Right to Repair: McFlurries and Apples

This Week’s Focus: Traditional OEMs Vs the Right to Repair Movement

Long-standing OEM control over repairs is being challenged by the growing Right to Repair (R2R) movement. Companies like Taylor and Apple have long benefited from controlling repair processes for economic and strategic gains. However, as consumer demand for autonomy and sustainability increases, traditional OEMs and their long-standing control over repairs are facing pressure to adapt. This week, we look at how R2R advocates for consumer rights, environmental responsibility, and democratic values, and discusses the uncertain balance between repair access and economic sustainability that OEMs must navigate.

One of this week’s most unexpected news stories was the ruling of the U.S. Copyright Office that granted McDonald’s the right to repair its McFlurry machines. 

If you’re not a McFlurry fan (in which case I hope you have other ways of bringing meaning to your life), McDonald’s McFlurry machines have become infamous due to their complicated software and frequent failures. Franchise owners and consumers alike have faced frustration as McFlurries often remain unavailable due to machine errors that are only fixable by certified technicians from their manufacturer, Taylor Commercial Food Services. 

Over time, this problem grew into a running joke across social media and even spurred the development of an online tracker, “McBroken,” to identify non-working machines at McDonald’s locations: 

The high repair costs and delays led franchise owners to look for alternative solutions, but McDonald’s and Taylor’s restrictive repair policies hindered any self-initiated repairs.

The issue escalated to the point where last week, the U.S. Copyright Office granted McDonald’s a significant exemption under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), allowing franchisees to bypass the machines’ digital locks. 

This ruling enables owners to seek third-party repairs, disrupting Taylor’s monopoly and aligning with recent trends in the Right to Repair (R2R) movement. 

This victory extends beyond McDonald’s, and signals a cultural shift: as devices become more complex, repair restrictions have escalated, raising questions about consumer autonomy and corporate accountability. This decision marks a significant step forward regarding the broader consumer demand for repair access across industries.

The Right to Repair (R2R) movement represents a growing push for consumers’ rights to repair their own products or access independent repair options without relying on Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).

This is, of course, not only related to McDonald’s. Apple was known to always build the iPhone in a manner that it was either unrepairable or only repairable by Apple:

“For example, Apple solder parts such as the processor and flash memory to the motherboard, and glue bits together that don’t need to be,.... They also use a non-standard pentalobe screws that are almost impossible for menders to replace…With the iPhone 12, Apple has made it even harder for third-party repair shops to fix the phone, and more expensive. Cheers Apple.

Compared to the iPhone 11, Apple has raised the repair costs for the iPhone 12 by more than 40%. 

Reports say that fixing the camera on the iPhone 12 requires Apple’s system configuration app, which is (drum roll…) only available to the company’s authorised technicians.”

This article examines the motivations behind OEM repair monopolies, recent shifts in Apple’s stance on R2R, and the movement’s broader economic, democratic, and environmental implications.

OEMs’ Preference for Controlled Repairs

From an economic standpoint, repair restrictions allow OEMs to exert price discrimination, effectively segmenting customers by repair needs and extracting higher profits from captive service contracts.

There are various economic models that explain this preference:

Two-Part Tariff Model

This model involves an initial price for the product (i.e., an appliance or device) and a secondary charge for maintenance or repairs. This allows firms to set a relatively low entry price, to attract more customers, and then charge a higher markup on repairs, especially for customers who are willing to pay for premium services.

Firms offer different tiers of service plans—basic, advanced, or premium—capturing different consumer surplus levels based on perceived repair needs and customers’ willingness to pay.

Third-Degree Price Discrimination

The firm segments the market based on observable characteristics (e.g., customer location, product type, or whether the customer bought a warranty). By identifying customer groups that value repairs differently, firms can tailor pricing to extract more value from each segment.

For instance, firms might offer cheaper repair plans in regions with more competition and charge more in areas where they are the only provider. Similarly, they might charge higher prices for luxury goods, as their owners often exhibit a higher willingness to pay.

Lock-In and Switching Cost Model

This model is based on the idea that after customers have purchased a product, they become “locked in” due to high switching costs, making it less likely to seek alternatives when repairs are needed. The firm can charge higher prices, as customers are less likely to switch to a different product due to their initial investment.

A smartphone manufacturer may design its products in a way that only proprietary tools and parts can be used for repairs. This creates a scenario where consumers pay more for repairs from the manufacturer because switching to a new device or brand would be more costly.

