4 ms·

They probably can (and I guess rather easily) test whether the touchscreen is or not from Apple and at least let the ungood ones work as before (I am sure this

They probably can (and I guess rather easily) test whether the touchscreen is or not from Apple and at least let the ungood ones work as before (I am sure this is pretty easy to do: just keep the old controller), issuing a warning (not that Apple is short on these) to the user: "your screen may malfunction or may be insecure. If you had it repaired outside the Apple network, we remind you that it is not covered by our guarantee". I am pretty sure this is easy, cheap and honest.

saagarjha 9y ago
Here's a great article that discusses why doing this would be a bad idea: https://blog.darkrainfall.org/2016/02/a-short-rant-about-error-53-and-why-it-exists/ https://blog.darkrainfall.org/2016/02/a-short-rant-about-err...
- opencl 9y ago
  Except this particular issue has absolutely nothing to do with TouchID or security at all. It's just the screen. Error 53 was significantly more justifiable.
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    I do realize the difference here; it's just that the parent brought up security, so I assumed that they were bringing up the case from two years ago.
    - pfortuny 9y ago
      Well, security was just a small part of my comment, anyway: you replied as if it were the main issue.
- pfortuny 9y ago
  Well, that is an opinion. However, bricking a device without previous warning seems quite out of control. There are many easier things to do. Like, for example, nagging the user every day with a message, not upgrading the software (and still nagging the user with a message), etc... Bricking a device is certainly a bad user experience and not at all what the user wishes. Nagging him at least lets him use the phone and keeps him informed. You cannot assume the user is stupid and not assume the user will not repair the phone outside your network. You cannot have both things at the same time and get away with it. That is what I think. If the user is stupid, let him be so.
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    > not upgrading the software For goodness sake no! Blocking software updates is a terrible thing to do, because most people don't want to install them anyways. You're basically putting people in an already bad situation in a worse situation. > Nagging him at least lets him use the phone and keeps him informed. It only takes the user using the sketchy Touch ID sensor once for their fingerprint to be sent out to malicious actors. > If the user is stupid, let him be so. That's what you think, but that's not how Apple works. It's their job to make the default work well for those who may not be completely knowledgable about security.
    - pfortuny 9y ago
      I get what you are trying to convey. I disagree but there is no problem in that. However: where does Apple state that their products may stop working if repaired with different components? (Honest question, I have tried to find it).
      - saagarjha 9y ago
        This was that best I could find from a few minutes of searching. > Service Exclusions and Diagnostic Fee. Apple may charge you a diagnostic fee (including shipping charges) as described in the Country Variation table, below (“Diagnostic Fee”), if Apple inspects your product and determines that (i) your product does not require service, (ii) your product has failed due to or has incompatibilities with software or data residing or recorded on your product (iii) service is required due to the failure of parts that are neither supplied by Apple nor Apple-branded, (iii) additional labor or parts are required that were not specified in the original estimated charges and you do not agree to authorize service based on Apple’s revised estimated charges, or (iv) service cannot be performed because the serial number has been altered, defaced or removed or the product has failed due to accident, abuse, liquid spill or submersion, neglect, misuse (including faulty installation, repair, or maintenance by anyone other than Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider), unauthorized modification, extreme environment (including extreme temperature or humidity), extreme physical or electrical stress or interference, fluctuation or surges of electrical power, lightning, static electricity, fire, acts of God or other external causes (“Service Exclusions”). Apple will return your product to you without servicing it and may charge you the Diagnostic Fee. This is from Apple's Repair Terms and Conditions: https://www.apple.com/legal/sales-support/terms/repair/generalservice/servicetermsen/ https://www.apple.com/legal/sales-support/terms/repair/gener.... It doesn't say that the product will stop working, but it does say that Apple isn't responsible for fixing it if it goes wrong. I'm not sure if that could be extended to them not having to support your third party component in software, though.
axoltl 9y ago
It's neither easy nor cheap. The engineer in question now has to support multiple variants of the driver, and QA has to acquire several of these screens and maintain a dedicated test rack of them. I'm a little amazed by how many people in this thread don't understand how much work developing for, testing, and maintaining actual physical devices is.
- ASalazarMX 9y ago
  > The engineer in question now has to support multiple variants of the driver, and QA has to acquire several of these screens and maintain a dedicated test rack of them. Conversely, the update just needs to reliably detect if the screen is Apple brand, and abort the update if it's not. If this can be done, then the current driver could be considered generic and working everywhere, and the engineer would just need to maintain the generic and the current version. That is, if Apple didn't mind to pay for making easier for third parties to get sales instead of Apple. Somehow I don't think that's the case.
  - axoltl 9y ago
    The update is an all-or-nothing type of deal though. You either update the entire system or you don't. So now people with a third-party screen don't get new features and - more importantly - they don't get security fixes. If the update wasn't all-or-nothing, now you have to test interoperability between this generic driver and the rest of the system. That might be OK if it was just this one driver, but what if you suddenly have a generic driver for N subsystems? The combinatorics explode quite quickly.
    - ASalazarMX 9y ago
      Even if it's all-or-nothing and no generic drivers are implemented, it's better to deny new features than to cripple a working device. Apple defines the third-party market with how much documentation it releases. This is not a technical or practical problem, it's Apple not easing its iron grip, as it always does.

