Live data from Hacker News

Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

motherboard.vice.com

261–270 of 307 posts

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a simple one: because they already deliver manuals to the service shops of their choice. With regard to your circular reasoning: it goes nowhere. You should know that all devices used to come with service manuals and some still do today.

They used to come with service manuals because they were a collection of simple mechanical parts. Devices nowadays are far more complicated and intricate than the types of things you're referring to.

There is the part where service manuals exist today. Apple just don't give them to you.

I sense a fairy tale infinite complexity in todays devices from your post. You know that people built them

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actions like fighting right-to-repair bills in many states. While you may have the right to do that yourself, they don't want you to have the right to hire someone else to do it for you. They also don't want you to have the right to get those parts for your iPhone. Apple goes after producers and technicians, and not so much end-users. For one, I think end-users have rights, like the first-sale doctrine, which makes i…

I'm just hearing about this "right to repair" thing. It sounds from this article that the "right to repair" also includes forcing Apple to sell their parts to be used by anyone for repair. If that is the case, I think it is going to far. I don't think Apple should be forced to sell their parts to anyone. But I do believe that anyone should be able to repair any item they own or pay anyone else to do it.

When you buy something, you do have pretty broad rights to repair it.

The problem is, they are becoming less and less effective.

If you have no documentation or repair manuals, then it's harder to fix. An authorized repair site might know what error code 59276 means, but do you?

Apple famously started using a pentalobe screw, seemingly for the goal of making it harder for people who aren't at authorized service centers to carry out repairs. If a company uses non-standard parts when standard parts would work, this makes it harder for you to repair your own items.

In the pentalobe case, third-party vendors sprang up to sell the specialized screwdrivers, so it became less of a barrier. But imagine if the new screw were covered under patent that prevented substitutions .. and only authorized repair centers could buy the correct screwdriver.

Companies are using their rights under other laws to make it harder for you do to your own repairs. For example, farmers are turning to foreign hackers because farm equipment companies use the DMCA to prevent farmers from using anything other than authorized repair technicians from fixing the equipment. This equipment is increasingly reliant on DMCA-protectable software.

As you saw in this case in Norway, Apple wants to use its trademark power to prevent people from buying parts which would otherwise be legal

Are there any requirements would you force upon Apple in order to ensure that people have a reasonable ability "to repair any item they own or pay anyone else to do it?"

Make not mistake - it's also well-established law that the government can force companies to sell to people they might not otherwise want to sell to.

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#263
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple insists that they should be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to do that This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyo…

>This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service. False. This is getting tiring. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Appl... https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repa... https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s... Apple is using or was using (for above links) various ways to make it see…

>Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo.

If Subaru offered an alarm system in your vehicle that disabled the ignition if the system was tampered with, you'd be saying that the system worked exactly as intended. Apple didn't brick people's devices to prevent third-party repairs. The devices were bricked because the chain of trust between Touch ID and the secure enclave was broken. Users had Touch ID enabled and their phones were bricked because Touch ID couldn't verify and there's no way around Touch ID. It's exactly why the update that "fixed" the issue was an update that simply turned off Touch ID for devices that didn't pass verification.

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#264
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but there's an obvious planned obsolescence angle here for Apple too. Perhaps people wouldn't so readily buy new iPhones if they could replace their old phone's battery, screen, buttons, etc for a more reasonable price from a "non-authorised" repairer. Perhaps they wouldn't get a new one like clockwork every 1-3 years.

If any manufacturer of phones has planned obsolescence built in, it’s Android manufacturers. iOS devices receive updates for over 3 years, while you’re lucky to get updates to your Android phone after a year .

While the android update-situation is a real issue, not having the latest version of android installed on your phone does not make it obsolete.

There’s almost no software that actually depends on you having the latest version.

Bad battery life or flash storage used to beyond it’s reasonable lifetime is a much bigger problem, a problem that can be solved by replacement parts, or even better: user replaceable batteries or SD-cards.

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if those devices weren't using genuine Apple displays. >Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if you replaced the touch ID, regardless of whether it was a genuine part or not. >The iPhone X camera module is a separate part form the display yet if you replace the display genuine or not while keeping the original camera module, it stops working for facial authentic…

> This is incorrect and a complete oversimplification of what actually happened. In every single one of the cases you mention, the device was bricked because having the part displayed broke the chain of encryption from the secure enclave to the device in question - Touch ID or Face ID. If you can't verify the chain of trust, there's no way for the device to accurately tell that the security measures that are in place…

>It's not incorrect just incomplete because even genuine parts would fail validation and result in a bricked device.

Genuine parts would only fail if they were installed without rekeying Touch ID. It didn't matter that the parts were genuine Apple parts or not. It mattered that Touch ID and the secure enclave were no longer paired after the hardware keys no longer matched between the 2.

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#266

"Apple does not ‘own’ the product after they have sold it" I think this is the crux of the issue. The guy was importing refurbished parts with the logos covered even. They weren't counterfeits. How does a manufacturer have the right to sue for copyright infringement when it's just end users reselling authentic parts? The owner even states he in no way markets them as OEM parts. Frankly I think it's pretty obvious app…

>The owner even states he in no way markets them as OEM parts.

Except that the archive.org page for his site clearly shows that his site was marketing the replacements as genuine Apple parts and that it was changed after the court case began.

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Apple intentionally slows older phones with firmware updates post new phone release, I think your argument that they're trying to protect the experience doesn't hold much weight.

Please provide documentation for this. The only one I know if where they detected degrading batteries that would cause sudden shutdowns, and (without telling people) throttled the CPU to prevent the sudden spike of power draw that was causing the shutdowns. Certainly not a perfect reaction, but very far from your assertion.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#268
post #255
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, you are just complaining that iOS is not open source.

I don't know. Those all seem like valid complaints to me. The os is separate from the applications and everything he listed has its own industry. Microsoft was reamed over installing IE as the default browser on their OS, so how is not letting you change safari as the default on iOS any different?

Microsoft had a monopoly. Apple doesn't. If you don't like it, go buy an Android phone.

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Apple intentionally slows older phones with firmware updates post new phone release, I think your argument that they're trying to protect the experience doesn't hold much weight.

> Considering Apple intentionally slows older phones with firmware updates post new phone release Source, please?

Here you go: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/28/16827248/apple-iphone-ba...

I’m sure they do it all the time, but this one incident actually caused worldwide news-coverage, even in tabloids read by normal people (that is, not just techies).

Re: Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

#270
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be claiming that Apple deliberately develops software updates to break user- or third-party-repaired devices. This requires Apple to have a team studying how third parties repair their devices, and working on ways to modify their software to break such devices while leaving all others unaffected. That's a not-insignificant challenge. The likelier explanation is that Apple does not invest in developing u…

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-displ... Can you explain this?

If you mean "can I provide you the exact reason why it happened", no. But I still think it's much more likely that Apple just doesn't test for third-party repairs than that they deliberately work to come up with ways to break a third-party repair without breaking their own repairs.

I believe this because I've worked on software teams that developed things that would only be used in-house in controlled ways, and I've seen how fragile those usually end up being and how poorly tested they usually are.

But I also see that there's no possible evidence someone could present, or argument someone could make, that would change your mind, because as the quote says: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into.

Post reply on HN