5 ms·

I still do not know which side of the fence do I sit on with regards to "genuine" parts. A deliberately stretched example. Apple laptops are claimed to not nee

I still do not know which side of the fence do I sit on with regards to "genuine" parts. A deliberately stretched example. Apple laptops are claimed to not need camera privacy shutter, because the recording light is hardware controlled, so the user always knows when the camera is recording. What if what if recording ight on non-genuine camera is software controlled via additional register and simply automatically turned on on recording to not cause suspicion, but could be manually turned off via software? More generally the issue is about broad compatibility. People often mention screens and batteries as being observably worse. Sure off-brand screens do display pixels and batteries provide power, but they do that at an observably lower quality. A networking module may not support some "smart" features and so on. Hardware quality levels are what differentiate macs from PCs. Whatever you say about Apple, you have to agree that with Apple you consistent (and relatively high) quality levels. With PCs it is quite another story. You can buy "business class" laptop that has durable frame, quality components that easily interface with the rest of the system and things mostly "just work". And then there are shit tier laptops where BSODs show up if you look at them weird, you need to hunt down right versions of drivers after every OS update and some features outright do not work. Apple could maintain the quality floor mostly by being in tight control of hardware. With independent shops installing shit-tier components Apple is going to have shit-tier macs in the wild. I can understand Apple. But on the hand, I do not want to be forced into genuine-only programs, as long as I can make an informed decision that I am sacrificing something. it's not a small thing. An older laptop is quite often not worth to fix with genuine parts (that are expensive in part due to quality control), but it may make sense to revive with with an off brand component. I have no idea how to coalesce these two ends of a stick.

