Apple’s iPhone 14 Redesign for Repair
ifixit.com
ifixit.com
- using no glue or snaps
- all components on one PCB, no thin cables that can break
- standard philips/torx screws
- four screws to open the enclosure, four screws to take out the pcb
- expensive sensor modules on pin sockets for easy reaplacement
- only using components that are certified for longe lifetime -even if they cost a few dollars more (e.g. DC to DC converter)
- not using plastic for packaging and we ask our supplier to not use plastic when sending us the parts (e.g. no bag around the USB cable etc)
We wrote about this [2] and often do presentations for customers and have a slide about this and it gets a great response and I believe gives us an advantage compared to competing products on the market. As the market more and more appreciates this, Apple probably also realized that this can be a competitive advantage and give them positive press.
[1] https://www.airgradient.com/airgradient-one/ [2] https://www.airgradient.com/about/
We also have an open source kit with very similar sensors starting at around USD70. More information here: https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/kits/
As a business owner I would never buy the DIY kit, I would want it fully assembled and have an appropriate warranty, factory testing/calibration and fast replacement - doubly so if I needed the sensor data for compliance or safety reasons.
However as a tinkerer I probably wouldn't buy a $200 air sensor... but $70 and get a bit of a project out of it? Sure!
Perfect example of broadening reach without cannibalising core business IMO.
There are numerous reasons (some very good reasons) why adhesives are used in smartphone assembly. Sometimes these reasons can sometimes come into conflict with repairability, but that doesn't render their usage completely devoid of any valid reason.
For example, many uses of adhesive are to improve water resistance. And improved water resistance reduces the likelihood of a product needing repair, which is equally virtuous (in my opinion) as repairability.
AirGradient hardware is little more than a plastic box and a relatively basic PCB which makes around a dozen connections between few off-the-shelf prototyping components which need direct exposure to room air — they can't be sealed or weatherproofed. Repairability is literally the default state for this class of product; making it less repairable would have required more effort.
Apple devices weren't made difficult to repair because Apple actively despised repairers. They were difficult to repair because Apple lacked sufficient concern over repairability and had other priorities such as as thickness, weight, simplification and efficiency of manufacturing.
IIRC the front panel uses DRM to stop unauthorized screen replacement.
It's amazing to me that developers, resellers etc seem to forget this.
0.002% of our customers need security against sophisticated hackers who have the capability to hijack a repair service and replace it with a spying custom made iphone screen replacement.
Let’s make screen repairs 5-7x more expensive for 100% of our customers !
That will get the hackers !
Yea, right.... If you’re that paranoid about your security, go to an authorized apple repair centre which doesn’t bother repairing the parts and just charges you to replace the entire circuitry.
No one’s stopping you. Leave the rest of us, alone from this.
Encryption issue is about banning it altogether.
This is about user choice in terms of repairability.
This excuse is more to the equivalent of , we are banning all communication in plaintext or any encryption standard, except aes-256.
Everyone has different requirements, choice and deserve the freedom.
Companies dont get to excuse away freedom and choice, in the name of “security”.
Companies don't owe you freedom and choice. If you don't like their product, if you don't like their concern for your freedom and choice, don't buy it.
We were critiquing a product, now you’re saying, companies dont owe us the right to criticise their product, and that we must move elsewhere instead of complaining.
one second you’re saying “it’s for our benefit”, the next, you want us to stop using the product, because we aren’t “owed anything”.
Arguments with a dishonest interlocutor are frightfully boring. Reply as you see fit, but I’m closing this thread and not looking at it again.
If people with that kind of resources are out to get you, they can simply lift your fingerprints from elsewhere. A transparent tape on the home button would probably be enough.
Maybe that isn’t so important to you, but it’s a very practical concern for many people.
I really have a strong feeling that some folks have Stockholm syndrome or something.
If someone tried to sell whole iPhones assembled entirely from parts leaked from Apple's supply chain, it ought to seem obvious to anyone that this is wrong. Why is the principle any different when it's not an entire iPhone?
Why would it be any different for Apple?
Hmmm, I always wanted a Ferrari.
If you want a Ferrari, go buy one. They have quite long waiting lists from what I've heard.
edit: In order not to be completely off topic: Apple might have just the same problems with parts stolen from their suppliers but since every single iPhone needs to be activated, I'm very sure they would be able to catch "iPhones made entirely from stolen parts". So this is clearly not it. The fact that they don't sell anything will probably make this whole thing quite worse because if you could buy a genuine display for 250$ from Apple, why would you really buy from anyone else? That market would of course exist but it would be much much smaller.
I would not expect them to sell motherboards or for exampe face id sensors without some kind of pairing. But batteries and LCDs? Come on!
They are doing it just to stick it to anyone who wants to repair their device. Quite sad when you think about the origins of that company :-(
My guess is Apple started doing all this pairing stuff due to some security threat they saw before we did.
Apple does somewhat care about users privacy (I like that very much) but this is really not it. And it goes for the battery as well. And vibration motor. And rear facing camera. All these are just plain and simple middle finger to third party repair shops. You could argue about FaceID sensor and motherboard and I would agree with security concerns, but that's pretty much it.
