3 ms·

> 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 probl

> 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?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > 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 Alright, you had me doubled over in laughter for a second there. I hope to see John Deere argue the same when their anti-repair reckoning comes, the testimony would be legendary. > 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. Two refutations: - If this was Apple's end-goal, then they wouldn't stop users from replacing piecemeal components themselves and only use the DRM to prevent complete "ship of Theseus" situations as you are presenting. Even in that scenario, those iPhones are technically refurbished (like it or not) because their processors are OEM. - By characterizing the secondhand market as gray, you are both acknowledging it has legitimate demand and is a market. If Apple is using their power as an original manufacturer to stop people beyond "minting" new iPhones, it should be stopped. I'm not saying this as a whistleblower, I'm saying this as a genuine regulatory and legislative suggestion. > But now, by buying 90% chop-shop parts and 10% legitimate released-to-secondary-market logic boards Then, as I said, force the end-user to authorize the release of the components. Make it some absolutely stupid security theater stuff, to really give people like you something to yap about. Make it a 48 hour process that involves 2 Genius Bar assistants and a remote expert who ensure that you aren't being held at gunpoint by using your Apple Watch to track your blood pressure. Then you both fix the market, give people a nice customer story to help them sleep at night, and let people repair their phones. I'm not asking for the world, it's a trillion-dollar business. Of course I'm going to expect the base-level benevolent conduct from them when regulators don't babysit their every move. Alternatively, Apple could acknowledge that this is "not their problem" and trying to pretend otherwise is a good way of getting their anticompetitive clock cleaned.

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?

smoldesu 3y ago
> 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 Alright, you had me doubled over in laughter for a second there. I hope to see John Deere argue the same when their anti-repair reckoning comes, the testimony would be legendary. > 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. Two refutations: - If this was Apple's end-goal, then they wouldn't stop users from replacing piecemeal components themselves and only use the DRM to prevent complete "ship of Theseus" situations as you are presenting. Even in that scenario, those iPhones are technically refurbished (like it or not) because their processors are OEM. - By characterizing the secondhand market as gray, you are both acknowledging it has legitimate demand and is a market. If Apple is using their power as an original manufacturer to stop people beyond "minting" new iPhones, it should be stopped. I'm not saying this as a whistleblower, I'm saying this as a genuine regulatory and legislative suggestion. > But now, by buying 90% chop-shop parts and 10% legitimate released-to-secondary-market logic boards Then, as I said, force the end-user to authorize the release of the components. Make it some absolutely stupid security theater stuff, to really give people like you something to yap about. Make it a 48 hour process that involves 2 Genius Bar assistants and a remote expert who ensure that you aren't being held at gunpoint by using your Apple Watch to track your blood pressure. Then you both fix the market, give people a nice customer story to help them sleep at night, and let people repair their phones. I'm not asking for the world, it's a trillion-dollar business. Of course I'm going to expect the base-level benevolent conduct from them when regulators don't babysit their every move. Alternatively, Apple could acknowledge that this is "not their problem" and trying to pretend otherwise is a good way of getting their anticompetitive clock cleaned.