Live data from Hacker News

Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

arstechnica.com

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#121

Please don't attach any morals to this because there aren't any. This is just another step in a long string of similar announcements and "actions" from Apple to gather ammo against lawsuits and new bills, delay or buy any good will they can get regarding this matter. It's appears they are convinced some meaningful part of the "Right to Repair" can't be stopped and of course as competent strategists they are, Apple ca…

Wow. Is there any way Apple can ever be perceived as honest in their decisions? And by the way, why do we even attach this human categories to an entity that in itself only has the maximization of profits as its incentive? If anything, this proves that Regulation Works! Big tech Leviathans can be steered if their lobbyists lose, and if governments take informed decisions about how to drive change. This is a rare exce…

> Is there any way Apple can ever be perceived as honest in their decisions?

Sure. We will perceive them as honest if they choose to do the right thing regardless of financial impact and completely of their own accord. If governments had to step in and force them to do things, it's just damage control.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#122
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the other hand, we should be open and accepting when large companies make policy shifts. Man, if I had a dollar for every time I heard something along these lines of "well we should still encourage X, even if it's a clear political play" I suppose there's just something about being vaguely eager to tacitly accept overt attempts at changing the general discourse Simply because they begrudgingly acknowledge economi…

Its not tacit acceptance. Corps are amoral and always looking out for their bottom line. If that just so happens to mean they align with what the people want then good. And if it doesn't then its on the people to pressure politicians to change the laws and regulations to incentive they do and punish they don't. Cynicism over corps lacking no morals will get you nowhere. They don't and wont. So instead of complaining…

If I, as a human, only make decisions that are in my best interest regardless of their harm on others, you would not call me amoral. You’d call me immoral. Why does this standard not apply to cooperations?

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#123
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Huh? What user? You. You are the user. So, imagine the hardware DRM exactly the way it is now, but with my modifications. The super bad-guys in Shenzhen dismantle my iPhone and try to turn it into a new phone. Oh no! The DRM on the other person's phone says that their parts are paired to my iPhone. Since I never manually un-paired those parts with my iCloud account (or Hardware root-of-trust), they cannot perform t…

Without retroactive control, there’s basically zero chance of any phone being recyclable. A phone being able to be used for parts should be a default-allow condition; otherwise e.g. any phone owned by someone who dies — which is a large percentage of phones that get genuinely recycled these days! — will consider its parts non-reusable.

A default-allow scenario is dangerous, and won't help you if your thief-in-question chucks your iPhone into a Faraday bag. If you want secure hardware DRM, I'd argue it's all-or-nothing. You can't count on the benevolence of every thief or the reaction speed of every iPhone owner. The only secure hardware DRM is the one that works when it's offline, out of power or even when the user is unaware it was stolen. Anything less isn't Magic, it's a half-measure.

Now, if that sort of security doesn't matter to you; good! Me neither. My original thesis was that Apple can reconcile their current DRM scheme with users that want to repair their hardware themselves, via third-parties. I still believe that, and I don't think Apple can prove that their solution is entirely necessary to secure iPhones.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#124
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be twist if instead of industries lobbying for loop holes in right to repair bills, they started lobbying for thorough to the point of being Byzantine ones to keep new entrants out of the market. I guess it will be a function of how worried they are about their moat.

This is exactly what turned domestic US sales tax collection. Once there was market share, figuring out jurisdictional taxing became a moat to keep small players out.

Insane that the US government does not offer an API for it.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not tacit acceptance. Corps are amoral and always looking out for their bottom line. If that just so happens to mean they align with what the people want then good. And if it doesn't then its on the people to pressure politicians to change the laws and regulations to incentive they do and punish they don't. Cynicism over corps lacking no morals will get you nowhere. They don't and wont. So instead of complaining…

If I, as a human, only make decisions that are in my best interest regardless of their harm on others, you would not call me amoral. You’d call me immoral. Why does this standard not apply to cooperations?

Because corporations are not people.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not exactly the same. I don't see the difference. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the highest bidder offers $1,000,000. The party who sees the tradition vision tops out at $750,000. You can accept the $750,000 offer and see the tradition carry on. Or you can accept $1,000,000 and spend $250,000 of it in some other way to see the tradition carry on. Theoretically the outcome is the same either way.…

Your argument here boils down to "all decision making can be viewed in terms of expected net economic gain/loss", and while I don't disagree with you, it isn't a very salient or novel point. My whole argument is this: Public shareholders compel their businesses to treat market capitalization and/or dividends as the principal goals. Private owners, though, may have goals other than the business's value or profit, such…

> Whether those other goals can be thought of in terms of monetary value seems orthogonal.

The original comment which set the context and of which we are talking to was specifically about the monetary accounting. It cannot possibly be orthogonal.

Perhaps what you are trying to say, as has been hinted at before, is that said comment, while perhaps technically true in a vacuum, doesn't really mean anything in practice? To which I would agree.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vendor feedback is that the iPhone SE would be on the high-end, in terms of durability & quality, of what they sell comparatively as Android phones. To paraphrase him, iPhones are high-end or very high-end, and comparing prices for repair is not necessary bad for iPhone users. But with a more low-end Android phone, you can get cheaper repairs. I still hope that a bit more options for parts will lead to lower pric…

So just to recap: An iPhone SE uses high quality parts that are highly durable. An iPhone SE, as you noted, is on the low to mid range for repair when compared to other smart phones. If you use a low-end Android phone you can get cheaper repairs. Presumably because they’re cheaper, lower quality parts. I’m not entirely sure what the complaint is about.

