4 ms·

Well again, now you're conflating two separate things. As I've demonstrated before, there are legal repairs with non-stolen parts that Apple would prevent today

Well again, now you're conflating two separate things. As I've demonstrated before, there are legal repairs with non-stolen parts that Apple would prevent today. Apple considers those repairs wrongful, because they do not include brand-new OEM components or allow the user to designate that a handset can be used for repairs. This is an arbitrary decision, made by them, and justified by a non-technical, unrelated reason. That is wrong. The Shenzhen boogeyman can be dealt with in ways that don't give Apple the de-facto iron fist over repairs. This is an obvious, bald-faced power grab no different than using terrorism to explain why encryption is a bad technology. Any reasonable jury would conclude that the value of monopolizing your second-hand supply chain far exceeds any profit recouped from snuffing out chop-shop iPhones.

derefr 3y ago
> there are legal repairs with non-stolen parts that Apple would prevent today Yes, but as I was attempting to emphasize, the problem is that these same repairs represent "supply chain leaks." If the operation available to users was to "release their device and all the parts inside it from tracking, such that these parts can then be used to repair any other device" — then these parts would disappear off the face of the earth from a supply-chain perspective, where they could then be stolen from the recycler, from the repair shop, or any number of other intermediaries, before finally making their way into a new device. (The exception to this "leak" being the one kind of "recycling" that's already permitted: the one where you're releasing the parts from tracking because you're sending them back to the first-party OEM integrator, who can then keep internal supply-chain security for where the parts go from there. I.e., the Apple recycling program.) The obvious way to prevent the "supply chain leak" would be to change the operation being permitted: rather than "de-identifying" parts so that they're owned by nobody indefinitely until put in a new device; instead, only permit instantaneous transfers, authorized by the current owner at point of transfer, from one device directly into another, such that at all points in time, every part that's left the factory has a legal owner. I'm a decentralized-systems nerd, so I do realize that you can do something like this without there being one central party who keeps the current supply-chain state of all parts in their own proprietary database. You can use a federated "supply chain transparency" blockchain; design the system so that the validators of this system can elect third-party companies as delegated oracles to then enforce KYC-like identity verification upon signers before they're allowed to perform transactions; etc. But decentralization in this direction is pointless toward your stated goals, because either it's not decentralized enough to permit individuals as participants (so you inevitably have to lean on some professional, "authorized" repair shop, meaning there is still no actual "right to repair" for individuals); or it's so decentralized that it allows individuals not motivated to repair entry into the system — at which point those individuals have a valuable good (their identity-stake in the system) that they can sell to malicious actors who want to use their identities as "burner identities" (see also: Amazon + eBay sellers buying "aged" and "brushed" accounts to use to perpetrate fraud; people who sell their own email/Discord/etc accounts on carding forums for about a dollar each; etc.) Note how none of the companies talking about "supply chain transparency" are proposing it for the secondary market — only for the primary factory-to-OEM-to-consumer logistical pipeline. For the primary market, it works, because there are a set of known actors who are supposed to be participants in the system, and anyone else is supposed to be kept out. But for the secondary market, this paradigm falls apart.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > the problem is that these same repairs represent "supply chain leaks." There you go! I'm glad we can mutually acknowledge that this is more of an Apple problem than it is an end-user one. > either it's not decentralized enough to permit individuals as participants (so you inevitably have to lean on some professional, "authorized" repair shop, meaning there is still no actual "right to repair" for individuals); or it's so decentralized that it allows individuals not motivated to repair entry into the system If that's your core conceit, then I just plain disagree. The end-user is a perfectly acceptable party to authorize repair if you don't obsess over your supply chain. As the owner of that hardware, it should be their express right to choose any replacement part they desire for their screen or volume rocker. In this case, Apple has gone out of their way to break third-party options and documented repair methods. It's not about functionality or security, their current implementation (as you've identified) wholly revolves around supply chain control. It's not illegal, but it should be. The status-quo is morally wrong and makes anti-consumer compromises to ensure the profitability of Apple's secondary market. Anti-theft technology is not inherently amoral, but hardware DRM is, when you use it like this. > Note how none of the companies talking about "supply chain transparency" are proposing it for the secondary market Of course they aren't.
  - derefr 3y ago
    > Of course they aren't. ...because the economics of it don't work out in favor of actually effectively tracing parts through the secondary-market supply chain, rendering the stated goal of "supply chain transparency" unreachable, and so the system-as-designed pointless to participate in. Are you implying something different? > There you go! I'm glad we can mutually acknowledge that this is more of an Apple problem than it is an end-user one. There are more participants in this ecosystem than "the end-user" and "Apple." Specifically, the actor being harmed here is legitimate third-party repair shops. These small businesses suddenly have a problem... in that these same organized criminal gangs that were previously stealing whole phones, would suddenly have a large incentive to instead break into their repair shops to steal their stocks of "unlocked" parts! And, unlike Apple, who can just post armed guards around their factories and shipping trucks, independent repair shops are small and usually low-margin businesses — so there's very little they can afford to do about that kind of high-grade theft! For an analogy: narcotic drugs. Drug thieves have a choice: they can try to steal drugs from a pharmaceutical supplier (far out of the way, and well-guarded + built like a fortress with barbed-wire fences and so forth) or a hospital pharmacy (deep within hospitals, also well-guarded, and likely open 24 hours) Or they can try to steal drugs from a small neighbourhood drug store (not well guarded, empty at night.) Which do you think they choose? But ignoring that, this "releasing of parts" still harms the end-user — because it gives the grey-market buyers of repair parts — the same ones buying from chop-shops — a channel by which to acquire a stock of the critical missing parts (logic boards!) required to build full new phones out of mostly-otherwise-stolen parts. Previously, these grey-market buyers could only operate as repair shops, repairing existing phones (i.e. building a phone up around a customer's working logic board.) But now, by buying 90% chop-shop parts and 10% legitimate released-to-secondary-market logic boards, they can construct full phones for sale, that are cheaper than the cheapest legitimate secondary-market phones! And guess what direction this takes the demand for chop-shop parts, and therefore the demand for stolen phones?

