There's no such thing as a simple repair on a current Apple device. They're simply not built to be very field-serviceable, because Apple's customers would rather have a thinner or lighter device than one that's easier to repair. Open up anything in their current line and you'll find fragile ribbon cables, delicate connectors, wafer-thin pieces of glass and fragile things glued to other fragile things. Ifixit's guides are peppered with warnings about things that can be broken with slightly too much force or by prying in the wrong place.
From Apple's perspective, amateur repairs are potentially a source of serious damage to their brand. The effects of inept repair are likely to reflect at least as badly on Apple as they do on the repairer. One bad third-party battery could be enough to trigger a global media shitstorm, in spite of it being nothing to do with Apple. Their customers don't expect iDevices to be user-serviceable, so raising the barriers to entry for repairers is a clear win for Apple.
I think this really captures what a lot of tech-savvy people overlook about companies like Apple. They have their market. They make a ton of money selling to people who (mostly) don't care about being able to take their devices apart. Maybe those customers care about the consequences of this, but not many will think of the connection. They care about them looking cool and being fun to use and catering to this has been very good for Apple.
Apple is a hardware company who likes full control of things. It seems naive to think that they will make a big effort to be hacker or DIY friendly.
This is more like gossip than news. Its quite likely that Apple does use the new screws to lock you out of the device. But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices.
The entire article rests on one person's speculation. Yeah, the source is credible when it comes to DIY Apple repairs but he's still in no position to say definitively that "Yes, this is the reason they're doing this".
I don't take issue with the premise of the article. Like I said, its quite likely to be true. What I take issue with is how misleading the article is. It tried to spin speculation into fact with a few lines spritzed throughout that they can point back at and say "well, we didn't actually say it was a fact". I just think its pretty lame to do this sort of thing. If it was called "Why Does Apple Use Pentalobe Screws in its Devices?" and pose it as a question, and make it clear that the article is pure speculation, that would be a much better start.
EDIT: As of right now, every single reply to my comment has missed the point entirely. Quit getting hung up on the screws or my half assed counter suggestion that they're using it for another reason. The point I'm trying to make is that this post is misleading people to believe something that is speculation is fact. No matter how much sense it makes for Apple to use these screws to keep people out there is still no reliable evidence or any sources to support that. Only speculation. Its very possible that there are other explanations but the big idea here is that its upsetting to see speculation passed off as fact and people falling all over themselves to believe it.
It doesn't matter. That's beside the point. I'm trying to point out that publishing speculation as fact is dangerous and its not specific to Ars or tech media but its endemic in all news, journalism, and media outlets. What's happening is that those who used to be held to the highest standards have lowered the bar and everyone else is taking advantage. So now when the nightly news reports some speculation as fact that signals to everyone lower on the food chain that they can do it too and they end up doing it worse and more often. Things weren't always this way and they don't have to be. I will not accept cynical or conspiratorial rebuttals as having any merit. The news used to be the news and reporting, no matter if its the nightly news or some blog, should at least try to hold themselves to some kind of standard.
But I digress. The point isn't why Apple uses new screws. Its about making it clear that this article is putting forth the suggestion that it does but that there are no facts to back this up. Just speculation.
But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices.
If they're cheaper, then how come they only use them on the outside?
So either they're doing it to keep owners out -- and most people would agree that they have readily explainable motives for that -- or they're doing it for some mystical reason that makes it "easier" for them, a reason that nobody so far has been able to imagine.
I think I'll bet on "keeping the owners out" as an explanation.
Of course, you're completely right insofar as that doesn't make it news. But it's still worthy of fussing about, as far as I'm concerned ;)
Perhaps they wanted mechanical benefits similar to, not precisely the same as those of some existing, patented fastener and to have total control of both the screws and bits end to end (no chance of someone causing damage by using a wrong size bit)?
By rolling their own fasteners the knock all of those potential questions at the same time.
I object to the parent use of "likely", but some reasoning beyond simply "keeping owners out" is possible and even logical, in my opinion.
I don't think anyone was arguing that they want to "simply" keep owners out, just because they can or they're bad, bad people.
Remember how I said "most people would agree that they have readily explainable motives for" keeping owners out? Some of those motives are "total control of both the screws and bits end to end" and "no chance of someone causing damage by using a wrong size bit".