rasz 3y ago
Its not about "genuine" parts. Apple blocks "genuine" brand new parts taken off of brand new same model unit. Its about blocking all repairs not going thru Apple, its all about control and %. US law doesnt recognize such a thing as "genuine" part. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act spells it out pretty well "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"
- google234123 3y ago
  I don’t want my phone stolen and disassembled for profit. If you steal my phone, it better be as worthless as a rock to you.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    Stolen phones, even iPhones, already are disassembled for profit. Right to repair wouldn’t change anything in that regard.
  - realusername 3y ago
    That argument is moot, all disassembled iphones are as worthless as a rock, even if they are not stolen. If you have two broken iphones in your house, you can't make a working one with them.
- dagmx 3y ago
  I believe you’re talking about different things. Apple still honors warranty if you have third party components. Even outside of warranty, they’ll repair it. A family member of mine cheaped out and got a mall screen replacement on their phone. Turned out to be terrible but Apple still honored a repair claim on it. Your quote doesn’t really pertain to the serialization imho. They can still notify you of illegitimate parts as long as they don’t deny you service based on that.
raverbashing 3y ago
If Apple doesn't want crap parts being used by repair shops they should sell the parts in the open market, regardless of the shop being in a "repair program", like every car manufacturer does It's that simple.
- realusername 3y ago
  > like every car manufacturer does I don't know a single car manufacturer which denies genuine parts with custom fake software errors.
- angulardragon03 3y ago
  It’s actually not. You can be sure that there will be manufacturers out there who will skimp on quality to make some money at a lower price, and repair shops will buy that stuff to grow their margins. There are plenty of things (e.g. phone cases) that are sold on the open market, but they still get knocked off, and those knockoffs sell because they are cheap.
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    > there will be manufacturers out there who will skimp on quality to make some money at a lower price, and repair shops will buy that stuff to grow their margins. This exists already. Apple is denying the consumer to purchase a legitimate Apple part to fix the issue unless they take it to an "Apple authorized repair shop"
    - angulardragon03 3y ago
      This is just completely untrue (definitely in the US): https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair I’ll accept that this doesn’t cover all devices in the last seven years, but it does cover recent devices.
      - raverbashing 3y ago
        Cool, I think this is a recent development, but still, seems to be only for the end user
lopis 3y ago
It should be my choice as the consumer to ask an independent repair person to install a cheaper or refurbished part in my device. I think it's great that Apple warns users that a new part was installed and whether it's a genuine Apple part of not. But it should be my right to accept that risk and move on. I don't give the most minuscule damn about how Apple having to deal with "broad hardware quality and compatibility". Let the trillion dollar company figure that out. > An older laptop is quite often not worth to fix with genuine parts (that are expensive in part due to quality control) A huge lie. Older macs would usually be worth the fix with genuine parts, which don't exist because of greed. If parts were expensive because of quality control, Apple products would cost 10x more. If Apple gets regulated to provide parts for non-exorbitant prices, their devices wouldn't necessarily have to change price.
- kmlx 3y ago
  > It should be my choice as the consumer to ask an independent repair person to install a cheaper or refurbished part in my device. it’s already your choice right now. it’s just that the device won’t work without the correct part. as it should be.
- friendzis 3y ago
  > But it should be my right to accept that risk and move on. That's the problematic part. Even as (or maybe because of, at this point I do not really know) somewhat knowledgeable in hardware I am not sure I can confidently enumerate the risk beforehand. If I go to a cheap third party repair shop to replace my computer/phone screen I kind of expect there to be some compromise in quality. However, I usually have no what quality level will I get. Will the screen be as bright and sharp as in manufacturer's store or is it going to be invisible in sunlight with constant color smudge like screens from early 00s? I have no idea and have to prepare for worst. The same with battery. I know that at manufacturer claims 10 hours of use, my actual use squeezes 6-8 hours. What am I going to get with an off-brand battery? I can live with 6, it's cheaper, I could probably stomach 5 hours if the price difference is severe, but I am not willing to compromise down to 4. If my phone's EMEA radio dies I can maybe have have it replaced with NA one. Generally, it will work. Some channels/frequencies will be unavailable and therefore my battery life and coverage will suffer. How much? Again, I have no idea. So while I wholeheartedly agree that it should be my right to accept the risk and make a compromise, I know that in quite a lot of cases I either lack expertise/experience/knowledge to make an informed decision, or there is simply not enough information provided to make that decision. Sadly, "the market" will not solve that, because cheaper products are quite often sold by hiding the deficiencies
hulitu 3y ago
> A deliberately stretched example. Apple laptops are claimed to not need camera privacy shutter, because the recording light is hardware controlled, Hardware controlled is either a physycal switch or a hardware circuitry linked to the start of streaming from the camera which is difficult to implement (you need to decode the stream in hw). So i really think that Apple is lying here.
- nicd 3y ago
  Why not just connect the LED to the same rail that powers the camera?
- stinos 3y ago
  Hardware controlled could just as well be a LED which turns on when the entire (or relevant part of) camera module is powered on. Power-saving wise it would also make sense to have the whole thing on always.
- friendzis 3y ago
  > or a hardware circuitry linked to the start of streaming from the camera which is difficult to implement (you need to decode the stream in hw). Why would you need to decode the stream in hw? Simply attach an LED to power-good signal of signal buffer and you are good to go. As long as the data stream is open, the LED is on. It's not even intern level, it's student level circuitry.
- FridgeSeal 3y ago
  Something that is fabulously easy and cheap to implement and would cause massive backlash if found to be otherwise? It would almost be more effort to not do it the authentic way.
- jimktrains2 3y ago
  I still don't understand how the recording light negates the need for a privacy shutter. I don't care if i know when the camera is on, as the camera could be turned on without my consent or just before I'm ready.
danhau 3y ago
Unrelated, but isn‘t this false? > A deliberately stretched example. Apple laptops are claimed to not need camera privacy shutter, because the recording light is hardware controlled, so the user always knows when the camera is recording. Don’t Apple devices have the ability to take photos of thieves stealing the device? Surely the camera indicator won‘t turn on in such a case, right? I could be completely wrong.
- kaba0 3y ago
  I have never heard of such a thing and honestly it would be pretty impractical in case of, say, a macbook which has quite limited view of its surroundings (e.g. you close it). What apple (and samsung, etc) does is not let the thief actually power off the device without a password, so until the battery lasts it can share its location via some way to the owner.

rasz 3y ago

Its not about "genuine" parts. Apple blocks "genuine" brand new parts taken off of brand new same model unit. Its about blocking all repairs not going thru Apple, its all about control and %. US law doesnt recognize such a thing as "genuine" part. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act spells it out pretty well "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"

google234123 3y ago
I don’t want my phone stolen and disassembled for profit. If you steal my phone, it better be as worthless as a rock to you.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  Stolen phones, even iPhones, already are disassembled for profit. Right to repair wouldn’t change anything in that regard.
- realusername 3y ago
  That argument is moot, all disassembled iphones are as worthless as a rock, even if they are not stolen. If you have two broken iphones in your house, you can't make a working one with them.
dagmx 3y ago
I believe you’re talking about different things. Apple still honors warranty if you have third party components. Even outside of warranty, they’ll repair it. A family member of mine cheaped out and got a mall screen replacement on their phone. Turned out to be terrible but Apple still honored a repair claim on it. Your quote doesn’t really pertain to the serialization imho. They can still notify you of illegitimate parts as long as they don’t deny you service based on that.

raverbashing 3y ago

If Apple doesn't want crap parts being used by repair shops they should sell the parts in the open market, regardless of the shop being in a "repair program", like every car manufacturer does It's that simple.

