4 ms·

And they don't. Apple does not, in any way, try to prevent people from using alternative means to fix those boxes. Please give any single example of them doing

And they don't. Apple does not, in any way, try to prevent people from using alternative means to fix those boxes. Please give any single example of them doing that. You can't because they don't.

aspenmayer 7y ago
DHS Seizes Aftermarket iPhone Screens From Prominent Right-to-Repair Advocate [1] Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost [2] [1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-screens-jessa-jones https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-... [2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-independent-iphone-repair-shop-owner-and-lost https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-inde... Edit: One more - Apple & Customs STOLE my batteries, that they won't even provide to AASPs https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw
- dpkonofa 7y ago
  Do you know anything about any of those cases you just linked? None of them show that Apple prevented someone from trying to get their device repaired. All 3 of them are copyright issues, not having anything to do with the repair of devices. 1. DHS seized the screens from Jessa because they came from China and beared Apple logos. Apple doesn't sell any display parts so their copyright extends to the parts that bear their logo. Apple wasn't involved in seizure in any way except for holding legal protections for their products and logo. The article linked even says that she bought them from "grey market" shops in China. 2. Apple did not lose the case. That's misrepresenting what happened. The lawsuit alleged that the repair shop owner was advertising using genuine OEM Apple parts. According to the archive.org archive of their site, this is true and the archive is still up so you can see it. The court did not rule in favor of the store, it dismissed the case because it determined that the logos that would mistakenly identify the parts as "genuine" Apple parts would be on the insides of the devices and not viewable by consumers once repairs are completed. They made this ruling under the directive that the shop owner had to stop advertising as using genuine OEM Apple parts and he has since removed that language from his site. Apple is appealing the dismissal because they believe that someone seeing the Apple logo may be convinced that the parts are genuine Apple parts when they have, in fact, been replaced with inferior parts including digitizers, glass, and displays. 3. This is the same situation as the first one and, of course, you're only proving my point by linking to a Louis Rossman video. Apple didn't steal his batteries. Customs seized them because they bear Apple's logo on them but aren't actually sourced from Apple. It's a copyright and trademark issue, not a RTR issue. The fact that you can't argue against what Apple's doing without wildly misrepresenting each of these cases is telling. If you actually read the bills being proposed, it should be obvious why they're not pro-consumer nor are they fair to companies like Apple. The main exception is John Deere who software locks all repairs and prevents machines that have been repaired by third parties from starting or being usable. Apple not only doesn't do that but they warn you when third-party components force them to disable components like Touch ID and Face ID which, in my mind, is very pro-consumer. I don't ever want there to be a chance where Touch ID or Face ID are considered genuine when there's no mechanism in place to verify that the hardware chain is still secure.
  - vinceguidry 7y ago
    Neither copyright nor trademark laws should apply if the parts are genuine Apple products. They seize without verifying.
    - dpkonofa 7y ago
      That's not true. DHS maintains a listing of what sources Apple's genuine products come from. If they don't match upon inspection, the items are seized. Please provide a source that shows that DHS seizes items without verifying. If they have Apple's logo on them and they're not Apple's, then they're counterfeit.