It is debatable whether the devices that are restricted have any security impact to begin with (the fingerprint or face recognition sensors should just be untrusted input devices with the actual comparison happening inside the secure element of the CPU - compromising this device wouldn't give you anything you don't already have), but either way, even if there was a security impact, you can always let the user choose by giving them the (per-device) keys to override said security.
Foxconn workers reportedly stole US$43 million worth of iPhone parts to make new phones https://www.scmp.com/abacus/news-bites/article/3042987/foxco...
Even broken logic board is worth quite a lot so this argument is really more of a wishfull thinking than a reality.
I believe you are having our DIY air quality kits that are as you describe very simple. Our commercial product AirGradient ONE has a much more complex PCB with tons of additional components e.g. DC DC converter to run it from 12-36v, modbus chip, external hardware watchdogs etc.
We have made a lot of comparisons to other air quality monitors and there is a significance difference in the repaiarbility, e.g. I broke an enclosure of a competitor because it was glued together and just couldn't be opened easily.
Yes, iPhones are by a magnitude more complex products but I think a lot also boils down to attitude. I believe for a long time (and probably still), Apple made it conciously very difficult to repair/upgrade their product e.g. with proprietory screws, glued batteries, etc.
Look at the Fairphone that is a phone and also allows easy replacement of components. If they can do it, why not Apple? Maybe because so far they did not want to?
If it was a hugely important element, the Fairphone would be the market leader vs Samsung/Apple.
As you no doubt know, it varies depending on the audience. If you have a nerdy DIY audience, or a technical enterprise tech audience they're going to come with different requirements.
Proprietary/security screws don’t inhibit anyone from opening a phone other than those who would have no hope of doing anything beyond causing further damage with 100% certainty. Anyone with a sufficiently curious ten-year-old ought to be particularly thankful here.
Obscure security screws are common throughout the industry and are rarely ever the reason why a device is difficult to repair by anyone for whom success is within the set of possible outcomes.
This is the iphone 14. It's been a long time since the original iphone. I'm glad to see that they are changing things, but them making it better now does not cancel out all of the problems with their previous line (or the current issues with the macs).
> Obscure security screws are common throughout the industry and are rarely ever the reason why a device is difficult to repair by anyone for whom success is within the set of possible outcomes.
I think this misses the point. Even for a insignificant choice such as the screw head, Apple chose to use the option less friendly for repairs. This is a symptom of the fact that repairability has not been high on their priority list.
This honestly cheapens the rest of your efforts. Paper straws vibe.
What's the reason to avoid snaps?
There’s speculation that offering the kits is an attempt to head off right-to-repair legislation. But seeing this redesign, I wonder to what degree the repair program is incentivizing repairability within apple’s corporate structure. Now that “profit/loss per self service repair” is tracked in a spreadsheet - does repairability matter more?
Anyways - it’s great to see some improvement here, for whatever motivation.
I can't read the link as it's paywalled: but my understanding of the Apple tools is that they're hilariously over-engineered; not that they're hard to use.
read: "not crap"
Wel;l... it did require heavy lifting but according to this article that is no longer the case! Sure you'll still need a bunch of specialized tools for handling super small components but it is miles ahead of what it once was.
It took me a while to come around to the idea of "right to repair" because I had the same concerns many people here have. To make it repairable would mean to sacrifice a bunch of stuff like waterproofing and weight. But I guess with this new iphone it's "game on" for repairability. Which is awesome.
Which can sometimes end up in James Webbification, as the more expensive and robust it gets, the more likely it's the only one and the higher the stakes if it breaks. So you make it more over-engineered and expensive.
I would hope and expect that third party repair techs (and to a slightly lesser extent ordinary people) would be repairing devices with the same level of quality as Apple's techs.
I love how people used to complain that Apple didn’t make their tools available, and now people complain that their tools are too nice. Well duh, did people think that Apple was using hairdryers and guitar picks for warranty work?
"First step by putting a hair dryer to the front face of the phone and turning it up to max. We don't really know what temperature that will be, but hopefully it's enough to loosen the adhesive. Now improvise a tool for lifting the screen off, hopefully you won't cut the ribbon cables underneath while doing that - maybe a guitar pick? Ok then, when reassembling the device try to get the new screen on as evenly as possible. Who knows if you've done it right - but if you did it wrong your phone will definitely bork if you get it wet!"
Like, you can still do all of the above. There's nothing preventing you from doing a phone repair cheaply (and poorly) - but to expect a company to support that officially seems nuts?
It turns out repairing modern consumer electronics at a high quality bar is expensive! And it's equipment intensive!
Admittedly, it made for some great free PR on YouTube. As for addressing the concerns of the right-to-repair community... they would have been better off just uploading board schematics for the M1 Air and calling it a day. Most repair shops would probably feel less offended if they did.
Upon getting the laptop back, I got memory errors occasionally. When those memory errors became more common than coincidence could ascribe, my brother (more mechanically inclined than I) opened it up to check on the fan (maybe it was getting too hot again?) only to find that the memory had been replaced with 3rd party memory (this was the first time the laptop had been taken anywhere to get fixed).
