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

Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

lemonde.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 137 posts

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#91

Post by brookst »

realusername wrote: post #26
brookst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "did not help", you meant "did not completely 100% solve the problem", right? In the same way that seat belts do not help traffic fatalities because there are still traffic fatalities?

No, I meant that it did not solve any issue in this area at all, fake iPhone are as easily available as other fake brands. It's 0% affecting fake products which have their own separate supply chain anyways.

Again, the existence of X does not mean that all efforts to reduce the incidence of X were completely useless and therefore should not have been undertaken.

Binary thinking is full of such pitfalls.

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#92

Post by chongli »

Y_Y wrote: post #62
chongli wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One straightforward idea: Once the phone is unlocked (e.g. by pin code) allow the user to authorize the new hardware. I don't think most users are capable of auditing their generic hardware to be sure it is free of backdoors.

It's sad that that's not up to the user. maybe paternalistic comprising is what Apple's customers really want, but I'm convinced it's bad for the user and bad for society in the long run.

I think it's a natural consequence of miniaturization and other technology advancements. With today's technology you can hide a hardware backdoor inside a counterfeit version of a chip and the only way it could be detected would be to de-cap the chip and examine it under an electron microscope.

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#93

Post by kjreact »

gaucheries wrote: post #64

Video discussion of this topic by Louis Rossmann: https://youtu.be/ki5jSAyS8tA

Rossmann mentioned using a user configurable password or encryption key to prevent theft. What did he mean? Did he mean to use a password or key to protect serialization information? But this would still require serialization of parts, which is what the regulators in France are against.

I’m all for protecting a users’ right to repair, but I’d also like to disincentivize thieves from stealing my phone for parts. Both are important to me. Rossmann seems to think that Apple is just greedy and that the solution is simple, but I don’t see a viable solution in his video.

Can someone with a better grasp on this subject enlighten me? Or did I just fall for clickbait?

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#95

Post by Kaibeezy »

gigel82 wrote: post #83
Kaibeezy wrote: post #76

Hypothetically speaking, if one had substantial data obtained through an atypical usage method that backed the hypothesis a manufacturer “soured the milk” on a widely used technology to pave the way for its removal, what would one do with such information, provided one desired to avoid imperial entanglements?

Reading this comment gave me a headache.

Gesundheit

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#96

Post by realusername »

brookst wrote: post #91
realusername wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I meant that it did not solve any issue in this area at all, fake iPhone are as easily available as other fake brands. It's 0% affecting fake products which have their own separate supply chain anyways.

Again, the existence of X does not mean that all efforts to reduce the incidence of X were completely useless and therefore should not have been undertaken. Binary thinking is full of such pitfalls.

Fake iphones don't and won't use any genuine parts. So locking said genuine parts achieves absolutely nothing against fakes, so yes that does means that if that's the goal, it's pointless.

It's not an "effort", it's misdirection.

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#97

Post by throwaway290 »

realusername wrote: post #96
brookst wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the existence of X does not mean that all efforts to reduce the incidence of X were completely useless and therefore should not have been undertaken. Binary thinking is full of such pitfalls.

Fake iphones don't and won't use any genuine parts. So locking said genuine parts achieves absolutely nothing against fakes, so yes that does means that if that's the goal, it's pointless. It's not an "effort", it's misdirection.

It's not about fake iphones. It's about taking a real iphone and swapping a part for non-genuine one that does something you don't expect (or find out)

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#98

Post by throwaway290 »

jayd16 wrote: post #51
throwaway290 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any technique with makes it impossible to repair or recondition by definition also makes it more difficult to pwn. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35954422 for one example.

Huh? What about a glued battery in a rootable phone? How did the battery help?

What?

Sorry am going by the title, didn't read French.

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#99

Post by throwaway290 »

sgjohnson wrote: post #79
throwaway290 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any technique with makes it impossible to repair or recondition by definition also makes it more difficult to pwn. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35954422 for one example.

> Any technique with makes it impossible to repair or recondition by definition also makes it more difficult to pwn. If you can touch it, you can pwn it. This is applicable to every piece of hardware ever existed, including the M2 Macs. Just because we don't have the (publicly available) tools (yet) doesn't mean that they can't be pwned. More difficult? Yes. So difficult that currently thrown away Macs with Activatio…

The whole point is to make it more difficult because there is rarely absolute security

Re: Planned obsolescence: Apple attacked for the “serialization” of its spare parts

#100

Post by realusername »

throwaway290 wrote: post #97
realusername wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake iphones don't and won't use any genuine parts. So locking said genuine parts achieves absolutely nothing against fakes, so yes that does means that if that's the goal, it's pointless. It's not an "effort", it's misdirection.

It's not about fake iphones. It's about taking a real iphone and swapping a part for non-genuine one that does something you don't expect (or find out)

While we could discuss about that, Apple also blocks or alerts for genuine parts so they can't use that defense either.
Post reply on HN