6 ms·

The issue here is that you cannot buy spare parts from apple, imagine if it was the same for cars and you could only go to s main dealer to replace a windscreen

The issue here is that you cannot buy spare parts from apple, imagine if it was the same for cars and you could only go to s main dealer to replace a windscreen and if you got a guy in a van to replace it with one from a car no longer in use that guy gets sued. Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory, especially for high value and high environmental impact items like the iphone.

saagarjha 6y ago
Can't you get just your iPhone screen repaired?
- procinct 6y ago
  I don't think so these days. I remember a little while ago, an update was pushed that bricked any phones with a third party screen (which I think included the finger print reader). The update was patched I believe but replacing the screen on a modern iPhone isn't as simple as replacing the glass anymore IIRC.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I think the Touch ID assembly is considered part of the screen.
  - jotm 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc back glass replacement... ridiculous. The aluminum iPhones (and other phones) were so beautiful. I have an old HTC M8 and it just looks and feels so nice compared to all glass Samsungs. Plus the front facing stereo speakers - truly practical.
    - theshrike79 6y ago
      Glass backs are a requirement for wireless charging, it doesn't go so well with metal.
  - jamesgeck0 6y ago
    IIRC anything with the fingerprint reader gets complicated because of the signing keys Apple uses to help protect the device against unlocking attacks.
    - Brian_K_White 6y ago
      There is nothing complicated about simply not having a fingerprint option. If the main machine knows it cannot trust the fingerprint secure enclave, then there is nothing complicated at all about simply, not trusting it. The user simply has to unlock the phone with a pin or pattern etc. This does not, in anybway, require bricking the device. That is simply a deliberate and hostile act of aggression against the user.
      - theshrike79 6y ago
        Yes, but how does the phone know the TouchID sensor has been switched by a Good Guy and not an attacker? Security has drawbacks.
        heretoo 6y ago
        > Security has drawbacks. Not really an argument for saying an implementation isn't possible.
itake 6y ago
I don't think this is correct. They weren't re-using official apple parts, they were ordering fake parts directly from the manufactures. We know they are fake, because Apple would never allow their factories to re-sell extra parts to 3rd parties.
- jethro_tell 6y ago
  That's the point, if you won't produce parts to the public, you shouldn't have ground to sue people for using after market parts.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Then you need to go after Apple in that way. That's a more powerful case than what happened here.
- amscanne 6y ago
  Same difference. Apple won't sell the parts, and won't allow manufacturers to make & sell the parts either. So manufacturers do it anyways, and sell them in the grey market. I wound up with these parts myself after trying to buy a high-quality replacement display for an old phone (complete with blacked-out Apple logo). There is no legal alternative. They're not "fake" parts, but the parts aren't supposed to exist. (Seems like that issue would be between Apple and the manufacturer, but I digress.) What good is a right to repair if the major companies can just make it illegal in practice?
- ljm 6y ago
  They're not exactly fake if they come from the same manufacturer. Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute and the flow of electricity gives no shit about that. I mean, even the use of the word 'fake' here is questionable. A replacement considered fake is not expected to work the same way the legit version does. It stubs that functionality out or makes it worse. If the chip does the same work and performs the same way it's not a fake, it's an alternative or a competitor. And if Apple are short-changing their Chinese sweatshops to produce these chips (and they absolutely are), then it's no surprise they try to seek a profit in the grey market.
golergka 6y ago
> Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory I find the situation where the state dictates private companies what to sell much more ludicrous. To clarify, I don't think that it's a good practice, and it's one of the reasons I don't buy iPhones anymore. But as I would vote against company doing this idiotic thing with my wallet, I would still defend it's legal right to do that idiotic thing. It's not the government place nor responsibility to solve such trivial problems, especially with products on very competitive markets that are almost a luxury item and in no way a basic neccessity. Consumers can figure it out on their own.
- jethro_tell 6y ago
  I disagree, the government shouldn't require apple to produce parts, but their ability to sue should also be reduced if they don't produce spare parts.
