Here's an outline link since it has broken scrolling and seems to be loading slow https://outline.com/7p3F9U
> Further forward to the present moment and the iPhone 13’s screen IC now not only acts as a ADC, enables True Tone, carries a ROM for the non-genuine message but also now communicates with Face ID. We believe this communication with Face ID is a bug in iOS15. But it shows us a glimpse of how much more complex the screen IC is going to be in the future. We expect the next generations of iPhone to contain 2 biometrics in Face ID & in screen Touch ID.
Usually devs primarily running Windows who want to have smooth scrolling. They often don't disable it for MacOS because they don't know it has its own thing.
But why does a site aimed on Apple products has it is mindboggling
> Please don't complain about website formatting, back-button breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then friendly feedback might be helpful.
They have some custom JS which hijacks the scroll event and manually applies a "transform: translate3d" CSS rule with its own linear interpretation / velocity / acceleration logic..
How would you block this (fake smooth scrolling)? A scroll turned transform can be a bunch of other things. Map sites and Apple’s own product pages come to mind.
A lot of people are claiming this is about screwing with third party, but there’s a lot of good technical reasons to do things like that.
For instance, the serialization of batteries (they’re not only serialized, they have a symmetric key pair) is a key safety feature.
I’ve designed devices with the same ICs and screwing up the configuration (or copy pasting the config and install cells with different chemistry) can set them on fire.
In the case of the screen, I think it’s much of a security issue.
Under what circumstances exactly would it be a safety or security issue to replace one genuine OEM part with another genuine OEM part, identical in all ways except for the serial number?
Perhaps to prevent (or at least make it harder for) someone shorting around the security it is supposed to provide, i.e. by emulating or modifying the replacement part - not that that'd really stop the determined ones
It's a safety issue to replace some, but not all of the cells in a Li-ion battery with cells that are not the same age and condition. Since smartphone batteries are almost always a single cell, it's a non-issue.
Another scenario I can imagine is a charge controller reducing the maximum charging current as the battery ages based on information stored in the controller's memory, which would be incorrect if the cell is replaced. Of course, it would be unusual to replace a cell with one in worse condition, so it would also be surprising for that to be a safety concern.
Keep in mind that the check done inside an iPhone doesn't prevent the failure mode you describe. After all the phone only checks the microcontroller attached to the battery, not the actual cells(if that's even possible in any way).
It would not be a safety issue indeed only until the replacement part includes some mitm hardware that tampers the face id authentication flow. And this can be planted into the genuine looking replacement part as well.
Surely that’s just a temporary thing as production lines fill their launch orders? I imagine the authorized repairers already have stock coming in Oct./Nov.
The point is that you shouldn't need to be an authorized repairer to purchase a replacement screen from Apple. I don't need to be an official Volvo dealership to purchase any replacement part for my Volvo, as long as I know the part number I can easily buy the OEM part or a replacement and Volvo has no way to stop me.
Surely during the warranty period Volvo mandates that for the warranty to still be valid the part and installation has to go through a chain of custody of some kind? Like the part must be bought from some official vendor of Volvo parts at least?
No? By law both in EU and US if a manufacturer wants to deny warranty cover, they have to prove that whatever you did to the car has caused the issue. So in this case Volvo would need to prove that their own official part broke the car purely because it wasn't bought from them. You are allowed to work on your car yourself and it doesn't affect warranty, a lot of the things that the "right to repair" movement has been fighting for in electronics have been enshrined in law with cars for a very long time.
Another example - Volvo(and pretty much every manufacturer) says in their warranty terms that the warranty is only valid if the car is serviced annually at an authorized Volvo garage. They can say that, but the law in EU clearly states that you can have the annual service done at any vat-registered garage, and as long as "equivalent" parts are used, the manufacturer cannot deny you a warranty claim based on having the service done outside of their own approved dealership. Their own terms and conditions do not and cannot override the law.
How does it work when the customer department at Volvo denies the warranty claim? Do you escalate through small claims court? I’m not familiar with the EU. Does Volvo also have to compensate for time and court fees if so?
