Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Iphone Media Youtube Apple Technology

Leaked Videos Reveal Apple's Internal iPhone Repair Procedures (vice.com) 71

Posted by BeauHD from the get-it-while-it-lasts dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Someone has uploaded what appear to be 11 of Apple's internal repair videos to YouTube. Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but two sources in the repair community familiar with Apple's repair policies told Motherboard these are indeed genuine Apple how-to videos. The videos themselves have an Apple copyright on them, the host references internal Apple documentation and diagnostic tests, and, most importantly, the videos use proprietary Apple disassembly and repair tools that Motherboard has previously confirmed are manufactured by and are exclusive to Apple.

The videos on how to open an iPhone X and replace its battery are particularly interesting, and show that the DIY repair community has gotten extremely good at reverse-engineering Apple's official procedures. The instructor walks the repair tech through the process of opening the case on the iPhone X in a way that closely mirrors the process that sites such as iFixit have been doing for a few years now. The video starts by instructing the tech to remove the screws near the lighting port, then inserting the iPhone X into a device that uses suction cups to pry the screen away from the body while the tech uses a small tool to cut the adhesive along the seams at the edge of the device. Apple's suction cup tool looks like a bulkier version of iFixit's iSclack tool -- a suction cup device that customers can use to disassemble and repair their own device. The video about replacing the iPhone X's battery is remarkably similar to the iFixit video of the same procedure.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked Videos Reveal Apple's Internal iPhone Repair Procedures More

Leaked Videos Reveal Apple's Internal iPhone Repair Procedures

Comments Filter:

  • ... that this would be a link to the old "Homestar Runner Mailroom" gif.

  • Why is this stuff "secret" in the first place? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Monday July 23, 2018 @07:30PM (#56997684)
    Many computer manufacturers put repair and disassembly instructions on their websites, no secret about it. Not every part of the world even has a convenient Apple store -- what's wrong with people being able to fix their own equipment without damaging it?

    • They don't give it out free because they make good money repairing devices that users didn't bother to get extended service contracts on, and they don't want to help anyone else do the same job. They get to say that no one else is following their official procedure and that no one else has their official training, which induces stupid people to use their service instead of going someplace cheaper. Apple users aren't necessarily dumber than anyone else, but that's the way to bet given how abusive Apple is to customers.

      • And yet people continue to buy these very expensive, unrepairable devices whose battery is not user replaceable.

        So much for any economic theory involving rational markets.

        • And yet people continue to buy these very expensive, unrepairable devices whose battery is not user replaceable.

          So much for any economic theory involving rational markets.

          "Rational" is not the immutable constant most people seem to think it is. The behaviour of most Apple customers is perfectly rational in their own eyes - they see value in the products and services that matches or exceeds the value they place on the money they spend for them.

          That's why I always try to get people to look at the far-reaching consequences of the decisions we make. Our current 'lifestyle' choices, (such as making throwaway products into huge market successes), will make it VERY hard for our chi

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

          Let's see, I can buy item A which will run for 3-5 years with no other expense, or item B, which costs roughly 90% of A, which is user fixable but with a maximum average lifespan of 3 years and will require additional expenditures on battery replacements, etc. Rational markets would choose A given those stats. Add in that B spies on you and is less secure, rational markets would double down on A.

          Now, if you don't want the level of tech provided by A, then you can start making a rational argument for B, bu

          • If you're looking for a sub $100 phone, well, you're not really the target of either phone maker, but you are a product for B's main business.

            The only functional difference between the fancy-pantsiest iPhone and a $100 Moto E4 (which, yes, has a fingerprint reader for some reason) is being able to say you spent too much on it. Apple by definition is taking advantage of people who buy status symbols just for the status. But if you want people to know how much money you're willing to waste on a phone, you have to not put a case on it. Then when you drop it, you break it. Then when you break it, you spent so much, you can't afford to replace it.