The reason why people are complaining about this is not because they think Apple has no reasons for this, but because they think Apple's reasons are wrong, as in (for example) "it's my device, I paid for it, so I should be able to change the battery and if I damage it, it's my fault."
Of course, other people are free to disagree. I'm not arguing that, either ;)
Every article is an opinion piece unless it contains authoritative quotes that meet journalistic standards. A reminder of that might be polite, but we shouldn't become so credulous that we need it.
Apple has been building in obstacles to casual hacking for decades (the original Mac case required some weird custom tool and a screwdriver). They've never gone on record as to why, but I don't see much room for doubt.
> Its quite likely that Apple does use the new screws to lock you out of the device. But its also likely they used them because they're cheaper or somehow easier for them for some reason besides keeping owners out of devices.
If you were speaking of the manufacturing line, and of a fact that iDevice v1.1 had phillips off the line, while later iDevice v1.2 had pentalobe off the line, I would agree. (i.e., maybe pentalobe is more amenable to robotic insertion, etc.)
But, there is no "cheaper for them" argument for exchanging the screws on existing devices brought in for repair work. Unless the old screws are damaged beyond reuse by being removed, exchanging the screws is an additional, unnecessary, expense.
Which leaves one to speculate, why exchange the screws for repair items? There must be some reason?
I've often heard the same kind of judgement when people see a Torx for the first time.
Thing is, a curiosity about Torx born from their prevalence on cars I've worked on led me to learn that Torx were designed with the intent of preventing cam-out [1] as opposed to the intentional, damaging, torque-limiting cam-out of Philips screws.
This makes Torx attractive for all kinds of applications, particularly automated ones where fit and finish are important.
The use of something other than the most common fastener, connector, whatever is not necessarily a matter of "making things difficult".
Torx, just like Philips were both originally licensed designs, it's just that the patents have expired.
When Torx showed up in 1967, Phillips were surely considered "standard" as the patent had been gone for 18 years. Today, the Torx patent has been up for 22 years.
I expect that when encountering Torx for the first time in 1967 people ignorantly made the same assumption, that it was non-standard for the sake of being non-standard.
What I don't understand is why manufacturers were able to do something as crazy as reverse-engineer the lightning bolt encryption mechanisms so they could start selling after-market lightning bolt cables, but something as simple (to my uneducated mind) as reverse engineering a screw driver just hasn't happened.
I would think by now there would be at least _one_ vendor in a country with fewer qualms around intellectual property who would be willing to violate whatever licenses/patents/copyrights there are on this pentalobe screwdriver form, and make them available at a very healthy markup to the many, many iphone/ipad repair shops out there (not to mention those interested hobbyists who would like to open up their own phone)
Particularly if that vendor was already manufacturing an assortment of other screwdriver bits, I would have to believe the marginal additional cost of analyzing these new screws, and creating a screw driver that could map to it properly, shouldn't be that great a challenge.
Are there any mechanical engineers with more knowledge than me who might be able to explain why this hasn't happened?
My reading from the story was the iFixit guys hadn't found a screwdriver they were happy with yet.
"iFixit is doing what it can to source screwdrivers to work with the new screws, though it notes that there doesn't appear to be a single reputable supplier that carries the same tools Apple technicians use."
"Wiens notes that the pentalobe driver isn't perfect—"the tip is more star-shaped than "flowery"—but it can remove Apple's pesky replacements and "liberate" your iPhone."
I'm not sure about it but as mentioned in the linked ars article I think the main point in both cases is to raise the price of entrance. The pentalobe screw driver might remain less cheap than others more common screw drivers, and in the case of the thunderbolt cable maybe they knew the authentication chip would be cracked but in any case it will raise the manufacturing cost of the cable by making it more complex.
While I'm not a great fan of Apple's regard of their users fixing their own devices, I can offer, what I believe to be, a plausible other explanation.
"Why use this design, and why use it only on the outside?"
It is plausible that it reduces the cost of final assembly on the device.
1: By using rounded "lobes", rather than sharp-profiled edges, they can use a driver with a soft plastic lobes that have no sharp surfaces on them. The lobes are large enough that the connecting material to the main shaft of the tool will provide a desired level of strength. In fact, I would bet that the lobe connecting material thickness was specifically designed to exceed the required torque rating of the screw.* A square receptacle would not be sufficient, as the 90' edges of the tool would quickly wear down, the tool has to present all round surfaces for this to work.
