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

181–190 of 367 posts

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

#181

Post by reubenmorais »

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,…

> oh wait, that's an iphone, nvm my bad you're free to go" is that the idea here?

In Brazil I've heard stories of muggers holding up e.g. a bus and not bothering to get iPhones. This was a while ago, before the trade routes to get stolen phones across the world for disassembly and parts resale were as developed as they are today.

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

#182

Post by wyldberry »

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 next day the phone was several countries away.

Just because people can get mugged regardless of perceived wealth doesn't mean that we don't try to reduce the risk.

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

#183

Post by layer8 »

tqi wrote: post #5

AIUI, these restrictions are primarily intended to curb the market for stolen iphones? I think Apple has taken it too far here, but I also think it is disingenuous to have this discourse without at least mentioning the other considerations. There is no "right" answer, only tradeoffs...

The intent of the restrictions does not change the repairability, hence as far as the repairability score is concerned, that intent should not matter for the resulting score.

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

#184

Post by crazygringo »

circuit10 wrote: post #178
crazygringo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh absolutely. Happened to a friend of mine, and there's another commenter here who had it happen to them. Crime is real. Obviously its frequency is going to depend on where you live/travel.

So if they can already do that, they'll just sell the whole unlocked phone and not worry about parts? Unless it's broken to the point of being unsellable, I guess

That's a good point. You're right -- since you can already force someone to unpair, being able to unlock the individual parts isn't going to make a difference. Thanks.

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

#185

Post by winrid »

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,…

No, people just walk by and take it off your table. What are you gonna do?

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

#186

Post by flaburgan »

crazygringo wrote: post #143
MostlyStable wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the relative rates of occurrence of phone theft vs. phones breaking in a way that requires repair? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that far far far more people have a phone that needs to be repaired than have a phone that gets stolen. So making repair worse to make theft "better" seems like a bad tradeoff to me. And that's even presuming that this stated goal actually works. I would expect that a very n…

> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that far far far more people have a phone that needs to be repaired than have a phone that gets stolen. I'd say the polar opposite, as long as you're excluding screen and battery replacement which aren't what's being talked about here. I don't know anybody who's ever had a non-screen/battery component replaced. On the other hand, I know tons of times someone's phone has been st…

>as long as you're excluding screen and battery replacement which aren't what's being talked about here.

You did not read the iFixit post then, it is what is being talked about here. The post has nice screenshots of the phone complaining that the battery is not "a genuine Apple battery".

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

#187

Post by amluto »

sneeze-slayer wrote: post #61
tumult wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? How is someone who snatched your phone out of your hand and ran away going to know your password and authentication information needed to authorize a parts replacement?

I think the point is that an unsuspecting buyer of, e.g. a screen replacement, could end up going to a shady repair shop that uses stolen parts, sees the message once, clicks "OK", and moves on. The reasoning being that this scenario would cause some demand for black market parts. The suggestion from OP whereby the seller of a used phone logs in and "unpairs" the parts could avoid this, unless a robber forces you to…

I think you’re misunderstanding. The user who previously owned the part would need to unpair it.

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

#188

Post by camillomiller »

Damn if you do, retroactively damn if you don’t. IFixit is existentially tied to their antagonism to any official repair policy. I like their work, but this is bonkers. Retroactively degrading a rating? How should people even think that their ratings actually mean anything then?

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

#189

Post by _ph_ »

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?

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.

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

#190

Post by mvdtnz »

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…

Doesn't this "logic" apply to literally every product ever? That's not a world I want to live in.
Post reply on HN