Think back to the decade and more ago and all the fly by night phone and laptop repair places that existed.
I would be surprised if mine was a unique story.
And so, here's the question - how do you prevent a disreputable repair shop from swapping parts? If I hadn't had my brother open it up and look to see if the fans were gunking up again or loose wire or something, would I be blaming Apple for the memory errors on my laptop?
The first is that shoddy repairs or repairs with substandard parts screws the consumer and it does so with Apple's name on it. When someone buys a "New! (refurbished)" device from their favorite online marketplace and it comes with garbage components that break, it is a headache both for Apple when the customer comes to complain, and it's a PR headache for them when people think their phones are crap due to something completely out of their control.
The second is that there are significant security compromises that are facilitated by swapping parts from a stolen or secondhand phone.
The third is that phone theft is a serious issue, and the only way to solve it is to make stolen phones useless. Activation lock helped a good bit, but there was still a significant market for stolen phones to sell as parts. Phone theft was a huge issue in the early 2010s, but has seen significant declines due to this.
That dude is looking for problem when there's none. He starts off the article with this
> For people like me who have little experience repairing electronics, the self-repair setup was so intimidating that I nearly wussed out.
Did he expect Ikea like instruction manual to repair an advanced consumer electronic gadgets? That kit is clearly meant for professional (or at the very least hobbyists) repairers who clearly have experience, and know what they are doing.
To be fair he does call out Apple's recommendation and that this repair kit is better used by experts. I also feel that faced with increased regulation and public scrutiny Apple threw the entire kitchen sink as a cruel joke. I mean that 75pound repair equipment requiring $1200 hold on a card should is a big signal to retail users "do not even dream of attempting repair"
1. A machine to melt the glue holding the battery in place
2. A machine to apply even pressure to the new battery to ensure it’s properly adhered
3. A machine to apply heat and even pressure to the entire phone to properly give the phone with a watertight seal.
That seems like exactly what I’d expect has to happen to repair the phone back to original spec. I’m actually impressed that Apple gives this out to consumers to use.
It would be awesome if Apple also offered a lower cost model with an easily replaceable battery (like an old Android), more easily repairable, and not necessarily water proof. But, if there really was a market for that, some Android manufacturer would have something for it. Maybe there is one and I haven't looked.
Adhering the battery is the same - just press in place.
Heat is only needed for opening/closing the phone.
But normally (and if done correctly) it is watertight and opens +- the same.
Moreover, they changed my speaker for free, because it was defective or damaged. I didn’t know that. I only learned after getting my phone with service summary report.
As a result, I now recommend AppleCare replacement over any repair, if the water resistance is important to you.
The thing is that even if you screw this up, it will probably look OK for quite some time without being really water tight.
edit: wait, are we agreeing or not? I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing
How is this legal? Holds ought to be capped at the maximum payable for a transaction.
The tools are not required, despite what inflammatory articles like the Verge’s try/tried to claim. iFixIt’s guides makes it very clear that it’s possible to do the whole repair without them, and I’ve done it quite a few times in the past.
Sounds like you've never rented a moving truck. Or a power tool. Or tried to rent a car with a debit card.
Having a difference of 2 orders of magnitude between card hold and actual fee is absurd and atypical. I cant imagine a $7,500 hotel room stay placing a $120,000 hold
The comparison makes no sense.
The basic process of opening/closing any moder phone is basically the same.
And even if you did rip those tabs IPA does much better job of un-adhering the battery as you really don't want to use excessive force on lithium pouch cells unless you like your repair job to get "fast & furious" :-)
Yeah, IPA and thin plastic shim card. These are often sold in lockpicking shops for door shimming - costs few bucks. Or directly from iFixit site (/products/plastic-cards). Just snip it in half so it is not as wide (careful not to leave sharp corner that coud tear up that battery!). Then slip it under the battery and use it to guide few drops of IPA under there. Worked for me every time with almost no hassle.
Just be careful because IPA is of course flammable. If you would puncture the battery or make it spark, you could end up having quite a bad day. But that probably applies for the monofilament-under-the-battery approach too.
This is normal for renting tools.
The catch is that in order to buy it, you need to give them SN of the device in advance. Meaning you cannot have stock and thus you cannot offer any reasonably fast repair service. And even after that you have to contact their support in order to "pair" the newly installed parts to that device.
Most of the people I know use 3rd party repair shop because they can change battery/screen in 1-2 hours and they will not wipe your data. Apple takes 2 weeks and wipes your phone.
I guess it depends on where you are (Central Europe for me)
I always wipe my phone before handing it to Apple.
Of course I wiped it beforehand - they told me that they will have to send it somewhere and it would get wiped regardless.
IMO:
Not profit of the “self-service” repairs, nor the improvement to the bottom line when they refurbish their own devices.
Not some future goal of selling people the parts and/or tools.
Not the goal of being ecologically sustainable (though IMO they do very well at this).
I think they are working very hard to steer the Right to Repair ship so that it avoids successfully docking.
