Why Apple doesn’t want users to replace their own batteries August 18, 2019 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/18/apple-battery-fires-are-brand-risk.html
Counterfeit batteries are a real problem (pardon the oxymoron). I am an amateur photographer and many of today's digital cameras use rechargeable batteries that are pretty expensive. This is especially true because, when going on a major shoot, it is usually prudent to bring along 2 or 3 extra batteries. If one sticks with OEM batteries, that can easily mean having over $200 worth of batteries in one's kit. On EBAY, one can often find batteries that look totally identical to OEM batteries, down to each & every letter and punctuation mark. They sell at MUCH less than the price charged by camera stores & Amazon. Although I am sorely tempted, I shy away from them because saving $30 or so on a *seemingly OEM* battery could turn out to be the killer of a DSLR camera costing 4 figures. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @roger_m -- Your U-toob link was interesting to watch. The guy was articulate & glib but his talk was 2% supportive facts & 98% unsupported assertions, including a somewhat preachy analogy between (a) sex education and (b) honesty in advertising. Having said that, I do not necessarily doubt the validity of his assertions, even though he failed to offer substantiating proof. The problem for Apple (et alia) is that we live in a highly litigious society. If someone buys a non-OEM battery or charger, & their phone or camera or whatever blows up in their face, they will often sue. ("Sue" used to be a girl's name. Now it's only use is as a verb.) They will lose their suit (if it even gets to court) but it's still a PITN for the OEM. Unfortunately Apple & others, in trying to inhibit home repairs, have fallen into the trap of using a sledge hammer to kill a mosquito on the baby's head. Ergo, the bleeding hearts are trying to make it illegal for Apple (et alia) to void warranties when home repairs are done. Thus, we will all, happily, be legally permitted to do stuff that may end up blowing us up or poisoning us or giving us a disease. Good grief, Charley Brown!!!
The problem really needs to be broken down into four categories. 1. Genuine OEM batteries, 2. Counterfeit batteries, 3. Unsuitable 3rd party replacement batteries, 4. Suitable 3rd party replacement batteries. 1. Genuine replacement batteries do indeed protect the consumer from unsafe fakes. They also protect Apple (or Dell, HP, Samsung, etc.) from liabilities issues. And they mean more profit for the makers at our expense and few (or no) choices for the consumer. 2. Counterfeit batteries are a serious problem and need to be stopped. Period. It does not matter the quality or safety of the counterfeit battery. If the label states or implies the battery is a genuine Apple (or Dell, HP, Samsung, etc.) battery, then it needs to be a genuine battery. When consumers are being tricked into thinking they are getting genuine replacements, that is fraud, and illegal. Plain and simple. 3. Unsuitable 3rd party replacements are a problem too as they not only have the potential of providing less than satisfactory performance, they may pose a safety issue due to leaking hazardous materials, fires, explosions, and potentially, death. And I have no doubts that is a genuine concern for Apple and other manufacturers of battery operated electronics. That brings us to: 4. Suitable 3rd party replacement batteries. And this is where I have a problem with Apple and the others. If the OEM battery is made by Duracell, I feel I should be able to put a RayOVac or Energizer in there, as long as it meets required specs and safety standards. But I can't. Why? Because Apple and the others ensure their batteries are proprietary (read: more expensive yielding greater profits). "Proprietary" always means bad news for consumers. IMO, the notebook (and cell phone) industry should settle on 3 or 4 "standard" batteries. The standards should dictate battery shape, size, output voltage and amp-hours. It should also dictate compliance with whatever FAA, UL and EU safety standards protect consumers (and the products too). What would that do? It would open up the replacement battery industry to legitimate and legal competition. "Competition" always means good news for consumers. It gives us choices and almost always results in lower prices. And lower prices are key here. IF "suitable" 3rd party replacement batteries were much more affordable, that would greatly stifle counterfeits and unsuitable replacements. But of course, that would mean loss of sales for high-profit OEM genuine OEM batteries for Apple (or Dell, HP, Samsung, etc.), which is why they are so against, and lobby so hard against using anything but their own genuinely branded OEM batteries.
