4 ms·
> I would be very surprised if Louis specifically endorsed non Gorilla glass replacements. He pretty much does. "So what they do is they take this screen ...
by sjwright 8y ago
> I would be very surprised if Louis specifically endorsed non Gorilla glass replacements.
He pretty much does.
"So what they do is they take this screen ... and they replace the front glass layer. Most of the time the only thing wrong with the screen is the front glass layer is cracked. They put a new glass on it in China and then they sell it to us in the United States as a refurbished iPhone screen ... That is not a counterfeit."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkPUoUJPJAQ&t=1m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkPUoUJPJAQ&t=1m55s
I understand why Louis gets worked up about this particular issue, but he's just flat out wrong. These refurbs are dodgy as fuck. The assemblies as sold are counterfeit.
> some people can't keep nice things
Absolutely. I don't disagree, but this doesn't describe the people I spoke about. Accidents happen to all of us, even when we're particularly careful. I would never expect a glass computer to survive rough treatment but I do expect that when it's repaired with a "refurbished Apple screen" that it is made of substantially the same material as the original.
- dpkonofa 8y ago>I understand why Louis gets worked up about this particular issue, but he's just flat out wrong. Which is exactly why Apple's distinction was the logo on the product. If it's not the exact same product, it shouldn't be able to bear their logo. Judges deciding that it doesn't matter because users will never see the logo are missing the point, imo. It only opens the door to all kinds of 3rd party parts and repairs where it's not the exact same product but you're paying for it as if it is.