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

iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#111

Post by mavendependency »

axoltl wrote: post #8
astockwell wrote: post #4

Apple, I get it. I get why you do it. But seriously, this retroactive punishing of prior 3rd-party purchases is asinine. I had purchased multiple lightning cables from Anker (a very reputable brand), and had one of the iOS 11.x updates basically render them useless. Apple's product support is not fast enough, nor pervasive enough (to say nothing of cheap enough), to justify this behavior. Edited for clarity

It was not done intentionally. They simply don't QA their releases on repaired phones (because why would they?). The touchscreens in question highly likely use an older touchscreen controller from a previous iPhone. These controllers don't support certain commands that evidently they are now using. As far as the lightning connectors go, that WAS done intentionally. The third party lightning connectors generally don't…

If this is the case, wouldn't the "touch current" from capacitive leakage on the Y class capacitor tying the SMPS ground to mains neutral do this anyway?

Surely, if electromigration is an issue, wouldn't these issues be just as significant? Isn't gold practically immune to electromigration at these energy levels?

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#112

Post by greglindahl »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #102
astockwell wrote: post #4

Apple, I get it. I get why you do it. But seriously, this retroactive punishing of prior 3rd-party purchases is asinine. I had purchased multiple lightning cables from Anker (a very reputable brand), and had one of the iOS 11.x updates basically render them useless. Apple's product support is not fast enough, nor pervasive enough (to say nothing of cheap enough), to justify this behavior. Edited for clarity

I find this even more despicable because Apple chooses to use a certain type of rubber under the guise of it being more eco-friendly. Yet this rubber is ridiculously brittle and frays almost without fail within 6-12 months meaning you just end up having to by more cables thus using more of the worlds resources anyway than if they had shipped you one cable that didn't fail. My 17 year old Ti Powerbook cable used daily…

So you're saying that you're sure that the problem that people usually attribute to bad strain relief is actually caused by slightly different plastic?

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#113

Post by kup0 »

cheeze wrote: post #95
calebegg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amp version of this page takes my browser 1.39 seconds to load with about 616KB of data over 27 requests. The non-AMP version takes over 10 seconds, and loads 2.2 MB over 300+ requests. In this case, it's just a light version of the article with the same content. That seems objectively better. If AMP wasn't incidentally in the URL path you wouldn't have noticed it was AMP. If the existence of AMP encourages peopl…

I have zero issue with it, but HN is super outspoken about how AMP is the worst thing on the internet.

I understand this thread has really gotten off topic from the original, but I think it's a good discussion nevertheless. I think the criticisms we often hear about AMP tend to be more principle-based/philosophical in nature.

Yes, the overall user experience is better. It's not that the experience is bad, it's more about the means they're using to reach those ends.

I see AMP as a set of training wheels that Google was able to get publishers to adopt. All the tools were available for publishers and their developers to make performant/clean sites to begin with, they just chose not to do so. AMP is basically a standardized form of "the way they should have built their site in the first place".

My other issue with AMP is that it makes companies focus on performance for mobile, but not for desktop. Why not build a quality, high-performance site for all platforms?

At the end of the day, is AMP a net positive? Maybe, I'm willing to consider the end result, but I don't think it's a problem for us to explore and criticize the means or the reality that necessitated AMP's existence.

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#114

Post by axoltl »

mkhalil wrote: post #86
nomel wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding, many Apple chips are custom, and I assume much of their firmware is too. What your asking is for Apple to support third party knock off chips in their firmware and drivers which were most likely reverse engineered to "get it close to functional". That's a bit silly. Imagine getting upset that an Occulus firmware update didn't work with a knock off HMD that lacked features of the original...

We are not talking about a small number of users though, millions of their users use third-party screens. They should have a test to make sure they don't get left in a dust with an update.

Is the onus on Apple to ensure the third-party screens work, or is it on the third-party screens to ensure they're compatible?

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#115

Post by greglindahl »

bdamm wrote: post #106
dmitrygr wrote: post #90

This could have been entirely innocent. It happened to an android device I am familiar with as well. Third-party screens will usually identify over i2c/spi/whatever the same as original, but you cannot apply original firmware updates to them (they are different internally and will get bricked). However, as they are designed to appear original, there isn't always a way to tell. The two options both suck: do not ship f…

Two other options also exist. OS performs a handshake with the target subcomponent and authenticates that the component really is manufactured by the manufacturer that is targeted by the pending firmware update. If the authentication completes successfully, then push the firmware. A flip-side alternative is for the component to only boot firmware that it recognizes as signed by the correct authority. In the first cas…

Your first suggestion is what is being done. The parts are pretending to be authentic. This game has been played for decades in various kinds of high-volume computing parts without a good solution.

