7 ms·

They already work this way. If you swap almost any part on the iphone it either refuses to work or shows a warning about a unofficial part. My suggestion is sim

They already work this way. If you swap almost any part on the iphone it either refuses to work or shows a warning about a unofficial part. My suggestion is simply to make this functionality only target stolen parts instead of just refusing to work at all if the apple store hasn't used their software to bless the new serial number.

simion314 6y ago
Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want their thing repaired will not be "tricked".
- zepto 6y ago
  > Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. For a lot of people, this is a feature, not a bug. It prevents repair shops using substandard components, or even replacing good components with cheaper ones and then re-selling them. Edit: another much more serious issue, is security. 3rd party components are an obvious target for supply chain attacks.
  - simion314 6y ago
    That is also the risk with computers and cars, there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of people that would like to repair the car then buy a new one each year, or even the rich guys that buy a new car yearly they would like to be able to sell the old car and you can't sell an old car if it does not run because it needs a new memory stick in the main computer and the main computer costs 50% of the car.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of people that would like to repair the car then buy a new one each year, This isn’t a valid comparison - nobody is forced to buy a new car or phone every year. I strongly doubt you are right about the numbers in general. Very few people want to risk fraudulent parts. But, I do agree that at some point the user should be able to unlock the DRM and take their own risks. E.g. at the end of the manufacturers support of the software.
      - simion314 6y ago
        Sorry I do not understand your point, nobody is forced to buy a phone or car each year, the difference is that I can change the lights on my car with an "unofficial" part if I want without Ford complaining that I am a pirate and trying to void my engine warranty. I have all the possible options with my car: - go to a Ford shop and have them do it for me - go to a reputable website and browse all compatible parts and decide if I want something more e pensive or something more cheap - when I have the part I can install it myself, a friend or a professional that is not a "Ford" genius. Ford would love to force me to buy only from them parts, oils, fuel and only repair or do maintenance on their shops but fortunately they can't force us. (but you have the choice to use only Ford blessed products and people). For stolen cars there are serial numbers printed on the car engine and body parts to make it more difficult for thieves but sure it still happens and I am for doing more to prevent crime and finding the criminals but doing exactly what Ford would like and is bad for society and environment is clearly a bad thing IMO.
        zepto 6y ago
        We aren’t talking about cars. As I said earlier, they aren’t a valid comparison. Computers and cars are quite different in their components, and life cycle.
        simion314 6y ago
        I disagree. But let me know how do you define the line where this electronics should be repairable and the other ones should be DRM locked.
  - patmcc 6y ago
    Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts at reasonable prices. You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-off.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts at reasonable prices. Is there any product you wouldn’t want to apply price controls to, or force people to make? How are you singling out one company? > You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-off. This makes no sense. Knocks offs are cheaper because they didn’t invest in R&D, don’t have to be in compliance with global regulations, can make use of lower standard parts, and don’t have Apple’s warranty. Their suppliers also have zero interest in protecting you from supply chain attacks.
      - patmcc 6y ago
        In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender, and the top one people think of - that's the reason I was singling them out. And no, I don't think we should force a company to sell a product for a particular price, or keep making it - unless they don't allow generic parts to work in their devices. That's my suggestion - Apple can give consumers the "right to repair" (and compete on all those features you mention with their first-party parts) or they can suffer the penalties (which is my suggestion for a company unwilling to allow repairs of their devices). Think of it in terms of cars - if you bought a Honda car, would it be acceptable for it to not start if you put the "wrong brand" of tires on it?
        zepto 6y ago
        > In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender Not really. > Think of it in terms of cars - Computers are really not like cars... > if you bought a Honda car, would it be acceptable for it to not start if you put the "wrong brand" of tires on it? ...If tires were vulnerable to supply chain attacks, then not only would it be acceptable, some customers would demand it.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Because a source of parts is devices that are stolen and stripped for the parts. The parts are then laundered so you think your source is legal. By putting a serial number on each part it means you go after the supplier who you otherwise thought was honest and so this whole scheme shuts down.
  - simion314 6y ago
    I understand the issue with the stolen parts, cars also can have similar issues and we still can buy after market parts. I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also financial extremely favorable to Apple or is just FUD and PR.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Most car parts are not coded. However some of the important ones are, and that enough enough to slow down the steal car for parts scheme.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also financial extremely favorable to Apple As a metric, this is a useless gauge of what Apple does. Their whole aim is to do things that benefit customers, and profit from it.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Well maybe i should not be allowed to buy used shoes, what if they are stolen? Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts?
    - zepto 6y ago
      > Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts? It isn’t. Apple’s products are designed to help consumers avoid the problems associated with stolen parts, including the very real threat of supply chain attacks. You always have the right not to choose that design. You seem to want to prevent other people from choosing it, which seems odd to me.

