9 ms·

> repair providers disclose the use on non-genuine or used parts This has my complete support. I’ve had a phone repaired with a knock off display/touch module.

• mouse_ 3y ago
  The manufacturer remotely bricked your -working- device because you broke their terms and conditions by performing a repair. You should not support this sort of disgusting behavior.
  • Gigachad 3y ago
    No evidence that’s the case. Very realistic that the new update was trying to do something that’s in spec for the genuine screen but the clone hadn’t copied properly.
    • duskwuff 3y ago
      I think I know what was going on here. I can't find a source (too many false hits on tech news sites), but a batch of counterfeit displays for one model of iPhone used a touchscreen controller from a much older model. When a new version of iOS was released which no longer supported that older model, Apple removed the drivers for its touchscreen controller from the OS, under the assumption that they were no longer necessary. This had the unexpected effect of making those displays stop working. This wasn't intentional -- it was an inadvertent result of routine code cleanup -- and Apple added the driver back in a later OS update to restore functionality, and added messaging to indicate to users if their display wasn't a genuine Apple part.
    • rasz 3y ago
      Apple apologized and removed that block after getting caught and filled class action suit https://9to5mac.com/2016/02/18/ios-9-2-1-error-53-update/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/02/18/ios-9-2-1-error-53-update/
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• amluto 3y ago
  Also, non-genuine display modules can utterly suck. The most obvious failure is linearly polarized light output. Bonus points for horizontally or vertically polarized light — diagonal is at least somewhat tolerable.
  • rf15 3y ago
    I don't buy apple products so I don't quite understand the implication here; how is a physical property you cannot really perceive relevant to you?
    • omegabravo 3y ago
      I expect that if you're wearing polarising lenses such as sunglasses, you can't see your phone if it's held in portrait or landscape.
      • josefx 3y ago
        Must resist the urge to make a joke about Apple users "holding it wrong".
        • hulitu 3y ago
          Apple learned something from SUN. Don't sell the mouse (iPhone) without the mousepad (glasses). /s
      • nomel 3y ago
        Their point is that genuine Apple devices used circularly polarized filters so this isn’t an issue.
    • dagmx 3y ago
      It’s not really anything to do with Apple, and applies to all displays. If you wear polarized lenses, like good sunglasses out in the sun, polarization angle changes visibility of your screen. It can make your screen completely illegible if not created with forethought.
• Zuiii 3y ago
  What you should support is stricter laws and penalties on fraud. I have no issue with (and sometimes prefer) used or "non-genuine" third party parts as long as it's an informed decision. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
  • jakelazaroff 3y ago
    That’s what they said. You both agree!
  • ChildOfChaos 3y ago
    That's the whole point though, by requiring repair services to disclose they used third party or used parts, you get to make an informed decision, without that, you don't.
    • bzzzt 3y ago
      Problem is some people make an 'informed decision' and forget to tell that to a buyer when they sell their phones...
      • rasz 3y ago
        Have you ever sold a car? Have you ever told buyer about provenance of every single part replaced?
      • gorbypark 3y ago
        This is why I support Apple's "serialization" of parts. I think the right to repair bills should prevent Apple from nerfing functionality if a new part is swapped in, but it's great being able to go to the settings screen and see the details of each repair. Currently, I think it will only tell you if Apple did the repair or not, but it would be great to have a list of all parts that have been replaced, if the part is genuine, and if the part was swapped in by Apple and/or an authorized repair centre. I want full disclosure of whats happened to a phone when buying used, but I don't want Apple to be able to make parts not work. If I want to buy a franken-phone full of knock off or mix and match parts I should be able to, but I should be able to clearly see that in the settings screens.
• 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
  Nope... You have choice. You can go to "authorized repair shop" and pay 50% of the cost of a device for a repair or go to your nearest repair shop and pay a fifty bucks to repair the broken charging port. You get what you pay for. The only problem would be "authorized shops" up charging premium rates for cheap parts"
  • rddbs 3y ago
    Would forcing disclosure of non-authorized parts not address that? If you were willing to pay the premium for authorized parts then you’d have the information to choose the right repair shop.