Well, one thing I think people fail to appreciate is that Lithium Ion battery technology is only about 30 years old and is still continuing to evolve fairly significantly every year. The exact chemical composition of these batteries with their high energy densities, increasing lifetimes, increasing charge rates, lowering cobalt use, etc are still subject to change. Most people assume that a battery is a completely fungible good, and the industry tries to promote them as such... but that doesn't seem to be the reality. Heck, even the original article points out that Apple's own 15" MacBooks from prior years were recently banned from US domestic flights for battery safety concerns, and as far as I know, these are for genuine batteries. I recently saw an interview online with Prof Jeff Dahn, one of the pioneering developers of lithium ion batteries, and it underscored for me just how much these researchers are still tweaking and perfecting these things. Largely at the current behest of the EV industry. These modern batteries aren't your grandpa's alkaline batteries. So, yeah, counterfeit suppliers that take shortcuts are definitely a problem. That said, if the battery can be proven from a reputable, high-quality source, then... yeah... 3rd party repair shops should be able to replace them. But as we all know, Apple -- as the deep pockets -- will likely be held legally responsible by an ill-informed jury for any iPhone or MacBook that bursts into flames even if it was some 3rd party shady battery that was at fault. I think the problem is in "un-mixing" the two issues... proof of battery legitimacy vs authorized repair provider. How does Apple prove that a battery is genuine without forcing repairs from their own authorized centers? Perhaps some embedded ID chip? But then the industry would have to support that, when they may not want to; and it would likely add cost that no one wants to bear. Simply banning repairs from unknown and unauthorized 3rd parties does seem to be the most expeditious solution.
"Only" 30 years old? The technology goes back to the early 70s. And the technology is plenty old enough to be viable. I contend the problem is a lack of standards for battery shapes, sizes and voltages. Plus, perhaps, a lack of thorough testing in practical applications. Are we moving too fast to use this technology? I worry, for example, about high-speed crashes with electric/hybrid vehicles. I know that is a concern for fire departments too. Well, of course! And it should be! Typical CR2032 CMOS batteries are Li-Ion and it is reasonable to assume you can take any CR2032 from any maker and swap it in place of any other CR2032 and expect it to work. Your prior year Apple example really is not a good example, IMO, because clearly, those batteries had flaws, either in design or manufacturing, or both. I might pose that Li-Ion batteries are often not the right batteries for job. Perhaps they aren't ready for the rough and tumble world of mobile computers and cell phones, exposed to extreme heat and extreme cold. I also might pose what I suggested above and that is the notebook industry (and cell phone industry) needs to settle on 3 or 4 industry standards for Li-Ion batteries instead of there being dozens and dozens of different shapes, sizes, voltages and connector types - and that's just for HP! But clearly not consumer ("We the People") friendly. I see it similar to the 3rd party ink and toner issue. The printer makers claimed they can not control the ink and cartridges so therefore could not be held responsible for warranty repairs when 3rd party ink was used. They lost that battle in that they have to prove it was the 3rd party ink that caused the damage. But of course, 3rd party ink is not going to catch fire, explode in one's pocket or bring down airplanes.