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    I think consumer protections should provide nice long warranty periods that ensure you get what you paid for. Phones are designed to be held in your hands, and hands occasionally drop things, so phones should be designed to withstand being dropped. You should be able to get a warranty replacement / repair for your phone if you drop it. We would have stronger phones that last longer, and produce less waste.
    - em-bee 6y ago
      i think the european union now has a warranty period of one or two years on electronics
  - golergka 6y ago
    That's taking away somebody's property, justifying it by misuse. Which means that it wasn't really property in full sense of a word in the first place.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
kin 6y ago
Apple absolutely needs to make their official spare parts accessible. I was in a situation where my phone somehow had the water detection strip turn red on a 6S (before waterproof). It was working fine, I just wanted to get my screen replaced officially at the Apple store. No luck. They have a policy where they won't replace screens if there has been signs of water damage. I'm forced to go with 3rd party screens. I haven't been able to find a repair shop that uses screens that feel as good as the original.
- frogpelt 6y ago
  So lets say Apple put up a store of spare parts and they charge $399 for a replacement screen. How does that look?
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    IMO, charging as much as a new iPhone SE for just the screen doesn't fit the definition of "making their parts accessible". :)
    - theshrike79 6y ago
      Have you seen the markup on car spare parts? If you want to build a normal German family sedan from just the spare parts, you'll be paying 20x the cost of a full car easily. Not even speaking of the skullduggery the VAG consortium is doing, they use the exact same parts for a large portion of their cars, just with different serial numbers. A widget for Premium Car costs 1000, the EXACT SAME WIDGET for Budget Car costs 100. You just need to know the magic number or have a friendly salesperson behind the counter.
      - kakwa_ 6y ago
        There are abuses. But for cars, even with the insane markups, having car parts is still a win, specially compared to tech devices like iphones. Also, cars are 1) a bit more complex 2) a bit more granular in design, which leads to more swappable components. This result in needing to replace just a few relatively small components in case of breakdowns (a pump, a filter, etc), and even with the markup, repair is often a good solution financially vs replacing the car. By contrast, on a phone, the individually swappable components are much bigger (a whole screen, a logic board, etc), making repairs less viable. Last point is supplying spare parts is also quite complex logistically, which explains part of the markup. But not all of it, I agree, there has been numerous cases of price fixing/abuses, for example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-software-pricing-insight/software-and-stealth-how-carmakers-hike-spare-parts-prices-idUSKCN1IZ07L https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-software-pricing-in...
tcbawo 6y ago
I believe that car manufacturers in the US are required by law to produce spare parts for 10 years after a model rolls off the assembly line. A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? Maybe the FCC could be setting those guidelines for mobile phones.
- zapnuk 6y ago
  > A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? Doesn't matter. Just draw it and adjust it later on. At some point environmentalism is more important than profits and some reasonable support timespan of ~3-8 years is fairly obvious.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? I dunno, how about we start with 10 years?
- ginko 6y ago
  > A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? Does there need to be a line? Arguably small custom electronics manufacturers may not be able to do that, but surely something similar would apply to custom car makers. Arguably small electronics manufacturers would have an easier job fulfilling this since they usually use off-the-shelf parts anyways.
  - greedo 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure that Apple doesn't just use off the shelf parts in the iPhone etc.
    - Brian_K_White 6y ago
      "but then where do you draw the line?" wasn't asked out of concern for Apple or anyone like Apple. They obviously can afford to make their parts available. You can't draw a line anywhere that would be unsustainable for them. The question was asked out of worry that some agressive rule targeted at a big guy, might have unintended consequences that hurt the little guys. To which question I agree with "doesn't matter, draw it anywhere and adjust as needed" because there are easily identifiable reasonable ranges, and not knowing the final perfect answer is not a good enough excuse for not doing anything at all, and what we have now is already worse than a line that was drawn a bit off the mark. Waht we have now is a defacto line drawn 100% off the MAP.
birdyrooster 6y ago
Except you and other third parties can https://support.apple.com/irp-program https://support.apple.com/irp-program

saagarjha 6y ago

Can't you get just your iPhone screen repaired?