Because there is no complaint :-)

There is just a hope that a more open situation on iPhones will lead to cheaper yet decent quality repairs for older iPhones, so that it is more encouraging to repair rather than replace.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just to recap: An iPhone SE uses high quality parts that are highly durable. An iPhone SE, as you noted, is on the low to mid range for repair when compared to other smart phones. If you use a low-end Android phone you can get cheaper repairs. Presumably because they’re cheaper, lower quality parts. I’m not entirely sure what the complaint is about.

Because there is no complaint :-) There is just a hope that a more open situation on iPhones will lead to cheaper yet decent quality repairs for older iPhones, so that it is more encouraging to repair rather than replace.

I see. Thanks for clarifying. I understood your original post as a complaint.

I think that’s it’s unlikely to see much lower prices (while maintaining quality) given that Android has that more open repair situation yet the iPhone repair pricing is on the low-mid range even now for high-quality, high-durability parts.

To make them cheaper, with high quality and high durability you need the volume pricing that Apple commands from suppliers.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#129
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without retroactive control, there’s basically zero chance of any phone being recyclable. A phone being able to be used for parts should be a default-allow condition; otherwise e.g. any phone owned by someone who dies — which is a large percentage of phones that get genuinely recycled these days! — will consider its parts non-reusable.

A default-allow scenario is dangerous, and won't help you if your thief-in-question chucks your iPhone into a Faraday bag. If you want secure hardware DRM, I'd argue it's all-or-nothing. You can't count on the benevolence of every thief or the reaction speed of every iPhone owner. The only secure hardware DRM is the one that works when it's offline, out of power or even when the user is unaware it was stolen. Anythin…

> and won't help you if your thief-in-question chucks your iPhone into a Faraday bag

No, it does (and works well!) because the parts don't need to know that they're stolen. That's not how lost mode works†; the parts themselves aren't refusing to cooperate with the new phone. Rather, it's the other phone that needs to know that your phone's parts have been stolen. It then refuses to cooperate with the parts, after the parts identify themselves. All the parts need, for this to work, is immutable individualized bus-message signing keys (a.k.a. "serialized parts.")

Remember that we're also assuming here, a phone ecosystem that has a Trusted Computing Base — one where you fundamentally can't get root to modify the phone's firmware from the signed one that the manufacturer puts on there. (Or at least, not in a way that would leave the phone in a condition that a person just submitting a phone to a repair shop would find acceptable. Jailbroken iPhones, when possible, can no longer follow upstream updates, for just one problem. That's not the kind of thing that would be considered a "successful repair" — it's the kind of thing that'd have the phone taken back for a refund on that repair.)

The presence of a Trusted Computing Base on whatever "compute core" the other parts are going to be attached onto, means that you can't get in the way of any Certificate Revocation List that he manufacturer issues for the signing keys that these retroactively-marked-as-lost parts will present to the new phone when they attempt to pair with it upon activation.

---

† "Lost mode" actually triggers three separate things:

1. it sends out a notification to the "compute core" of the lost phone that either immediately — or the next time it comes online, if it hasn't since been rooted [which as I said, is unlikely, for customer-UX reasons] — will lock itself up until someone in possession of it goes through a KYC-like identity verification process with Apple to prove that they are the legitimate owner of the phone — at which point Apple issues a signed packet that tells the "compute core" to un-clench. As long as the "compute core" is locked, it's useless to "chop shops", and just gets discarded as waste in the scrap process.

2. it looks up the certificates used by the various "serialized components" of the phone to sign their bus message traffic (which Apple knows without having to ping the phone, because it recorded those cert IDs when generating them, before burning them into the parts; and knows which phone they went into on the assembly line, because serialized parts) and puts them on an activation-time Certificate Revocation List that all other iOS "compute cores" fetch. (This is what "activation" — in the era of factory-unlocked phones — is: fetching the most up-to-date Certificate Revocation List, and checking whether the signing keys of any of the phone's parts are on it.)

3. it places the "compute core's" associated IMEI number, if any, onto IMEI blocklists; and places the "compute core's" MAC addresses onto government watch-lists. Why bother? Well, sometimes there's no "customer"; instead, some smaller number of these phones are stolen by professional gangs that own the whole pipeline, and their goal isn't parts for repair, but rather to get entire working (nice, modern) smartphones into the hands of "important" people, in countries that Apple's enclosing jurisdiction has decided should not be allowed to "import technology" from them. These groups do this by 1. Faraday-caging the phones, 2. importing them into their country, and 3. delivering them to a jailbreaker who works in a Faraday-caged room. IMEI blocking means that if you successfully did this, your phone might end up working fine on your corrupt country's networks — but the moment you bring it to another country, the baseband modem (which even rooting the phone can't really interfere with) will receive the updated IMEI blocklist from a local network provider, and lock itself up. And then, ideally, the user will try to get online anyway by connecting the phone to some major public wi-fi like an airport — at which point the state actors who monitor MAC address logs of these major public wi-fi APs, will know that there's a Person of Interest in the country.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#130
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I, as a human, only make decisions that are in my best interest regardless of their harm on others, you would not call me amoral. You’d call me immoral. Why does this standard not apply to cooperations?

Because corporations are not people.

Cooperations are made up of people, and the equivalence has been a useful and ubiquitous construct. Abandoning that in the context of morality is, to me, just an attempt to hand-wave the immoral decisions and actions made by the real people within these cooperations.
Post reply on HN