@Bill_Bright, I wasn't really arguing any point, but rather simply commenting. I guess my commentary about the technology and fungibility, had more to do with the cutting-edge battery work being done for EVs. For example, the 2170 used in the Model S apparently has a lot of innovations and a slightly differing chemistry than many of the industry competitors, and I have seen quotes indicating that Tesla & Panasonic are leading the way in the minimization of the use of expensive cobalt, reducing costs, and increasing energy density. I don't profess to be an expert on the industry, although I suspect that the work being done for EVs is influencing down-markets such as batteries for laptops, cellphones, etc. Sure, the top industry players such as Panasonic, Samsung, Duracell, etc probably are keeping a close eye on each other's developments. But as noted in my prior comments, Prof Dahn seemed to indicate that there were still patented innovations occurring each and every year. The standardized lithium ion batteries for established low-power consumer applications such as hearing aids, calculators, and car remote key fobs are not necessarily equivalent to the custom high-energy density batteries being built for EVs and, yes, even cellphones & laptops where the manufacturers directly compete on the size of their products and how long they can stay charged. These manufacturers don't seem interested in standardizing upon a set battery spec with uniform physical dimensions, as they prefer to customize the packs for maximum capacity in the smallest space that fits their product. I believe the prior year batteries were flawed simply due to a chemistry that hadn't been fully tested and proven. In the rush for high energy density, they likely did not fully test the batteries as they age. My understanding is that many batteries can develop safety issues as "deposits" or "crystals" can apparently build up on the cathodes over time, and if these grow to a point where they can lead to an internal short within the battery it could cause thermal runaway and result in the battery exploding in flames. My point was that these aren't just issues with the cheap knock-offs, as even reputable manufacturers have had issues with high energy density lithium ion batteries; as has been shown by the countless examples: last years MacBooks, the exploding hoverboards of a few years ago, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery fires, etc. Battery safety continues to be a significant issue, even among the experts. (Sure, issues may occur only 0.05% of the time, or whatever; however if that results in a fire on an airline that could still potentially lead to the loss of life.)
I live in Hawaii and use Li-Ion batteries in my 3 cameras. Interestingly enough, Amazon will NOT ship Li-Ion Batteries to Hawaii, but they will ship to the contiguous Americas. I guess it's because shipment to Hawaii involves air, and the possibility of explosion in an aircraft is inherently more dangerous than by ground shipment. That's just a guess -- their customer service refused to give me a reason for the policy.
Good one! Not long ago, Amazon made a commitment that most orders will reach the customer in only 2-3 days. They have 99.9% kept that commitment. I *think* that is why they use air almost exclusively. They even have some of their own aircraft now.
This video is in response the CNBS article and points out that while the article advised to avoid third party batteries, the recall mentioned in the article is for the original OEM batteries. OEM batteries explode, so 3rd party batteries are bad. Nice job, CNBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ2CZBvd818&t=626s
That's surely their claim. And for sure, consumer's demand for thinner, lighter, and longer runtimes is a driving factor there. But make no mistake, these manufacturers love using proprietary batteries too as that generally means "monopoly" for them. And monopoly and proprietary always means fewer (or no) options and higher costs for us consumers. Exactly - "in the rush" to get their products to market, there was a lack of proper testing to identify and resolve such issues. At least I hope (I think! ) that is the reason. It would be tragic (and perhaps criminal) if we eventually learn they did test and discover those flaws but made an executive decision to cover them up and sell them anyway. Right. So they must assume a fire might happen and incorporate some robust way to contain it. But of course, that containment would likely add weight and bulk - both of which would be undesirable. So what's the answer? I sure don't know. But safety must come first and sadly, it often doesn't.
Roger, I'm not a fan of the guy in this video. Having 900,000 subscribers isn't a badge of anything. YouTube schtick can go viral with a video of 2 camels humping in the desert. I get it, this guy is annoyed with Apple & some of their business practices that interfere with his profession as an electronics repairman. His video of certified Apple repairmen being clueless was unethical in recording conversations without giving the required warning. Moreover, the fact that repairmen may not necessarily be fully knowledgeable about every little aspect of every item they service shouldn't surprise anyone -- it's partly the reason why stuff like "Angie's List" exists. As for CNBC saying users should be cautious about using 3rd party batteries, that's good advice. They were wrong in citing the Apple exploding battery issue as proof thereof. That was stupid journalism on their part, but it doesn't mean that the warning wasn't valid.