procinct 6y ago
I don't think so these days. I remember a little while ago, an update was pushed that bricked any phones with a third party screen (which I think included the finger print reader). The update was patched I believe but replacing the screen on a modern iPhone isn't as simple as replacing the glass anymore IIRC.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I think the Touch ID assembly is considered part of the screen.
- jotm 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc back glass replacement... ridiculous. The aluminum iPhones (and other phones) were so beautiful. I have an old HTC M8 and it just looks and feels so nice compared to all glass Samsungs. Plus the front facing stereo speakers - truly practical.
  - theshrike79 6y ago
    Glass backs are a requirement for wireless charging, it doesn't go so well with metal.
- jamesgeck0 6y ago
  IIRC anything with the fingerprint reader gets complicated because of the signing keys Apple uses to help protect the device against unlocking attacks.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    There is nothing complicated about simply not having a fingerprint option. If the main machine knows it cannot trust the fingerprint secure enclave, then there is nothing complicated at all about simply, not trusting it. The user simply has to unlock the phone with a pin or pattern etc. This does not, in anybway, require bricking the device. That is simply a deliberate and hostile act of aggression against the user.
    - theshrike79 6y ago
      Yes, but how does the phone know the TouchID sensor has been switched by a Good Guy and not an attacker? Security has drawbacks.
      - heretoo 6y ago
        > Security has drawbacks. Not really an argument for saying an implementation isn't possible.

itake 6y ago

I don't think this is correct. They weren't re-using official apple parts, they were ordering fake parts directly from the manufactures. We know they are fake, because Apple would never allow their factories to re-sell extra parts to 3rd parties.

jethro_tell 6y ago
That's the point, if you won't produce parts to the public, you shouldn't have ground to sue people for using after market parts.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Then you need to go after Apple in that way. That's a more powerful case than what happened here.
amscanne 6y ago
Same difference. Apple won't sell the parts, and won't allow manufacturers to make & sell the parts either. So manufacturers do it anyways, and sell them in the grey market. I wound up with these parts myself after trying to buy a high-quality replacement display for an old phone (complete with blacked-out Apple logo). There is no legal alternative. They're not "fake" parts, but the parts aren't supposed to exist. (Seems like that issue would be between Apple and the manufacturer, but I digress.) What good is a right to repair if the major companies can just make it illegal in practice?
ljm 6y ago
They're not exactly fake if they come from the same manufacturer. Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute and the flow of electricity gives no shit about that. I mean, even the use of the word 'fake' here is questionable. A replacement considered fake is not expected to work the same way the legit version does. It stubs that functionality out or makes it worse. If the chip does the same work and performs the same way it's not a fake, it's an alternative or a competitor. And if Apple are short-changing their Chinese sweatshops to produce these chips (and they absolutely are), then it's no surprise they try to seek a profit in the grey market.

golergka 6y ago

> Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory I find the situation where the state dictates private companies what to sell much more ludicrous. To clarify, I don't think that it's a good practice, and it's one of the reasons I don't buy iPhones anymore. But as I would vote against company doing this idiotic thing with my wallet, I would still defend it's legal right to do that idiotic thing. It's not the government place nor responsibility to solve such trivial problems, especially with products on very competitive markets that are almost a luxury item and in no way a basic neccessity. Consumers can figure it out on their own.

