We are retroactively dropping the iPhone’s repairability score • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by phi0 » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:44 PM UTC

shortcake27 wrote: post #107

flanked-evergl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get the iFixit point as well but if I have a 1500€ phone, I don't want to think about it being stolen, when I am on vacation, because someone needs some parts (oh the human trafficing/organ harvesting similarity...) Do you think thieves are that descending? I know someone whos iPhone 14 was stolen in London. If this helped protect against theft, then why did they steal the phone anyway?

I’m highly dubious of anyone claiming this reduces crime. Things being easy to steal and sell aren’t the _cause_ of crime, they’re a symptom. If someone has felt the need to resort to a life of crime for whatever reason, how is lowering their “salary” (so to speak) going to reduce crime? Surely they now need to steal more phones to make up the difference? I guess you could argue they might commit a different crime in…

Few people would choose a life of crime as a hobby, or if it wasn't paying much better than an average entry-level office job, so it's not like someone decides to resort to crime and then later considers the financial aspects. Most get into it because of the quick money.

To use a hyperbolic example, if the median profit for stealing a phone would suddenly drop to $10, where their only value are the easily extractable raw materials, a 20-fold increase in theft would be less likely then a rapid drop in theft.

Currently there are avenues to remove iCloud lock, where licensed repair shops or Apple employees remove them for some extra cash [1], so the value of stolen iPhones is greater than the raw materials, making it attractive. But with higher regulation, that could change.

[1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgmygb/checkm8-info-remove-i...

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

#202

Post by flanked-evergl » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:45 PM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #189

flanked-evergl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get the iFixit point as well but if I have a 1500€ phone, I don't want to think about it being stolen, when I am on vacation, because someone needs some parts (oh the human trafficing/organ harvesting similarity...) Do you think thieves are that descending? I know someone whos iPhone 14 was stolen in London. If this helped protect against theft, then why did they steal the phone anyway?

Its like poisenous plants. Being poisenous doesn't prevent the single plant from getting eaten. But it makes it very unlikely, that a lot plants of that species get eaten. So while a single iPhone might get stolen, overall there are less if many thieves targetting iPhones. They don't bring money, but increase the risk of landing in prison.

> So while a single iPhone might get stolen, overall there are less if many thieves targetting iPhones.

Do we have data to show this?

> They don't bring money, but increase the risk of landing in prison.

I also don't think the risk of going to prison for theft in London is that high. Sure, stealing an iPhone increases it, but an increasing an insignificant risk by a factor of 10 could still leave it being insignificant.

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

#203

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:46 PM UTC

natymad wrote: post #166

I completely fail to understand the anti-theft argument, help me out here. So the theory is that, once thieves will see you're carrying an Iphone, they won't bother taking it. But why? You're already being mugged, everything that's even remotely valuable will be taken. Why would they let their victims go, just because their valuables are more difficult to flip? "Give me all your valuables - oh wait, that's an iphone,…

[deleted]

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

#204

Post by kmeisthax » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:46 PM UTC

audunw wrote: post #146

LightHugger wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is complete nonsense, if apple cared about phones being stolen for parts, they would just start selling the damn parts so people could repair their phones. Right now the reason parts are so valulable is because there's no other way to get them! Apple's unrepairability policy FUELS theft not the other way around.

> they would just start selling the damn parts so people could repair their phones. They do. Have you been living under a rock? https://www.selfservicerepair.com/en-US/home And there’s no way for Apples policy to fuel theft when the stolen phone and parts from that phone can’t be used for anything. You might have had a point a few years ago when they neither sold parts nor did the pairing stuff. I think they’re movin…

The problem with SSR is that they give you the shit AASPs/Genius Bar gets, which is finished assemblies designed to be swapped out by low-skill workers for minimum wage. This dramatically increases the price of the repair because you're now swapping out a large number of components instead of just one.

Louis Rossmann used to beat Apple on the price of repair specifically by desoldering individual chips and swapping them, which is far cheaper per repair. But it's more expensive to train workers to do this kind of repair, and Apple doesn't like paying for skilled labor in America, so they just make the consumer eat the cost of whole assemblies.

At the same time Apple has also insisted on locking down their supply chains so that you cannot buy factory original components at all. They don't want you to be able to buy the chips that go into their phones, because they're worried you might pull a Strange Parts and cobble together a whole iPhone out of them.