If Right to Repair gets everything that it could in the interests of the public, Apple will lose a lot of things. They will lose exclusivity contracts that lock in the manufacturers (it will be almost impossible to stop 3rd party duplicates of parts). They will lose a portion of the income from users who would would repair instead of upgrading. They will lose the illusion of security that they enjoy currently (unrestricted repair communities uncover every tiny detail, especially those ones that are security holes). They will lose the ability to lock people in to the Apple cloud (Jailbreaking will be inevitably easier). And they might even lose the pristine brand image they have built.
If Apple continued on the path of unrepairable iPhones, at some point they would be one of the examples that got Right to Repair signed in to law. However, they might be banking on the idea of saying “we’re making steps” for long enough that legislators will have space to stand down and the public will lose momentum.
Then they can go full-throttle on control.
No vendor-controlled unique IDs that need to be whitelisted in order to connect between chips or boards, no intrusive warnings about 3rd party parts that are installed, no undocumented protocols for basic functionality, and so-on.
And if they say they have to because of security that claim would be heavily scrutinized.
Way back in the day Microsoft tied IE in to Windows and leveraged it’s OS dominance to try to win the browser wars. Browsers, like hardware, are based on vendor-agnostic technologies and so MS felt it had to play dirty since there was no way for them to win a war where browsers are commodities. Back then the government stepped in as they recognized the fact that browsers are commodities and that paved the way for the majority of the web standards we rely on today.
Who knows what sort of fragmented web we would have if MS had been allowed to lock users in with their proprietary “improvements”. We may be at the same crossroads here with Right to Repair.
I disagree. It's all about customer LTV.
Apple is increasingly seeing a larger percentage of their revenue come from services e.g. Music, TV+ and iPhone-centric devices e.g. Apple Watch.
Keeping users in the ecosystem is incredibly important to Apple so much that they are happy to have users use older phones for longer. Just as long as they don't switch to Google or Samsung.
My rebuttal is that Apple can only make system API changes through releasing new iOS versions and there have been many cases where they make an API change to kill competition.
Does YouTube music have the same system-wide integration that Apple Music does? No. Look at Dropbox even: Some versions ago Apple took away iOS app’s ability to upload in the background while Apple’s Photos app is free to do it 24/7. A user who takes a lot of photos and likes to store them in the cloud is either an iCloud user where everything works automatically, or a non-iCloud user where files are stalled until the app is on-screen for however long it takes to transfer them.
Apologies for getting ranty there. It’s hard to watch big tech these days, especially as someone who sees how much has been taken from us already.
Have a look at JerryRigEverything videos of any iphone, they are beautifully constructed on the inside. They don’t do no-gos like cheaper phones building basically on top of the screen a battery and a cover, which would cause an insane price for screen replacement, they don’t use special screws to fuck with you, but because they literally use the same physical space as one screw by screwing a screw with an opposing direction into another.
Switching a product from a front-to-back stack to a mid frame design with nearly no interchangeable structures between those designs takes multiple years.
This comment, and those like it, are proof to me that there’s a large contingent of folks who don’t actually care about the repairability of iPhones, they just want to take shots at BigCos.
So it’s not enough that Apple is doing what y’all asked for. It has to be for the right reasons, too. Anything less than ideological purity —- to be defined and re-defined endlessly —- no sale.
That’s a fine take in itself, but I’d wish we could dispense with the disingenuousness once and for all.
Are there instances of DRM’d hardware being totally unsupported, or just not available at all? If so, what parts?
Battery will lock out "battery health".
Rear facing camera will glitch out (I think it will not do video and it will reduce framerate dramatically) and front camera will not work correctly at all.
All accompanied with constant nagging about non-genuine parts - regardless if you use parts from another iPhone (100% genuine).
Reducing iPhone theft is an extremely worthy goal, especially for people who live in high theft countries.
Also it makes zero difference in stealing an iPhone as even iCloud locked iPhone is easily useable for parts.
So no, it is not like that at all.
The problem is that smartphones are super complex devices, able to withstand dust, rain, drops, and more. In order to do that, they have complex internals, which AMONG OTHER THINGS (like heat dissipation and RF I/O) are designed to support mentioned goals.
Current gen iPhones can be dropped onto concrete at arms-length and not suffer from a broken screen or back. Think about that for a moment. Could you build a smartphone that could do that, and have amazing battery life along with desktop performance?
Note that I'm absolutely not affiliated with Apple, or a shareholder.
I feel like some folks downplay the amount of engineering that goes into the iPhone, and to a somewhat lesser extent, ANY mobile device. For many of us, these things live in our pockets and our hands. They are expected to have many hours of screen time, play games, let us read books, etc. They aren't simple devices, especially the current gen iPhones Apple has been pushing out.
There's a huge amount of engineering that goes into making cars as well, but independent mechanic can and do thankfully exist.
The automobile market is going a similar direction to Apple and it's considered a bad thing by many.
Apple do not want to sell you spare parts if they can sell you a new yearly model phone instead. Imagine how awful it would be if you're forced to buy a new car when the propriety tires get a puncture and it's a discontinued model.
"Well this is already happens, besides I never lifted a finger to fix anything in my life" - yes, but it's not a good thing to make this the status quo.