No, you just get a solicitor to write a letter based on an opinion from another expert. That is usually enough, companies also don't want to waste time in court.
The same law applies in US, this isn't some EU exclusive thing.
Also, this question applies in general whenever a company doesn't obey the law and your consumer rights - vast majority of the time, they do. But in case they don't you have solicitors, ombudsmen and yes, eventually, courts. It's rare that it gets that stage though.
That still sounds like a lot of work for the potential savings of a few hundred dollars on repairs and parts. It seems that anyone who could afford a new Volvo would be unlikely to take the risk. Insurance companies may after a collision since the repairs could be easily 5 figures but even then it seems dubious they’d replace major components like the engine or steering control with one of dubious origins since they’d open themselves up to liability risk.
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm just explaining that the law explicitly allows you to both
1) have the car serviced outside of the main dealership network and the manufacturer is not allowed to void your warranty due to this.
2) fit aftermarket parts, and the manufacturer is allowed to void your warranty only if they can prove that the part contributed to the fault.
The whole conversation started by me saying that with cars, you can buy original OEM parts without having to obtain the blessing from the manufacturer - with Apple(and other electronics makers) you can't.
>>That still sounds like a lot of work for the potential savings of a few hundred dollars on repairs and parts.
I don't know why you assume this is any work, you just have your car serviced elsewhere, if any warranty work comes up then you just say "I had the car serviced at a VAT-registered garage, as allowed by the statutory consumer rights". Done, works 99/100 times. Do some dealers try to wiggle out of it anyway? Sure. But dealers try to wiggle out of warranty repairs even if you have done everything "by the book" anyway. That's just what they do. In that case you also have to either start involving experts/solicitors/courts to actually make the manufacturer honour their promise to you. Whether it's worth it to you or not, is a different matter entirely.
‘2) fit aftermarket parts, and the manufacturer is allowed to void your warranty only if they can prove that the part contributed to the fault.’
In the case of electronic products, we don’t assume things that things that look the same, perform the same.
An aftermarket iphone screen for example could even be from literally the same assembly line but perform so poorly that nobody reasonable could expect Apple to uphold their warranty on a phone with it installed. That’s why QC testing exists.
All other differences can be derived from that basis.
Authorized repairers often don't do repairs on component level, and sometimes ship your device to some place else to have the whole assembly replaced. Which is always much more expensive.
Unless the iPhone 13 is different FaceID does work with genuine Apple parts. My wife and I have cracked lots of them. If Apple doesn’t have them in stock yet because it’s a new phone they will replace the phone. I’ve done it with and without AppleCare.
Exactly. Serialization, which enables tracking and blocking of parts from stolen devices, works best alongside making OEM parts readily available at-cost to third party repair services.
> In the case of the screen, I think it’s much of a security issue.
logic only a fanboy would dream up. I'm sure the same excuse would be given by fanboys if apple shipped a car and somehow managed to make the windows unreplaceable except by specially signed apple glass.
> For instance, the serialization of batteries (they’re not only serialized, they have a symmetric key pair) is a key safety feature.
That’s the messaging from the manufacturers which is a big lie IMO. You can validate keys or signatures and give a warning for non-genuine parts. The only reasons to disable features are to prevent competition and, ultimately, to cheat the customer.
Modern batteries integrate the charge controller with the cells, this allows to track the cell life and it allows the management of the chemistry.
Even small changes in chemistry require modifications in the charging algorithm. The only real solution for managing that is bundling the algorithm with the cells.
Setting the wrong configuration can definitely blow the cell up, or cause swelling.
Source: I did blow some cells while designing a battery pack for a portable device
Sorry, but that is complete corporate-profit-driven-paranoia BS.
Lithium-ion cells are one of the easiest to charge - there's minimum and maximum voltages, and a maximum charge current. Simply limit charge current to the maximum until the cell reaches its maximum voltage, and then wait for the current to drop until it's nearly 0.
Of course, exceeding those limits at the upper end certainly can result in flames, but it's seriously not that hard to charge a cell. But people like to spew plenty of FUD about "complex algorithms" and the like, because the companies who make the ICs stand to profit from that.