realusername 3y ago
> like every car manufacturer does I don't know a single car manufacturer which denies genuine parts with custom fake software errors.
angulardragon03 3y ago
It’s actually not. You can be sure that there will be manufacturers out there who will skimp on quality to make some money at a lower price, and repair shops will buy that stuff to grow their margins. There are plenty of things (e.g. phone cases) that are sold on the open market, but they still get knocked off, and those knockoffs sell because they are cheap.
- raverbashing 3y ago
  > there will be manufacturers out there who will skimp on quality to make some money at a lower price, and repair shops will buy that stuff to grow their margins. This exists already. Apple is denying the consumer to purchase a legitimate Apple part to fix the issue unless they take it to an "Apple authorized repair shop"
  - angulardragon03 3y ago
    This is just completely untrue (definitely in the US): https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair I’ll accept that this doesn’t cover all devices in the last seven years, but it does cover recent devices.
    - raverbashing 3y ago
      Cool, I think this is a recent development, but still, seems to be only for the end user

lopis 3y ago

It should be my choice as the consumer to ask an independent repair person to install a cheaper or refurbished part in my device. I think it's great that Apple warns users that a new part was installed and whether it's a genuine Apple part of not. But it should be my right to accept that risk and move on. I don't give the most minuscule damn about how Apple having to deal with "broad hardware quality and compatibility". Let the trillion dollar company figure that out. > An older laptop is quite often not worth to fix with genuine parts (that are expensive in part due to quality control) A huge lie. Older macs would usually be worth the fix with genuine parts, which don't exist because of greed. If parts were expensive because of quality control, Apple products would cost 10x more. If Apple gets regulated to provide parts for non-exorbitant prices, their devices wouldn't necessarily have to change price.

kmlx 3y ago
> It should be my choice as the consumer to ask an independent repair person to install a cheaper or refurbished part in my device. it’s already your choice right now. it’s just that the device won’t work without the correct part. as it should be.
friendzis 3y ago
> But it should be my right to accept that risk and move on. That's the problematic part. Even as (or maybe because of, at this point I do not really know) somewhat knowledgeable in hardware I am not sure I can confidently enumerate the risk beforehand. If I go to a cheap third party repair shop to replace my computer/phone screen I kind of expect there to be some compromise in quality. However, I usually have no what quality level will I get. Will the screen be as bright and sharp as in manufacturer's store or is it going to be invisible in sunlight with constant color smudge like screens from early 00s? I have no idea and have to prepare for worst. The same with battery. I know that at manufacturer claims 10 hours of use, my actual use squeezes 6-8 hours. What am I going to get with an off-brand battery? I can live with 6, it's cheaper, I could probably stomach 5 hours if the price difference is severe, but I am not willing to compromise down to 4. If my phone's EMEA radio dies I can maybe have have it replaced with NA one. Generally, it will work. Some channels/frequencies will be unavailable and therefore my battery life and coverage will suffer. How much? Again, I have no idea. So while I wholeheartedly agree that it should be my right to accept the risk and make a compromise, I know that in quite a lot of cases I either lack expertise/experience/knowledge to make an informed decision, or there is simply not enough information provided to make that decision. Sadly, "the market" will not solve that, because cheaper products are quite often sold by hiding the deficiencies

hulitu 3y ago

> A deliberately stretched example. Apple laptops are claimed to not need camera privacy shutter, because the recording light is hardware controlled, Hardware controlled is either a physycal switch or a hardware circuitry linked to the start of streaming from the camera which is difficult to implement (you need to decode the stream in hw). So i really think that Apple is lying here.

nicd 3y ago
Why not just connect the LED to the same rail that powers the camera?
stinos 3y ago
Hardware controlled could just as well be a LED which turns on when the entire (or relevant part of) camera module is powered on. Power-saving wise it would also make sense to have the whole thing on always.
friendzis 3y ago
> or a hardware circuitry linked to the start of streaming from the camera which is difficult to implement (you need to decode the stream in hw). Why would you need to decode the stream in hw? Simply attach an LED to power-good signal of signal buffer and you are good to go. As long as the data stream is open, the LED is on. It's not even intern level, it's student level circuitry.
FridgeSeal 3y ago
Something that is fabulously easy and cheap to implement and would cause massive backlash if found to be otherwise? It would almost be more effort to not do it the authentic way.
jimktrains2 3y ago
I still don't understand how the recording light negates the need for a privacy shutter. I don't care if i know when the camera is on, as the camera could be turned on without my consent or just before I'm ready.

danhau 3y ago

Unrelated, but isn‘t this false? > A deliberately stretched example. Apple laptops are claimed to not need camera privacy shutter, because the recording light is hardware controlled, so the user always knows when the camera is recording. Don’t Apple devices have the ability to take photos of thieves stealing the device? Surely the camera indicator won‘t turn on in such a case, right? I could be completely wrong.

kaba0 3y ago
I have never heard of such a thing and honestly it would be pretty impractical in case of, say, a macbook which has quite limited view of its surroundings (e.g. you close it). What apple (and samsung, etc) does is not let the thief actually power off the device without a password, so until the battery lasts it can share its location via some way to the owner.