People need to have the freedom to get cheaper parts and / or better services from other places. Otherwise we're all chained to Apple and not lifting our own fingers.
I don't know why this doesn't make sense to people, except for cases where people believe the hype of little old ladies blowing themselves up because they tried to replace batteries.
Yet they can’t and are not expected to do anything when the engine itself fails, which can more realistically be compared to a mobile phone in terms of (useful) miniaturization, increase of precision, etc. This is the price of the orders of magnitude more efficient operation compared to the first engines, increased complexity. It’s a tradeoff (and I would say it is worth it in both cases).
But then, so do independent phone repair shops.
I'm curious to see if this is a 'test' to see if this doesn't have too many downsides, I imagine ingress area increasing this much might be a point of worry (well, there are flexible seals for that now), and instead of having a one-way stack you now have a two-way stack so tooling and workstations around that (even if we just think in terms of assembly and rework) are going to be a PITA to convert or completely replace.
Either this will be a success and allow for the architectural change to be applied to other products, or it's a medium-success in which this only works for specific parts/antenna/power envelope configurations and we won't see this design in other form factors.
What does itch a little is iFixit whining about the parts needing be a signed set to work together. Nobody has come up with a better integrity protection method, and no-protection isn't an option either for the ecosystem. Besides, instead of having a 'safe' and 'unsafe' option for which practically no user will ever be able to make an informed decision, you can simply choose not to buy it if this is a feature you seriously despise.
There should be integrity protection on the SoC, and then all other components should be untrusted.
Sure, that means someone can proxy the fingerprint sensor or put on a fake screen that shows a fake consent dialogue. But I think that is an acceptable risk - after all, you can never protect against someone making an entirely new device that just happens to look like an iPhone.
And I think it is unacceptable.
That doesn't mean that you also have to think the same thing, but I would rather not have that option taken away from me. I also don't think that you have made a case for any similar-security implementation for integrity protection.
I think distributed trust is the only way to make trustworthy components, and the only known-good way to do that is using PKI, and the only proven way to do that is to have a CA.
> [..] after all, you can never protect against [..]
That's the kind of thinking that gets you stuck in "we have already lost so we should stop trying".
If you can make sure that your finger print never leaves the secure enclave, and you can make sure that the Secure Enclave cannot be replaced, you can trust the device a whole lot more than a fake security measure that can be circumvented at every stage. What is the point of an insecure security control? You don't send your passwords plain-text over the internet, do you? Just because TLS is imperfect, and your CA store can be compromised, and your screen might be recorded using a camera and a telescope doesn't mean that therefore we should stop improving TLS...
If you're uncomfortable with the idea of buying potentially backdoored hardware, what makes you comfortable using backdoored software? I don't understand the "hardware matters but software doesn't" threat model. It certainly doesn't benefit you in any pragmatic sense, the best it will do is give you warm fuzzies while Apple adds your OCSP data to a running tab for your iCloud account.
If you are really on the spectrum of 'trust nobody', then what are you doing here on the internet? You had to trust your GPU, your window manager, your browser, the network stack, your internet provider, the server this site runs on, the people who own it etc.
The specific threat being protected against (leaving aside the increased safety of iPhone users by making the stolen parts market untenable) is your phone, that you recognize and use as your phone and which contains your confidential material and credentials, having internal components swapped out while unattended.
It's probably also some form of PR and brand protection, and part of platform security as a whole.
I doubt that any commercial company would find the side-effect of less end-user tampering a true downside; if the device says "I have been tampered with", that's a very clear signal that someone coming in for some warranty repair has some explaining to do.
And even that should be possible to disable the same way Android allows bootloader unlocks.
Sometimes I feel like people enjoy piling on because they are the big dog.
Again, please don’t mistake this comment for a blindness to some of its operations. But it’s nice to see them get credit for the good stuff.
Meanwhile, millions of people accidentally turn on iCloud without understanding the consequences, due to Apple’s UI decisions.
Apple need to do way more than this to show that they really strive to be good.
The fact that China hasn’t improved on human rights the way everyone expected them to do over the last two decades is indeed a problem for Apple, and everyone else who does business there, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are in fact making their phones more repairable, which is beneficial to the environment and consumers in reality, and not just in appearance.
The pure fact that they aren't advertising such obvious user-benefiting feature corroborates my hypothesis that they only virtue-signal what they find milkable. Fundamentally, they are making iPhones more repairable a result of the US and the EU being on their asses with various legislation; it's a mere compliance. Advertising it would likely affect their AppleCare+ revenue, which is why I presume they simply didn't.
If they actually cared about being a better company for the sake of being a better company, they would absolutely point out that obvious benefit even at the risk of diminishing their future AppleCare+ revenue.
So, in short, those repairability improvements are mostly to comply and save their own expenses when fixing AppleCare-insured phones. Which is what I meant by it being mostly for the looks. They just know how to play their cards well.
> which is beneficial to the environment and consumers in reality, and not just in appearance.
Nobody said it wasn't, that wasn't the point I was arguing.
For a more direct example look at all the companies putting up pro-LGBT flags.
