Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scraping stolen goods for parts doesn't happen because it can be done. It is viable because manufacturers make access to spare parts artificially difficult or expensive. Locking a device to serial is adding insult to injury when companies like Apple decide to campaign against Right to Repair. It must be said that Apple made strides towards making repairing phones easier, but as long as counterfeit or stolen parts rem…
> but as long as counterfeit or stolen parts remain economically viable, this kind of market will exist. The point of serialization is precisely to make stolen parts unviable economically, so you’ve painted yourself into a bit of a corner there. > It is viable because manufacturers make access to spare parts artificially difficult or expensive. After paying a shop to repair an iPhone with a generic screen, I believe…
Assuming this kind of lock is unbreakable and all the parts in the phone are locked, you mean, which is a big assumption in the long run. A side effect is that you can't reuse parts from a bricked phone in another, which increases waste without actually addressing the problem which is access to spare parts.
> I believe genuine parts cost more because they are better, not due to artificial scarcity
Price is not the only restriction, but also the number of parts you can order, having to send back the damaged one (which prevents stocking on spare parts for the future) and the exclusion of third party repair shops. In any case I acknowledged that what apple did is indeed a good step, but the repair system can be improved.