Source: I have also worked in electronics on battery-powered devices.
Yes, it’s true that you can implement a pretty simple generic lithium-ion cell charging algorithm that will get the job done for most cells. But that’s not a “modern battery pack”. If you’re trying to eke hundreds or thousands of charge cycles out of cells, implement fast charging, do accurate state of charge estimation under load and in variable thermal conditions —- those things are very difficult to implement generically, and often do have parameters that depend on the specific chemistry being used. Modern devices have to do all of those things.
Yes, TI makes money when people use their battery management ICs with fancy cell monitoring, but I don’t see a lack of price pressure on those ICs. If manufacturers could implement the same features with a less complex, less expensive design, why would all of the modern battery systems, even in competitive sectors like consumer/retail electronics, integrate battery monitoring with the cells?
Oh I absolutely think the primary reason for this is an amoral technical reason (please note I said amoral not immoral). But I also think given Apple's aggressive history of trying to fuck with 3rd parties. It would be naive to think that wasn't an important factor in this design decision. Even with the most charitable interpretation, someone knew that this would fuck with third parties, and instead of trying to avoid it. They're going with the solution, again with the most charitable interpretation, appears to look like they're obstructing 3rd party repair.
I pretend to be a security expert on TV; and I fully support the decision to disable face id when there might be a hardware mitm attack. But there's options available to Apple that allow you to have security and 3rd party support.
But they're clearly still making decisions that obviously obstruct user choice. And it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
ps. I don't think you're being dishonest, you're clearly explaining the rational. My issue generally is the apologists who use these arguments without context, and pretend there's no other options.
> In the case of the screen, I think it’s much of a security issue.
I default to skepticism on this sort of explanation, especially when it involves Apple and third-party repair.
Of course, it might be possible to devise a very sophisticated attack using the screen's hardware interface and Face ID as a vector. If the iPhone was a security-hardened specialty device, I might find that to be a valid reason. It isn't; it's a consumer device, and one that's not terribly hard for sophisticated attackers to compromise, e.g. https://www.wired.com/story/apple-imessage-zero-click-hacks/
The iPhone is one of the most desirable attack target in the world. An attack that can access locked phones is extremely valuable. From the police to spy agencies to totalitarian regimes, everyone would buy your stuff. See NSO.
It sounds like they are talking about third parties making such a change, not an official Apple repair.
You don't trust hardware that a bad guy got their hands on. Picture a black-hat iPhone repair shop, they're installing replacement screens that appear legit but aren't--now they can defeat the face ID and get into your locked phone.
Low probability? What if it's a government doing it? Seem more likely?
A government or black hat could just buy one of the plethora of exploits and hack any iPhone whenever they want for cheaper than setting up chains of repair stores.
Just realize - if we let folks writing click bait headlines control us, the technically quality will (usually) go into the toilet. Site guidelines suggest not criticizing websites tech - but do click through on your iphone to experience the enlightened nature of current web design.
I'm reminded of the anti-tracking articles on news sites LOADED with like 15 DIFFERENT trackers :)
Separatly, isn't this an obvious security feature, especially with I thought in display touch or face ID coming?
Though it's not clear why an apple authorized replacement would need to be distrusted, I'd imagine mostly third party shops would be on distrust list.
Apple does need to fix their imessage security disaster though first.
> Just realize - if we let folks writing click bait headlines control us, the technically quality will (usually) go into the toilet. Site guidelines suggest not criticizing websites tech - but do click through on your iphone to experience the enlightened nature of current web design.
Actually I like this scroll on desktop with mouse. Now I want it in my browser as native, LoL.
I agree that it's horrible on phone and probably horrible on macbook with touchpad scrolling.
Most browsers have a “Smooth scrolling” option. Have you tried toggling that?
I use a desktop. With a very expensive and ergonomic mouse with a notched wheel (as opposed to a free-spinning wheel). One notch - Scroll 3 lines instantly. No delay. No lag. No animation. The way it should be.