2: By using a driver with no sharp surfaces, and made of a material softer than the enclosure of the device, they reduce the number of scratches made in the surface of the enclosure by workers who will, and I promise you this, miss the screw quite regularly if they don't get it properly torqued before removing the tool.
As the device enclosures are often one-piece, milled and surfaced aluminum, the custom tool and screws would likely have less overall cost than a common miss-rate or miss-error level with a metal tool.
I would also posit why so many are having difficulty manufacturing the tool, is because they're trying to make them out of metal.
If the above happens to be true, I would think the choice of screw design is an act of manufacturing efficiency genius.
* - Having had the misfortune of using plastic versions of all of torx, flat, and phillips head screw-drivers, yes, I can say they don't last long.
Compared to other drivers, they still are. (Considering "sourcing" other drivers involves walking 10 feet to my kitchen, or pretty much any other toolbox in the world). They are easy to get, but you have to actually get them; it is unlikely anyone already has one lying around.
My initial thought was that while I've never done any 3D printing so I'm not how hard the plastic is, it might be possible to print something in the right shape and use it to unscrew these? Its an interesting idea, but the screws are likely in tight enough that only a solid metal screwdriver would be able to remove them.
Also, though I'm not sure about the Macbook Airs in 2011, the current Macbook Air doesn't even have a replaceable SSD--the storage is directly on the motherboard.
Realistically, how many people repair Android or non-Apple phones? How many iPhone users would, when faced with a broken phone, try to fix it themselves rather than take it to the Apple store for repairs?
I've got no data on it, but my gut tells me it's a tiny, tiny percentage. I would also bet that switching the entire massive operation over to using pentalobe screws (not to mention the presumably higher cost of the screws themselves) cost more than the revenue they're "losing" to people who would repair old phones themselves.
Isn't it more likely that the pentalobe screws, with higher internal surface area than a phillips screw, offer some other benefit? Looking at them I would bet that they stay on automatic screw drivers better than a phillips-head screw.
If they really wanted to make it impossible to un-screw them they'd make a screw whose head was in the shape of an Apple logo or something that nobody makes a driver for. It's not really hard to find a pentalobe screwdriver so if they were trying to keep people out it's not working. (Actually, using an Apple logo as the screw-head shape would be kind of interesting, because they might be able to sue anyone who made a matching driver for using their trademark...)
In any city in Europe you'll have corner stores all over the place who will do a screen swap for you, or just sell you the screen to do it yourself. This is far more handy, environmentally friendly, local-economy friendly, and probably cheaper than shipping in phones to Apple for refurbishment.
> Isn't it more likely that the pentalobe screws, with higher internal surface area than a phillips screw, offer some other benefit?
The article refutes this with the argument "then why don't they use the same screw on the inside of the phone?"
Yep- I've got a friend who runs a PC repair business and they do a fair number of screen replacements. Lots of shops like that in the US, both Apple certified and not. Another reason why the "pentalobe screws etc. make Apple devices impossible to repair" argument is silly.
> Realistically, how many people repair Android or non-Apple phones? How many iPhone users would, when faced with a broken phone, try to fix it themselves rather than take it to the Apple store for repairs?
Not enough, and that's the problem. iFixit's purpose for existing is to get people repairing their things (electronic or otherwise); this is why we make guides and sell tools and parts, why we make all our guides freely available under a Creative Commons license, and why we spend a lot of time and effort convincing people that yes, they can repair things.
So when a corporation makes a visible effort to discourage these same people, we get frustrated. Yes, most Apple consumers don't want to repair their iDevices. But they never will if Apple continues discouraging them.
Wasn't it either the Apple II or early Macintoshes that had proprietary screws as well. I think it was Woz in an interview that said he disliked how they wanted to prevent DIYers from messing with the internals.
From Apple's perspective, amateur repairs are potentially a source of serious damage to their brand. The effects of inept repair are likely to reflect at least as badly on Apple as they do on the repairer. One bad third-party battery could be enough to trigger a global media shitstorm, in spite of it being nothing to do with Apple. Their customers don't expect iDevices to be user-serviceable, so raising the barriers to entry for repairers is a clear win for Apple.