5 ms·

> Apple devices weren't made difficult to repair because Apple actively despised repairers. IIRC the front panel uses DRM to stop unauthorized screen replaceme

> Apple devices weren't made difficult to repair because Apple actively despised repairers. IIRC the front panel uses DRM to stop unauthorized screen replacement.

threeseed 4y ago
Which is to make the device secure for users who are Apple's highest priority. It's amazing to me that developers, resellers etc seem to forget this.
- teitoklien 4y ago
  This is a bad excuse. 0.002% of our customers need security against sophisticated hackers who have the capability to hijack a repair service and replace it with a spying custom made iphone screen replacement. Let’s make screen repairs 5-7x more expensive for 100% of our customers ! That will get the hackers ! Yea, right.... If you’re that paranoid about your security, go to an authorized apple repair centre which doesn’t bother repairing the parts and just charges you to replace the entire circuitry. No one’s stopping you. Leave the rest of us, alone from this.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    My opinion of this dismissive attitude towards security, were I to express it with sufficient honesty, would probably get me banned from Hacker News. It is the hardware equivalent of “only people with something to hide need encryption”.
    - teitoklien 4y ago
      It is not. Encryption issue is about banning it altogether. This is about user choice in terms of repairability. This excuse is more to the equivalent of , we are banning all communication in plaintext or any encryption standard, except aes-256. Everyone has different requirements, choice and deserve the freedom. Companies dont get to excuse away freedom and choice, in the name of “security”.
      - simondotau 4y ago
        > Companies dont get to excuse away freedom and choice Companies don't owe you freedom and choice. If you don't like their product, if you don't like their concern for your freedom and choice, don't buy it.
        teitoklien 4y ago
        Now you’re just being defensive. We were critiquing a product, now you’re saying, companies dont owe us the right to criticise their product, and that we must move elsewhere instead of complaining. one second you’re saying “it’s for our benefit”, the next, you want us to stop using the product, because we aren’t “owed anything”.
        simondotau 4y ago
        When did I say that companies don’t owe you “the right to criticise their product”? I didn’t say that. Arguments with a dishonest interlocutor are frightfully boring. Reply as you see fit, but I’m closing this thread and not looking at it again.
    - kramerger 4y ago
      But this doesn't add any real security because it addresses a made up threat scenario. If people with that kind of resources are out to get you, they can simply lift your fingerprints from elsewhere. A transparent tape on the home button would probably be enough.
      - jquery 4y ago
        It makes my phone much less attractive to thieves would would strip it and resell the parts. Maybe that isn’t so important to you, but it’s a very practical concern for many people.
- _V_ 4y ago
  Please explain to me how pairing a screen, vibration motor and battery to the motherboard keeps me secure... I'd understand faceid (which is paired of course), sure. But not these. I really have a strong feeling that some folks have Stockholm syndrome or something.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    For the record, I don't think Apple does this entirely for security. I think they do it to stop the illegal distribution of items which leak from Apple's supply chain, as well as counterfeit goods sold as though equal in quality to Apple parts. (I know multiple people who have had non-genuine screen replacements and they've always been low quality fragile glass.) If someone tried to sell whole iPhones assembled entirely from parts leaked from Apple's supply chain, it ought to seem obvious to anyone that this is wrong. Why is the principle any different when it's not an entire iPhone?
    - _V_ 4y ago
      If they sold the parts outright with resonable pricing as any other manufacturer I don't think there would be any reason for supply chain leaks... Why would it be any different for Apple?
      - simondotau 4y ago
        I agree that spare parts should be more widely available, but I take issue with your broader assertion. Are you seriously arguing that when something is too expensive, theft is justified? Hmmm, I always wanted a Ferrari.
        _V_ 4y ago
        Wow that strawman is really quite poor. I really hope you can do better than that... If you want a Ferrari, go buy one. They have quite long waiting lists from what I've heard. edit: In order not to be completely off topic: Apple might have just the same problems with parts stolen from their suppliers but since every single iPhone needs to be activated, I'm very sure they would be able to catch "iPhones made entirely from stolen parts". So this is clearly not it. The fact that they don't sell anything will probably make this whole thing quite worse because if you could buy a genuine display for 250$ from Apple, why would you really buy from anyone else? That market would of course exist but it would be much much smaller. I would not expect them to sell motherboards or for exampe face id sensors without some kind of pairing. But batteries and LCDs? Come on! They are doing it just to stick it to anyone who wants to repair their device. Quite sad when you think about the origins of that company :-(
- bearmode 4y ago
  Why are you just taking Apple's claims at face value?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  "Security" is an excuse that Apple (and other anti-repair companies) love to use and it disappoints me to see people fall for it on a technical forum like this one. It is debatable whether the devices that are restricted have any security impact to begin with (the fingerprint or face recognition sensors should just be untrusted input devices with the actual comparison happening inside the secure element of the CPU - compromising this device wouldn't give you anything you don't already have), but either way, even if there was a security impact, you can always let the user choose by giving them the (per-device) keys to override said security.
restore_creole_ 4y ago
Or, to be generous, it is to prevent the use of stolen components? Foxconn workers reportedly stole US$43 million worth of iPhone parts to make new phones https://www.scmp.com/abacus/news-bites/article/3042987/foxconn-workers-reportedly-stole-us43-million-worth-iphone-parts https://www.scmp.com/abacus/news-bites/article/3042987/foxco...
jquery 4y ago
No, it’s to make stolen iPhones worthless.
- _V_ 4y ago
  Yeah, but it does not make it worthless at all... Even broken logic board is worth quite a lot so this argument is really more of a wishfull thinking than a reality.
  - jquery 4y ago
    ”worth less” then instead of worthless