simion314 6y ago

Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want their thing repaired will not be "tricked".

zepto 6y ago
> Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. For a lot of people, this is a feature, not a bug. It prevents repair shops using substandard components, or even replacing good components with cheaper ones and then re-selling them. Edit: another much more serious issue, is security. 3rd party components are an obvious target for supply chain attacks.
- simion314 6y ago
  That is also the risk with computers and cars, there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of people that would like to repair the car then buy a new one each year, or even the rich guys that buy a new car yearly they would like to be able to sell the old car and you can't sell an old car if it does not run because it needs a new memory stick in the main computer and the main computer costs 50% of the car.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of people that would like to repair the car then buy a new one each year, This isn’t a valid comparison - nobody is forced to buy a new car or phone every year. I strongly doubt you are right about the numbers in general. Very few people want to risk fraudulent parts. But, I do agree that at some point the user should be able to unlock the DRM and take their own risks. E.g. at the end of the manufacturers support of the software.
    - simion314 6y ago
      Sorry I do not understand your point, nobody is forced to buy a phone or car each year, the difference is that I can change the lights on my car with an "unofficial" part if I want without Ford complaining that I am a pirate and trying to void my engine warranty. I have all the possible options with my car: - go to a Ford shop and have them do it for me - go to a reputable website and browse all compatible parts and decide if I want something more e pensive or something more cheap - when I have the part I can install it myself, a friend or a professional that is not a "Ford" genius. Ford would love to force me to buy only from them parts, oils, fuel and only repair or do maintenance on their shops but fortunately they can't force us. (but you have the choice to use only Ford blessed products and people). For stolen cars there are serial numbers printed on the car engine and body parts to make it more difficult for thieves but sure it still happens and I am for doing more to prevent crime and finding the criminals but doing exactly what Ford would like and is bad for society and environment is clearly a bad thing IMO.
      - zepto 6y ago
        We aren’t talking about cars. As I said earlier, they aren’t a valid comparison. Computers and cars are quite different in their components, and life cycle.
        simion314 6y ago
        I disagree. But let me know how do you define the line where this electronics should be repairable and the other ones should be DRM locked.
- patmcc 6y ago
  Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts at reasonable prices. You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-off.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts at reasonable prices. Is there any product you wouldn’t want to apply price controls to, or force people to make? How are you singling out one company? > You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-off. This makes no sense. Knocks offs are cheaper because they didn’t invest in R&D, don’t have to be in compliance with global regulations, can make use of lower standard parts, and don’t have Apple’s warranty. Their suppliers also have zero interest in protecting you from supply chain attacks.
    - patmcc 6y ago
      In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender, and the top one people think of - that's the reason I was singling them out. And no, I don't think we should force a company to sell a product for a particular price, or keep making it - unless they don't allow generic parts to work in their devices. That's my suggestion - Apple can give consumers the "right to repair" (and compete on all those features you mention with their first-party parts) or they can suffer the penalties (which is my suggestion for a company unwilling to allow repairs of their devices). Think of it in terms of cars - if you bought a Honda car, would it be acceptable for it to not start if you put the "wrong brand" of tires on it?
      - zepto 6y ago
        > In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender Not really. > Think of it in terms of cars - Computers are really not like cars... > if you bought a Honda car, would it be acceptable for it to not start if you put the "wrong brand" of tires on it? ...If tires were vulnerable to supply chain attacks, then not only would it be acceptable, some customers would demand it.
bluGill 6y ago
Because a source of parts is devices that are stolen and stripped for the parts. The parts are then laundered so you think your source is legal. By putting a serial number on each part it means you go after the supplier who you otherwise thought was honest and so this whole scheme shuts down.
- simion314 6y ago
  I understand the issue with the stolen parts, cars also can have similar issues and we still can buy after market parts. I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also financial extremely favorable to Apple or is just FUD and PR.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Most car parts are not coded. However some of the important ones are, and that enough enough to slow down the steal car for parts scheme.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also financial extremely favorable to Apple As a metric, this is a useless gauge of what Apple does. Their whole aim is to do things that benefit customers, and profit from it.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Well maybe i should not be allowed to buy used shoes, what if they are stolen? Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts?
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts? It isn’t. Apple’s products are designed to help consumers avoid the problems associated with stolen parts, including the very real threat of supply chain attacks. You always have the right not to choose that design. You seem to want to prevent other people from choosing it, which seems odd to me.