3 ms·

>Apple insists that they should be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to do that This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear dist

>Apple insists that they should be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to do that This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here. They're not preventing anyone from doing anything but there sure as hell do want to know that the people they've authorized for repairs are doing them to their standards. If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company.

ksk 9y ago
>This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. False. This is getting tiring. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Apple-of-misleading-customers-about-repairs.226210.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Appl... https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repair.html https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repa... https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-screen/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s... Apple is using or was using (for above links) various ways to make it seem like third party services are illegitmate. Its one of the several tactics to maintain a monopoly. Consumers are getting wiser. Thousands of people have gotten a screen fixed or a battery replaced without paying Apple's tax. Apple sure as hell doesn't like that. But tough cookies. Its no different than the inkjet situation where they blocked third party cartriges and made it nearly impossible for you to refill ink. >To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. A Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo. >Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here. And anyone who has gotten gouged by Apple knows that a monopoly of service and parts is never going to bring about competition. >If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company. So your argument, as best as I can unpack it, since it was very confusing to me, is - Its justified because someone somewhere at somepoint in time in some cases might face some issues with their third party repair and some people might possibly sometimes mistake that as an Apple problem. Wow. Anyway, we're going around in circles. There is no point in arguing you have your opinion and I have mine. I am happy to support a positive movement that promotes less e-waste and more local jobs.
- dpkonofa 9y ago
  >Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo. If Subaru offered an alarm system in your vehicle that disabled the ignition if the system was tampered with, you'd be saying that the system worked exactly as intended. Apple didn't brick people's devices to prevent third-party repairs. The devices were bricked because the chain of trust between Touch ID and the secure enclave was broken. Users had Touch ID enabled and their phones were bricked because Touch ID couldn't verify and there's no way around Touch ID. It's exactly why the update that "fixed" the issue was an update that simply turned off Touch ID for devices that didn't pass verification.

ksk 9y ago

>This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. False. This is getting tiring. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Apple-of-misleading-customers-about-repairs.226210.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Appl... https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repair.html https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repa... https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-screen/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s... Apple is using or was using (for above links) various ways to make it seem like third party services are illegitmate. Its one of the several tactics to maintain a monopoly. Consumers are getting wiser. Thousands of people have gotten a screen fixed or a battery replaced without paying Apple's tax. Apple sure as hell doesn't like that. But tough cookies. Its no different than the inkjet situation where they blocked third party cartriges and made it nearly impossible for you to refill ink. >To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. A Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo. >Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here. And anyone who has gotten gouged by Apple knows that a monopoly of service and parts is never going to bring about competition. >If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company. So your argument, as best as I can unpack it, since it was very confusing to me, is - Its justified because someone somewhere at somepoint in time in some cases might face some issues with their third party repair and some people might possibly sometimes mistake that as an Apple problem. Wow. Anyway, we're going around in circles. There is no point in arguing you have your opinion and I have mine. I am happy to support a positive movement that promotes less e-waste and more local jobs.

dpkonofa 9y ago
>Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo. If Subaru offered an alarm system in your vehicle that disabled the ignition if the system was tampered with, you'd be saying that the system worked exactly as intended. Apple didn't brick people's devices to prevent third-party repairs. The devices were bricked because the chain of trust between Touch ID and the secure enclave was broken. Users had Touch ID enabled and their phones were bricked because Touch ID couldn't verify and there's no way around Touch ID. It's exactly why the update that "fixed" the issue was an update that simply turned off Touch ID for devices that didn't pass verification.