I found that feature in chrome://flags and enabled it. It did not make any effect. There are some extensions, but I don't really trust extensions so probably I won't use those.
Scroll animation is what I liked on this website. My browser does not have any noticeable animation when I scroll, it just instantly moves page where I drag scrollbar.
The Apple Inc quest to generate and endlessly increase services revenue is the literal cancer that is killing Apple's former 30+ year obsession with customer delight.
A brand new $1500 iPhone Pro will try to hustle you with ads for $2/mo or something for cloud storage upgrades.
It it's not just cloud, too, but also repair, and 10x industry standard charges for CC processing in the App Store, and now the credit card, and more iCloud and TV and arcade subscription plans and options.
What I am about to say has nothing to do with endorsing Apples decisions. But people in developed countries tend to miss what happen in less favorable places. Two major problems: Robbery and used iPhone scams.
Where I live, I often decide to leave my 12 mini at home because I don't want to be robbed. If I take it, I cannot take it out of my pocket until my destination.
They steal you, if you are lucky that's it. If you are unlucky they hold you at guns point or knifes edge until you remove your iCloud account. Cops can't do much, as they use minors to do the robbery and police can't enter the places they disassemble the iPhones, not even if your FindMy is pointing exactly where it is. Minors caught are released after about 12h of being held and are found doing the same thing next day.
When you want to sell/buy used iPhone, you might also be at risk. You can be robbed trying to sell and you can buy a completely remix of a phone from scrapped parts and non original parts that put together can barely work. People repairing sometimes never had formal training, and it could affect safety.
I wonder if Apple considers this at all. It would be naive to think any of what Apple is doing is intended at developing countries safety, but I can't stop thinking the warnings about non-legitimate parts would maybe help people buying second hand, and there is a very small hope in me that it become less lucrative to steal phones in the future.
This. I recently bought an "second hand" iPhone XS advertised as those came from shop display phones. It was in good condition: no burn ins, battery at 80% health. When the screen broke after dropping it, I went to some shop for repair just to found out its remix of parts from other iPhone ( apparently the motherboard came from South Korea ). This made the device very fragile as some of the screws maybe missing and screen are not properly mounted. The iPhone XS I bought had one missing screw and no display adhesive.
Here in the US, Apple will lie to customers and refuse to repair even trivial problems. There are many documented cases of Apple simply lying to customers (ala Louis Rossman).
I had a phone that at 30% battery life would shut down and die. I was going on a trip and really needed a reliable phone. I took my phone to Apple, they hooked it up to their diagnostic software-- which found the battery to be fine-- and they wouldn't fix it-- now here's the twist-- I asked if I could pay (even though it was in warranty), and they said "no." They also said it was the fault of the Facebook app installed on the phone that the battery wouldn't last. I can't tell you how insulting that was-- I had numerous apps in the App/Play store at the time and had developed stuff used at Apple. To be told by a guy who works at a mall that I was using my phone incorrectly-- left a bad taste in my mouth.
I attempted to do the repair myself and somehow bricked the antenna system and had to buy a new phone. Apple got what they wanted in the end... but I'm looking for alternatives.
I owned one of the first Intel mac-books-- it would spontaneously reboot-- Apple denied the problem for like a year.
I owned an iMac which I spent a fortune on, and its GPU died. Apple after denying the whole thing, eventually issued a recall, but not for my specific model even though it clearly had the problem. I ate that 2.5k or so.
I've owned numerous iPhone's with defective home buttons-- the pattern is always the same. Apple delays admitting there's a problem until far after you might have had to deal with it fiscally.
Apple is a bad-faith actor in the end... It would be one thing if they had good-faith service and I could go to Apple for help and be treated fairly... But Apple's response is always the same, "Hey, maybe its time for a upgrade?"
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I'm not sure I could keep shovelling money into a manufacturer that caused me so many problems. But I guess that's the Apple ecosystem at full force and it can be hard to "escape".
Closed systems like the Apple walled garden are always bad-faith, from beginning to end. Personally I have tolerance for max 1 problem from a manufacturer, if I ever have a fault that is not adequately resolved then I will never buy from them again.