This is an ideological claim that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Obviously if you hold this as an axiom, you won’t be able to see that companies are made up of people.
Are you aware that Tim Cook is gay? Could it be that his personal experience has something to do with Apple supporting gay rights?
If your claim has any truth, then all companies above a certain size would be putting up pro-LGBT flags.
Of course it is not a requirement if only other companies are your clients, here public opinion doesn’t have direct monetary correlation.
But in any case, there is no point in further discussion with you since you have stated your ideology.
That’s why I am much more annoyed by their push to services, because there I am less convinced that our interests are convergent in the long run.
This made me chuckle. I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of users care far more about the camera than the repairability. The latter is hardly even something they consider. It will probably help them in unseen ways, like improving resale value.
When my sister's iPhone's screen broke, she took it to the Apple Store at the mall to use her Apple Care benefits. When they gave her some enormous time estimate, she marched to the iFixUrPhone stand and they did it in an hour. I believe Apple knows that this is a problem and is taking some preliminary steps to fix it. That's what this play is about.
I'm honestly surprised they even accepted you as a walk-in
Side note: I don't remember saying she was a walk-in. I don't know if she was; I'll have to ask her.
This is a truly terrifying thing to me about today's younger generations that have "always had" a device and have use the social platforms just as long. I don't mean for that to sound patronizing or belittling. It is just so out of my own experience it is hard for me to empathize, but I do sympathize as I realize that some of that dependancy was/is intentionally juiced by the social platforms.
Maybe it's not all that hard to replace the glued-in batteries anyway. Seems every mall has two tiny mid-hallway shops that can do it.
The only possible benefit I see here is Apple saving money on repair technician time. But I still suspect it'll cause lost profits, because many people will be able to repair their phones instead of just buying new ones when they break.
Ofcourse it's not a primary concern for us... but having upgraded my Samsung Galaxy, it feels good that I can easily service the phone and replace components. It's so simple inside once you learn how to unglue the back glass.
On the other hand, this makes stealing an iPhone more and more pointless, as more and more parts cannot be parted out and sold. After activation lock was added, thieves started parting out screens and batteries to sell them and get at least some value out of an otherwise useless stolen iPhone. Want to see how useless an activation locked iPhone is? Check eBay. I assume that for iP14+ it'll be even less. I welcome this move.
(all opinions my own)
To prevent a massive attack on Apple by corrupting the blacklist, the phones would only perform this check if any of the factory parts have been replaced.
1. steal iphone A
2. split it into parts
3. install parts into iPhone B
4. parts not yet marked stolen, they work, check passes
5. Iphone A marked stolen
...
Just like the "don't boot with non-registered hardware", this is all software and can be changed. Maybe in future releases of iOS they change how this "check for legit parts" process works.
Easier for who? Quote from the video:
"We're hearing reports of Apple continuing on the hostile path of pairing parts to the phone, requiring activation of the back glass after installation. Why in the world would you need permission to install a sheet of glass?! Using software to prevent the replacement of components with aftermarket parts gets a big thumbs-dwon from us."
Let's call it like it is. Apple is not doing you a favor for easier repairability, they're doing their bottom line a favor. If they actually cared, they wouldn't be so hostile to software lock you out of replacing a bloody glass panel.
The internal design is still greatly thought out though. I've been asking myself for years: why can't phone makers make phones with a mid frame that allow both sides to be easily swapped out, instead of one or another. Seems like Apple has cracked it. I hope other phone makers copy this minus the SW locks.
No, this still doesn't mean you can go get the cheapest replacement option you can on Alibaba but the repair is STILL easier, even if you still have to buy from Apple. For certain replacement parts I can see this being important, like anything involved in Face ID or Touch ID.
Credit where credit is due, let's hope it continues in the right direction.
Those are secure elements. The back glass is not a secure element. That's just vendor lock-in malice for the sake of profiteering.
Edit: Since I can reply to your comments below, your argument fails flat because:
1) SW lock-outs also apply to genuine apple parts, not just aftermarket ones
2) If the user's ability to verify the originality of the parts installed in their phone was the real reason, they Apple could just have a prompt for the user that the new part is not genuine instead of completely locking it out.
I would agree with you that the back glass is not one of those things. But as another person said, it is nice to know that they're official Apple products as that does matter to some people.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-lea...
Could they still do it for Apple official parts without locking out 3rd parties? i.e. if an official screen that was previously registered to a different phone, then lock it out. If it's never been registered, then allow it?
Do you live in an area where phone theft is rampant? Ok, then leave SW lock enabled on your phone's parts.
Do you want to legitimately transplant parts off your old phone to your new phone? Then let the user disable the SW lock after entering their PIN or Face-ID or whatever.
It's not like this is some super-complex problem Apple couldn't solve with a few line of code to have the best of bot worlds if they really wanted to.
That to me is worth the whole phone bricking thing. And it's also not like I've gone through a bunch of them, I got a 6S on release and a 12 pro when I felt it couldn't play video games anymore.
...and if I'm too lazy to do that, I can still sell it for parts online since less lazy people who know how to do that will buy it for the same reason.
