Apple has changed its self-repair program in ways that make it a terrible option for consumers, but it can make a lot of sense for enterprise IT – especially those who want to repair iOS devices, whether for proprietary devices or consumer devices. BYOD.
It is worth noting that the need for consumers to always have their phones, combined with the mass distribution of employees in the remote workforce, may make this less attractive. Still, for the non-trivial number of users who are still in large corporate buildings, this is an attractive option.
Let’s start with the fun part, which describes how ridiculously bad these changes are for some. MacRumors I did a wonderful deep immersion in the experience; here are some of my favorite lines.
“The repair kit is available in two separate packages and both boxes weigh an incredible 79 pounds.”
For some consumers, dealing with such heavy packaging (I want pastry items to resist the urge to call it a “heavy problem”) is a problem. If Apple wants to discourage users from using this service, this is a great start.
“You receive it for a week before you have to send it back via UPS, otherwise Apple charges you $ 1300.”
What if life interferes and the consumer can’t finish things in a week? Why not give them a month or, better yet, three months? This would provide much more flexibility.
In addition, repackaging nearly 80 pounds of equipment and delivering it to a UPS – which may not be nearby – is a big hassle. And why only UPS? We may have a hint of that. Another site focused on Apple AppleInsidermake a great piece of consideration strange agreement between Apple and FedEx.
What was so strange? FedEx sent a message to a customer who lost an AppleWatch sent back to Apple, saying “”we must respectfully reject your claim “, as the supply contract was an addition,” stating that you have agreed not to file claims arising from transport services provided by FedEx. “The user eventually found that the addition is an agreement from Apple to hold FedEx. ” unaccounted for lost packages targeted to Apple.
And exactly when Apple would tell everyone that stacking? The deal appears to have allowed only Apple to dispute FedEx’s packet loss, not the sender’s, which is not the way it works for other packets. Overall, avoiding FedEx for Apple shipments seems best.
Back to the details of self-repair. After MacRumors detailed the various costs of the program, she did the math.
“That means it costs a total of $ 95.84 to replace the iPhone 12 mini’s battery, and comparatively, that’s $ 69 to get Apple to trade itso it is not really cost effective to do this repair yourself.”
Let this sentence sink for a moment. It obviously costs 39% more to use the self-service option than letting Apple do it. How does this pricing make sense? It’s like a mechanic telling a customer, “You’re dead carburetor. You have two choices. You can have a place in the waiting room and we will exchange it for $ 69 or you can do all the work yourself for $ 95.84. Your decision. “
The only obvious conclusion is that Apple wants to offer this program because of the right to repair, but does not want anyone to use it.
My favorite: Apple insists that consumers use Apple repair tools that are both their own and expensive. Again from MacRumors:
“Keep in mind that you can order the parts yourself without the tool kit, but Apple’s repair guide instructs users to use the tools in the kit that they wouldn’t otherwise have on hand, such as an Apple-designed battery press. You can buy all the tools separately to have on hand for repair, but Apple components are expensive. A battery press is $ 115, a torque driver is $ 99, a heated display removal pocket is $ 116, and a display press is $ 216, all needed to remove the battery according to Apple’s repair manual.
Wait, it’s getting worse.
“As for the actual repair process, Dan found it difficult, even with Apple’s instructions and tools. It was frustrating to get in and there were no components in the kit required by management, such as tweezers and thermal gloves. Dan had to go to the store twice to get more supplies, so the repairs took most of the day. Dealing with the glue takes a long time and almost ended the self-repair.”
Here is the interesting part. Despite the fact that Apple’s self-repair program is absurdly bad for consumers, it can be a very cost-effective mechanism for corporate IT.
Mobile device repair is complex for IT. There are four categories of users for this purpose. One, office based users who have a company device / devices with iOS. Two, office-based users who own iOS devices that own (BYOD). Three remote users who have a company device / devices with iOS. Four remote users who have iOS devices they own (again BYOD).
To be explicit, options one and two assume that users work in a building with an IT presence. If there is no significant IT presence where they work, they are effectively considered remote for this narrow purpose.
What this Apple self-repair program would do is make it cost-effective for IT to do its own repairs. Being cold and corporate for a moment makes the most sense for Option 1, but much less for the rest. If users can just go to the IT floor, leave their phone (they would probably arrange this in advance with IT so that someone has time to help), it makes sense for everyone. This is most likely a cost saving for IT.
But the cold and corporate truth is that the vast majority of BYOD users will pay out of pocket to repair their phone. even when the repair directly activates a corporate function that they do not otherwise need. For example, their phone may be battling an IT VPN or enterprise firewall. The most obvious situation is when the user wants not to have a phone for a while, but has to use it to connect to corporate systems. Even then, these users could tell IT, “Do you want this feature? You pay so that my phone can hold you. ”
Realistically, most BYOD users won’t worry, especially if they’re remote and happens to be quite close to the Apple Store, which performs such repairs. This is the classic argument of BYOD. Given that the phone is owned by the user and he uses it for many personal matters, the question of who should pay for the various repairs is open. Either way, the corporation is betting on the user who needs the phone enough that if IT makes them wait long enough, they will crack and pay for the repairs themselves to do so.
Although I have argued many times about how few shortcomings come with remote work, getting IT to do on-site repairs is one of those rare shortcomings. Consumers do not like to give up their mobile devices for a few days, unless absolutely necessary. Of course, if the phone is completely dead, it doesn’t matter much.
Copyright © 2022 IDG Communications, Inc.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3660633/apples-self-repair-program-is-bad-for-consumers-but-it-might-work-well-for-it.html