    • 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
      the problem is, will unregulated report shops be able to do the repair from knockoff parts? I know the last time a fingerprint sensor broke for a phone, i had to replaced for US$1. had to pay $3 for labour but the part cost just $1. its working for the past 3 years so yeah.
      • lwkl 3y ago
        Where do you live that the labour is that cheap? I live in Switzerland and I get why repairs are expensive. Because the labour is really expensive. I did multiple repairs (not on phones) where the labour was more expensive than just buying a new device (cheap printers).
        • 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
          unfortunately india
    • rasz 3y ago
      wtf is "authorized part"? https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspers... >Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), it is illegal for a manufacturer to void a warranty or deny coverage if a customer has a repair or maintenance performed by an independent repair shop or using a third-party replacement part (unless the original manufacturer provides the service or part for free).
• snapetom 3y ago
  Absolutely. My local and much beloved (by others) repair shop got really pissy when I started asking them if they participated in the authorized repair program. Why? Because the battery replacements always sucked. Sure they “covered” the work, but I was tired of going back every other month for half a year because they “got a bad batch of batteries.” I got tired of their crappy attitude and eventually found an authorized shop. Give me genuine parts with the convenience of not having to deal with a “genius” bar.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • elsjaako 3y ago
    Louis Rossmann has talked a lot about why he isn't part of the authorized program. There are two main problems he mentioned, IIRC. (It's been a while, so my memory may be wrong or the situation may have changed). Firstly, you can no longer do component level repairs. So replacing some capacitors that got waterdamaged is no longer allowed. This is part of the agreement you make with Apple. Secondly, although you can buy screens and batteries, you can't keep them on stock. You need to get the phone from your customer, then order the parts from apple, then wait for them to arrive, perform the repair, and only then can you finish. If you want to do "While you wait" repairs it's impossible. It's a bad look to go off on a rant about Apple every time a customer asks a question, so I can understand them being annoyed when someone asks them if they're part of the official program.
    • turquoisevar 3y ago
      The component level repair issue I get from both sides. Rossmann obviously wants to continue to be able to provide that service, in part because it’s arguably his specialization. Apple obviously doesn’t want it because even under the best of circumstances it’s difficult to ensure consistency from repair to repair, much less between different technicians or locations. And explaining a customer that while, yes, they did go to an authorized repair shop, but no, that specific repair doesn’t fall under Apple’s warranty or seal of approval, is also a nightmare. Similarly, for keeping parts on stock I can see both sides of the debate. Shops would like to have stuff in stock to provide the best and fastest service available, Apple on the other hand wants to prevent parts from falling in the wrong hands given the already prolific grey market for their parts. I know they’ve already loosened up a bit with some shops that have high volume and good track record, letting them have some common stuff on hand (e.g. batteries, screens, etc.), but there’s also the option to let the customer get the part via the self-repair program and bring it to the store to have it placed. There are two competing interests at play but I think with a bit of compromise in either end a workable solution is possible. As for shops getting pissed when asked if they’re part of the program, I think your explanation is rather poor. It’s equally, if not more of, a bad look to get pissed everything they’re asked that question. If anything it makes them look sketchy when that doesn’t need to be the outcome. People are generally just interested in the quality of the components used and want to know if official components are used to gauge that, as well as know if they can go to Apple should problems arise (i.e. if it’ll be covered by Apple’s repair warranty).
• 14 3y ago
  If the screen was working fine then an update caused it to stop working that doesn’t sound like an issue with the display but rather a hostile software update that is preventing it from working merely because it is a knock off screen but was working as you say just prior. Should be mad at apple in that case not the knock off screen.
  • dodslaser 3y ago
    Probably, but not necessarily. Could also be a code change that works perfectly fine for the OEM part, but not the third-party one. Manufacturers can't realistically be expected to guarantee a device will keep working as normal with third-party parts.
    • callalex 3y ago
      Sure, but having the screen stop working because of an unforeseen coincidence is very different from intentionally breaking the screen with malicious intention. Besides, has there been a single documented case in the history of smartphones where a device manufacturer changed the communication protocol with a display via OTA update after the phone shipped?
