5 ms·

> So instead of complaining the world isn't perfect its better to try to make it better. Well, that's part of the problem. Right-to-repair bills that don't add

> So instead of complaining the world isn't perfect its better to try to make it better. Well, that's part of the problem. Right-to-repair bills that don't address serialized components or hardware DRM won't make it better. Apple is backing this bill because it aligns with their definition of "repair" and further reinforces the idea that the first party is the only one allowed to authorize maintenance. This is less about letting perfect be the enemy of good, and more about struggling to identify the core problem in the first place. If Apple is a required party for me to replace my screen or reinstall a USB connector, then you aren't advocating for a "right" to repair at all. In fact, you're actually coming back around to the 'Repairs-as-a-Service' model that third-parties protested against in the first place.

derefr 3y ago
Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline. They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t — iOS devices in “lost mode” have no resale value, including scrap resale value. That’s the entire point of lost mode — and that disincentivization only works as long as the components from that lost-mode phone are considered “tainted” for use in repairing other phones. Which requires “serialized components and hardware DRM.” If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. But I suspect you cannot.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. Uh... you could just let the user authorize repairs. If your iPhone's root-of-trust is registered with your iCloud account, then users could authorize themselves to make repairs by just putting in the password. Entirely offline, retains Apple's DRM scheme, and even thwarts the Chinese boogeymen that you're so scared of. It just removes the part where Apple has absolute control over the feature instead of the hardware owner.
  - derefr 3y ago
    Huh? What user? I think you misunderstand the pipeline. When they steal my phone, they’re not refurbishing my phone to resell it. They’re scrapping my phone — taking all the expensive components out of my phone: the screen, the touch sensor, etc — and selling them to repair shops to be used as parts to repair other people’s phones. People who, obviously, authorize those repairs. But I don’t! (If you know what an illegal car “chop shop” is, they operate under the same business model: stolen preowned product as an input, replacement parts sold to repair shops — or used in their own “repair shop” — as an output.) The exact point of “hardware DRM” is that it allows me to retroactively revoke my consent for the parts of my phone to ever be used again inside some other person’s phone, through the cloud, at the moment I realize my phone has already been stolen. (Also, FYI, there’s nothing specifically Chinese about this pipeline. It’s not like this is a scam being run by the Triads or anything. Rather, it’s just unchecked capitalism. The gangs that go around stealing phones are small-time local groups of thieves, who have realized they can make a buck by selling and delivering wholesale lots of these phones to amoral “phone chop-shops” who happen to reside in Shenzhen. Those “phone chop-shops” are only in Shenzhen because that’s where all the demand is for the huge number of parts generated by scrapping a phone, and because they can’t sell these parts on without cash-only handshake deals.) To be clear, the “phone chop-shop” never ask any gangs to steal phones for them, either. They just say they’ll “buy phones in any condition.” (Which is why I say they’re amoral, not immoral.) Everything that happens from then on is the natural consequence of a market optimizing for profitability. On a related topic, the true point of Apple’s “authorized repair” program, was to penalize any repair shop who knowingly purchased parts from a “phone chop-shop” by disallowing them from ever again purchasing genuine parts; thus creating a disincentive from ever buying these grey-market parts.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > Huh? What user? You. You are the user. So, imagine the hardware DRM exactly the way it is now, but with my modifications. The super bad-guys in Shenzhen dismantle my iPhone and try to turn it into a new phone. Oh no! The DRM on the other person's phone says that their parts are paired to my iPhone. Since I never manually un-paired those parts with my iCloud account (or Hardware root-of-trust), they cannot perform the evil deed of scrapping my iPhone for parts. They are thwarted by the exact same system, in the exact same way, except hardware owners hold the keys instead of Apple. > The exact point of “hardware DRM” is that it allows me to retroactively revoke my consent for the parts of my phone Minus