Published on May 30, 2022.

Apple has changed its self-repair program in ways that make a horrible option for consumers, but might make a lot of sense for enterprise IT — especially those wanting to do iOS device repairs, either for company-owned devices or BYOD user devices.

It’s worth noting that the need for users to always have their phones coupled with the mass-employee distribution of a remote workforce might make this less attractive. Still, for the non-trivial number of users still in large corporate buildings, it’s an attractive option.

Let’s start with the fun part, which is describing how ludicrously bad these changes are for some. MacRumors did a wonderful deep dive into the experience; here are some of my favorite lines.

Also, repackaging almost 80 pounds of gear and getting it to UPS – which might not be nearby — is a major hassle. And why only UPS? We may have a hint on that one. Another Apple-focused site, AppleInsider, did a superb piece looking into a weird agreement between Apple and FedEx.

What was so strange? FedEx messaged a customer who had lost an AppleWatch shipped back to Apple, saying “‘we must respectfully decline your claim’ as an addendum was on the contract for the delivery ‘stating you agreed to not file claims resulting from transportation services provided by FedEx.’” The user “eventually discovered the addendum was an agreement by Apple to hold FedEx unaccountable for lost packages heading to Apple.”

And just when was Apple going to tell everyone about that arrangement? It appears that the deal only allowed Apple to dispute FedEx losing a package, not the shipper, which is not the way it works for other packages. All in all, avoiding FedEx for Apple shipments seems best.

Despite the fact that Apple’s self-repair program is ludicrously bad for consumers, it might be a very cost-effective mechanism for enterprise IT.

Mobile device repair is complicated for IT. There are four categories of users for this purpose. One, office-based users who have a company-owned iOS device/devices. Two, office-based users who have iOS devices that they own (BYOD). Three, remote users who have a company-owned iOS device/devices. Four, remote users who have iOS devices that they own (again, BYOD).

To be explicit, options one and two assume the users work in a building with an IT presence. If there is no meaningful IT presence where they work, they effectively are 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. To be cold and corporate for a moment, it makes the most sense for Option One, but much less so for the others. If the users can simply walk to the IT floor, drop off their phone (presumably, they would have pre-arranged this with IT beforehand so someone has the time to help), it makes sense for everyone. It is a cost-savings for IT, mostly likely.

But the cold and corporate truth is that overwhelmingly most BYOD users will pay out of their own pocket to make any repairs to their phone even when the repair directly enables a corporate function that they don’t need otherwise. For example, their phone might be fighting against the IT-chosen VPN or the enterprise firewall. The most explicit situation is when the user is willing to not have a phone for awhile, but needs to use it to connect with enterprise systems. Even then, those users could tell IT: “You want this function? You pay to have my phone accommodate you.”

Realistically, most BYOD users won’t bother, especially if they are remote and happen to be fairly close to an Apple Store that does such repairs. It’s the classic BYOD argument. Given that the phone is owned by the user and the user does use it for a lot of personal matters, the question of who should pay for different repairs is open. Either way, corporate is banking on the user needing the phone enough that, if IT makes them wait long enough, they'll crack and pay for the repairs themselves to get it done.

Original Post: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3660633/apples-self-repair-program-is-bad-for-consumers-but-it-might-work-well-for-it.html