4 ms·

> without any kind of guidance or oversight of the repairs made using the parts that they would be forced to provide I may have missed calls to force Apple to

> without any kind of guidance or oversight of the repairs made using the parts that they would be forced to provide I may have missed calls to force Apple to sell parts. Is that actually happening? In any case, aftermarket parts exist, but Apple is intentionally annoying users with persistent messaging in their product and intentionally making their devices difficult to repair. Further, Apple often replaces devices instead of repairing. Difficult repair in not incidental to their design; they're doing it on purpose. And I wouldn't expect Apple to have oversight of an unaffiliated company. It's not their business to play regulator.

dpkonofa 7y ago
Apple replaces devices and then takes the old devices, disassembles them, and checks each component for issues individually. They take each phone about and literally have buckets of these components that they test. Those that pass inspection get turned back into the remanufactured assembly line where older out of warranty phones go. It's not like they're just dumping these devices that they're replacing. It's just easier to replace an entire device and then have trained pros deal with testing and repairing the components than it does to have customers wait for someone at the Genius Bar, who probably couldn't do it anyways. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, most people aren't Louis Rossman. Most people don't know how to do those kinds of repairs. And yes, part of the bills that are being considered for a lot of these Right to Repair laws include regulations that would require Apple to sell OEM parts to third-party repair centers and that they would have to provide service manuals to them, free of cost. Apple is ok with doing that as long as they get to certify the people who get the manual to their repair standards. They're not intentionally making the devices difficult to repair. Most of the complaints that people have about their reparability have to do with their small size or software locks that, in reality, are meant to protect people's data from unauthorized access. Error 53 that everyone loves to point out as an evil Apple move was actually a software lock to prevent someone from putting a false Touch ID sensor on the device that was collecting biometric data but still relaying the lock command to the phone. Apple's security chain in that regard worked exactly as intended. They didn't expect to ever see a legitimate use for a fake Touch ID sensor but it happened when people decided that losing Touch ID was worth getting their screen repaired cheaper.
- labawi 7y ago
  It is plausible Error 53 check is to prevent tampering with Touch ID, it may even be a design good for security, but AFAIK it tripped even if the sensor was replaced by another genuine sensor, hence the outrage.
  - ramses0 7y ago
    But it was tripped due to the loss of contact/difference with the touchid sensor (attached to screen) and motherboard (attached to battery). An interruption in connection, or a change in device identifier on either end is cause to require an “apple-authorized” reset, or discarding/ignoring any sensitive personally identifiable information (PII), of which fingerprints are definitely PII.
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    It's not the sensor. A security chain (any security chain) relies on the fact that each step of the chain is verified and trusted. Moving, removing, or replacing any part of that chain requires that the whole chain is re-verified for trust. That'd be like me and you being in a secret club with a secret handshake. We've been meeting at the same bar every week for years. All of sudden, your twin brother shows up one day and, as always, I go to do our secret handshake and he can't do it. He looks like you. He comes from the same parents. I have no reason to suspect that it's not you because "you" showed up just like you do every week. But I know something's not right because he doesn't know the handshake. It's the same thing with an iPhone. That's exactly how you know that it's not third-parties that Apple cares about and that they're not trying to actively prevent anything done by third parties. If that's all it was, an OEM Apple sensor would be fine. It's not, though, because it has nothing to do with third-party vs. first-party and everything to do with security.
- rasz 7y ago
  Nice fairy tale, in reality Apple sends stuff to CSAT Solutions, and they glue shoe rubber to BGA chips because its cheaper than reballing.

dpkonofa 7y ago

Apple replaces devices and then takes the old devices, disassembles them, and checks each component for issues individually. They take each phone about and literally have buckets of these components that they test. Those that pass inspection get turned back into the remanufactured assembly line where older out of warranty phones go. It's not like they're just dumping these devices that they're replacing. It's just easier to replace an entire device and then have trained pros deal with testing and repairing the components than it does to have customers wait for someone at the Genius Bar, who probably couldn't do it anyways. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, most people aren't Louis Rossman. Most people don't know how to do those kinds of repairs. And yes, part of the bills that are being considered for a lot of these Right to Repair laws include regulations that would require Apple to sell OEM parts to third-party repair centers and that they would have to provide service manuals to them, free of cost. Apple is ok with doing that as long as they get to certify the people who get the manual to their repair standards. They're not intentionally making the devices difficult to repair. Most of the complaints that people have about their reparability have to do with their small size or software locks that, in reality, are meant to protect people's data from unauthorized access. Error 53 that everyone loves to point out as an evil Apple move was actually a software lock to prevent someone from putting a false Touch ID sensor on the device that was collecting biometric data but still relaying the lock command to the phone. Apple's security chain in that regard worked exactly as intended. They didn't expect to ever see a legitimate use for a fake Touch ID sensor but it happened when people decided that losing Touch ID was worth getting their screen repaired cheaper.

labawi 7y ago
It is plausible Error 53 check is to prevent tampering with Touch ID, it may even be a design good for security, but AFAIK it tripped even if the sensor was replaced by another genuine sensor, hence the outrage.
- ramses0 7y ago
  But it was tripped due to the loss of contact/difference with the touchid sensor (attached to screen) and motherboard (attached to battery). An interruption in connection, or a change in device identifier on either end is cause to require an “apple-authorized” reset, or discarding/ignoring any sensitive personally identifiable information (PII), of which fingerprints are definitely PII.
- dpkonofa 7y ago
  It's not the sensor. A security chain (any security chain) relies on the fact that each step of the chain is verified and trusted. Moving, removing, or replacing any part of that chain requires that the whole chain is re-verified for trust. That'd be like me and you being in a secret club with a secret handshake. We've been meeting at the same bar every week for years. All of sudden, your twin brother shows up one day and, as always, I go to do our secret handshake and he can't do it. He looks like you. He comes from the same parents. I have no reason to suspect that it's not you because "you" showed up just like you do every week. But I know something's not right because he doesn't know the handshake. It's the same thing with an iPhone. That's exactly how you know that it's not third-parties that Apple cares about and that they're not trying to actively prevent anything done by third parties. If that's all it was, an OEM Apple sensor would be fine. It's not, though, because it has nothing to do with third-party vs. first-party and everything to do with security.
rasz 7y ago
Nice fairy tale, in reality Apple sends stuff to CSAT Solutions, and they glue shoe rubber to BGA chips because its cheaper than reballing.