5 ms·

> They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) wi

> They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices. Apple has never been against that and isn't fighting that. Apple is setting up an environment where counterfeiting is practically necessary by hindering legitimate repairs using non counterfeit non genuine parts. Apple doesn't allow those who aren't Authorized Repair Centers to purchase genuine replacement parts or to have access to service manuals. I'm not aware of another OEM that does this. I can go to HP, Dell, Samsung, MSI, Acer, or LG and purchase genuine parts or download service manuals. Apple posts service manuals online but they go out of their way to lock them behind a login so that only Authorized users can see them. Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if those devices weren't using genuine Apple displays. Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if you replaced the touch ID, regardless of whether it was a genuine part or not. The iPhone X camera module is a separate part form the display yet if you replace the display genuine or not while keeping the original camera module, it stops working for facial authentication. Apple disabled the ability to adjust the brightness of your Macbook's display if it wasn't genuine. Hey maybe it doesn't want to damage non genuine displays... so what's the difference between a genuine and non genuine part? The EEID that Apple programs into them. A counterfeit display in this case is simply one that was purchase from Apple's supplier, LG, and programmed with Apple's EEID not by Apple.

dpkonofa 9y ago
>Apple doesn't allow those who aren't Authorized Repair Centers to purchase genuine replacement parts or to have access to service manuals And why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? They're not stopping anyone from reverse engineering the parts. They're not stopping anyone from doing the repairs and documenting them otherwise. I don't understand why anyone thinks that Apple should be compelled to willfully aid people that could harm their business model and their brand and to do it for free, no less.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  > And why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? They are perfectly in their right to do that, it's just shitty. > They're not stopping anyone from doing the repairs Actually they are by bricking devices later for having non genuine parts or unauthorized repairs. > I don't understand why anyone thinks that Apple should be compelled... Who said anything about compelling them to do anything? I just said they were dicks. And how would allowing people to service their own machine hurt Apple's brand anymore than people currently making unauthorized repairs? Giving them access to genuine parts would just increase the likelihood that the repairs work.
  - dpkonofa 9y ago
    >Actually they are by bricking devices later for having non genuine parts or unauthorized repairs. The only time devices have ever been bricked for unauthorized repairs is for screen repairs where the chain of trust for Touch ID couldn't be verified. It wasn't intentional and they reverted with a patch within weeks.
    - cptskippy 9y ago
      > It wasn't intentional Actually when it first came out Apple said it was intentional enhanced security checks that disabled the phone for the user's safety.[1] Why brick the phone? The enclave is secure and the Touch ID doesn't work, it hasn't worked since it was repaired. Why suddenly decide the phone needs to stop working during an update? Why not just wipe the secure enclave? When user's contact Apple for support, they were turned away and Apple recommended they replace the phones. Apple later changed their story and said that it was intended for validation at the factory and mistakenly affected customers.[2] Bricking a device at the factory seems like an odd way to validate it. Wouldn't a JTAG or SPI bus be a better way to query the phone to perform validations? > they reverted with a patch within weeks. Weeks. Turn your phone off and don't use it for weeks then come back here and tell me how it was no big deal. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple-iphone-software-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updates-ios-to-restore-iphones-disabled-by-error-53/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updat...
dpkonofa 9y ago
>Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if those devices weren't using genuine Apple displays. >Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if you replaced the touch ID, regardless of whether it was a genuine part or not. >The iPhone X camera module is a separate part form the display yet if you replace the display genuine or not while keeping the original camera module, it stops working for facial authentication. This is incorrect and a complete oversimplification of what actually happened. In every single one of the cases you mention, the device was bricked because having the part displayed broke the chain of encryption from the secure enclave to the device in question - Touch ID or Face ID. If you can't verify the chain of trust, there's no way for the device to accurately tell that the security measures that are in place are working correctly with any kind of certainty. In fact, Apple reversed the Touch ID issue by simply notifying the user that a third-party display had disabled Touch ID (because the Touch ID module key no longer matched the key in the secure enclave). The software simply wasn't designed to allow insecure use of the device and it was fixed within less than a week. You're either simply ignorant of how these situations came to be or you're being disingenuous because the inaccurate click-bait headline is easy to use to confirm and support your suspicions.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  > This is incorrect and a complete oversimplification of what actually happened. In every single one of the cases you mention, the device was bricked because having the part displayed broke the chain of encryption from the secure enclave to the device in question - Touch ID or Face ID. If you can't verify the chain of trust, there's no way for the device to accurately tell that the security measures that are in place are working correctly with any kind of certainty. It's not incorrect just incomplete because even genuine parts would fail validation and result in a bricked device. > In fact, Apple reversed the Touch ID issue by simply notifying the user that a third-party display had disabled Touch ID > You're either simply ignorant of how these situations came to be or you're being disingenuous Now who is being disingenuous and/or ignorant? Only Apple could replace or repair your screen/button and have Touch ID work. When users had their screens repaired using non genuine parts they were fulled aware that Touch ID wasn't going to work. The devices didn't brick themselves on first boot. They disabled Touch ID and access to the secure enclave but continued to work. Then Apple released an iOS update that bricked their phones for their safety. Then they back pedaled and released a patch so that instead of bricking devices it just notified the user of what they already knew.

