Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmg | Hacker News Reader

By volume, the chips on the open market aren’t stolen and most aren’t counterfeit. Most are legitimate and a fair amount of the suspiciously cheap parts are binned or older revisions. The scale of the chip marketplace is more akin to sum of the agricultural output of California’s Central Valley - not your weekend farmers market. No one is messing around with stolen parts in these kind of quantities.

The reason companies are kicking and screaming about right to repair is because reverse logistics (how you deal broken/returned goods) is already a huge cost center and the legislation as proposed would make it more so. No one is making massive profit off repair parts - they’re offsetting massive losses.

View on HN

Right to repair would actually ease this burden: Apple manufactures very few components on its devices. Apple prevents its suppliers from selling to third parties (which wouldn’t necessarily be a repair shop but someone like digikey or mouser) of some pretty basic components that do not contain any real secret sauce (we are talking about things like voltage regulators here)

The auto industry has widespread part available for decades with no ill effects.

> The auto industry has widespread part available for decades with no ill effects.

That depends on who you ask. Car dealerships probably think they have suffered great ill effects from the existence of independent repair shops.

I suspect trying to garner sympathy from people for dealerships is going to be a hard sell

I agree. And I'm comparing car dealerships to Apple :)

It's really unforunate, since repair is a good value in terms of reducing externalities like e-waste and natural resource use, not to mention a potential way to develop electronics skills in our workforce with low-barrier-to-entry jobs.

I don't mean chips per-se, I mean complete assemblies like iPhone displays. As far as I know, there's no "legitimate" source for those, it's all either outright stolen, counterfeit or bad/rejected parts.

> because reverse logistics (how you deal broken/returned goods) is already a huge cost center and the legislation as proposed would make it more so

How would right to repair affect that? And if it wasn't profit-motivated how do you explain the extreme efforts some manufacturers do to prevent people from repairing their own devices (like iPhone cameras being associated with the logic board and not being usable in any other phone of the same model)?

My buddy buys broken Iphones/screens and sells them to China where all the underlying parts are stripped and used for repairing Iphones. This is legitamite not shady at all.

Ships hundreds at a time. A lof of the parts used for repair in China are coming from US/EU broken phones.

> it's all either outright stolen, counterfeit or bad/rejected parts

The other very common possibility is that it's what's called a "ghost shift" where the factory runs a whole production run on a possibly overnight work shift, creates a batch of product for sale to third parties, and then resumes their legit-for-transfer-to-apple production run the next morning. Happens with all sorts of electronics manufacturing in mainland china.

This does not necessarily mean that the ghost shift products go through absolutely the same level of QC that the main production run gets, but I wouldn't call them counterfeit.

"ghost shift" production with the trademarks is counterfeit, but isn't without the trademarks. Regardless of marking it's still likely unauthorized use of intellectual property.

I mentally make a distinction between "counterfeit" products which are actually authentic and good quality, unlikely to hurt the consumer, but arguably cause some harm to apple's IP, and "counterfeit" products which are actually poor quality clones made by inferior production lines. It's unfortunate that the same term is used for both.

Presumably a high volume and skilled third party repair shop and its purchasing people will be a crucial role in buying and distinguishing between the two types of hardware.

The term counterfeit is here being used by some people to mean 'genuine parts sold off-license', which is much more like a bootleg copy[1]. That is, it's the same item sold off-license.

To some extent words mean what people who use them intend to mean, but in my opinion we shouldn't be calling parts from the same production line counterfeit, because the word implies forgery.[2]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg_recording

2. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/counterfeit

Edit: changed a word for clarity.

> To some extent words mean what people who use them intend to mean, but in my opinion we shouldn't be calling parts from the same production line counterfeit, because the word implies forgery.[2]

If they had a particular QC standard marking, but had not been manufactured in accordance with that level of QC, that would be forgery, right?

If they bear the trademark of a company that demands certain QC standards, but were produced without those checks, it seems like the same thing in a way.

I think you're intentional straining to disagree with me.

You don't have to do that.

You're probably partly right some of the time, and my perspective probably has some value perhaps maybe.

I'm straining to rationalise my own position tbh. I'm not going out of my way to disagree with you, this kind of practice feels viscerally counterfeit-like to me and I'm trying to work through why I think that.

That's a way more honest response than I expected.

I respect that a lot.

In the absence of a legal after market or licensed / genuine / third party parts ecosystem, this is, or should be, the expected natural response: off license / bootleg / counterfeit parts ecosystem.

In my opinion, then, the fault lies with Apple, and / or the absence of a regulated market for those parts and the necessary documentation.

People will find a way to source what they want. How you approach or deal with those problems is probably a political / ideological thing.

That seems like an orthogonal question. Maybe Apple has set up their system in a way that (intentionally or not) encourages or necessitates counterfeiting. But those parts may still be counterfeit in the ways that matter to the end user (e.g. not necessarily as safe as they appear to be certified to be).

There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it should be a legal requirement that all OEMs allow 3rd parties to manufacture these parts to provide as replacements.

Saving the planet is far more important than protecting the profits for replacement parts. Of course they shouldn’t be allowed to sell complete phones but selling screens is good.

Of course they shouldn’t be allowed to sell complete phones but selling screens is good.

For an interesting contrast, look at the automotive industry, where (with the exception of perhaps some newer companies/models, like Tesla et.al.) there is a thriving aftermarket which is so complete that for certain models of cars, you can likely build an entire powertrain and even rolling chassis using zero original parts. Entire engine blocks, internals, transmissions, axles, suspension, brakes, even frame rails, can be bought from the aftermarket. Of course a lot of these parts are enhanced and marked with different manufacturer's names, but the OEMs themselves have in general not minded and sometimes even encouraged the aftermarket.

They could also be recycled from units with other damaged parts, which is also "legitimate", whatever that means (although I'm sure Apple et.al. don't want that.)

In much the same way that salvage yards are a source of car parts, yet companies like Tesla are trying to stop that.

Not sure if it's the case for Apple, but for other phones, there's definitely plenty of parts recycling happening.

I replaced my broken Galaxy S4 screen when in Shenzhen in 2015, and bought a replacement screen for Galaxy S3 for my wife (to have a spare I could use to perform the repair myself back home). My repair was dirt-cheap - I paid something like $10 to get a whole new screen assembly and a new back camera (I broke mine), the whole repair done in front of me in under 5 minutes. The extra screen for my wife was much more expensive - ~$50, IIRC. The difference is, with my phone, they kept the broken parts. They presumably replaced the broken glass in it at their own pace, and put it back on the market.

I also saw plenty of work being done on phone components, as well as people unloading and sorting through big bags of broken phones. There's lots of e-waste recycling going on there.

> I mean complete assemblies like iPhone displays. As far as I know, there's no "legitimate" source for those

So how are legitimate high street shops in the west doing it? You can’t convince me every town in the UK has a criminal operation working in the open doing screen replacements?

https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?SearchText=iphone+repla...

the only way you'd get the plod even vaguely interested would be if these arrived in boxes that claimed they were genuine parts, and even then...

apple authorized stores and retailers can buy modules or send them to apple

They clearly aren't sending them to Apple, because they do it while you wait.

And they don't claim to be authorised in any way. I would have thought if they were they'd make a big deal of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com