      - vinceguidry 7y ago
        If I yank a bunch of Apple batteries from Apple phones, those batteries are genuine. They have Apple part numbers, Apple design, Apple-approved manufacturing. The only thing different is that Apple didn't actually sell them. The entity selling the parts cannot be the sole determinant of their authenticity.
        dpkonofa 7y ago
        That's not what happened, though, and I have to assume that you know that if you've even taken a casual look at any of these situations. If you take those batteries and replace a few of their cells with an inferior third party product and package them up and sell them as "Apple batteries" with the logo and everything, you'd be lying and potentially harming Apple's brand. Apple's entire case against PCKompaniet stems from the fact that the company was refurbishing Apple displays with third-party glass and digitizers (that did not meet the original specs of their OEM parts) but was not removing the Apple logo and was advertising as using genuine Apple parts. The only reason the case was dismissed by the court was that the shop agreed to remove that language from their website and advertising and the court decided that the logo was a non-issue because, if a repair was completed with the part, the logos were on the inside of the device and the consumer never sees them. There's nothing on the outside of the part that identifies it as a genuine Apple product so, if there's no advertising suggesting that, there's nothing that would give the consumer the impression that it was a genuine Apple part. There's a huge difference between selling a part from a phone, batteries included, without modifying it. It's a whole different animal to make changes and then claim it's the same part.
aliveupstairs 7y ago
Recently, your iPhone would tell you that your perfect battery that was repaired independently has "bad health."
- dpkonofa 7y ago
  This was because the third party batteries didn't reset the calibration. They're literally missing a sensor that sends back the all-ok to the phone. Since Apple never intended on third-party batteries, they didn't program in that scenario. It was added in an update shortly after. You're acting like an oversight for a situation that shouldn't have happened was malicious. If third-party manufacturers had just put that sensor in the battery, it would've behaved the same way as an Apple battery.
  - rasz 7y ago
    > third party batteries it happens with original batteries taken from another iphone > literally missing a sensor no such thing, its missing a cryptographic handshake blessing. This is a repeat of class-action lawsuit 'Error 53'
    - dpkonofa 7y ago
      >its missing a cryptographic handshake blessing No it is not. Where the heck did you pull that out of? It's a micro-controller on the battery that's tied to the phone. The micro-controller only provides the sensor on the phone that measures battery health a connection on first power. If that's what you mean by cryptographic handshake blessing then fine. It doesn't matter if the battery is original or not. The point is that the phone can't verify the health of the battery if it's not the first time the battery has been connected to something. To provide information on the battery's health that is inaccurate could be dangerous.
      - rasz 7y ago
        > It doesn't matter if the battery is original or not but in your previous post "third party batteries ... literally missing a sensor". >The point is that the phone can't verify the health of the battery if it's not the first time the battery has been connected to something because its not crypto paired with Gas Gauge, yet somehow every laptop one the planet has zero problem reading cycle count on multiple batteries despite battery swaps. Do you have a family member working at Apple by any chance? :)