dpkonofa 9y ago

>Apple doesn't allow those who aren't Authorized Repair Centers to purchase genuine replacement parts or to have access to service manuals And why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? They're not stopping anyone from reverse engineering the parts. They're not stopping anyone from doing the repairs and documenting them otherwise. I don't understand why anyone thinks that Apple should be compelled to willfully aid people that could harm their business model and their brand and to do it for free, no less.

cptskippy 9y ago
> And why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? They are perfectly in their right to do that, it's just shitty. > They're not stopping anyone from doing the repairs Actually they are by bricking devices later for having non genuine parts or unauthorized repairs. > I don't understand why anyone thinks that Apple should be compelled... Who said anything about compelling them to do anything? I just said they were dicks. And how would allowing people to service their own machine hurt Apple's brand anymore than people currently making unauthorized repairs? Giving them access to genuine parts would just increase the likelihood that the repairs work.
- dpkonofa 9y ago
  >Actually they are by bricking devices later for having non genuine parts or unauthorized repairs. The only time devices have ever been bricked for unauthorized repairs is for screen repairs where the chain of trust for Touch ID couldn't be verified. It wasn't intentional and they reverted with a patch within weeks.
  - cptskippy 9y ago
    > It wasn't intentional Actually when it first came out Apple said it was intentional enhanced security checks that disabled the phone for the user's safety.[1] Why brick the phone? The enclave is secure and the Touch ID doesn't work, it hasn't worked since it was repaired. Why suddenly decide the phone needs to stop working during an update? Why not just wipe the secure enclave? When user's contact Apple for support, they were turned away and Apple recommended they replace the phones. Apple later changed their story and said that it was intended for validation at the factory and mistakenly affected customers.[2] Bricking a device at the factory seems like an odd way to validate it. Wouldn't a JTAG or SPI bus be a better way to query the phone to perform validations? > they reverted with a patch within weeks. Weeks. Turn your phone off and don't use it for weeks then come back here and tell me how it was no big deal. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple-iphone-software-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updates-ios-to-restore-iphones-disabled-by-error-53/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updat...

dpkonofa 9y ago

>Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if those devices weren't using genuine Apple displays. >Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if you replaced the touch ID, regardless of whether it was a genuine part or not. >The iPhone X camera module is a separate part form the display yet if you replace the display genuine or not while keeping the original camera module, it stops working for facial authentication. This is incorrect and a complete oversimplification of what actually happened. In every single one of the cases you mention, the device was bricked because having the part displayed broke the chain of encryption from the secure enclave to the device in question - Touch ID or Face ID. If you can't verify the chain of trust, there's no way for the device to accurately tell that the security measures that are in place are working correctly with any kind of certainty. In fact, Apple reversed the Touch ID issue by simply notifying the user that a third-party display had disabled Touch ID (because the Touch ID module key no longer matched the key in the secure enclave). The software simply wasn't designed to allow insecure use of the device and it was fixed within less than a week. You're either simply ignorant of how these situations came to be or you're being disingenuous because the inaccurate click-bait headline is easy to use to confirm and support your suspicions.

cptskippy 9y ago
> This is incorrect and a complete oversimplification of what actually happened. In every single one of the cases you mention, the device was bricked because having the part displayed broke the chain of encryption from the secure enclave to the device in question - Touch ID or Face ID. If you can't verify the chain of trust, there's no way for the device to accurately tell that the security measures that are in place are working correctly with any kind of certainty. It's not incorrect just incomplete because even genuine parts would fail validation and result in a bricked device. > In fact, Apple reversed the Touch ID issue by simply notifying the user that a third-party display had disabled Touch ID > You're either simply ignorant of how these situations came to be or you're being disingenuous Now who is being disingenuous and/or ignorant? Only Apple could replace or repair your screen/button and have Touch ID work. When users had their screens repaired using non genuine parts they were fulled aware that Touch ID wasn't going to work. The devices didn't brick themselves on first boot. They disabled Touch ID and access to the secure enclave but continued to work. Then Apple released an iOS update that bricked their phones for their safety. Then they back pedaled and released a patch so that instead of bricking devices it just notified the user of what they already knew.