Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

ifixit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 367 posts

Re: We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

#11

Post by toxik »

mschuster91 wrote: post #6

There is also another issue why Apple is restricting "part harvesting": theft. iCloud locks or Samsung's KNOX lock entered the field because the manufacturers were pretty pissed that customers using their devices in public became a target for "enterprising" robbers who'd factory-wipe the devices and flip them to a pawn shop or second-hand store in a matter of half an hour. When people are afraid to use your products…

While anti-consumerist practices such as this authentication mechanism sometimes accidentally protect the consumer, it is not the reason why companies do it. If it were, they would also allow you to say “yes this replacement is desired.” Similarly, if it was about security and preventing backdoored parts, they could allow you to authorize the replacement.

But no, it is of course about money grabbing, and then the consumer is the opponent.

Re: We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

#13

Post by amartya916 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #6

There is also another issue why Apple is restricting "part harvesting": theft. iCloud locks or Samsung's KNOX lock entered the field because the manufacturers were pretty pissed that customers using their devices in public became a target for "enterprising" robbers who'd factory-wipe the devices and flip them to a pawn shop or second-hand store in a matter of half an hour. When people are afraid to use your products…

I would be surprised if Apple does what you suggested, but I do think it's an excellent suggestion, thank you. It just won't be a priority unless some sort of legislation forces their hand.

Re: We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

#15

Post by jchw »

mschuster91 wrote: post #6

There is also another issue why Apple is restricting "part harvesting": theft. iCloud locks or Samsung's KNOX lock entered the field because the manufacturers were pretty pissed that customers using their devices in public became a target for "enterprising" robbers who'd factory-wipe the devices and flip them to a pawn shop or second-hand store in a matter of half an hour. When people are afraid to use your products…

I do not accept this as a reasonable answer. I've lived in not even very good areas, with very lax physical security (often not locking my car) and have never had this issue, ever. Nobody has ever stolen my phone. Not in downtown Detroit, not in not-downtown-Detroit, not in SF, not in Chicago. If crime really is this bad, it's not an Apple or Samsung problem. It's a societal problem that extremely badly needs to be addressed seriously and not just worked around with convenient anti-consumer garbage.

Sell me the phone that can be stolen please.

Re: We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

#16

Post by awesomeMilou »

mschuster91 wrote: post #6

There is also another issue why Apple is restricting "part harvesting": theft. iCloud locks or Samsung's KNOX lock entered the field because the manufacturers were pretty pissed that customers using their devices in public became a target for "enterprising" robbers who'd factory-wipe the devices and flip them to a pawn shop or second-hand store in a matter of half an hour. When people are afraid to use your products…

The rationale of putting engineering time into developing sophisticated anti-repair schemes instead of selling spare parts directly under some threat of a part black market is completely bonkers to me.

Sorry, I'm not buying it, this is Apple protecting their exclusive repair turf and nothing else.

Re: We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

#17

Post by teaearlgraycold »

toxik wrote: post #11
mschuster91 wrote: post #6

There is also another issue why Apple is restricting "part harvesting": theft. iCloud locks or Samsung's KNOX lock entered the field because the manufacturers were pretty pissed that customers using their devices in public became a target for "enterprising" robbers who'd factory-wipe the devices and flip them to a pawn shop or second-hand store in a matter of half an hour. When people are afraid to use your products…

While anti-consumerist practices such as this authentication mechanism sometimes accidentally protect the consumer, it is not the reason why companies do it. If it were, they would also allow you to say “yes this replacement is desired.” Similarly, if it was about security and preventing backdoored parts, they could allow you to authorize the replacement. But no, it is of course about money grabbing, and then the con…

Yes. I could see a better system being made. Perhaps alerting you that the screen was marked as stolen and refusing to have it operate. Hell, for screens in particular you could display a “please return to ” message and nothing else.

Re: We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

#18

Post by Brian_K_White »

toxik wrote: post #11
mschuster91 wrote: post #6

There is also another issue why Apple is restricting "part harvesting": theft. iCloud locks or Samsung's KNOX lock entered the field because the manufacturers were pretty pissed that customers using their devices in public became a target for "enterprising" robbers who'd factory-wipe the devices and flip them to a pawn shop or second-hand store in a matter of half an hour. When people are afraid to use your products…

While anti-consumerist practices such as this authentication mechanism sometimes accidentally protect the consumer, it is not the reason why companies do it. If it were, they would also allow you to say “yes this replacement is desired.” Similarly, if it was about security and preventing backdoored parts, they could allow you to authorize the replacement. But no, it is of course about money grabbing, and then the con…

This. The proof is in the actions.

No need to try to defend them based on unsupportable benefit of the doubt possibilities. If their motivations were actually for the users benefit, then the user would have these options and be benefitting.

Re: We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

#19

Post by misnome »

toxik wrote: post #11
mschuster91 wrote: post #6

There is also another issue why Apple is restricting "part harvesting": theft. iCloud locks or Samsung's KNOX lock entered the field because the manufacturers were pretty pissed that customers using their devices in public became a target for "enterprising" robbers who'd factory-wipe the devices and flip them to a pawn shop or second-hand store in a matter of half an hour. When people are afraid to use your products…

While anti-consumerist practices such as this authentication mechanism sometimes accidentally protect the consumer, it is not the reason why companies do it. If it were, they would also allow you to say “yes this replacement is desired.” Similarly, if it was about security and preventing backdoored parts, they could allow you to authorize the replacement. But no, it is of course about money grabbing, and then the con…

> If it were, they would also allow you to say “yes this replacement is desired.”

How does that not completely bypass any of the reasons for wanting to do this?

And it is “anti-consumerist” to make my property a less desirable target for theft?

Re: We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score

#20

Post by Kirby64 »

tantalor wrote: post #9
mschuster91 wrote: post #6

There is also another issue why Apple is restricting "part harvesting": theft. iCloud locks or Samsung's KNOX lock entered the field because the manufacturers were pretty pissed that customers using their devices in public became a target for "enterprising" robbers who'd factory-wipe the devices and flip them to a pawn shop or second-hand store in a matter of half an hour. When people are afraid to use your products…

Speculation. If that were true, Apple would only require the replacement part to be verified, but they also require the device receiving the part to be verified. That's the "pair" in "pairing".

Not speculation at all. I can tell you for certain this is what they're trying to combat.

The "require the device receiving the part to be verified" is just a consequence of how it's currently implemented. There are ways to implement this without the need to do per-device pairing, but doing so in a secure way is quite difficult. I suspect they'll eventually remove the requirement to pair devices using system configurator, if only because this removes the need to have chat assistance with pairing. That's costing them money to have a call center, and they want to avoid it I suspect.

Post reply on HN