retroactive control, that's the point of my implementation. The same DRM system that you are describing can be designed so the user can authorize repairs and de-couple parts without Apple's blessing. The only difference is that it would proactively lock all parts to your iPhone and only uncouple them when the user authorizes it. In that way, it's almost more secure than Apple exclusively holding the keys. > the true point of Apple’s “authorized repair” program, was to penalize any repair shop who knowingly purchased parts from a “phone chop-shop” by disallowing them from ever again purchasing genuine parts Fun fact! Secondhand chop-shop components and genuine Apple-issued replacements are not the only two options. You can buy a lot of Apple components from TI and Foxconn if you browse their piecemeal catalog. On top of that, there are many people who sell hardware as "for parts" to be used as donor hardware by third parties. It almost feels like Apple created this system to punish anyone who competes with their first-party offerings...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline I understand that reasoning for it (although I think that's not the only reason Apple does this). But personally, that sort of thing is one of the reasons why I wouldn't buy an iPhone. The cost of that kind of "theft protection" is, for me, too high. I prefer not having any theft protection at all over a scheme that removes my ability to repair or modify my devices. Hardware DRM (at least as it exists) makes really meaningful right-to-repair technically impossible.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  >They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t I think that's unlikely. Phones are disguised by cases. Most tech folks can't even tell them apart when they are sitting side by side on a desk in front of them. Not without the screen coming on, anyway. Let alone in someone's pocket or at a bar. If anything Androids might be stolen more often due to socioeconomic pressure. Can't afford an iPhone, can't afford a nice neighborhood. Or vice versa, an Android gets stolen because it looks like an iPhone, a higher price target. And those would only be relevant IF the statistics agreed with your assertion here, but I don't see that they do, based on some quick searching. Regardless, phone location was a feature of Android long before iOS. I had it on Windows CE phones before the iPhone even existed. Laptops had LoJack before smart phones existed. Theft was not deterred. Rates of recovery maybe increased, but I'm not sure we have statistics on the latest Apple tech to be able to opine about it, and I wouldn't expect that they would say anything about theft, only about recovery when the criminal is stupid enough to not use some cheap shielding they could get off of Amazon for $5.
  - derefr 3y ago
    > I think that's unlikely. You're right, in a literal sense; people pickpocket a phone before knowing what it is. It's what happens right after the actual theft that makes a difference. These more-organized thieves know that these chop-shop buyers aren't (nearly as) interested in iPhones, often to the point that they aren't worth the cost of the added shipping weight. So when they manage to nab a phone, they do a quick examination, to figure out what kind of phone it is. If it's an iPhone, they drop it in a nearby trash can; or sometimes they try to con some local who doesn't know anything about phones (think: drug dealer who wants a second phone) into buying it on the street. That's where you find the majority of "stolen iPhones": in the trash near where it was lost, or in the hands of some local who was dumb enough to buy it not realizing it will be marked "lost" in short order and become useless to them. Both of these are "recoverable" losses — which, from both the phone owner's and Apple's perspective, is a win! Meanwhile, the Android devices go in a box, and the box goes on a boat. > Regardless, phone location was a feature of Android long before iOS. I had it on Windows CE phones before the iPhone even existed. Laptops had LoJack before smart phones existed. Theft was not deterred. Yeah, because as I said, this isn't — and never was — about refurbishing the device. It's about scrapping the device for parts. Location tracking does not prevent a device being scrapped for parts, because chop shops actually throw away the location-tracking bit — the "compute core" — and just keep all the other expensive parts. Plenty of people with stolen phones see their phone mysteriously show up reporting itself to now be in Shenzhen. Then the location tracking turns off and never comes back, because the phone was chopped up and the compute-core bit thrown away. It just doesn't happen nearly as often, per capita, to iPhone owners as it does to Android owners, because a large number of the iPhones are "rejected from the funnel."