Intertemporal Price Discrimination

Firms can modify repair prices over time, offering initial discounts to establish loyalty or secure contracts, and later increase prices as the product ages or as specific consumers depend on repairs. This model relies on the fact that customers’ willingness to pay for repairs might increase as products age or as they become accustomed to a particular repair service.

Some companies offer free or discounted repairs within the warranty period and increase repair costs significantly after that, knowing that consumers with aged products are more likely to need repairs and be less price-sensitive. This is common with automotive OEM’s. 

Bundling Repairs with Premium Services (First-Degree Price Discrimination)

Some firms bundle repair services with premium warranties or service contracts customized on each customer’s specific usage patterns or product type. By offering custom repair solutions, firms can effectively engage in first-degree price discrimination, charging each customer the maximum they’re willing to pay.

Companies might offer a “premium care” package that includes unlimited repairs and faster service times for high-value customers willing to pay more. 

These economic models highlight how firms leverage different forms of price discrimination through repair contracts to increase profitability.

The Right to Repair and Consumer Preferences

Clearly an area where OEMs’ incentives are at odds with those of consumers, the paper “Consumer Perceptions of the Right to Repair,” provides an empirical exploration of consumer beliefs regarding repair accessibility in the context of increasing restrictions set by manufacturers. Here’s a breakdown of its key elements:

The author investigates consumer expectations and behaviors surrounding repairability, aiming to bridge the gap between consumer desires and repair limitations (imposed by OEMs). The study addresses growing environmental and economic concerns around e-waste, and advocates for policy interventions that can align with consumer rights to repair, especially as restrictions can affect satisfaction, sustainability, and perceived product value.

The author asks how consumers perceive and react to limitations on the repairability of their products. The study uses survey data collected from over 800 consumers across the United States. 

The main results, while anticipated, are rather interesting: 

High Demand for Repair Accessibility: Most respondents consider repairability a critical feature that influences their purchasing decisions —75% of consumers preferred repairing over replacing products when affordable options were available, emphasizing that affordability is key.

Consumer Dissatisfaction: Restrictive repair practices lead to notable frustration and decreased satisfaction, especially among consumers who feel repairability is essential. The study quantitatively ties restrictive repair policies to a reduction in customer satisfaction by 25% on average, suggesting a direct link between repairability and perceived product value.

Legislative Support:  Approximately 68% of surveyed participants supported R2R initiatives, seeing them as beneficial for both the environment and consumer autonomy, indicating a demand for greater accessibility to repair tools, parts, and information.

Impact on Brand Perception: Consumers who view repair restrictions negatively are less likely to engage with the brand in the future, indicating that OEM-imposed limitations can reduce brand loyalty. The findings highlight the importance of aligning OEM policies with consumer expectations for repairability to enhance brand loyalty and consumer trust.

Similarly, the paper “Exercising the Right to Repair: A Customer’s Perspective” by Davit Marikyan and Savvas Papagiannidis addresses critical issues surrounding consumer engagement with right-to-repair practices, mainly focusing on environmental sustainability and consumer behavior.

Intention to Repair: The study found that approximately 50% of the variance in repair intentions could be explained by environmental concerns, pro-environmental activism, social norms, and legislative beliefs.

Performance Expectancy: 30% of the variance in performance expectations was linked to repair intention, showing that consumers with a higher intention to repair also expected their repaired products to perform well.

Satisfaction and Engagement: 41% of the variance in satisfaction with the repair decision was explained by repair intention, which also positively impacted future engagement intentions with manufacturers. 

The Implications are clear.

For Policymakers: Findings support policies that lower repair costs, increase parts availability, and ensure consumer awareness, as these factors strengthen consumer intention to repair and, by extension, contribute to reduced e-waste.

For Manufacturers: Companies could enhance customer loyalty by supporting repair initiatives, such as offering accessible repair services or providing parts. These steps may improve brand perception and encourage long-term engagement with consumers who value sustainable practices.

The Right to Repair, Democracy, and Culture

While the paper above shows that consumers want the right to repair, it’s clear that, as a society, we’ve lost the ability to do so ourselves. Surveys show that we are less capable in both car and home maintenance. 

The paper “Out of Order: Understanding Repair and Maintenance” by Stephen Graham and Nigel Thrift aims to highlight the often-overlooked importance of maintenance and repair activities in sustaining modern societies. They argue that these activities are critical for daily life and infrastructure continuity, yet they remain largely invisible or ignored in social science literature and urban studies. The authors seek to reposition maintenance and repair as fundamental processes that enable societal and technological systems to function.