saagarjha 9y ago

Here's a great article that discusses why doing this would be a bad idea: https://blog.darkrainfall.org/2016/02/a-short-rant-about-error-53-and-why-it-exists/ https://blog.darkrainfall.org/2016/02/a-short-rant-about-err...

opencl 9y ago
Except this particular issue has absolutely nothing to do with TouchID or security at all. It's just the screen. Error 53 was significantly more justifiable.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  I do realize the difference here; it's just that the parent brought up security, so I assumed that they were bringing up the case from two years ago.
  - pfortuny 9y ago
    Well, security was just a small part of my comment, anyway: you replied as if it were the main issue.
pfortuny 9y ago
Well, that is an opinion. However, bricking a device without previous warning seems quite out of control. There are many easier things to do. Like, for example, nagging the user every day with a message, not upgrading the software (and still nagging the user with a message), etc... Bricking a device is certainly a bad user experience and not at all what the user wishes. Nagging him at least lets him use the phone and keeps him informed. You cannot assume the user is stupid and not assume the user will not repair the phone outside your network. You cannot have both things at the same time and get away with it. That is what I think. If the user is stupid, let him be so.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  > not upgrading the software For goodness sake no! Blocking software updates is a terrible thing to do, because most people don't want to install them anyways. You're basically putting people in an already bad situation in a worse situation. > Nagging him at least lets him use the phone and keeps him informed. It only takes the user using the sketchy Touch ID sensor once for their fingerprint to be sent out to malicious actors. > If the user is stupid, let him be so. That's what you think, but that's not how Apple works. It's their job to make the default work well for those who may not be completely knowledgable about security.
  - pfortuny 9y ago
    I get what you are trying to convey. I disagree but there is no problem in that. However: where does Apple state that their products may stop working if repaired with different components? (Honest question, I have tried to find it).
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      This was that best I could find from a few minutes of searching. > Service Exclusions and Diagnostic Fee. Apple may charge you a diagnostic fee (including shipping charges) as described in the Country Variation table, below (“Diagnostic Fee”), if Apple inspects your product and determines that (i) your product does not require service, (ii) your product has failed due to or has incompatibilities with software or data residing or recorded on your product (iii) service is required due to the failure of parts that are neither supplied by Apple nor Apple-branded, (iii) additional labor or parts are required that were not specified in the original estimated charges and you do not agree to authorize service based on Apple’s revised estimated charges, or (iv) service cannot be performed because the serial number has been altered, defaced or removed or the product has failed due to accident, abuse, liquid spill or submersion, neglect, misuse (including faulty installation, repair, or maintenance by anyone other than Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider), unauthorized modification, extreme environment (including extreme temperature or humidity), extreme physical or electrical stress or interference, fluctuation or surges of electrical power, lightning, static electricity, fire, acts of God or other external causes (“Service Exclusions”). Apple will return your product to you without servicing it and may charge you the Diagnostic Fee. This is from Apple's Repair Terms and Conditions: https://www.apple.com/legal/sales-support/terms/repair/generalservice/servicetermsen/ https://www.apple.com/legal/sales-support/terms/repair/gener.... It doesn't say that the product will stop working, but it does say that Apple isn't responsible for fixing it if it goes wrong. I'm not sure if that could be extended to them not having to support your third party component in software, though.

axoltl 9y ago

It's neither easy nor cheap. The engineer in question now has to support multiple variants of the driver, and QA has to acquire several of these screens and maintain a dedicated test rack of them. I'm a little amazed by how many people in this thread don't understand how much work developing for, testing, and maintaining actual physical devices is.

ASalazarMX 9y ago
> The engineer in question now has to support multiple variants of the driver, and QA has to acquire several of these screens and maintain a dedicated test rack of them. Conversely, the update just needs to reliably detect if the screen is Apple brand, and abort the update if it's not. If this can be done, then the current driver could be considered generic and working everywhere, and the engineer would just need to maintain the generic and the current version. That is, if Apple didn't mind to pay for making easier for third parties to get sales instead of Apple. Somehow I don't think that's the case.
- axoltl 9y ago
  The update is an all-or-nothing type of deal though. You either update the entire system or you don't. So now people with a third-party screen don't get new features and - more importantly - they don't get security fixes. If the update wasn't all-or-nothing, now you have to test interoperability between this generic driver and the rest of the system. That might be OK if it was just this one driver, but what if you suddenly have a generic driver for N subsystems? The combinatorics explode quite quickly.
  - ASalazarMX 9y ago
    Even if it's all-or-nothing and no generic drivers are implemented, it's better to deny new features than to cripple a working device. Apple defines the third-party market with how much documentation it releases. This is not a technical or practical problem, it's Apple not easing its iron grip, as it always does.