            One

            • Apple has been doing this since 1984 when they debuted this approach with the original Macintosh. And as long as they never consistently crack 30% marketshare for their devices, there will always be a supply of people who can be lulled in by the marketing hype.
              • In the 80s, they also designed the highly flexible Apple IIe and Apple IIgs. The 80s Macs weren't upgradeable or user-fixable but, by the 90s, the Apple II series was replaced with expandable/upgradable Mac units. Apple has never been quite as user-hostile as they are today -- there was always a sealed, consumer product line and a more professional line of computers for those who liked to tinker.

                • I was going to mention the move away from the Apple II era where they weren't just open, they basically encouraged tinkering by regular consumers... and you're right, they did hold on for quite a while to having model lines that were more user-serviceable.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

              If you're looking for a sub $100 phone, well, you're not really the target of either phone maker, but you are a product for B's main business.

              The only functional difference between the fancy-pantsiest iPhone and a $100 Moto E4 (which, yes, has a fingerprint reader for some reason) is being able to say you spent too much on it.

              You really have a dipped in steel opinion that nothing will change. You are aware you can get a $130 (last I checked) iphone SE, brand spanking new? It's not the latest gee-whiz item, but it beats the E4 in processor, camera, storage, battery life, not to mention that the E4 comes with Nougat (2 years old!!!) even today straight from Motorolla at $130? I don't know about you, but that really doesn't seem to support your statements.

              Apple by definition is taking advantage of people who buy status symbols just for the status. But if you want people to know how much money you're willing to waste on a phone, you have to not put a case on it. Then when you drop it, you break it. Then when you break it, you spent so much, you can't afford to replace it.

              One thing Apple ain't is stupid. Of course, right now, they are rudderless, but they can clearly keep going where the current takes them for some years.

              I don't think the moto is much better on dropping. Nor is an LG V10/V20, with

          • >Let's see, I can buy item A which will run for 3-5 years with no other expense, or item B, which costs roughly 90% of A, which is user fixable but with a maximum average lifespan of 3 years and will require additional expenditures on battery replacements, etc

            Nonsense, I love shiny new tech and I replace this stuff every couple of years in order to access shinier, newer tech. For something I use multiple times a day, the costs are small compared to food, housing, clothing and transport.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
              One of my statements in this thread is that with OLED screens and processor power increases diminishing year over year, in the near future I can easily see a 4 year or more cycle to phone replacements. Battery longevity will come into play at that point. For now, 4 years is good enough for me, and you as well. I fully expect to have my current phone at least another 2 years, and it's almost been a year already. My next phone will have an OLED screen or the next technology.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's worse than that. Apple charges repair shops a lot to be authorized repair centres, and without that they can't order genuine parts. Apple does a lot to prevent genuine parts being available to anyone other than the authorized techs who pay them. They have to sign NDAs and agree to all kinds of onerous terms that prevent them working in the customer's best interests.

    • Because Apple...
  • In not so old days to replace battery you needed no tools or in a worst case a screw driver. Now you need special tool, other crap and 30 minutes - what a waste.
    • Buy a Moto E4 Plus -- low-end Moto phones typically have removable batteries. This one has a 5000 mAh battery which should last quite a while without recharging.

    • Moto E4 has a replaceable battery, water resistance, and acceptable performance. It has both GPS and GLONASS and support for pretty much every frequency band, plus dual SIM slots. If only the camera and screen were better and it ran Oreo, it would be the perfect phone, especially given that Walmart is selling both colors for $100. Well, I wouldn't mind 3+GB RAM, but that's not strictly necessary.

    • In not so old days to replace battery you needed no tools or in a worst case a screw driver. Now you need special tool, other crap and 30 minutes - what a waste.

      Also in the not so old days, mobile phones were as big as bricks, it is the cost of miniaturization, deal with it.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • What the fuck are you talking about? Miniaturization has nothing to do with certain aspects of serviceability... I don't need any special tools to replace the battery on my current phone... the back snaps off and the battery is right there, along with a memory card and SIM card slots. And my phone cost at least 1/2 the price of an iPhone with similar specs.

    • what a waste.

      Don't be daft. The entire world is full of requirements for special tools for specific devices, always has been. The extent to you needing tools is dependent only on the fault you had and the device you're fixing. That's not a waste, it's a sign that we are constantly bringing engineering to new heights.