Aye, but... I have only two choices, Apple and Google. When you've had a bad experience with Apple and Google-- which you surely will-- what will you buy next?
> We as consumers and repairers are just caught in the middle. Apple designs beautiful technology outside and in, they have it produced in China, who then disassemble the technology and manufacture alternative parts. Apple is using their own genius against the Chinese by blocking aftermarket parts.
Constricting the supply of parts is directly anti-consumer. “China” isn’t randomly profiting, they’re making stuff people need.
The most absurd hole in this line of argument is two-fold:
- Geniune parts can’t be swapped, making it impossible to use them
- Non-geniune parts can (in theory) be used, since they are re-programmable.
Maybe some day they’ll use certificates to make these mental gymnastics even plausible.
Little disclaimer: I’m not attacking iCorrect, I do believe that’s Apple’s preferred interpretation, as it’s the most charitable possible.
87 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 163 ms ] thread> Further forward to the present moment and the iPhone 13’s screen IC now not only acts as a ADC, enables True Tone, carries a ROM for the non-genuine message but also now communicates with Face ID. We believe this communication with Face ID is a bug in iOS15. But it shows us a glimpse of how much more complex the screen IC is going to be in the future. We expect the next generations of iPhone to contain 2 biometrics in Face ID & in screen Touch ID.
But why does a site aimed on Apple products has it is mindboggling
This is a question that can be asked about 9 out of 10 web “technologies”.
> Please don't complain about website formatting, back-button breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then friendly feedback might be helpful.
I'd say this is a problem.
For instance, the serialization of batteries (they’re not only serialized, they have a symmetric key pair) is a key safety feature.
I’ve designed devices with the same ICs and screwing up the configuration (or copy pasting the config and install cells with different chemistry) can set them on fire.
In the case of the screen, I think it’s much of a security issue.
Another scenario I can imagine is a charge controller reducing the maximum charging current as the battery ages based on information stored in the controller's memory, which would be incorrect if the cell is replaced. Of course, it would be unusual to replace a cell with one in worse condition, so it would also be surprising for that to be a safety concern.
It isn't, but there are some controller circuits that switch off permanently if the voltage falls out of range, making changing cells more difficult.
It’s not just a warning. Functionality is flat out disabled. Swapping parts between 2 iPhone 13s boinks them.
1. The MITM hardware could be installed into the screen that's already paired with the iPhone, so the serial check wouldn't help
2. The MITM hardware would make the screen look non-genuine regardless of serial, so the serial check wouldn't be needed
so this only concerns 3rd party repair shops or individuals who dont want to pay apple to replace their screen.
Another example - Volvo(and pretty much every manufacturer) says in their warranty terms that the warranty is only valid if the car is serviced annually at an authorized Volvo garage. They can say that, but the law in EU clearly states that you can have the annual service done at any vat-registered garage, and as long as "equivalent" parts are used, the manufacturer cannot deny you a warranty claim based on having the service done outside of their own approved dealership. Their own terms and conditions do not and cannot override the law.
The same law applies in US, this isn't some EU exclusive thing.
Also, this question applies in general whenever a company doesn't obey the law and your consumer rights - vast majority of the time, they do. But in case they don't you have solicitors, ombudsmen and yes, eventually, courts. It's rare that it gets that stage though.
1) have the car serviced outside of the main dealership network and the manufacturer is not allowed to void your warranty due to this.
2) fit aftermarket parts, and the manufacturer is allowed to void your warranty only if they can prove that the part contributed to the fault.
The whole conversation started by me saying that with cars, you can buy original OEM parts without having to obtain the blessing from the manufacturer - with Apple(and other electronics makers) you can't.
>>That still sounds like a lot of work for the potential savings of a few hundred dollars on repairs and parts.