It certainly isn't and he doesn't claim it is. He has even said that if he could start his channel again, he would do so anonymously, as he didn't like the attention he gets from his videos. I value his opinion, as he has many years in experience in repairing Apple products and he provides objective opinions, based on his experience. He is often very critical of Apple's products, but he explains why. But having said that, I personally would never buy an Apple product. There are good and bad quality third party batteries. I would just as happily use a good quality third party battery, as an original OEM one. But would rather not use a poor quality one.
At my favorite photography forum, Wasabi batteries are VERY highly regarded 3rd party batteries. I often use them myself.
Not being a fan of the person does not mean the message isn't accurate. I note many don't like Linus Sebastian either and will immediately dismiss what he has to say simply because they don't like how he talks or looks. I've been a certified electronics technician since the early 70s. I've been supporting IT hardware for over 30 years. I love building and supporting "custom built" PCs, but hate working on notebooks and generally don't like working on "factory built" PCs. Why? Because custom built PCs comply with industry standards, specifically the ATX Form Factor standard - the standard that lets me assemble a computer using a Gigabyte motherboard, Intel CPU, Crucial RAM, WD hard drive, MSI graphics card, and an EVGA power supply and put them all in a Fractal Design case attached to a Corsair keyboard, Logitech mouse, Klipsch speakers and an LG monitor and I know they will all fit in the case, connect properly with power and data cables and work (with Windows or Linux). But there's more. Should I be so inclined, I know I can swap out that Crucial RAM for Corsair, that WD hard drive for a Samsung SSD, MSI graphics for ASUS, and toss in a Creative Labs sound card and still know they all fit, connect, and work. Many factory built PCs are designed with proprietary parts. ALL factory built notebooks are proprietary. And for sure, Apple is the most proprietary of them all. But still, physics is physics. Electrons flow through a device in the same manner regardless the maker of that device. So when Apple implies a qualified electronics technician is not qualified to work on Apple products because he or she has not paid Apple the required fees to become "authorized", it is offensive. "Authorized", in no way, implies "qualified". So while that video guy may rub some the wrong way, his message is still valid.
I have some honest (non-argumentative) questions, Bill: First off, how does a consumer, who knows nothing much about the innards of a computer (for example), determine whether of not a purportedly "qualified electronics technician" is, in fact, actually qualified? Dentists, doctors, plumbers, electricians. chiropractors, lawyers, acupuncturists, drivers of 18-wheelers, and many other professions must be licensed. In order to become licensed they must prove they were trained/educated in their profession, and must often pass written &/or hands-on tests of their skills. This is not so true for electronics techs, computer repairmen, washing machine repairmen, TV repairmen, house painters, et alia. In some states, the only requirement for becoming a "licensed individual contractor" (for example) is to have the necessary insurance & pay a licensing fee. My point is this: if an "authorized Apple tech" is not necessarily *truly* qualified, that does not necessarily prove that "Joe Blow's Acme Electronics Repair, Inc." (with a sign on his trucks saying "15 years in the business") is any better qualified, does it? To me, Sebastian's video did not make a case for Apple to allow under-warranty repairs by any & all who claim "I'm qualified." Rather, I think he made the case that Apple needs to train and test and certify (in the legal sense) those who they anoint as "authorized". P.S. I still think that a guy who disguises his voice and calls someone with a contrived technical question while secretly (& illegally) recording the conversation, is of questionable integrity.
It doesn't prove anything. But in the case of Louis Rossmann, he has uploaded hundreds of board repair videos, which very clearly show that he is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to repairing Macs. Also, if you Google "Rossmann Group" you will see that his business has a Google rating of 4.8 stars, from 537 Google reviews. It doesn't matter if you like the guy or not, he is an expert at what he does. If you were to watch a number of his videos, most likely you would have a different opinion. As an example, he was even very quick to make video explaining that he was wrong, with assumptions he made, in a previous video regarding a lawsuit between Apple and a third party repairer, after he found out he was wrong. I have no issue with that video, as it indicates the limitation of Apple repair. Without such a video, it would be very easy to claim that he is making up his statements about authorised repairers. But this video, shows he is telling the truth.