It's oddly convenient how all of these things - the need to stop iPhone chop-shopping, the need to stop product cloning, and the need to have cheap labor costs - all just so happen to result in a really shitty repair experience that makes buying a new one always the best option.

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

#205

Post by fortran77 » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:49 PM UTC

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 agree, and I think there's a compromise. Allow the pairing of harvested parts, but also allow users to report their unit as "stolen" so the parts can't be paired.

However, this is probably fraught with problems that Apple doesn't want to deal with. Users will want to know if someone tried to pair their parts and they'll be hit with a large number of subpoenas daily from people who want to know which repair shops had their stolen phones.

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

#206

Post by pzo » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:49 PM UTC

wyldberry wrote: post #182

natymad wrote: post #166

I completely fail to understand the anti-theft argument, help me out here. So the theory is that, once thieves will see you're carrying an Iphone, they won't bother taking it. But why? You're already being mugged, everything that's even remotely valuable will be taken. Why would they let their victims go, just because their valuables are more difficult to flip? "Give me all your valuables - oh wait, that's an iphone,…

There are more robberies than a mugging. Pick pockets are a real scourge. If you have a reliable way to turn stolen goods into currency, you are incentivized to take that item. Jewelry -> pawn shops for example. The anti-theft measure here makes it not profitable, or much harder to profit, from taking a phone because you can't resell it or strip the valuable parts. I had a friend get pick pocketed in spain, and the n…

Do you think pickpocketer take your phone out of your pocket, check it then say "oh shit this is iphone 15 with DRM" and put it back to your pocket ?

Pickpocketers will fish anything that is in your pocket and in crowded public transport immediately pass to other partner in crime.

Same with thefts on scooter that rob woman with bags - they don't check if it's prada bag or if has any valuables inside.

Same with thefts that can even break your car window to get some bag that they see is inside but in the end has only groceries.

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

#207

Post by elliottkember » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:50 PM UTC

flanked-evergl wrote: post #53

notanormalnerd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why iFixit doesn't even touch on that point. I live in Barcelona and phones are being pickpocketed every day here. Not being able to wipe or unlock or else is a mayor deterrent for the pickpockets, because noone will take the phone off of them, so it's not worth it. Phones are still being stolen but imagine if they could sell to a global market of repair shops. You couldn't go to any tourist location wit…

> I get the iFixit point as well but if I have a 1500€ phone, I don't want to think about it being stolen, when I am on vacation, because someone needs some parts (oh the human trafficing/organ harvesting similarity...) Do you think thieves are that descending? I know someone whos iPhone 14 was stolen in London. If this helped protect against theft, then why did they steal the phone anyway?

There is probably a "trailing indicator" effect at play here. I believe people don't sell the phone immediately, but try and find a buyer later. It will take a few thefts of un-sellable iPhones before the thief realises that the risk is not worth the reward. These changes don't trickle down immediately.

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

#208

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:51 PM UTC

Kirby64 wrote: post #180

drtz wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can tell you for certain this is what they're trying to combat. > There are ways to implement this without the need to do per-device pairing, but doing so in a secure way is quite difficult. Is this based on first-hand knowledge? I'm skeptical on both fronts because I neither see any evidence this is what's being combatted, nor do I see the technical difficulty of being able to self-authorize your phone's parts t…

So, the technical challenge is related to managing the following things (all simultaneously): * Apple wants to make sure components in an authentic phone are not capable of being stolen and resold (this is a problem today, even with the pairing, although it is less valuable due to pairing) * Apple wants to make sure that if you change components, that the replacement component is authentic * Apple wants to make sure…

If you send a permanent unlock code for parts being re-used in a repair, then that fully accomplishes 2 and 3 and almost entirely accomplishes 1. With no need to know anything about the host device.

And brand new parts could lock themselves to the first device they're put into.

It wouldn't be ideal for repair but it would be much better.

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

#209

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#210

Post by kmeisthax » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

deely3 wrote: post #153

triceratops wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterargument to that is cars are regularly stripped for parts even when spares are easily available to buy.

Does this counterargument mean that DRM is actually good, and in the future all cars should be unfixable without approval of producer?

Elon Musk seems to think this way, and every other car manufacturer has let this cancer metastasize in otherwise perfectly fine EV designs because dealers won't sell a car without something to keep people coming back every six months for maintenance.