I don't know why you assume this is any work, you just have your car serviced elsewhere, if any warranty work comes up then you just say "I had the car serviced at a VAT-registered garage, as allowed by the statutory consumer rights". Done, works 99/100 times. Do some dealers try to wiggle out of it anyway? Sure. But dealers try to wiggle out of warranty repairs even if you have done everything "by the book" anyway. That's just what they do. In that case you also have to either start involving experts/solicitors/courts to actually make the manufacturer honour their promise to you. Whether it's worth it to you or not, is a different matter entirely.
‘2) fit aftermarket parts, and the manufacturer is allowed to void your warranty only if they can prove that the part contributed to the fault.’
In the case of electronic products, we don’t assume things that things that look the same, perform the same.
An aftermarket iphone screen for example could even be from literally the same assembly line but perform so poorly that nobody reasonable could expect Apple to uphold their warranty on a phone with it installed. That’s why QC testing exists.
All other differences can be derived from that basis.
logic only a fanboy would dream up. I'm sure the same excuse would be given by fanboys if apple shipped a car and somehow managed to make the windows unreplaceable except by specially signed apple glass.
That’s the messaging from the manufacturers which is a big lie IMO. You can validate keys or signatures and give a warning for non-genuine parts. The only reasons to disable features are to prevent competition and, ultimately, to cheat the customer.
Modern batteries integrate the charge controller with the cells, this allows to track the cell life and it allows the management of the chemistry.
Even small changes in chemistry require modifications in the charging algorithm. The only real solution for managing that is bundling the algorithm with the cells.
Setting the wrong configuration can definitely blow the cell up, or cause swelling.
Source: I did blow some cells while designing a battery pack for a portable device
Lithium-ion cells are one of the easiest to charge - there's minimum and maximum voltages, and a maximum charge current. Simply limit charge current to the maximum until the cell reaches its maximum voltage, and then wait for the current to drop until it's nearly 0.
Of course, exceeding those limits at the upper end certainly can result in flames, but it's seriously not that hard to charge a cell. But people like to spew plenty of FUD about "complex algorithms" and the like, because the companies who make the ICs stand to profit from that.
Source: I have also worked in electronics on battery-powered devices.
Yes, TI makes money when people use their battery management ICs with fancy cell monitoring, but I don’t see a lack of price pressure on those ICs. If manufacturers could implement the same features with a less complex, less expensive design, why would all of the modern battery systems, even in competitive sectors like consumer/retail electronics, integrate battery monitoring with the cells?
I don't think fast charging is a good idea anyway because it wears out cells faster, but that's another rant...
I pretend to be a security expert on TV; and I fully support the decision to disable face id when there might be a hardware mitm attack. But there's options available to Apple that allow you to have security and 3rd party support.
But they're clearly still making decisions that obviously obstruct user choice. And it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
ps. I don't think you're being dishonest, you're clearly explaining the rational. My issue generally is the apologists who use these arguments without context, and pretend there's no other options.
I default to skepticism on this sort of explanation, especially when it involves Apple and third-party repair.
Of course, it might be possible to devise a very sophisticated attack using the screen's hardware interface and Face ID as a vector. If the iPhone was a security-hardened specialty device, I might find that to be a valid reason. It isn't; it's a consumer device, and one that's not terribly hard for sophisticated attackers to compromise, e.g. https://www.wired.com/story/apple-imessage-zero-click-hacks/
Unless Apple itself wasn't opting for crap battery suppliers
(…and now that I'm reading a cached version… does it actually answer the question in the title?)
You don't trust hardware that a bad guy got their hands on. Picture a black-hat iPhone repair shop, they're installing replacement screens that appear legit but aren't--now they can defeat the face ID and get into your locked phone.
Low probability? What if it's a government doing it? Seem more likely?
I'm reminded of the anti-tracking articles on news sites LOADED with like 15 DIFFERENT trackers :)
Separatly, isn't this an obvious security feature, especially with I thought in display touch or face ID coming?
Though it's not clear why an apple authorized replacement would need to be distrusted, I'd imagine mostly third party shops would be on distrust list.
Apple does need to fix their imessage security disaster though first.
Actually I like this scroll on desktop with mouse. Now I want it in my browser as native, LoL.
