4 ms·

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

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.
  - duskwuff 4y ago
    > 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. It doesn't even have to be intentionally malicious. Imagine a fake Touch ID sensor, for example, which outputs the same data every time any finger touches it. This would be much easier and less expensive to implement than an actual fingerprint sensor; it'd be a promising way for a savvy counterfeiter to save money producing replacement parts. Along similar lines, some counterfeit screens for iPhones used a touchscreen controller from a much older model of iPhone than the replacement screen was made for. This worked -- more or less -- until an iOS update removed the drivers for that TSC, under the assumption that the phones receiving that update were all too new to contain that part...
rasz 4y ago
I would agree IF replacement parts didnt work until lookup with a mothership to check for iCloud lock status of the source device. But thats not what is happening here.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  If you watch the video about corruption... social engineering is a real problem, with thieves spamming victims with phishing until they hopefully give up the password or unlock the device. But the second problem is that solution doesn't assess whether the part was genuine, which can only be ascertained for certain by tracking the part every step of the way. (I.e. A fake part could have a random serial number.) There was no shortage previously of counterfeit iPhone parts aplenty, often used by unscrupulous repair shops. However... I still wish it was that way. That's a more reasonable albeit less secure compromise.
  - rasz 4y ago
    Do you pump genuine Ford air into your tires at a Ford dealer? Do you use genuine Intel power cables? Its up to the user what parts he wants to use, its covered by Magnuson Moss act.
lopis 4y ago
> legitimate anti-theft and anti-fraud implications of part locking Here's how they could solve that: - If your iPhone gets stolen, you report it to Apple. iPhone gets locked and unusable. Serial numbers of all phone parts get marked as stolen and become unusable. iPhone becomes scrap metal and the market for stolen parts dies. They decide not to implement this, therefore they don't care about theft. - If your iPhone gets repaired with illegitimate parts without your permission, your iPhone warns you: "This part is not original Apple!". If you accepted this risk and allowed your repair person to use non-original parts, it's your responsibility, and your phone. Apple chose not to do this; even original parts from other phones are unusable, therefore they don't care about anti-fraud either. Apple wants your money and don't want your fixing your iPhone unless forced to.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  > Serial numbers of all phone parts get marked as stolen and become unusable. How does this happen without part locking and phone home protocols for repairs though which is exactly what so many people are up in arms about? Seriously I'm trying to envision a system that allows a stolen part to be made "unusable" after the fact, while not also requiring that you make some sort of "mother may I" request to Apple with the serial number of the new phone and "new" part.
  - lopis 4y ago
    I don't think the problem is the part locking and phone home. Is what that tech is being used for. Right now you are not able to buy a defective iPhone from a willing seller to salvage some of its parts into your phone, even if the phone you bought was not reported as stolen. They have the tech, and they chose to use it for control and profit.

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.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  > 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. It doesn't even have to be intentionally malicious. Imagine a fake Touch ID sensor, for example, which outputs the same data every time any finger touches it. This would be much easier and less expensive to implement than an actual fingerprint sensor; it'd be a promising way for a savvy counterfeiter to save money producing replacement parts. Along similar lines, some counterfeit screens for iPhones used a touchscreen controller from a much older model of iPhone than the replacement screen was made for. This worked -- more or less -- until an iOS update removed the drivers for that TSC, under the assumption that the phones receiving that update were all too new to contain that part...

rasz 4y ago

I would agree IF replacement parts didnt work until lookup with a mothership to check for iCloud lock status of the source device. But thats not what is happening here.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
If you watch the video about corruption... social engineering is a real problem, with thieves spamming victims with phishing until they hopefully give up the password or unlock the device. But the second problem is that solution doesn't assess whether the part was genuine, which can only be ascertained for certain by tracking the part every step of the way. (I.e. A fake part could have a random serial number.) There was no shortage previously of counterfeit iPhone parts aplenty, often used by unscrupulous repair shops. However... I still wish it was that way. That's a more reasonable albeit less secure compromise.
- rasz 4y ago
  Do you pump genuine Ford air into your tires at a Ford dealer? Do you use genuine Intel power cables? Its up to the user what parts he wants to use, its covered by Magnuson Moss act.

lopis 4y ago

> legitimate anti-theft and anti-fraud implications of part locking Here's how they could solve that: - If your iPhone gets stolen, you report it to Apple. iPhone gets locked and unusable. Serial numbers of all phone parts get marked as stolen and become unusable. iPhone becomes scrap metal and the market for stolen parts dies. They decide not to implement this, therefore they don't care about theft. - If your iPhone gets repaired with illegitimate parts without your permission, your iPhone warns you: "This part is not original Apple!". If you accepted this risk and allowed your repair person to use non-original parts, it's your responsibility, and your phone. Apple chose not to do this; even original parts from other phones are unusable, therefore they don't care about anti-fraud either. Apple wants your money and don't want your fixing your iPhone unless forced to.

tpmoney 4y ago
> Serial numbers of all phone parts get marked as stolen and become unusable. How does this happen without part locking and phone home protocols for repairs though which is exactly what so many people are up in arms about? Seriously I'm trying to envision a system that allows a stolen part to be made "unusable" after the fact, while not also requiring that you make some sort of "mother may I" request to Apple with the serial number of the new phone and "new" part.
- lopis 4y ago
  I don't think the problem is the part locking and phone home. Is what that tech is being used for. Right now you are not able to buy a defective iPhone from a willing seller to salvage some of its parts into your phone, even if the phone you bought was not reported as stolen. They have the tech, and they chose to use it for control and profit.