> Apple devices weren't made difficult to repair because Apple actively despised repairers. IIRC the front panel uses DRM to stop unauthorized screen replacement.

threeseed 4y ago

Which is to make the device secure for users who are Apple's highest priority. It's amazing to me that developers, resellers etc seem to forget this.

teitoklien 4y ago
This is a bad excuse. 0.002% of our customers need security against sophisticated hackers who have the capability to hijack a repair service and replace it with a spying custom made iphone screen replacement. Let’s make screen repairs 5-7x more expensive for 100% of our customers ! That will get the hackers ! Yea, right.... If you’re that paranoid about your security, go to an authorized apple repair centre which doesn’t bother repairing the parts and just charges you to replace the entire circuitry. No one’s stopping you. Leave the rest of us, alone from this.
- simondotau 4y ago
  My opinion of this dismissive attitude towards security, were I to express it with sufficient honesty, would probably get me banned from Hacker News. It is the hardware equivalent of “only people with something to hide need encryption”.
  - teitoklien 4y ago
    It is not. Encryption issue is about banning it altogether. This is about user choice in terms of repairability. This excuse is more to the equivalent of , we are banning all communication in plaintext or any encryption standard, except aes-256. Everyone has different requirements, choice and deserve the freedom. Companies dont get to excuse away freedom and choice, in the name of “security”.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      > Companies dont get to excuse away freedom and choice Companies don't owe you freedom and choice. If you don't like their product, if you don't like their concern for your freedom and choice, don't buy it.
      - teitoklien 4y ago
        Now you’re just being defensive. We were critiquing a product, now you’re saying, companies dont owe us the right to criticise their product, and that we must move elsewhere instead of complaining. one second you’re saying “it’s for our benefit”, the next, you want us to stop using the product, because we aren’t “owed anything”.
        simondotau 4y ago
        When did I say that companies don’t owe you “the right to criticise their product”? I didn’t say that. Arguments with a dishonest interlocutor are frightfully boring. Reply as you see fit, but I’m closing this thread and not looking at it again.
  - kramerger 4y ago
    But this doesn't add any real security because it addresses a made up threat scenario. If people with that kind of resources are out to get you, they can simply lift your fingerprints from elsewhere. A transparent tape on the home button would probably be enough.
    - jquery 4y ago
      It makes my phone much less attractive to thieves would would strip it and resell the parts. Maybe that isn’t so important to you, but it’s a very practical concern for many people.
_V_ 4y ago
Please explain to me how pairing a screen, vibration motor and battery to the motherboard keeps me secure... I'd understand faceid (which is paired of course), sure. But not these. I really have a strong feeling that some folks have Stockholm syndrome or something.
- simondotau 4y ago
  For the record, I don't think Apple does this entirely for security. I think they do it to stop the illegal distribution of items which leak from Apple's supply chain, as well as counterfeit goods sold as though equal in quality to Apple parts. (I know multiple people who have had non-genuine screen replacements and they've always been low quality fragile glass.) If someone tried to sell whole iPhones assembled entirely from parts leaked from Apple's supply chain, it ought to seem obvious to anyone that this is wrong. Why is the principle any different when it's not an entire iPhone?
  - _V_ 4y ago
    If they sold the parts outright with resonable pricing as any other manufacturer I don't think there would be any reason for supply chain leaks... Why would it be any different for Apple?
    - simondotau 4y ago
      I agree that spare parts should be more widely available, but I take issue with your broader assertion. Are you seriously arguing that when something is too expensive, theft is justified? Hmmm, I always wanted a Ferrari.
      - _V_ 4y ago
        Wow that strawman is really quite poor. I really hope you can do better than that... If you want a Ferrari, go buy one. They have quite long waiting lists from what I've heard. edit: In order not to be completely off topic: Apple might have just the same problems with parts stolen from their suppliers but since every single iPhone needs to be activated, I'm very sure they would be able to catch "iPhones made entirely from stolen parts". So this is clearly not it. The fact that they don't sell anything will probably make this whole thing quite worse because if you could buy a genuine display for 250$ from Apple, why would you really buy from anyone else? That market would of course exist but it would be much much smaller. I would not expect them to sell motherboards or for exampe face id sensors without some kind of pairing. But batteries and LCDs? Come on! They are doing it just to stick it to anyone who wants to repair their device. Quite sad when you think about the origins of that company :-(
bearmode 4y ago
Why are you just taking Apple's claims at face value?
Nextgrid 4y ago
"Security" is an excuse that Apple (and other anti-repair companies) love to use and it disappoints me to see people fall for it on a technical forum like this one. It is debatable whether the devices that are restricted have any security impact to begin with (the fingerprint or face recognition sensors should just be untrusted input devices with the actual comparison happening inside the secure element of the CPU - compromising this device wouldn't give you anything you don't already have), but either way, even if there was a security impact, you can always let the user choose by giving them the (per-device) keys to override said security.

restore_creole_ 4y ago

Or, to be generous, it is to prevent the use of stolen components? Foxconn workers reportedly stole US$43 million worth of iPhone parts to make new phones https://www.scmp.com/abacus/news-bites/article/3042987/foxconn-workers-reportedly-stole-us43-million-worth-iphone-parts https://www.scmp.com/abacus/news-bites/article/3042987/foxco...

jquery 4y ago

No, it’s to make stolen iPhones worthless.

_V_ 4y ago
Yeah, but it does not make it worthless at all... Even broken logic board is worth quite a lot so this argument is really more of a wishfull thinking than a reality.
- jquery 4y ago
  ”worth less” then instead of worthless