5 ms·

These were counterfeit parts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ar2Gxw8mIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ar2Gxw8mIQ You may remember Louis Rossmann testifyi

These were counterfeit parts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ar2Gxw8mIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ar2Gxw8mIQ You may remember Louis Rossmann testifying in this case. To his credit, he published this video about the different ways he was wrong. Unfortunately, you probably didn't see the retraction bc the original testimony got 13x the views. Not through any fault of Louis, simply due to how things spread online.

ginko 6y ago
How is this different of someone fixing a brand name stereo amplifier by replacing the capacitors or op-amp with some other similarly specced parts?
- cheeze 6y ago
  These parts have Apple logos printed on them
  - caf 6y ago
    ..and if you fix a Bose amplifier then sell it, it's still going to have a Bose logo printed on it too.
fireattack 6y ago
I think Apple has grounds on this case. But is it "allowed" (by Apple or by law) at all, to manufacture/sell 3rd party parts of iPhone (I mean by not pretending to be genuine parts)? If not, and combined with the fact Apple don't sell their genuine parts to basically anybody, the situation still sounds ridiculous to customers at the end of the day. Edit: by the way, what's the legal status of reclycled parts from genuine iPhones?
jessriedel 6y ago
Can you summarize the video, or give a link to text? It's not a great medium for citing in a discussion. As the article describes it, the parts are only counterfeit in the sense that an original Apple part was broken, re-furbished by a Chinese manufacturer (e.g., replacing a piece of glass), and then imported into Norway without having the Apple logos sufficiently scrubbed off. It would be reasonable to call these parts "counterfeit" if anyone was actually being deceived into thinking they were genuine new Apple parts. But if no one in the supply chain thinks they are genuine, it seems wrong to call this counterfeit, which implies deception. It's like saying monopoly money is "counterfeit".

ginko 6y ago

How is this different of someone fixing a brand name stereo amplifier by replacing the capacitors or op-amp with some other similarly specced parts?

cheeze 6y ago
These parts have Apple logos printed on them
- caf 6y ago
  ..and if you fix a Bose amplifier then sell it, it's still going to have a Bose logo printed on it too.

fireattack 6y ago

I think Apple has grounds on this case. But is it "allowed" (by Apple or by law) at all, to manufacture/sell 3rd party parts of iPhone (I mean by not pretending to be genuine parts)? If not, and combined with the fact Apple don't sell their genuine parts to basically anybody, the situation still sounds ridiculous to customers at the end of the day. Edit: by the way, what's the legal status of reclycled parts from genuine iPhones?

jessriedel 6y ago

Can you summarize the video, or give a link to text? It's not a great medium for citing in a discussion. As the article describes it, the parts are only counterfeit in the sense that an original Apple part was broken, re-furbished by a Chinese manufacturer (e.g., replacing a piece of glass), and then imported into Norway without having the Apple logos sufficiently scrubbed off. It would be reasonable to call these parts "counterfeit" if anyone was actually being deceived into thinking they were genuine new Apple parts. But if no one in the supply chain thinks they are genuine, it seems wrong to call this counterfeit, which implies deception. It's like saying monopoly money is "counterfeit".