4 ms·

You appear to be claiming that Apple deliberately develops software updates to break user- or third-party-repaired devices. This requires Apple to have a team

You appear to be claiming that Apple deliberately develops software updates to break user- or third-party-repaired devices. This requires Apple to have a team studying how third parties repair their devices, and working on ways to modify their software to break such devices while leaving all others unaffected. That's a not-insignificant challenge. The likelier explanation is that Apple does not invest in developing updates that will deliberately break your phone as retaliation for you repairing it in ways they don't like. The likelier explanation is that Apple simply doesn't test the interaction between their updates and your repairs, and doesn't much care if your phone breaks as a result. They test for the interaction with their stock devices, and devices repaired through their advocated channels, and don't seem to want the "absolutely everything everybody might do must be supported" approach Microsoft historically took (with good reason -- one of the advantages of tight ecosystem control is getting to avoid Microsoft's nightmare).

ksk 9y ago
https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-display-ambient-light-sensor-issue/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-displ... Can you explain this?
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  If you mean "can I provide you the exact reason why it happened", no. But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs. I believe this because I've worked on software teams that developed things that would only be used in-house in controlled ways, and I've seen how fragile those usually end up being and how poorly tested they usually are. But I also see that there's no possible evidence someone could present, or argument someone could make, that would change your mind, because as the quote says: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into.
  - ksk 9y ago
    We're clearly operating on seperate planes here. Your reasoning as far as I can tell, is your own belief, and not based on evidence that anyone can verify. My reasoning is based on Apples actions, their own comments, experiences of third party repair shops who are being threatened by Apple, and my own experience with third party repair shops. I can never understand why people want to stop others from choosing where they repair their products. If you (not you specifically) think third party repairs are shady, well great ! you already have a choice and you can get yours serviced at Apple. We should be free to make decisions about things we own. Apple fighting to block our right is disspointing. >But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs. There is no "testing for repair". When you replace a component on a logic board, it either works or if its sabotaged (like inkjet cartriges, kurig kcups, iphone screens), it doesn't. And thats if you're doing a component level repair. For parts replacement, it should be way easier. I get the feeling you're not very familiar with how electronics repair works. It is really nothing like software.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      I can never understand why people want to stop others from choosing where they repair their products. The fact that you keep saying things like this, when I've said nothing indicating that I believe such a thing, is a clear indicator of willful dishonesty on your part. You get no more of my time.
    - dpkonofa 9y ago
      >My reasoning is based on Apples actions, their own comments, experiences of third party repair shops who are being threatened by Apple, and my own experience with third party repair shops No... your reasoning is based on your interpretation of all parties' intentions of which you have no basis for combined with flat-out misinformation about what the third-party repair shops are doing/claiming. Apple is not stopping anyone from choosing where they repair their products nor are they stopping third-party repair shops from repairing their products. The fact that you continue to spread this objectively false information is all anyone needs to know to validate that your position is unfounded. If it was, you wouldn't have to lie and rely on already discredited information to make your point. Your point would stand on its own. As it is, though, it falls apart immediately under any kind of basic scrutiny.

ksk 9y ago

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-display-ambient-light-sensor-issue/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-displ... Can you explain this?

ubernostrum 9y ago
If you mean "can I provide you the exact reason why it happened", no. But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs. I believe this because I've worked on software teams that developed things that would only be used in-house in controlled ways, and I've seen how fragile those usually end up being and how poorly tested they usually are. But I also see that there's no possible evidence someone could present, or argument someone could make, that would change your mind, because as the quote says: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into.
- ksk 9y ago
  We're clearly operating on seperate planes here. Your reasoning as far as I can tell, is your own belief, and not based on evidence that anyone can verify. My reasoning is based on Apples actions, their own comments, experiences of third party repair shops who are being threatened by Apple, and my own experience with third party repair shops. I can never understand why people want to stop others from choosing where they repair their products. If you (not you specifically) think third party repairs are shady, well great ! you already have a choice and you can get yours serviced at Apple. We should be free to make decisions about things we own. Apple fighting to block our right is disspointing. >But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs. There is no "testing for repair". When you replace a component on a logic board, it either works or if its sabotaged (like inkjet cartriges, kurig kcups, iphone screens), it doesn't. And thats if you're doing a component level repair. For parts replacement, it should be way easier. I get the feeling you're not very familiar with how electronics repair works. It is really nothing like software.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    I can never understand why people want to stop others from choosing where they repair their products. The fact that you keep saying things like this, when I've said nothing indicating that I believe such a thing, is a clear indicator of willful dishonesty on your part. You get no more of my time.
  - dpkonofa 9y ago
    >My reasoning is based on Apples actions, their own comments, experiences of third party repair shops who are being threatened by Apple, and my own experience with third party repair shops No... your reasoning is based on your interpretation of all parties' intentions of which you have no basis for combined with flat-out misinformation about what the third-party repair shops are doing/claiming. Apple is not stopping anyone from choosing where they repair their products nor are they stopping third-party repair shops from repairing their products. The fact that you continue to spread this objectively false information is all anyone needs to know to validate that your position is unfounded. If it was, you wouldn't have to lie and rely on already discredited information to make your point. Your point would stand on its own. As it is, though, it falls apart immediately under any kind of basic scrutiny.