5 ms·

The iPhone 14 Continues Apple’s Digital Repair Lockdown

7 points by rc00 4y ago

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I don't like what this does for repair, but on the flip side, I don't like how the pro-repair "side" completely ignores the legitimate anti-theft and anti-fraud implications of part locking, and acts as if it were from pure spite ignoring that these are among the most stolen objects ever made - and with some of the most widely-circulated fraudulent parts ever made. It started with iCloud Locking, which made sense - you couldn't just flip a phone that you stole. So, thieves turned to selling the parts instead or trying to social-engineer people into removing iCloud Locks, and there is actually a lot of corruption within phone repair stores (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ws3YptLmLQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ws3YptLmLQ). So, the next step is... serialize. Make the parts obviously unsuitable for a fly-by-night swap. Could Apple do a better, more pro-repair job of it? Absolutely - but they aren't going to be motivated to do so when the pro-repair side acts as though it is pure unmitigated spite and hatred for repair that they are doing it. Same situation with the self-repair program. Apple stated it was the same parts, and same tools, and same prices they and their partners use, on a non-profitable program. People are apparently shocked that owning tools makes repairing in bulk cheaper, and that Apple doesn't use cheap prying tools to remove screens. Who would've thunk? And now they are angry that the tools aren't provided for free, that the prices aren't cheaper than the Apple Store gets them for, and that Apple doesn't just provide guitar picks for screen removal. They're never going to win any legislation with that attitude. Edit for @lopis: For your first point, I would say that implementing that was redundant, because how are you ever going to unlock a stolen part anyway without their "system configuration" step? For your second point, there's really no way to know whether a part is authentic, unless Apple knows that they shipped it out or received it. Any fake part can lie, and say "I am part XYZ123," or use a borrowed digital signature from a real part. The serialization lock has an anti-counterfeiting value by greatly restricting where legitimate parts come from, regardless of what I think of it.
- jerojero 4y ago
  I guess the question is: do these measures actually reduce phones getting stolen in a significant manner? If the answer is yes, then, are phones getting stolen more of a problem than phones breaking? We know for sure that phones definitely get broken, that their batteries stop working after a while and need to be replaced and that newer software makes them slow. These are all extremely common issues that, in a world that's fighting against rabid consumerism that is leading to climate change... we need to address. It's not as though theft protection is good, but imo, it's not good if it means getting in the way of more sustainable ownership.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    Right... I agree. I think Apple could do a better job - but I think the pro-repair side is way, way too ready to just say "evil corporation bad and greedy" instead of asking what legitimate reasons might be behind an action, even if one doesn't agree with the action. For example, the Face ID lockout: Imagine if one could just pipe an AI-generated map of your face, straight into the Face ID port, to unlock your phone using a fake sensor - or, have a fake modified sensor record your facial data for later use. Lockout? I don't necessarily agree, but I get it, whereas nobody on the "right to repair" even tries to figure out reasoning like this. It's easy to strawman "evil corporation," but addressing the real reasons why Apple would do something like this, and finding a reasonable compromise, is much harder. Unfortunately, as long as they keep ignoring Apple's actual argument and reasons, I doubt they will make any headroom legislatively and they will actually be partly to blame for that. Radicals, most of the time, don't win. If they came up with a compromise that kept anti-theft while improving repairability, that may win. Edit: For example, this sentence: "Steve Jobs didn’t want people to be able to get inside his devices saying that they’ll just “screw things up”. When viewed from this lens, it’s easy to see how Apple might justify serialization and restrictions on repair. It’s all done in order to bring us, the ignorant and incompetent masses, the perfect smartphone-cum-fashion statement." No. It's not, at least not nearly to the degree as that. Stop doing that - or accept that any failure to gain legislative wins is partially self-inflicted.
    - 4y ago

7 points by rc00 4y ago

I don't like what this does for repair, but on the flip side, I don't like how the pro-repair "side" completely ignores the legitimate anti-theft and anti-fraud implications of part locking, and acts as if it were from pure spite ignoring that these are among the most stolen objects ever made - and with some of the most widely-circulated fraudulent parts ever made. It started with iCloud Locking, which made sense - you couldn't just flip a phone that you stole. So, thieves turned to selling the parts instead or trying to social-engineer people into removing iCloud Locks, and there is actually a lot of corruption within phone repair stores (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ws3YptLmLQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ws3YptLmLQ). So, the next step is... serialize. Make the parts obviously unsuitable for a fly-by-night swap. Could Apple do a better, more pro-repair job of it? Absolutely - but they aren't going to be motivated to do so when the pro-repair side acts as though it is pure unmitigated spite and hatred for repair that they are doing it. Same situation with the self-repair program. Apple stated it was the same parts, and same tools, and same prices they and their partners use, on a non-profitable program. People are apparently shocked that owning tools makes repairing in bulk cheaper, and that Apple doesn't use cheap prying tools to remove screens. Who would've thunk? And now they are angry that the tools aren't provided for free, that the prices aren't cheaper than the Apple Store gets them for, and that Apple doesn't just provide guitar picks for screen removal. They're never going to win any legislation with that attitude. Edit for @lopis: For your first point, I would say that implementing that was redundant, because how are you ever going to unlock a stolen part anyway without their "system configuration" step? For your second point, there's really no way to know whether a part is authentic, unless Apple knows that they shipped it out or received it. Any fake part can lie, and say "I am part XYZ123," or use a borrowed digital signature from a real part. The serialization lock has an anti-counterfeiting value by greatly restricting where legitimate parts come from, regardless of what I think of it.

jerojero 4y ago
I guess the question is: do these measures actually reduce phones getting stolen in a significant manner? If the answer is yes, then, are phones getting stolen more of a problem than phones breaking? We know for sure that phones definitely get broken, that their batteries stop working after a while and need to be replaced and that newer software makes them slow. These are all extremely common issues that, in a world that's fighting against rabid consumerism that is leading to climate change... we need to address. It's not as though theft protection is good, but imo, it's not good if it means getting in the way of more sustainable ownership.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Right... I agree. I think Apple could do a better job - but I think the pro-repair side is way, way too ready to just say "evil corporation bad and greedy" instead of asking what legitimate reasons might be behind an action, even if one doesn't agree with the action. For example, the Face ID lockout: Imagine if one could just pipe an AI-generated map of your face, straight into the Face ID port, to unlock your phone using a fake sensor - or, have a fake modified sensor record your facial data for later use. Lockout? I don't necessarily agree, but I get it, whereas nobody on the "right to repair" even tries to figure out reasoning like this. It's easy to strawman "evil corporation," but addressing the real reasons why Apple would do something like this, and finding a reasonable compromise, is much harder. Unfortunately, as long as they keep ignoring Apple's actual argument and reasons, I doubt they will make any headroom legislatively and they will actually be partly to blame for that. Radicals, most of the time, don't win. If they came up with a compromise that kept anti-theft while improving repairability, that may win. Edit: For example, this sentence: "Steve Jobs didn’t want people to be able to get inside his devices saying that they’ll just “screw things up”. When viewed from this lens, it’s easy to see how Apple might justify serialization and restrictions on repair. It’s all done in order to bring us, the ignorant and incompetent masses, the perfect smartphone-cum-fashion statement." No. It's not, at least not nearly to the degree as that. Stop doing that - or accept that any failure to gain legislative wins is partially self-inflicted.
  - 4y ago