To date, no HN discussion of this crypto-pairing of the phone to its parts has revealed an alternative solution that would be effective at Apple’s scale for preventing phones from being hacked by a parts swap while also allowing any part to be swapped in — not to mention while providing the anti-theft benefits described upthread. I’d love to see a viable alternative solution described, if anyone has one.
Random-ass repair shops are not going to expend the effort of putting in fake parts to hack you to.. hack a couple of thousand dollars off of your account and then get caught due to it easily being traceable to the repair shop?
The only people who need protection from hardware-swap hacks are people like journalists. And if you are one, you shouldn’t be giving people physical access to your device regardless.
Here is a simple solution: give the normal user (after a passcode unlock) a pop-up: ‘your X has been replaced. Do you wish to authorize this new part for use with your iPhone?’.
Make it so that if your phone is set to the new Lockdown mode, you cannot authorize any new parts.
These protections apply to considerably more of one country’s populace than would benefit from off-market parts being usable at third-party repair shops. I appreciate Apple’s choice to prioritize in this regard, but I’d still like to see if tech can overcome this barrier without sacrificing that safety.
Assuming you are a normal person, you already are. Rapidly click the lock button 5 times and they cannot extract any data with normal means. If you are someone worthy of nation-state attention, why are you crossing the border without a wiped device, as has been the adviced standard practice for years?
Again: these draconian repair protections should be tied to Lockdown mode. There is no reason to destroy repairability to protect a tiny group that isn’t giving their device out for repairs anyway if they’re following opsec.
No state will burn extremely expensive tools like Pegasus on a garden-variety criminal.
I’m very conscious of my privacy and device security myself, but I’m also aware that I do not warrant high-cost surveillance. Most people are in that boat. You can model your threats accordingly.
I think you might also be failing to account for situations where you aren't in possession of your phone for an hour or two. Imagine if police in a foreign country take your phone for a couple of hours and then give it back to you. Or you leave your phone in a hotel room to charge for a few hours. Or your phone gets "misplaced" for an hour after going through the airport x-ray machine.
There are many targets other than journalists too, such as people in the USA who develop export controlled technologies, certain tech company employees, defense contractor employees, other government employees, etc. I don't think you can expect every potential target to constantly set their iphone to lockdown mode.
If this is the case, they can add their own fingerprint or face (alternate look feature) to your iPhone. You’re thoroughly pwned at that point, no hardware swaps necessary.
> I think you might also be failing to account for situations where you aren't in possession of your phone for an hour or two
If I came back to my unattended phone after 2 hours and it was giving me a pop-up about a swapped part, I would never trust that phone again.
> I don't think you can expect every potential target to constantly set their iphone to lockdown mode.
If they are that much of an attractive target, their organizations would be stupid not to enforce it. I know that Lockheed used to give personnel that was China-bound a throwaway laptop and would shred it the moment they returned to the USA.
Exactly. It boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics Apple apologetics will go through to try to justify Apple's anti-consumer anti-repair practices of software locking replacement parts.
Midframe based based construction was standard for most premium smartphones 2010-2015, after that two piece construction, and "bathtub" took over for economic reasons, and because of MBA people wanting to parrot Apple's engineering in everything.
I mean yeah, it is nice to be able to open it from front and rear. But what good does it make when they pair every single component to the motherboard? Yeah, technically parts are more accessible (physically) but thats only the beginning of the repair process. And unless you can buy genuine parts without hassle and put them in, you are still SOL.
To me it is like cheering that murderer did not also litter I mean I guess it is kinda nice of him, but...
Honestly, if they cared about "best user experience", they would have done digital signature of the LCD/cable and if OEM was detected, they could display something like "Hey, someone tampered with your phone and changed the screen using OEM parts". If not, they coud say "Hey, someone tampered with your phone and replaced screen with an unoriginal one. You might see some degradation in quality because of that".
We're also constantly moving the goalposts on Apple. The iPhone 11 had no public repair manuals and only special authorized repair centers could purchase genuine parts or perform the "System Configuration" pairing step.
With the iPhone 12, 13, and SE we suddenly we got public repair manuals[0] and public access to genuine parts[1]. The "System Configuration" step still exists, but it's accessible to anyone and requires chating[2] with Apple/SPOT (their self repair subcontractor).
Now the new iPhone 14 has been expensively re-engineered to make self repair easier. But you're saying because the same self-serve "System Configuration" step is required for some components it's all moot? Let's take a win when we get one. It could still be better, but the trend is definitely moving in the right direction.
edit: Also not all repairs require motherboard pairing step, albeit the most common ones do. But you can replace the iPhone SE camera, taptic engine, SIM tray, and speaker without any System Configuration step. See the the SE repair manual [0].
--
[0] https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/2000/MA2049/en_US/iph...
But we have to be honest with ourselves here: what good is it to have a repair manual when you cannot buy genuine parts? I mean yeah, this is a small-ish win, but it will not help to say it is "good enough". Sorry, but that is just not good enough.
