5 ms·

Fixed batteries are nothing new, anti-tampering screws are nothing new, and trying to prevent more support cases by limiting the things customers can break is a

Fixed batteries are nothing new, anti-tampering screws are nothing new, and trying to prevent more support cases by limiting the things customers can break is also nothing new. What is new is the polarization over technology brands and people using arguments on things they pretty much know nothing about and have no experience with.

mattigames 8y ago
Nope, Apple does a lot of stuff specifically to make it so not even technicians (not customers directly) cannot repair an iphone.
- mattnewton 8y ago
  Disclaimer: ex apple engineer with apple stock still. The perspective inside for the rank and file was dominated by concern about hackers and stolen iPhones for the touchid security. Apple was trying to get people to trust their medical records and finances to the device (a massive market opportunity) and so took an extremely paranoid approach to how replaceable the hardware was, to prevent trivial exploits. The repairability market was small peanuts compared to that, and I genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones.
  - drb91 8y ago
    > genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones. Unfortunately this hasn’t resulted in a repairable iphone. Yet again corporate incentives and lack of moral ownership work against consumer interests.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    I'd be more willing to accept the security justifications for bad repair-ability if it didn't extend across their entire portfolio and to their authorized service providers. Why do AOSPs have to replace entire mainboards (CPU, memory and all) instead of individual components on the iMac?
    - oneplane 8y ago
      I'd guess because it's manufactured and tested as a whole module, and because time costs more than replacement hardware.
      - rtkwe 8y ago
        For Apple maybe but for the users it turns a same day job into several days as the AOSP waits for the part to come in.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    I think you and the decision-makers were entirely sincere, but good intentions can still result in market failures. As a side note it's baffling tome that a firm like Apple would go all in on touch ID given the numerous demonstrations in movies and TV of how that would likely be abused, many of which have made the jump from fiction to reality.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    "The repairability market was small peanuts compared to that, and I genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones." You've contradicted yourself a bit here. You said that Apple was willing to forgo repairability in order to chase a new market. So, while making the devices hard to repair wasn't the primary goal, it certainly was something they wanted to accomplish in order to service a goal that was more appealing to them -- so they did want the devices to be harder to service.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - oneplane 8y ago
      I don't think that's what he wrote, is sounds a lot more like that non-Apple repairability getting harder is simply a side product. Apple doesn't really win or lose much with the home repair market, and as mad as some people get over that, the numbers aren't lying.
      - JohnFen 8y ago
        "is sounds a lot more like that non-Apple repairability getting harder is simply a side product." Yes, that was what I understood. What I'm saying is that it's hard to assert that "no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service" when they've intentionally made the decision to make iPhones harder to service. Yes, making them harder to service was not the primary goal, but they chose to do it in order to achieve a different goal -- therefore they wanted iPhones to be harder to service.
hnbroseph 8y ago
i don't think an apple pr executive could have said it any better! it's a great strategy to spin bad behavior as nominally neutral things, or to divert with red herrings, so as to diffuse the application of ethical or moral considerations.
deogeo 8y ago
While the person you replied to emphasized how Apple supposedly pioneered those practices, I don't consider "not new" a good defense, even if factual (or a defense at all, really). And they are certainly worse than the competition in using those user-hostile anti-features.
ineedasername 8y ago
What is new is the polarization over technology brands I've survived the apple gigahertz gap, countless generations of console wars, seen usenet flamewars last for weeks, and any number of minor brand skirmishes & salvos. Polarization over tech brands is nothing new. "War never changes" [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vGpXPGFZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vGpXPGFZY
- oneplane 8y ago
  Well, that is of course correct. I guess I was simply thinking with YouTube and non-technical people screaming on the internet in mind, which is obviously not what techno-polarisation embodies.
anigbrowl 8y ago
anti-tampering screws are nothing new Can't agree with that. Being able to get into anything with a Philips screwdriver and then think through what I found inside was how I developed the hacker mentality way back in the 70s/80s, back when a pocket calculator had lots of discrete components and one chip. Repairability alone won't solve an environmental crisis, and of course as technology advances integration makes many repairs impossible, so bad luck if your SD card gets damaged. But being able to open things up is still valuable. A year or two back I called out a synthesizer manufacturer who was misrepresenting the technical capabilities of their expensive but software-incomplete product. If I hadn't developed the experience and confidence to find my way around unfamiliar circuit boards and how to read component markings I wouldn't have been able to do that.
- oneplane 8y ago
  Anti-tampering screws have been around a long time. I remember somewhere in the 90's being surprised to see triangle screws and clockwise-only screws (not sure what their name is) in kids toys. Not all of them did it, but I distinctly remember Siku (a german manufacturer?) and Matchbox doing this. In Apple's case; I don't think malice is why they do what they do, it's probably a byproduct of a much simpler reason. As posted above, security might be one. If a device is harder to take apart, it's also harder to tamper with. I personally think that this would only hold up to some degree as an attacker with enough resources could get in anyway, but perhaps the required resources are are a high enough level that common attacks are less feasible. Another thing that is a way bigger issue (in my hacker mindset) is when SMT/SMD became common, just like VLSI. You suddenly can no longer easily see how a circuit works, and repairing a few failed components on a PCB gets much harder for most people. Then again, the cost (in time or paid time) is also no longer reasonably to have someone else do it. Replacing hardware and the benefits that can come with that are often a better deal than a repair.
  - cr0sh 8y ago
    Nintendo had security screws on their cartridges for the NES, so that goes back to the mid-1980s. I'm sure there were other products and devices that did the same (probably in the industrial and commercial arenas), but for the general US consumer, security screws basically made their appearance with the home video game console "revolution" (post-Atari 2600).