They ask: What role do maintenance and repair play in the functioning of urban environments? How can understanding these processes shift perspectives on infrastructure and social systems?

I find the paper particularly interesting since it uses a phenomenological approach. Using Heidegger’s concept of ‘ready-to-hand,’ the authors explain how we tend to overlook everyday systems and structures—like electricity, water, or transportation—because they usually work so seamlessly that we take them for granted. Heidegger used ‘ready-to-hand’ to describe tools or objects we use without consciously thinking about them, like how we use a hammer without focusing on the hammer itself. Similarly, infrastructure often remains ‘invisible’: we don’t pay attention to it until something goes wrong. This concept highlights how maintenance work often goes unnoticed until it fails, bringing it abruptly into view.

The paper’s main observations are:

Neglect of Maintenance: Repair and maintenance are marginalized in both academia and policy, often seen as “secondary” work compared to innovation and construction.

Urban Resilience and Crisis Response: Maintenance systems are critical in responding to urban crises (e.g., blackout responses), demonstrating the need for constant readiness and adaptation.

Labor Force and Economic Value: Maintenance and repair jobs constitute a significant portion of urban employment, with over 6 million workers in the U.S. alone by the early 2000s. Repair and maintenance activities represent substantial economic activity, with billions spent annually on infrastructure upkeep, particularly in the transportation and energy sectors.

This paper highlights the need for a cultural shift in how societies value and invest in maintenance, suggesting that without it, the complex infrastructures of modern life cannot be sustained.

Repair work is not my thing. My dad was a home repair expert and an electronics and car repair specialist. It may be generational, but he was exceptionally good at it. So good, in fact, that none of us—four siblings strong—picked up any of his skills. We collectively skipped the repair gene.

Fortunately, my better half is handy and loves fixing things. When we moved into our new house, my dad bought her a toolbox—because he knew getting one for me would be, well, a waste. Thankfully, my wife is now on a mission to make sure our kids inherit her repair skills instead of my total lack thereof.

The paper “On ‘the Politics of Repair Beyond Repair’: Radical Democracy and the Right to Repair Movement” examines the right-to-repair (R2R) movement from a radical democratic perspective, challenging the OEMs in controlling repair practices. The authors seek to analyze how R2R functions as a democratic movement that pushes against the entrenched power and influence of OEMs, who monopolize repair services and create barriers for independent and self-repair practices.

Their main observation is that OEMs sustain dominance by embedding repair restrictions in legal, economic, and cultural narratives, portraying repair barriers as “pro-consumer” and “necessary for safety.” R2R activists counter this by framing repair access as a universal right, mobilizing diverse groups by highlighting OEM restrictions’ economic and environmental harm, where the four mainframes are:

Consumer Advocacy: R2R enhances consumer rights, aiming to allow consumers control over their purchases, countering OEM-induced repair monopolies.

Environmental Sustainability: Emphasizing waste reduction, resource conservation, and climate action, the movement aligns with circular economy principles, positioning R2R as eco-beneficial.

Communitarian Values: R2R advocates for communal access to repair resources, fostering social ties and resilience.

Creative Tinkering and Innovation: R2R supports grassroots creativity, seeing repair as a medium for community-driven innovation. 

Apple’s Shifting Approach to the Right to Repair

And precisely on the heels of these sentiments, Apple has been changing its approach. 

Historically, Apple has been a major opponent of R2R, tightly controlling device repair options. However, increased regulatory and public pressure has gradually led Apple to embrace aspects of the R2R movement. This shift reflects Apple’s adaptation to the changing regulatory landscape and consumer sentiment:

Regulatory Pressure and Legislative Changes: With R2R gaining traction, Apple has faced increasing regulatory pressure to allow consumers and independent repair shops to repair information and parts. Apple’s recent support for California’s SB-244 R2R bill marks a notable policy change that aligns with public demand for more accessible repairs.

Brand Image and Sustainability Commitments: Apple has emphasized its commitment to sustainability, positioning itself as an environmentally responsible brand. Supporting R2R aligns with this narrative, as it promotes device longevity, reduces e-waste, and helps Apple attract environmentally conscious consumers. Expanding repair options allows Apple to mitigate criticism over planned obsolescence and improve its image without entirely relinquishing control over the repair process.

Economic Strategy Adaptation: Apple’s adoption of limited R2R provisions (e.g., self-service repair kits), reflects a strategic adaptation rather than a complete concession. By maintaining certain repair restrictions (e.g., limiting access to proprietary parts), Apple balances between appearing consumer-friendly and maintaining revenue from its authorized repair network.