The *logic* in that video is fallacious -- it reasons from the specific to the general. To wit: => The video's narrator is competent to fix Apples, but is not an authorized Apple tech. Inference: many (if not most) Non-Apple-authorized techs are equally competent to fix Apples. => The authorized Apple techs phoned during the video were unable to answer a few specific technical questions about Apple products. Inference: many (if not most) authorized Apple techs are incompetent. Thus, the video infers, from a ridiculously insignificant, non-randomized sample size, that it is representative of the entire spectrum of authorized Apple techs and non-Apple-authorized techs. Analog: I talked to 2 bald men -- Joe & Fred. I discovered that both Joe & Fred have criminal records. Conclusion: all bald men are not to be trusted. There are at least four logically unfounded inferences in that video: #1 -- Those few Apple techs that the video's author selected & called are representative of that entire class of people. #2 -- The questions the video's author selected to ask are valid, in & of themselves alone, to unequivocally measure competency across the entire field of Apple repairs. #3 -- The video's author knew the correct answers to the questions that he, himself selected, thus that author is unquestionably competent to fix any & all Apple products. (Hey, look how many videos he has online!) #4 -- Thus, simply look up computer repair techs in the yellow pages, & just about any of those techs could have correctly answered those questions the video's author selected, and just about any or all of those techs would be as good or better at fixing your Apple than is the case with authorized Apple techs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To establish the video's point with validity, a broader-based questionairre should be prepared, then reviewed by at least 2 or 3 disinterested techs. The questionnaire should be administered to a valid, randomly selected sample size of authorized Apple techs and a valid, randomly selected sample size of non-Apple-authorized techs. Care should be taken to ensure that questions are being posed to principals, & not to trainees, helpers, or receptionists.
I think we are saying mostly the same thing - but I don't think your conclusion is valid. How does a consumer know whether or not their car mechanic is qualified? Even if they take their car to the dealer for repair, they still have to assume the mechanic is qualified. But that does not suggest they will get better service at that dealer than if they go to the independent car repair shop down the street. IMO, my local mechanic, who I know by name and who knows me by name, who has been in business for 35 years and has taken care of all my vehicles since I moved into this town 30 years ago, does a better job at repairs and routine maintenance than the dealer. But how do I really know he's qualified? Because he has a patch on his shirt? Well, yes. But also because he's still in business after all these years. His shop is always busy, yet it is clean and all the mechanics are nice and courteous. AND I have never had to take it back because the job was not done right. Plus, "word of mouth" from friends, neighbors and co-workers said they were happy with the work done there. Are Toyota and Ford the only entities who can properly train mechanics to fix Toyotas and Fords? Are you suggesting "accredited" community colleges and technical training schools cannot produce qualified Toyota and Ford (and Honda, GM, Chrysler, etc.) mechanics or electronic technicians? Have there never been fake doctors? Have certified and licensed doctors never been convicted of malpractice - even criminal malpractice? This is an absolute true story. My brother-in-law died after a very successful hip-replacement surgery. Why? Because after the surgery, the entire surgical team left the OR to go wallow in their success, leaving my brother-in-law, who was still sedated and under the affects of the anesthesia, alone on the table where he went into cardiac arrest. Nobody was around to hear all the bells, alarms and whistles go off or see all the flashing red lights until 9 minutes later when the OR cleaning crew came in to prep the OR for the next surgery. It took another 3 minutes to get him on life-support but it was too late - he was in a coma, brain dead from oxygen deprivation. 