mattigames 8y ago

Nope, Apple does a lot of stuff specifically to make it so not even technicians (not customers directly) cannot repair an iphone.

mattnewton 8y ago
Disclaimer: ex apple engineer with apple stock still. The perspective inside for the rank and file was dominated by concern about hackers and stolen iPhones for the touchid security. Apple was trying to get people to trust their medical records and finances to the device (a massive market opportunity) and so took an extremely paranoid approach to how replaceable the hardware was, to prevent trivial exploits. The repairability market was small peanuts compared to that, and I genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones.
- drb91 8y ago
  > genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones. Unfortunately this hasn’t resulted in a repairable iphone. Yet again corporate incentives and lack of moral ownership work against consumer interests.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  I'd be more willing to accept the security justifications for bad repair-ability if it didn't extend across their entire portfolio and to their authorized service providers. Why do AOSPs have to replace entire mainboards (CPU, memory and all) instead of individual components on the iMac?
  - oneplane 8y ago
    I'd guess because it's manufactured and tested as a whole module, and because time costs more than replacement hardware.
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      For Apple maybe but for the users it turns a same day job into several days as the AOSP waits for the part to come in.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  I think you and the decision-makers were entirely sincere, but good intentions can still result in market failures. As a side note it's baffling tome that a firm like Apple would go all in on touch ID given the numerous demonstrations in movies and TV of how that would likely be abused, many of which have made the jump from fiction to reality.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  "The repairability market was small peanuts compared to that, and I genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones." You've contradicted yourself a bit here. You said that Apple was willing to forgo repairability in order to chase a new market. So, while making the devices hard to repair wasn't the primary goal, it certainly was something they wanted to accomplish in order to service a goal that was more appealing to them -- so they did want the devices to be harder to service.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - oneplane 8y ago
    I don't think that's what he wrote, is sounds a lot more like that non-Apple repairability getting harder is simply a side product. Apple doesn't really win or lose much with the home repair market, and as mad as some people get over that, the numbers aren't lying.
    - JohnFen 8y ago
      "is sounds a lot more like that non-Apple repairability getting harder is simply a side product." Yes, that was what I understood. What I'm saying is that it's hard to assert that "no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service" when they've intentionally made the decision to make iPhones harder to service. Yes, making them harder to service was not the primary goal, but they chose to do it in order to achieve a different goal -- therefore they wanted iPhones to be harder to service.

hnbroseph 8y ago

i don't think an apple pr executive could have said it any better! it's a great strategy to spin bad behavior as nominally neutral things, or to divert with red herrings, so as to diffuse the application of ethical or moral considerations.

deogeo 8y ago

While the person you replied to emphasized how Apple supposedly pioneered those practices, I don't consider "not new" a good defense, even if factual (or a defense at all, really). And they are certainly worse than the competition in using those user-hostile anti-features.

ineedasername 8y ago

What is new is the polarization over technology brands I've survived the apple gigahertz gap, countless generations of console wars, seen usenet flamewars last for weeks, and any number of minor brand skirmishes & salvos. Polarization over tech brands is nothing new. "War never changes" [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vGpXPGFZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vGpXPGFZY

oneplane 8y ago
Well, that is of course correct. I guess I was simply thinking with YouTube and non-technical people screaming on the internet in mind, which is obviously not what techno-polarisation embodies.

anigbrowl 8y ago

anti-tampering screws are nothing new Can't agree with that. Being able to get into anything with a Philips screwdriver and then think through what I found inside was how I developed the hacker mentality way back in the 70s/80s, back when a pocket calculator had lots of discrete components and one chip. Repairability alone won't solve an environmental crisis, and of course as technology advances integration makes many repairs impossible, so bad luck if your SD card gets damaged. But being able to open things up is still valuable. A year or two back I called out a synthesizer manufacturer who was misrepresenting the technical capabilities of their expensive but software-incomplete product. If I hadn't developed the experience and confidence to find my way around unfamiliar circuit boards and how to read component markings I wouldn't have been able to do that.

oneplane 8y ago
Anti-tampering screws have been around a long time. I remember somewhere in the 90's being surprised to see triangle screws and clockwise-only screws (not sure what their name is) in kids toys. Not all of them did it, but I distinctly remember Siku (a german manufacturer?) and Matchbox doing this. In Apple's case; I don't think malice is why they do what they do, it's probably a byproduct of a much simpler reason. As posted above, security might be one. If a device is harder to take apart, it's also harder to tamper with. I personally think that this would only hold up to some degree as an attacker with enough resources could get in anyway, but perhaps the required resources are are a high enough level that common attacks are less feasible. Another thing that is a way bigger issue (in my hacker mindset) is when SMT/SMD became common, just like VLSI. You suddenly can no longer easily see how a circuit works, and repairing a few failed components on a PCB gets much harder for most people. Then again, the cost (in time or paid time) is also no longer reasonably to have someone else do it. Replacing hardware and the benefits that can come with that are often a better deal than a repair.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  Nintendo had security screws on their cartridges for the NES, so that goes back to the mid-1980s. I'm sure there were other products and devices that did the same (probably in the industrial and commercial arenas), but for the general US consumer, security screws basically made their appearance with the home video game console "revolution" (post-Atari 2600).