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#116

Post by axoltl »

bdamm wrote: post #106
dmitrygr wrote: post #90

This could have been entirely innocent. It happened to an android device I am familiar with as well. Third-party screens will usually identify over i2c/spi/whatever the same as original, but you cannot apply original firmware updates to them (they are different internally and will get bricked). However, as they are designed to appear original, there isn't always a way to tell. The two options both suck: do not ship f…

Two other options also exist. OS performs a handshake with the target subcomponent and authenticates that the component really is manufactured by the manufacturer that is targeted by the pending firmware update. If the authentication completes successfully, then push the firmware. A flip-side alternative is for the component to only boot firmware that it recognizes as signed by the correct authority. In the first cas…

You've obviously never been involved in the design/manufacture of an ASIC.

What you're proposing will take roughly 2 years, and be an organizational nightmare. 'Just' having an embedded identity is already complicated:

1. Where do you store the identity? Fuses in the ASIC? Now you need a fuse bank. Not every process node supports fuses, so you may now have to port you entire design to a new process node.

2. Using this new-fangled identity means you can now perform a handshake with the host. Let's 'just' put down an ECDSA accelerator. What do you mean, this increases the die size by 33%? What do you mean it needs to be resistant to differential power analysis? Oh, right, because stealing a single identity means you can make as many clones as you'd like, and we can't revoke identities if we think they're stolen because of laws in China!

Etc. etc. the second option doesn't even work because the cloned device will simply ignore the signature on the firmware.

I used to think this was all trivial too, but having been through this _exact_ wringer 4 or 5 times before I can tell you it is Hard(tm).

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#117

Post by axoltl »

pfortuny wrote: post #39
axoltl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not done intentionally. They simply don't QA their releases on repaired phones (because why would they?). The touchscreens in question highly likely use an older touchscreen controller from a previous iPhone. These controllers don't support certain commands that evidently they are now using. As far as the lightning connectors go, that WAS done intentionally. The third party lightning connectors generally don't…

They probably can (and I guess rather easily) test whether the touchscreen is or not from Apple and at least let the ungood ones work as before (I am sure this is pretty easy to do: just keep the old controller), issuing a warning (not that Apple is short on these) to the user: "your screen may malfunction or may be insecure. If you had it repaired outside the Apple network, we remind you that it is not covered by ou…

It's neither easy nor cheap. The engineer in question now has to support multiple variants of the driver, and QA has to acquire several of these screens and maintain a dedicated test rack of them.

I'm a little amazed by how many people in this thread don't understand how much work developing for, testing, and maintaining actual physical devices is.

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#118

Post by axoltl »

michaelmrose wrote: post #56
axoltl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not done intentionally. They simply don't QA their releases on repaired phones (because why would they?). The touchscreens in question highly likely use an older touchscreen controller from a previous iPhone. These controllers don't support certain commands that evidently they are now using. As far as the lightning connectors go, that WAS done intentionally. The third party lightning connectors generally don't…

Why doesn't any other phone manufacturer have this problem?

Apple relies very heavily on customized silicon to provide an edge (Lower power consumption, for example, or extra features). This means that there might be a part out there that's sorta close, but not quite. Once Apple starts pushing their customized silicon, the off-the-shelf part doesn't keep up.

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#119

Post by axoltl »

inteleng wrote: post #97
axoltl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% not bullshit. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170272058A1/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170124010A1/

It's bullshit because it isn't a real issue. Apple is just acting as a patent troll, inventing fake problems for the sake of filing patents.

... what? You're a metallurgist, or do you just play one on TV?

You also obviously don't understand what a 'patent troll' is.

Re: iOS 11.3 update breaks iPhone 8 devices with third party-repaired screens

#120

Post by axoltl »

Rjevski wrote: post #74
axoltl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not done intentionally. They simply don't QA their releases on repaired phones (because why would they?). The touchscreens in question highly likely use an older touchscreen controller from a previous iPhone. These controllers don't support certain commands that evidently they are now using. As far as the lightning connectors go, that WAS done intentionally. The third party lightning connectors generally don't…

> don't implement a very specific charging protocol designed to prevent metal migration between the pins and the pads on the connector Any sources for this ? I'd like to learn more.

I linked some patents below:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170272058A1/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170124010A1/

But a quick search yields some interesting research:

http://www.te.com/documentation/whitepapers/pdf/p313-89.pdf

I bet there's much more to find, I'm not a metallurgist.

Post reply on HN