I agree that it's horrible on phone and probably horrible on macbook with touchpad scrolling.
I use a desktop. With a very expensive and ergonomic mouse with a notched wheel (as opposed to a free-spinning wheel). One notch - Scroll 3 lines instantly. No delay. No lag. No animation. The way it should be.
Scroll animation is what I liked on this website. My browser does not have any noticeable animation when I scroll, it just instantly moves page where I drag scrollbar.
A brand new $1500 iPhone Pro will try to hustle you with ads for $2/mo or something for cloud storage upgrades.
It it's not just cloud, too, but also repair, and 10x industry standard charges for CC processing in the App Store, and now the credit card, and more iCloud and TV and arcade subscription plans and options.
It's super gross and lame.
Where I live, I often decide to leave my 12 mini at home because I don't want to be robbed. If I take it, I cannot take it out of my pocket until my destination.
They steal you, if you are lucky that's it. If you are unlucky they hold you at guns point or knifes edge until you remove your iCloud account. Cops can't do much, as they use minors to do the robbery and police can't enter the places they disassemble the iPhones, not even if your FindMy is pointing exactly where it is. Minors caught are released after about 12h of being held and are found doing the same thing next day.
When you want to sell/buy used iPhone, you might also be at risk. You can be robbed trying to sell and you can buy a completely remix of a phone from scrapped parts and non original parts that put together can barely work. People repairing sometimes never had formal training, and it could affect safety.
I wonder if Apple considers this at all. It would be naive to think any of what Apple is doing is intended at developing countries safety, but I can't stop thinking the warnings about non-legitimate parts would maybe help people buying second hand, and there is a very small hope in me that it become less lucrative to steal phones in the future.
Here in the US, Apple will lie to customers and refuse to repair even trivial problems. There are many documented cases of Apple simply lying to customers (ala Louis Rossman).
I had a phone that at 30% battery life would shut down and die. I was going on a trip and really needed a reliable phone. I took my phone to Apple, they hooked it up to their diagnostic software-- which found the battery to be fine-- and they wouldn't fix it-- now here's the twist-- I asked if I could pay (even though it was in warranty), and they said "no." They also said it was the fault of the Facebook app installed on the phone that the battery wouldn't last. I can't tell you how insulting that was-- I had numerous apps in the App/Play store at the time and had developed stuff used at Apple. To be told by a guy who works at a mall that I was using my phone incorrectly-- left a bad taste in my mouth.
I attempted to do the repair myself and somehow bricked the antenna system and had to buy a new phone. Apple got what they wanted in the end... but I'm looking for alternatives.
I owned one of the first Intel mac-books-- it would spontaneously reboot-- Apple denied the problem for like a year.
I owned an iMac which I spent a fortune on, and its GPU died. Apple after denying the whole thing, eventually issued a recall, but not for my specific model even though it clearly had the problem. I ate that 2.5k or so.
I've owned numerous iPhone's with defective home buttons-- the pattern is always the same. Apple delays admitting there's a problem until far after you might have had to deal with it fiscally.
Apple is a bad-faith actor in the end... It would be one thing if they had good-faith service and I could go to Apple for help and be treated fairly... But Apple's response is always the same, "Hey, maybe its time for a upgrade?"
I'm not sure I could keep shovelling money into a manufacturer that caused me so many problems. But I guess that's the Apple ecosystem at full force and it can be hard to "escape".
Closed systems like the Apple walled garden are always bad-faith, from beginning to end. Personally I have tolerance for max 1 problem from a manufacturer, if I ever have a fault that is not adequately resolved then I will never buy from them again.
Constricting the supply of parts is directly anti-consumer. “China” isn’t randomly profiting, they’re making stuff people need.
The most absurd hole in this line of argument is two-fold:
- Geniune parts can’t be swapped, making it impossible to use them
- Non-geniune parts can (in theory) be used, since they are re-programmable.
Maybe some day they’ll use certificates to make these mental gymnastics even plausible.
Little disclaimer: I’m not attacking iCorrect, I do believe that’s Apple’s preferred interpretation, as it’s the most charitable possible.