      • nudgeee 3y ago
        I can think of a myriad of things such as enabling a feature that was previously disabled/in development, updates to calibration values/curves, tweaking timing and power saving control registers, etc. Any of these could throw off a third party part if not implemented exactly the same way.
        • Dah00n 3y ago
          Sure, but we also know for a fact that Apple does a lot of tweaking to disable non-genuine parts. Seems as likely.
      • kaba0 3y ago
        Surely Apple maliciously went after some tiny third party that sells 3 screens per year. Occam’s razor..
• hulitu 3y ago
  > It stopped working with an OTA update. So the display was ok but was disabled by SW.
  • saiya-jin 3y ago
    Important distinction - the day when Apple is honestly supporting right to repair is not yet here, and given company's history it most probably won't come anytime soon. Which is fine, but let's be honest here. Apple is for-profit corporation just like gazillion others, it will fight tooth and nail against anything imparting their revenue streams, be it massive cut from itunes sales or expensive repairs. These kind of modern just movements are not what mega corporations like Apple enjoy. But they have to throw bits and pieces around for marketing to show to mostly young that 'they care', 'they understand', 'privacy first' and so on. Well sure they do, about their revenue. Just look at their actions, rest is pure marketing carefully crafted over months and endless meetings and psychological market analysis. What they did is just marketing move and basically allowing you to pay them fully just like in official repair center. That's not what right to repair means (hacking together my own fixes if I decide to, ie in old John Deere fashion). They should just make sure that things work at the end while not compromising things like security and longevity, ie by open protocols and specification. Nothing like that is happening anytime soon in Apple realm.
  • spacebanana7 3y ago
    This doesn't necessarily indicate malice. Apple has little obligation to test every software change on non standard hardware so it's reasonably possible some innocent change had a breaking effect on a modified device.
    • izacus 3y ago
      In reality, Apples hardware DRM checks broke the OTA no matter how functional the display was.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
• Dah00n 3y ago
  That's Apple's fault, not the repair shop, and apple should be fined for doing so.
  • monooso 3y ago
    Why is it Apple's fault that a knock-off (i.e. unsupported) display stopped working after a software update?
    • arghwhat 3y ago
      Because it sounds intentional, as the affected electronics are off-the-shelf and not something subject to firmware updates and because apple specifically have a habit of intentionally interfering with parts not installed by Apple. Third party manufacturers are perfectly able to make an entirely equivalent and compatible display unit, as the originals are sourced by Apple from such manufacturers in the exact same way.
      • philistine 3y ago
        So a part that cannot tolerate a change in data characteristics the same way that a genuine part can must be allowed to function?
        • arghwhat 3y ago
          Rather unlikely for that to occur in a genuine scenario as neither side of the interface is software defined and as the functionality is fixed and provided by a third party.
          • nomel 3y ago
            The knock off probably didn't implement something correctly, in hardware.
            • arghwhat 3y ago
• arghwhat 3y ago
  As long as it is not twisted into the device being allowed to nag you over the use of non-genuine parts. Apple should not be allowed to inconvenience users of aftermarket/non-Apple parts.
• amelius 3y ago
  What if you read in a reputable forum that some display panel is much cheaper and works great?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• itsoktocry 3y ago
  >This has my complete support. Disclosure is nice. But what reason would cause an after-market component to fail after a software update? We don't want these companies building software "genuine" checks to brick phones that use other parts.
  • wccrawford 3y ago
    It might have been slightly out of spec in a way that the old software didn't care about, but a recent software improvement needed it to be in-spec after all.
    • SenAnder 3y ago
      Has Apple earned this much benefit of the doubt?
      • wccrawford 3y ago
        Apple breaks enough things by accident that I find it easier to believe that than than they deliberately targeted this replacement screen and found a way to make their hardware and software still work well for existing users, and break just this third-party screen.
  • philistine 3y ago
    With Apple, the reason is usually security. For a third-party screen, it could take pictures of the display to steal information. With the iPhone being the target of state sponsored brigands, it is not theoretical. It is probably happening. With the camera modules and batteries it’s a question of calibration and Apple clearly never thought anyone but them needed to calibrate the part.