on a second gen iPod touch. Repairing for $30 is a lot better for him than buying a $250 device when his current one meets his needs.
To Edan,
I really like your tax idea, but how would you define “maximally repairable”?
In my world, $150 – $200 is throwaway territory. More than that and I want repairable. Three or four times that and it is mandatory.
Don’t get me started on phones ….
**In my world, $150 – $200 is throwaway territory.**
Ben Franklin wrote a long time ago, “A fool and his money are soon parted.” Holding on and maximizing even a $50 item is keeping that money for better use and saving the environment if the repair is $5. We’ve been duped into over-consuming at the cost of the environment and personal security.
The idea of disposable hardware/electronics/etc is disgusting to me. Everyday we are warned about the Global Warming stuff. We are warned about pollution, landfills, green this green that. And yet the industry wants us to have throw away consumer goods. This is a dangerous mentality. If you throw it away after 2 years then it wasn’t worth buying in the first place.
Good stuff, as usual. And, you’re right. The irony isn’t lost on many of us that ecofriendly California is where most technology publications call home, and yet, according to this TechCruncher, throwing hardware away (instead of recycling it) is a good idea.? #somethingiswrongwiththisppicture
Keep up the good work.
Hard to believe that some commenters are trying to justify Apple’s anti-repair policy as beneficial to the user. Apple’s motivation is profit, and forcing replacement of their devices through planned obsolescence is part of this.
Keep up the good work iFixit: while the rest of the tech bloggers out there are busily wetting their pants over Aplpe’s latest shiny landfill ornament, you guys are giving us greater insight and advice.
Great post. This is similar to the mistake Apple made by ignoring the PC-Clone market. Apple is trying to control the life of the device. IPads returned to Apple will of course have batteries replaced and will be resold / remarketed. This is like a EULA agreement for hardware, it’s about controlling ownership. The less repairable your IPAD, the less secondary market value. “Market cannabalization” is the word for repair and reuse inside the industry.
I agree with Rosco; it’s amazing to me that people are arguing in favor of Apple’s actions.
In this particular case I can see the argument in favor of using glue (the thinner casing), but it’s obvious that Apple is taking a broadly anti-consumer approach to repairs. The bottom of my MBA has a new size of pentalobe screws, and I can’t think of a single benefit provided by them.
In fact, I think iFixit should work with groups like Greenpeace to shame Apple and other CE companies for this behavior.
Consumer electronics today are largely disposable. As they become more easy to use and intuitively designed, they become more magical, which is what most people revert to when they’re ignorant of explanation. Sure, there are some things Apple should be commended for. Now, all they do is churn out aesthetically fragile playthings. They know how to make a profit.
Great piece of writing. My first thought is “Who is TechCrunch and who is Matt Burns?” Why would it matter what he thinks or says? What it does show, is his inability to grasp the big picture, from polution to waste of resources and anything in between. He does show that he is in touch with the mainstream consumer. Henry Q. Public does not necessarily care about the repairability of products, but has been conditioned to always have the newest, greatest and shiniest piece of equipment. This is not just Apple, its everyone. Has anyone ever tried to get any repair or parts information from a manufacturer? It is like hitting your head against a brick wall. That is why sites like ifixit are so important to educate on the How-To’s as well as informing the public about longevity, serviceability etc. of new products. As long as we support sites like this we stand a chance to make a difference and to make this world a better place. Elizabeth, thank you for a great story.
Like almost every topic on the web, people are approaching this antagonistically: “I’m 100% right, therefore you have to be 100% wrong”. The discussion then devolves into one of speculating about the motives of people and companies.
Most of the time, there is NO ONE RIGHT course of action that is better in every way. People seem to want to just over-simplify every topic into one of “good vs. evil”, than to try to create a best-possible solution by RESPECTFULLY discussing it.
Perhaps I’m naive, but someone has to be.
@MATT BURNS
Matt, opening up the back and swapping a battery isn’t just for a select group or niche market…..I seem to remember doing just that as a 5 year old with my toy Concord plane.
And yes Brian (2 posts up) You are being naive.
Comments are closed