jethro_tell 6y ago
I disagree, the government shouldn't require apple to produce parts, but their ability to sue should also be reduced if they don't produce spare parts.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  I think consumer protections should provide nice long warranty periods that ensure you get what you paid for. Phones are designed to be held in your hands, and hands occasionally drop things, so phones should be designed to withstand being dropped. You should be able to get a warranty replacement / repair for your phone if you drop it. We would have stronger phones that last longer, and produce less waste.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    i think the european union now has a warranty period of one or two years on electronics
- golergka 6y ago
  That's taking away somebody's property, justifying it by misuse. Which means that it wasn't really property in full sense of a word in the first place.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago

kin 6y ago

Apple absolutely needs to make their official spare parts accessible. I was in a situation where my phone somehow had the water detection strip turn red on a 6S (before waterproof). It was working fine, I just wanted to get my screen replaced officially at the Apple store. No luck. They have a policy where they won't replace screens if there has been signs of water damage. I'm forced to go with 3rd party screens. I haven't been able to find a repair shop that uses screens that feel as good as the original.

frogpelt 6y ago
So lets say Apple put up a store of spare parts and they charge $399 for a replacement screen. How does that look?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  IMO, charging as much as a new iPhone SE for just the screen doesn't fit the definition of "making their parts accessible". :)
  - theshrike79 6y ago
    Have you seen the markup on car spare parts? If you want to build a normal German family sedan from just the spare parts, you'll be paying 20x the cost of a full car easily. Not even speaking of the skullduggery the VAG consortium is doing, they use the exact same parts for a large portion of their cars, just with different serial numbers. A widget for Premium Car costs 1000, the EXACT SAME WIDGET for Budget Car costs 100. You just need to know the magic number or have a friendly salesperson behind the counter.
    - kakwa_ 6y ago
      There are abuses. But for cars, even with the insane markups, having car parts is still a win, specially compared to tech devices like iphones. Also, cars are 1) a bit more complex 2) a bit more granular in design, which leads to more swappable components. This result in needing to replace just a few relatively small components in case of breakdowns (a pump, a filter, etc), and even with the markup, repair is often a good solution financially vs replacing the car. By contrast, on a phone, the individually swappable components are much bigger (a whole screen, a logic board, etc), making repairs less viable. Last point is supplying spare parts is also quite complex logistically, which explains part of the markup. But not all of it, I agree, there has been numerous cases of price fixing/abuses, for example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-software-pricing-insight/software-and-stealth-how-carmakers-hike-spare-parts-prices-idUSKCN1IZ07L https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-software-pricing-in...

tcbawo 6y ago

I believe that car manufacturers in the US are required by law to produce spare parts for 10 years after a model rolls off the assembly line. A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? Maybe the FCC could be setting those guidelines for mobile phones.

zapnuk 6y ago
> A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? Doesn't matter. Just draw it and adjust it later on. At some point environmentalism is more important than profits and some reasonable support timespan of ~3-8 years is fairly obvious.
erichocean 6y ago
> A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? I dunno, how about we start with 10 years?
ginko 6y ago
> A similar law for electronics would be useful, but where do you draw the line? Does there need to be a line? Arguably small custom electronics manufacturers may not be able to do that, but surely something similar would apply to custom car makers. Arguably small electronics manufacturers would have an easier job fulfilling this since they usually use off-the-shelf parts anyways.
- greedo 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure that Apple doesn't just use off the shelf parts in the iPhone etc.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    "but then where do you draw the line?" wasn't asked out of concern for Apple or anyone like Apple. They obviously can afford to make their parts available. You can't draw a line anywhere that would be unsustainable for them. The question was asked out of worry that some agressive rule targeted at a big guy, might have unintended consequences that hurt the little guys. To which question I agree with "doesn't matter, draw it anywhere and adjust as needed" because there are easily identifiable reasonable ranges, and not knowing the final perfect answer is not a good enough excuse for not doing anything at all, and what we have now is already worse than a line that was drawn a bit off the mark. Waht we have now is a defacto line drawn 100% off the MAP.

birdyrooster 6y ago

Except you and other third parties can https://support.apple.com/irp-program https://support.apple.com/irp-program