derefr 3y ago

Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline. They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t — iOS devices in “lost mode” have no resale value, including scrap resale value. That’s the entire point of lost mode — and that disincentivization only works as long as the components from that lost-mode phone are considered “tainted” for use in repairing other phones. Which requires “serialized components and hardware DRM.” If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. But I suspect you cannot.

smoldesu 3y ago
> If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. Uh... you could just let the user authorize repairs. If your iPhone's root-of-trust is registered with your iCloud account, then users could authorize themselves to make repairs by just putting in the password. Entirely offline, retains Apple's DRM scheme, and even thwarts the Chinese boogeymen that you're so scared of. It just removes the part where Apple has absolute control over the feature instead of the hardware owner.
- derefr 3y ago
  Huh? What user? I think you misunderstand the pipeline. When they steal my phone, they’re not refurbishing my phone to resell it. They’re scrapping my phone — taking all the expensive components out of my phone: the screen, the touch sensor, etc — and selling them to repair shops to be used as parts to repair other people’s phones. People who, obviously, authorize those repairs. But I don’t! (If you know what an illegal car “chop shop” is, they operate under the same business model: stolen preowned product as an input, replacement parts sold to repair shops — or used in their own “repair shop” — as an output.) The exact point of “hardware DRM” is that it allows me to retroactively revoke my consent for the parts of my phone to ever be used again inside some other person’s phone, through the cloud, at the moment I realize my phone has already been stolen. (Also, FYI, there’s nothing specifically Chinese about this pipeline. It’s not like this is a scam being run by the Triads or anything. Rather, it’s just unchecked capitalism. The gangs that go around stealing phones are small-time local groups of thieves, who have realized they can make a buck by selling and delivering wholesale lots of these phones to amoral “phone chop-shops” who happen to reside in Shenzhen. Those “phone chop-shops” are only in Shenzhen because that’s where all the demand is for the huge number of parts generated by scrapping a phone, and because they can’t sell these parts on without cash-only handshake deals.) To be clear, the “phone chop-shop” never ask any gangs to steal phones for them, either. They just say they’ll “buy phones in any condition.” (Which is why I say they’re amoral, not immoral.) Everything that happens from then on is the natural consequence of a market optimizing for profitability. On a related topic, the true point of Apple’s “authorized repair” program, was to penalize any repair shop who knowingly purchased parts from a “phone chop-shop” by disallowing them from ever again purchasing genuine parts; thus creating a disincentive from ever buying these grey-market parts.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > Huh? What user? You. You are the user. So, imagine the hardware DRM exactly the way it is now, but with my modifications. The super bad-guys in Shenzhen dismantle my iPhone and try to turn it into a new phone. Oh no! The DRM on the other person's phone says that their parts are paired to my iPhone. Since I never manually un-paired those parts with my iCloud account (or Hardware root-of-trust), they cannot perform the evil deed of scrapping my iPhone for parts. They are thwarted by the exact same system, in the exact same way, except hardware owners hold the keys instead of Apple. > The exact point of “hardware DRM” is that it allows me to retroactively revoke my consent for the parts of my phone Minus retroactive control, that's the point of my implementation. The same DRM system that you are describing can be designed so the user can authorize repairs and de-couple parts without Apple's blessing. The only difference is that it would proactively lock all parts to your iPhone and only uncouple them when the user authorizes it. In that way, it's almost more secure than Apple exclusively holding the keys. > the true point of Apple’s “authorized repair” program, was to penalize any repair shop who knowingly purchased parts from a “phone chop-shop” by disallowing them from ever again purchasing genuine parts Fun fact! Secondhand chop-shop components and genuine Apple-issued replacements are not the only two options. You can buy a lot of Apple components from TI and Foxconn if you browse their piecemeal catalog. On top of that, there are many people who sell hardware as "for parts" to be used as donor hardware by third parties. It almost feels like Apple created this system to punish anyone who competes with their first-party offerings...
JohnFen 3y ago
> Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline I understand that reasoning for it (although I think that's not the only reason Apple does this). But personally, that sort of thing is one of the reasons why I wouldn't buy an iPhone. The cost of that kind of "theft protection" is, for me, too high. I prefer not having any theft protection at all over a scheme that removes my ability to repair or modify my devices. Hardware DRM (at least as it exists) makes really meaningful right-to-repair technically impossible.
trimethylpurine 3y ago
>They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t I think that's unlikely. Phones are disguised by cases. Most tech folks can't even tell them apart when they are sitting side by side on a desk in front of them. Not without the screen coming on, anyway. Let alone in someone's pocket or at a bar. If anything Androids might be stolen more often due to socioeconomic pressure. Can't afford an iPhone, can't afford a nice neighborhood. Or vice versa, an Android gets stolen because it looks like an iPhone, a higher price target. And those would only be relevant IF the statistics agreed with your assertion here, but I don't see that they do, based on some quick searching. Regardless, phone location was a feature of Android long before iOS. I had it on Windows CE phones before the iPhone even existed. Laptops had LoJack before smart phones existed. Theft was not deterred. Rates of recovery maybe increased, but I'm not sure we have statistics on the latest Apple tech to be able to opine about it, and I wouldn't expect that they would say anything about theft, only about recovery when the criminal is stupid enough to not use some cheap shielding they could get off of Amazon for $5.
- derefr 3y ago
  > I think that's unlikely. You're right, in a literal sense; people pickpocket a phone before knowing what it is. It's what happens right after the actual theft that makes a difference. These more-organized thieves know that these chop-shop buyers aren't (nearly as) interested in iPhones, often to the point that they aren't worth the cost of the added shipping weight. So when they manage to nab a phone, they do a quick examination, to figure out what kind of phone it is. If it's an iPhone, they drop it in a nearby trash can; or sometimes they try to con some local who doesn't know anything about phones (think: drug dealer who wants a second phone) into buying it on the street. That's where you find the majority of "stolen iPhones": in the trash near where it was lost, or in the hands of some local who was dumb enough to buy it not realizing it will be marked "lost" in short order and become useless to them. Both of these are "recoverable" losses — which, from both the phone owner's and Apple's perspective, is a win! Meanwhile, the Android devices go in a box, and the box goes on a boat. > Regardless, phone location was a feature of Android long before iOS. I had it on Windows CE phones before the iPhone even existed. Laptops had LoJack before smart phones existed. Theft was not deterred. Yeah, because as I said, this isn't — and never was — about refurbishing the device. It's about scrapping the device for parts. Location tracking does not prevent a device being scrapped for parts, because chop shops actually throw away the location-tracking bit — the "compute core" — and just keep all the other expensive parts. Plenty of people with stolen phones see their phone mysteriously show up reporting itself to now be in Shenzhen. Then the location tracking turns off and never comes back, because the phone was chopped up and the compute-core bit thrown away. It just doesn't happen nearly as often, per capita, to iPhone owners as it does to Android owners, because a large number of the iPhones are "rejected from the funnel."