But for every positive step Apple makes, it takes a step back. Experts are criticizing Apple’s strategy of Part Pairing:

“In layman’s terms, Parts Pairing is the technological “handshake” that occurs between a device and its replacement part. This “handshake” requires an authentication or “pairing” process conducted by the OEM. Imagine you’ve got a puzzle piece that only fits when the puzzle maker says it fits. Annoying, right?”

Parts pairing threatens both the repair industry and the principles of a circular economy by restricting the interchangeability of parts across devices. This creates an existential challenge for repair shops, as they can no longer rely on using parts from one machine in another, significantly limiting their operations. 

Additionally, the inability to reuse components undermines the market for used parts, discouraging recyclers from harvesting them. This impacts repair businesses and weakens the circular economy by reducing incentives for recycling and pushing the industry toward greater waste and obsolescence.

Can the Right to Repair go Wrong?

It seems so obvious that firms should allow customers to repair their products, either by themselves or through a third party. 

The paper titled “Right to Repair: Pricing, Welfare, and Environmental Implications” by Chen Jin, Luyi Yang, and Cungen Zhu examines the Right to Repair movement, which claims that R2R laws benefit consumers by lowering repair costs, fostering competition in the repair market, and reducing environmental impact through lower e-waste. 

However, the authors argue that R2R could also trigger price adjustments by manufacturers who aim to offset potential profit losses. The paper seeks to clarify the broader economic impact of R2R, specifically regarding manufacturer pricing and consumer welfare, as well as any environmental consequences.

The main research questions are: How does R2R legislation influence manufacturers’ product and repair pricing? 

The authors use an analytical model where a monopolist manufacturer sells a durable good with finite life over an infinite horizon. Consumers can either buy new or used products and choose between discarding, repairing, or reselling a used product. Key factors include production cost, which affects the manufacturer’s pricing strategy, repair cost to the manufacturer versus independent repair costs for consumers, and environmental impact across three phases: production, usage, and disposal.

The main results are that R2R can prompt non-monotonic price responses: When production costs are low, R2R often leads to price cuts to discourage repair by making new products more attractive, thus increasing the volume of new products. For intermediate production costs, R2R initially reduces prices, but as independent repair costs drop further, the manufacturer may raise prices and adopt a “margin strategy” with potentially free repairs. High production costs generally result in stable or increasing prices as R2R repairs become an inherent part of the product value.

The paper also discusses welfare implications. When production costs are low, both consumer surplus and social welfare increase due to lower product prices. For intermediate production costs, welfare initially rises but then falls as prices rise, even if repairs are facilitated.

Lastly, lower independent repair costs can increase environmental impact. When production costs are low, increased production due to lower prices results in more waste. For intermediate costs, ecological impact initially increases with production volume but may decrease when repair becomes the focus, thus reducing the number of new products.

The overall implications are nonobvious: 

For Manufacturers: R2R could erode repair profits and affect new product pricing. Manufacturers may need to adjust pricing strategies based on production costs.

For Consumers: While R2R can lower repair costs, it may not always benefit consumers if manufacturers raise prices to offset profit losses.

Environmental Policy: Policymakers should consider that R2R might inadvertently raise environmental impact in cases of lower production costs.

I guess we’ll have to wait a few years and see where the chips fall. 

Conclusion: Balancing Economic, Ethical, and Practical Implications

OEM control over repairs has economic and strategic advantages, but as consumer demands for autonomy and sustainability grow, firms like Taylor and Apple must adapt. The Right to Repair movement challenges traditional repair monopolies, advocating for consumer rights, environmental sustainability, and democratic values.

For Taylor and McDonald’s, R2R means empowering franchisees to maintain essential services independently, leading to increased efficiency. For Apple, R2R presents a more complex challenge as the brand navigates consumer demand for repairability, regulatory pressures, and its reputation for closed ecosystems.

While the equilibrium implications of R2R remain uncertain, balancing repair access with economic sustainability is critical. Moving forward, adaptive policies and strategic business models will shape R2R’s impact on consumers, OEMs, and the environment.

Yet, as the Right to Repair movement gains traction, it’s worth noting the irony that many of us lack the skills—or, let’s face it, the patience—to actually repair anything ourselves. So, while we demand repair rights, we’re equally reliant on that friendly, slightly mystical ‘repair expert’ who can bring our beloved gadgets back to life (for a fee, of course).