5 ms·

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
        Unlikely as this is industry standard interfaces, and the "knock-off" would be made by genuine display manufacturers - possibly even one Apple uses - as you can't exactly make that in a backroom.
        nomel 3y ago
        As someone who works in the hardware world, who has done lots of hardware interoperability testing, none of these points are correct.
        arghwhat 3y ago
        Did you work for display panel driver manufacturers or an industry dealing with similar PHY's or are you applying assumptions about unrelated hardware from an unrelated field? If a panel driver manufacturer messed up the standard MIPI DSI and eDP interfaces for a bog standard smartphone panel, they would not have a business. Conformance is easy to validate due to the very limited scope. On the other end, Apple likely sources a third party IP block (as is standard in the industry) for their SoCs, and have little to do with over what goes on the wire. If the display was a dud for other reasons and the software update overlap was coincidental, then sure Apple is without blame - this could happen with an original screen too.
        nomel 3y ago
        Well, you’re assuming a display module only contains a display. See my original comment: > with a knock off display/touch module I don’t agree with this, > they would not have a business > Conformance is easy to validate due to the very limited scope This is difficult to respond to, since we come from such different backgrounds. Your assumption is that there is reasonable QA, for a knock off part. Even though this is a logical assumption to have, it is incorrect. QA can very often be, does it work in this device we have right here? And, implementing a hardware interface correctly doesn’t mean much when you, for example, attach a flex that makes the signal marginal.
- monooso 3y ago
  > Because it sounds intentional To your ears, maybe. Another perfectly feasible explanation is that there were differences in the third-party component which fell foul of an update. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to use third-party components. I'm saying they shouldn't be surprised—or cry foul—when they break.

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
      Unlikely as this is industry standard interfaces, and the "knock-off" would be made by genuine display manufacturers - possibly even one Apple uses - as you can't exactly make that in a backroom.
      - nomel 3y ago
        As someone who works in the hardware world, who has done lots of hardware interoperability testing, none of these points are correct.
        arghwhat 3y ago
        Did you work for display panel driver manufacturers or an industry dealing with similar PHY's or are you applying assumptions about unrelated hardware from an unrelated field? If a panel driver manufacturer messed up the standard MIPI DSI and eDP interfaces for a bog standard smartphone panel, they would not have a business. Conformance is easy to validate due to the very limited scope. On the other end, Apple likely sources a third party IP block (as is standard in the industry) for their SoCs, and have little to do with over what goes on the wire. If the display was a dud for other reasons and the software update overlap was coincidental, then sure Apple is without blame - this could happen with an original screen too.
        nomel 3y ago
        Well, you’re assuming a display module only contains a display. See my original comment: > with a knock off display/touch module I don’t agree with this, > they would not have a business > Conformance is easy to validate due to the very limited scope This is difficult to respond to, since we come from such different backgrounds. Your assumption is that there is reasonable QA, for a knock off part. Even though this is a logical assumption to have, it is incorrect. QA can very often be, does it work in this device we have right here? And, implementing a hardware interface correctly doesn’t mean much when you, for example, attach a flex that makes the signal marginal.
monooso 3y ago
> Because it sounds intentional To your ears, maybe. Another perfectly feasible explanation is that there were differences in the third-party component which fell foul of an update. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to use third-party components. I'm saying they shouldn't be surprised—or cry foul—when they break.