15 days later, my sister had no choice but to pull the plug. The board certified and state licensed surgeon was merely reprimanded. The board certified and state licensed anesthesiologist was fired, but was working at his new job at the University of Virginia Med Center the very next week!!!! Is that a common occurrence? No. But is it rare? No. So your premise that being trained and licensed ensures good quality care is not valid. Apple does test and certify their "authorized" repair techs. That is NOT the issue. The issue is whether or a not a "properly trained and qualified" technician is capable of replacing a battery in a cell phone! And the answer is, of course he or she can. But not only does Apple claim otherwise, but they will void what's left of the warranty if anyone but one of their own authorized techs do it. That's simply absurd. And we (consumers) have been around this block before with the automobile industry. You are allowed to take your brand new car to an independent mechanic for its routine oil changes. You are even allowed to change your own oil and oil filter using Pennzoil oil and a Fram filter. You don't have to use Ford oil or Ford filters. And you can do this in your own back yard and that will NOT void the warranty (do keep records and receipts, however!). It was only a few years ago when car makers claimed any maintenance not performed by their own authorized mechanics would void the warranty. The courts shot that down, and rightfully so. Now what has to happen is the car makers have to prove such maintenance was not done, or it was done improperly, and/or the parts used were inferior. How do we know the Pennzoil oils and the Fram filters meet or exceed the manufacturer's specifications? Pennzoil and Fram say they do, and independent testing facilities confirm it. They need to do the same with these battery replacement jobs too. Yes, there needs to be a better method to ensure replacement 3rd party batteries meet or exceed specs. But does buying Apple, Dell or HP replacement batteries ensure those batteries are safe? No way! Apple batteries catch fire. Dell recalls batteries. HP recalls batteries. Samsung recalls batteries. Lenovo recalls batteries.
Here's a thought... remember when the back of your phone was removable and the battery was replaceable? Oh wait, they spent a lot of time engineering your phone so that you can't open it. What was I thinking?
LOL Well, nothing new there. Back in the day, I used to maintain Motorola HT220 radios for police and fire departments. Even back then, the cases were designed so "normal users" could not easily open them without the proper tool, and knowing how to strategically hold our tongues. But it was not to prevent unauthorized maintenance, it was to prevent unqualified maintenance. As far as today's cell phones, they really are not hard to open, IF you know the trick! As far as today's phone batteries not being user replaceable, that is partly our own fault. Consumers have demanded thinner and lighter cell phones. For batteries to be user replaceable, the batteries must be made with connectors/contacts (instead of bare wires) and the phones must be made with battery compartments and connectors/contacts. That results in thicker phones that weigh more. And battery compartments and replaceable batteries probably add a few cents to the purchase price of the phones too. If consumers insisted on user-replaceable batteries (by not buying phones without them), we probably would not be in this predicament.
Of course my conclusion is valid. PERFECTLY valid! I am a factory trained, licensed concluder with 88 years of experience in drawing conclusions! When I managed my son's Little League team, my pitching coach worked for the local Ford dealer and he was, in point of fact, a "factory trained mechanic." He spent 3 months at a Ford plant on the mainland, at Ford's expense. If my car broke down in an unfamiliar city enroute to Podunk, I would take it to the local dealership for repairs, instead of taking it to Joe Bananas Auto Repair Emporium. Going to an "authorized," in cases lacking insider info, is "playing the odds" -- NOT making a naive assumption. Well there you go again, Bill -- confidently rediscovering the universally known fact that nothing in life is perfect and nothing in life is absolutely certain -- not even death (you might get raptured, as was Elijah) or taxes (to wit, Amazon Corp.). NOTHING in life is certain so the best bet is you gotta play the odds. Licenses, certifications, Angie's List -- these are common ways of trying to improve the odds. But all of this yada yada is mostly beside my point which is -- the video was mostly sour grapes based on insufficient evident and a biased sampling technique. It was presented in a 1-sided debate against America's favorite bad guy ( big business) who was invisible and mute. The video's narrator was glib but I have faced guys like him before, live and immediate. A debater has flimsy evidence to defend his assertion so he embroiders it by defending the flag, motherhood, apple pie, and the American way. At least he didn't use the final ploy of someone who has run out of fact-based arguments -- at LEAST he didn't play the race card. Ain't life grand!!!
