4 ms·

Apple's choice of "buggy behavior without notification" over interoperability of parts with a permanent "non-Apple part" notice is a clear signal of intent. Thi

Apple's choice of "buggy behavior without notification" over interoperability of parts with a permanent "non-Apple part" notice is a clear signal of intent. This is not a security issue - this is locking out 3rd party repair in a way that sows doubt in people who attempt these repairs (with "buggy" behavior present after replacement).

buildbot 6y ago
I feel like it’s exactly the opposite - buggy behavior is very anti apple, having a phone say “this part is unauthorized” is very clear and tells you that apple is invalidating 3rd party repairs, vs adding something that requires tuning/training via a software tool and fails sorta later. I feel like locking out 3rd party camera repairs via buggy behaviors is very...roundabout.
- OrwellianChild 6y ago
  I think we agree on the optics. I conclude that this is underhanded on Apple's part.
bitwize 6y ago
If you had a pirated copy of Autodesk 3D Studio (before MAX, for DOS), everything would work and appear normal. But eventually, the geometry of your models would become corrupted -- subtly at first, then with continued use each model would become a spiky mess, like a fruit fly with an unfortunate hedgehog gene mutation. IHVs and ISVs can have subtle ways of punishing you for using their products in a manner not explicitly authorized. If you do not like the terms, do not buy the product.
- deadbunny 6y ago
  How is pirating software and repairing a device you have purchased comparable?
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    evidently under this theory the important thing is what the company wants. on edit: /not supporting viewpoint, just identifying it.
  - madaxe_again 6y ago
    Because, legally, they are pretty similar - both are a breach of EULA, both are not an expected use. I would wager that in the not too distant future, legislation and social attitudes will view repairing damaged electronics as theft. Right to repair will ironically likely be the mechanism through which this happens - mfgs are using it to create closed ecosystems with no participants - see apples programme for independent repair shops getting “genuine” parts - it’s so onerous that unless something has changed, recently, they have literally not one taker, meaning every indy repair shop is now theoretically breaking the law. They just have to tighten the noose a little more, and it’s job done.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      It's not a breach of EULA if you never agreed to the EULA.
      - madaxe_again 6y ago
        Implied acceptance is sufficient for prosecution - there’s tort on this - and many EULAs define using the product as implicit acceptance of the terms.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        If you pirated it, you were never offered the EULA. There's no implied acceptance there. Otherwise you'd have a license and they'd be violating it to break the program!
    - roblabla 6y ago
      First, piracy is not a breach of EULA, it's copyright infringement, which are entirely different beasts. Second, breaching the EULA of a hardware product might be breaking the law in the US, but in the EU, hardware products cannot be bound by contracts. You buy a good, not a service, so no EULA can apply. I think even in the US, it depends on the state you're in... So, no, legally, they have almost nothing in common.

buildbot 6y ago

I feel like it’s exactly the opposite - buggy behavior is very anti apple, having a phone say “this part is unauthorized” is very clear and tells you that apple is invalidating 3rd party repairs, vs adding something that requires tuning/training via a software tool and fails sorta later. I feel like locking out 3rd party camera repairs via buggy behaviors is very...roundabout.

OrwellianChild 6y ago
I think we agree on the optics. I conclude that this is underhanded on Apple's part.

bitwize 6y ago

If you had a pirated copy of Autodesk 3D Studio (before MAX, for DOS), everything would work and appear normal. But eventually, the geometry of your models would become corrupted -- subtly at first, then with continued use each model would become a spiky mess, like a fruit fly with an unfortunate hedgehog gene mutation. IHVs and ISVs can have subtle ways of punishing you for using their products in a manner not explicitly authorized. If you do not like the terms, do not buy the product.

deadbunny 6y ago
How is pirating software and repairing a device you have purchased comparable?
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  evidently under this theory the important thing is what the company wants. on edit: /not supporting viewpoint, just identifying it.
- madaxe_again 6y ago
  Because, legally, they are pretty similar - both are a breach of EULA, both are not an expected use. I would wager that in the not too distant future, legislation and social attitudes will view repairing damaged electronics as theft. Right to repair will ironically likely be the mechanism through which this happens - mfgs are using it to create closed ecosystems with no participants - see apples programme for independent repair shops getting “genuine” parts - it’s so onerous that unless something has changed, recently, they have literally not one taker, meaning every indy repair shop is now theoretically breaking the law. They just have to tighten the noose a little more, and it’s job done.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    It's not a breach of EULA if you never agreed to the EULA.
    - madaxe_again 6y ago
      Implied acceptance is sufficient for prosecution - there’s tort on this - and many EULAs define using the product as implicit acceptance of the terms.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        If you pirated it, you were never offered the EULA. There's no implied acceptance there. Otherwise you'd have a license and they'd be violating it to break the program!
  - roblabla 6y ago
    First, piracy is not a breach of EULA, it's copyright infringement, which are entirely different beasts. Second, breaching the EULA of a hardware product might be breaking the law in the US, but in the EU, hardware products cannot be bound by contracts. You buy a good, not a service, so no EULA can apply. I think even in the US, it depends on the state you're in... So, no, legally, they have almost nothing in common.