And they don't. Apple does not, in any way, try to prevent people from using alternative means to fix those boxes. Please give any single example of them doing that. You can't because they don't.

aspenmayer 7y ago

DHS Seizes Aftermarket iPhone Screens From Prominent Right-to-Repair Advocate [1] Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost [2] [1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-screens-jessa-jones https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-... [2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-independent-iphone-repair-shop-owner-and-lost https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3yadk/apple-sued-an-inde... Edit: One more - Apple & Customs STOLE my batteries, that they won't even provide to AASPs https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw https://youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw

dpkonofa 7y ago
Do you know anything about any of those cases you just linked? None of them show that Apple prevented someone from trying to get their device repaired. All 3 of them are copyright issues, not having anything to do with the repair of devices. 1. DHS seized the screens from Jessa because they came from China and beared Apple logos. Apple doesn't sell any display parts so their copyright extends to the parts that bear their logo. Apple wasn't involved in seizure in any way except for holding legal protections for their products and logo. The article linked even says that she bought them from "grey market" shops in China. 2. Apple did not lose the case. That's misrepresenting what happened. The lawsuit alleged that the repair shop owner was advertising using genuine OEM Apple parts. According to the archive.org archive of their site, this is true and the archive is still up so you can see it. The court did not rule in favor of the store, it dismissed the case because it determined that the logos that would mistakenly identify the parts as "genuine" Apple parts would be on the insides of the devices and not viewable by consumers once repairs are completed. They made this ruling under the directive that the shop owner had to stop advertising as using genuine OEM Apple parts and he has since removed that language from his site. Apple is appealing the dismissal because they believe that someone seeing the Apple logo may be convinced that the parts are genuine Apple parts when they have, in fact, been replaced with inferior parts including digitizers, glass, and displays. 3. This is the same situation as the first one and, of course, you're only proving my point by linking to a Louis Rossman video. Apple didn't steal his batteries. Customs seized them because they bear Apple's logo on them but aren't actually sourced from Apple. It's a copyright and trademark issue, not a RTR issue. The fact that you can't argue against what Apple's doing without wildly misrepresenting each of these cases is telling. If you actually read the bills being proposed, it should be obvious why they're not pro-consumer nor are they fair to companies like Apple. The main exception is John Deere who software locks all repairs and prevents machines that have been repaired by third parties from starting or being usable. Apple not only doesn't do that but they warn you when third-party components force them to disable components like Touch ID and Face ID which, in my mind, is very pro-consumer. I don't ever want there to be a chance where Touch ID or Face ID are considered genuine when there's no mechanism in place to verify that the hardware chain is still secure.
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  Neither copyright nor trademark laws should apply if the parts are genuine Apple products. They seize without verifying.
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    That's not true. DHS maintains a listing of what sources Apple's genuine products come from. If they don't match upon inspection, the items are seized. Please provide a source that shows that DHS seizes items without verifying. If they have Apple's logo on them and they're not Apple's, then they're counterfeit.
    - vinceguidry 7y ago
      If I yank a bunch of Apple batteries from Apple phones, those batteries are genuine. They have Apple part numbers, Apple design, Apple-approved manufacturing. The only thing different is that Apple didn't actually sell them. The entity selling the parts cannot be the sole determinant of their authenticity.
      - dpkonofa 7y ago
        That's not what happened, though, and I have to assume that you know that if you've even taken a casual look at any of these situations. If you take those batteries and replace a few of their cells with an inferior third party product and package them up and sell them as "Apple batteries" with the logo and everything, you'd be lying and potentially harming Apple's brand. Apple's entire case against PCKompaniet stems from the fact that the company was refurbishing Apple displays with third-party glass and digitizers (that did not meet the original specs of their OEM parts) but was not removing the Apple logo and was advertising as using genuine Apple parts. The only reason the case was dismissed by the court was that the shop agreed to remove that language from their website and advertising and the court decided that the logo was a non-issue because, if a repair was completed with the part, the logos were on the inside of the device and the consumer never sees them. There's nothing on the outside of the part that identifies it as a genuine Apple product so, if there's no advertising suggesting that, there's nothing that would give the consumer the impression that it was a genuine Apple part. There's a huge difference between selling a part from a phone, batteries included, without modifying it. It's a whole different animal to make changes and then claim it's the same part.

aliveupstairs 7y ago

Recently, your iPhone would tell you that your perfect battery that was repaired independently has "bad health."

dpkonofa 7y ago
This was because the third party batteries didn't reset the calibration. They're literally missing a sensor that sends back the all-ok to the phone. Since Apple never intended on third-party batteries, they didn't program in that scenario. It was added in an update shortly after. You're acting like an oversight for a situation that shouldn't have happened was malicious. If third-party manufacturers had just put that sensor in the battery, it would've behaved the same way as an Apple battery.
- rasz 7y ago
  > third party batteries it happens with original batteries taken from another iphone > literally missing a sensor no such thing, its missing a cryptographic handshake blessing. This is a repeat of class-action lawsuit 'Error 53'
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    >its missing a cryptographic handshake blessing No it is not. Where the heck did you pull that out of? It's a micro-controller on the battery that's tied to the phone. The micro-controller only provides the sensor on the phone that measures battery health a connection on first power. If that's what you mean by cryptographic handshake blessing then fine. It doesn't matter if the battery is original or not. The point is that the phone can't verify the health of the battery if it's not the first time the battery has been connected to something. To provide information on the battery's health that is inaccurate could be dangerous.
    - rasz 7y ago
      > It doesn't matter if the battery is original or not but in your previous post "third party batteries ... literally missing a sensor". >The point is that the phone can't verify the health of the battery if it's not the first time the battery has been connected to something because its not crypto paired with Gas Gauge, yet somehow every laptop one the planet has zero problem reading cycle count on multiple batteries despite battery swaps. Do you have a family member working at Apple by any chance? :)