      • The extent to you needing tools is dependent only on the fault you had and the device you're fixing. That's not a waste, it's a sign that we are constantly bringing engineering to new heights.

        It's both. New heights of design, but also new heights of waste. I shouldn't need special tools to work on devices which commonly need to be worked on, and if I do, they should be cheap little locking pins and the like. Devices which need to be serviced regularly should be designed to be serviced. Manufacturers' main goal is to make you buy more stuff. Anything that interferes with servicing is more likely to induce a sale. They prioritize cosmetics over repairability not because they can't design for the l

        • I shouldn't need special tools to work on devices which commonly need to be worked on, and if I do, they should be cheap little locking pins and the like.

          80 years ago you could work on and build every piece of electronics at home. Did you use the same justification when they invented the IC? Your entitlement to repair ends when it inhibits development progress of general electronics. Cheap little locking pins? Screw that. Buy a plastic phone from China if that's what you want.

          • Did you use the same justification when they invented the IC?

            Your logical fallacy is that of the ridiculous example. ICs actually improved things.

            Your entitlement to repair ends when it inhibits development progress of general electronics.

            This is the attitude that is dooming humanity.

            • Your logical fallacy is that of the ridiculous example.

              Ridiculous examples are not a logical fallacy. Though by claiming my example is arbitrarily ridiculously you yourself have committed an ad hominem fallacy.

              ICs actually improved things.

              Indeed. And my phone is now better than it ever was, smaller, lighter, and more capable in every way.

              This is the attitude that is dooming humanity.

              This attitude leads to the development of pacemakers and other very small but completely unservicable medical electronics that actively save and improve lives for all. But I'm sure you'll agree that these get a free pass because you have some kind of go /

              • Ridiculous examples are not a logical fallacy.

                They are when you use them fallaciously. To wit, the use of ICs has actually made electronics more reliable, and an IC has to be sealed so tightly that it cannot reasonably be serviced, while personal electronics do not.

                This attitude leads to the development of pacemakers and other very small but completely unservicable medical electronics that actively save and improve lives for all. But I'm sure you'll agree that these get a free pass because you have some kind of go / no go rule for what you think personally is an improvement and therefore should be applied to everyone else.

                No, not a free pass. ALL things should be repairable, recyclable, and/or where conceivable, compostable. Why should there be any exceptions? Why should it be acceptable to sell out the future for a brighter today?

                We all bow before your greatness, and beg for your approval of our electronics your eminence.

                While you're down there...

  • right to repair laws may make an take down request hard to do.

    Well that is after they pass.

  • This guy repeating himself is almost as much "fun" as watching Rick and Morty's

    Plumbus: How They Do It [youtube.com]

  • Right now, the link to the YouTube channel is producing an internal server error (500) and the "Something Went Wrong" message.

    I strongly suspect the channel has been nuked by Apple -- they (or at least the company they hire to squash alls sorts of tenuous copyright infringements [youtube.com]) has likely filed multiple copyright strikes and YouTube will have pulled the plug, pronto!

  • No, not the Apple videos, they are mediocre at best. The thing that impresses me from TFS is the fact that sites such as iFixit came up with the process of opening an iPhone X a few years ago.

  • "show that the DIY repair community has gotten extremely good at reverse-engineering Apple's official procedures"

    Either that, or the procedures were leaked earlier. If you were an Apple repairman and some friendly DIY-er would ask you how to do it, would you show them? Or is that cause for dismissal at Apple these days?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Maybe I'm cynical but I suspect it's two-way traffic. Apple engineers going to iFixit and saying, "Oh, we should do that!"

  • *poof*

    Gosh, don't share any information on HOW TO FIX SOMETHING ffs.

  • Device manufacturers that allow easy replacement parts by third party or consumers increase risk non certified parts being used and thus potential issues with the device such as battery meltdowns etc... Debatable whether deterring this risk outweighs the convenience which many would side with the latter. In other words a weak rationalization. But it has some merit since does happen. Solution is consumers bring to a non certified service center at their own risk just void warranty like they do now, but no

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close