derefr 3y ago

> there are legal repairs with non-stolen parts that Apple would prevent today Yes, but as I was attempting to emphasize, the problem is that these same repairs represent "supply chain leaks." If the operation available to users was to "release their device and all the parts inside it from tracking, such that these parts can then be used to repair any other device" — then these parts would disappear off the face of the earth from a supply-chain perspective, where they could then be stolen from the recycler, from the repair shop, or any number of other intermediaries, before finally making their way into a new device. (The exception to this "leak" being the one kind of "recycling" that's already permitted: the one where you're releasing the parts from tracking because you're sending them back to the first-party OEM integrator, who can then keep internal supply-chain security for where the parts go from there. I.e., the Apple recycling program.) The obvious way to prevent the "supply chain leak" would be to change the operation being permitted: rather than "de-identifying" parts so that they're owned by nobody indefinitely until put in a new device; instead, only permit instantaneous transfers, authorized by the current owner at point of transfer, from one device directly into another, such that at all points in time, every part that's left the factory has a legal owner. I'm a decentralized-systems nerd, so I do realize that you can do something like this without there being one central party who keeps the current supply-chain state of all parts in their own proprietary database. You can use a federated "supply chain transparency" blockchain; design the system so that the validators of this system can elect third-party companies as delegated oracles to then enforce KYC-like identity verification upon signers before they're allowed to perform transactions; etc. But decentralization in this direction is pointless toward your stated goals, because either it's not decentralized enough to permit individuals as participants (so you inevitably have to lean on some professional, "authorized" repair shop, meaning there is still no actual "right to repair" for individuals); or it's so decentralized that it allows individuals not motivated to repair entry into the system — at which point those individuals have a valuable good (their identity-stake in the system) that they can sell to malicious actors who want to use their identities as "burner identities" (see also: Amazon + eBay sellers buying "aged" and "brushed" accounts to use to perpetrate fraud; people who sell their own email/Discord/etc accounts on carding forums for about a dollar each; etc.) Note how none of the companies talking about "supply chain transparency" are proposing it for the secondary market — only for the primary factory-to-OEM-to-consumer logistical pipeline. For the primary market, it works, because there are a set of known actors who are supposed to be participants in the system, and anyone else is supposed to be kept out. But for the secondary market, this paradigm falls apart.

smoldesu 3y ago
> the problem is that these same repairs represent "supply chain leaks." There you go! I'm glad we can mutually acknowledge that this is more of an Apple problem than it is an end-user one. > either it's not decentralized enough to permit individuals as participants (so you inevitably have to lean on some professional, "authorized" repair shop, meaning there is still no actual "right to repair" for individuals); or it's so decentralized that it allows individuals not motivated to repair entry into the system If that's your core conceit, then I just plain disagree. The end-user is a perfectly acceptable party to authorize repair if you don't obsess over your supply chain. As the owner of that hardware, it should be their express right to choose any replacement part they desire for their screen or volume rocker. In this case, Apple has gone out of their way to break third-party options and documented repair methods. It's not about functionality or security, their current implementation (as you've identified) wholly revolves around supply chain control. It's not illegal, but it should be. The status-quo is morally wrong and makes anti-consumer compromises to ensure the profitability of Apple's secondary market. Anti-theft technology is not inherently amoral, but hardware DRM is, when you use it like this. > Note how none of the companies talking about "supply chain transparency" are proposing it for the secondary market Of course they aren't.
- derefr 3y ago
  > Of course they aren't. ...because the economics of it don't work out in favor of actually effectively tracing parts through the secondary-market supply chain, rendering the stated goal of "supply chain transparency" unreachable, and so the system-as-designed pointless to participate in. Are you implying something different? > There you go! I'm glad we can mutually acknowledge that this is more of an Apple problem than it is an end-user one. There are more participants in this ecosystem than "the end-user" and "Apple." Specifically, the actor being harmed here is legitimate third-party repair shops. These small businesses suddenly have a problem... in that these same organized criminal gangs that were previously stealing whole phones, would suddenly have a large incentive to instead break into their repair shops to steal their stocks of "unlocked" parts! And, unlike Apple, who can just post armed guards around their factories and shipping trucks, independent repair shops are small and usually low-margin businesses — so there's very little they can afford to do about that kind of high-grade theft! For an analogy: narcotic drugs. Drug thieves have a choice: they can try to steal drugs from a pharmaceutical supplier (far out of the way, and well-guarded + built like a fortress with barbed-wire fences and so forth) or a hospital pharmacy (deep within hospitals, also well-guarded, and likely open 24 hours) Or they can try to steal drugs from a small neighbourhood drug store (not well guarded, empty at night.) Which do you think they choose? But ignoring that, this "releasing of parts" still harms the end-user — because it gives the grey-market buyers of repair parts — the same ones buying from chop-shops — a channel by which to acquire a stock of the critical missing parts (logic boards!) required to build full new phones out of mostly-otherwise-stolen parts. Previously, these grey-market buyers could only operate as repair shops, repairing existing phones (i.e. building a phone up around a customer's working logic board.) But now, by buying 90% chop-shop parts and 10% legitimate released-to-secondary-market logic boards, they can construct full phones for sale, that are cheaper than the cheapest legitimate secondary-market phones! And guess what direction this takes the demand for chop-shop parts, and therefore the demand for stolen phones?