The problem is his arguments are devoid of context or proportion. He is looking with a microscope—both metaphorically and literally—at tiny details on a circuit board which don't seem to be a problem for >99% of Apple's customers. Are these points of failure really any more common on Apple devices than their competitors?
(There is a remarkable difference in mindset for the majority of MacBook and PC laptop owners. PC laptop owners will often just ditch their machine if it stops working. It's weird to say but I see it all the time.)
Now I don't doubt that most of what Louis says is correct. But I also appreciate much of it from Apple's perspective. If everyone in the independent repair industry was at least as competent as Louis is today, Louis would have a point. But they're not, so he doesn't. Besides, Apple's intransigence creates the market which Louis takes advantage of; he shouldn't complain.
Oh and I keep getting irritated every time Louis bangs on about those damn "refurbished" iPhone screen assemblies. He should know full well that the replacement glass used on these refurbished assemblies is cheap fragile non-Gorilla junk. I know multiple people who have had their iPhones independently repaired only to have the screen break again in a matter of days or weeks, under the most innocuous of circumstances. We are being scammed, and Louis defends the scammers.
>If everyone in the independent repair industry was at least as competent as Louis is today, Louis would have a point. But they're not, so he doesn't.
This is exactly the point that I feel like I constantly have to get across to people that support him. Louis is incredibly smart when it comes to electronics repair. It's exactly the reason that I know, for certain, that he's being disingenuous. He's too smart and too knowledgeable in most of these topics to gloss over these issues the way that he does unless he has an ulterior motive and it's clear that he does. Apple's fight against "Right to Repair" (which is misleadingly named anyways) isn't about people repairing their own devices, it never was. It's about preventing repair shops from doing those repairs and giving Apple a bad name because someone sees an iPhone where the screen fell off the front ("where the front's not supposed to fall off!").
I would be very surprised if Louis specifically endorsed non Gorilla glass replacements. It's possible that he does. I just watch his repair videos. As far as that goes: don't buy them, and don't get repairs from someone who would sell you one!
I know multiple people who have had their iPhones independently repaired only to have the screen break again in a matter of days or weeks, under the most innocuous of circumstances.
I realize this will be unpopular, but my observation about people who walk around with perennially broken glass on their phones, is that some people can't keep nice things. If your lifestyle is that rough, either use a completely enclosing polycarbonate case, or get a more robust 2nd phone. Expecting a computer made largely of glass to stand up to roughhousing contradicts common sense.
> I would be very surprised if Louis specifically endorsed non Gorilla glass replacements.
He pretty much does.
"So what they do is they take this screen ... and they replace the front glass layer. Most of the time the only thing wrong with the screen is the front glass layer is cracked. They put a new glass on it in China and then they sell it to us in the United States as a refurbished iPhone screen ... That is not a counterfeit."
I understand why Louis gets worked up about this particular issue, but he's just flat out wrong. These refurbs are dodgy as fuck. The assemblies as sold are counterfeit.
> some people can't keep nice things
Absolutely. I don't disagree, but this doesn't describe the people I spoke about. Accidents happen to all of us, even when we're particularly careful. I would never expect a glass computer to survive rough treatment but I do expect that when it's repaired with a "refurbished Apple screen" that it is made of substantially the same material as the original.
>I understand why Louis gets worked up about this particular issue, but he's just flat out wrong.
Which is exactly why Apple's distinction was the logo on the product. If it's not the exact same product, it shouldn't be able to bear their logo. Judges deciding that it doesn't matter because users will never see the logo are missing the point, imo. It only opens the door to all kinds of 3rd party parts and repairs where it's not the exact same product but you're paying for it as if it is.
(There is a remarkable difference in mindset for the majority of MacBook and PC laptop owners. PC laptop owners will often just ditch their machine if it stops working. It's weird to say but I see it all the time.)
Now I don't doubt that most of what Louis says is correct. But I also appreciate much of it from Apple's perspective. If everyone in the independent repair industry was at least as competent as Louis is today, Louis would have a point. But they're not, so he doesn't. Besides, Apple's intransigence creates the market which Louis takes advantage of; he shouldn't complain.
Oh and I keep getting irritated every time Louis bangs on about those damn "refurbished" iPhone screen assemblies. He should know full well that the replacement glass used on these refurbished assemblies is cheap fragile non-Gorilla junk. I know multiple people who have had their iPhones independently repaired only to have the screen break again in a matter of days or weeks, under the most innocuous of circumstances. We are being scammed, and Louis defends the scammers.
Otherwise it's a great channel.