The thing that pisses me the most is that I genuinely think that iPhones are amazing phones. They are quite nicely engineered and they easily could last you 5-8 years. Why put so much engineering effort to artificially cripple the device? Most of us will buy the new model anyway. And those who cannot (or don't want) should be able to keep theirs for as long as possible. It seems wastefull and unnecessary to fight it.
You can absolutely buy genuine parts for recent iPhones: https://selfservicerepair.com/order (that website looks random, but it's actually Apple's official self repair supplier)
Yes, the System Configuration step is still required to pair many of those parts. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Perspectives vary between it being a necessary security precaution and an entirely self-interested move by Apple to control their supply chain. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.
I've never done the System Configuration step, but it requires chatting with a support agent and it sounds much easier than the repairs themselves. I absolutely agree things could still improve. But I also think we should recognize this new iPhone 14 re-design as a huge improvement that shows a promising trend.
If you cannot get parts in stock (meaning in advance), you might as well send it to the Apple and not bother with repair shop at all. I also think this is the main reason for making it like that. Display, battery and vibration motor has absolutely no security implications.
I would be very happy to see Apple not screwing with individual repair shops. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of their HW (be it iPhones or MBPs). But I'm not a fanboy and I'm not going to bend backwards to praise this corporate entity when it is not deserved. If you compare the ease of getting part for Samsung and Apple, it is like night and day.
That System Configuration step is also a middle finger. Having to chat with some support agent just for changing a consumable item like a battery? Or a vibration motor? What the actual f?
edit: Checked and they still want the SN of a target device before selling you anything - even a battery! From the site: The serial number is required and will be shared with Apple. This number must be from the device that is being repaired or you may encounter issues that prevent the completion of the repair.
Yeah, thanks but no thanks.
Please read the thread (shrug emoji).
Because that idea is BS, designed just to block 3rd party repair shops from doing quick repairs leaving you with the same (or worse) level of service that Apple itself offers.
Why on Earth would anyone need to provide SN of the phone to buy consumable such as battery? Makes no sense at all. Even the display is stupid because most of the time people come to the repair shop is because Apple takes 2 weeks & wipes data from device. Which is kinda problem for many people since they often don't have another $$$ for spare phone and also forgot to backup.
Almost any other vendor lets you buy parts such as LCD or battery and just swap it. And for most of the phones you can do that kind of work in under an hour.
They don’t. It’s a 30 minute repair with no wipe necessary.
You can’t seriously believe they are afraid of naming an Apple Store. If the store existed and they named it, then I’d look like a complete asshole.
This also applies not only to the battery replacement but for screen as well. I've had to do that also and it also was not a 30 minute repair unfortunately. If it was, I would be quite happy and would not be so frustrated over this stuff.
You are claiming that there is a ‘location’ where Apple themselves in general need to send off a phone for a battery replacement, one of the most common repairs.
Which Apple Store was that? Where is it located? We can easily enough ask them what the general turnaround time for a battery replacement is.
Are you an actual Apple employee with some power to help me (or help the situation in general)? If so I'd be really glad and more than willing to share all my information with you! Let me know. We buy Apple products worth roughly ~$10-30k every year depending on the stuff we are getting so I'm afraid that we are not that big to be interesting by ourselves but we are certainly bigger than 3 iPhones a year :-)
I'd be the first person to actually celebrate having some official way to either repair my stuff or at the very least a way to get genuine parts without having to jump through multiple artificial hoops designed just to piss me off.
By your own indirect admission you cannot change anything so why bother? I don't really care if you personally believe me or not. Sorry.
An honest person would have no reason to hide the location. I think it’s fairly clear that you’ve been caught in a lie.
Your offer is that I should disclose information about my whereabouts so you can do nothing to help me. Well thank you for this opportunity but I think I will politely decline. :-D
As I said earlier: If you cannot help me at all, I have no interest in proving anything to you. Sorry.
Are you afraid that some harm will come to you if you name an Apple Store that was slow to repair a phone?
Nobody is asking you to disclose your whereabouts. Just tell us which Apple Store took 2 weeks to repair a phone, if indeed there is one.
Reasonably priced repair - unless they found some random part glued to the backside that they paired to the motherboard for "security reasons" :-D
Hugh Jeffreys made a video interchanging parts on two brand new iphone's and it disabled a lot of things including auto-brightness.
I'm saying i want a way that disables it and then prevents it from ever being re-enabled.
Also: it's a joke.
You can get one here: https://support.apple.com/manuals/iphone
It's even free!
It's also nice for consumers who get their devices stolen strictly for parts. Preventing someone from basically chop shopping phones. I don't use iphone's but it's a nice feature. If the parts are serialized they could prevent your stolen iphone's camera from working in someone else's stolen iphone. Essentially locking the parts to a iphone that locked by an appleid.
If I was replacing the front facing FaceID complex I sure as hell would want verifiable Apple gear and it to be paired to the phone. Why would I want some random person to be able to put something in my phone's biometric authentication path?
Yes, the articles would go something like this: "WTF is wrong with Apple, did they intentionally implement 'security' in the worst possible way, by leaving the phone unencrypted and just using faceID as a lock screen?!"
That is what they'd have to do for your statement to make any sense, they'd have to leave the data unencrypted and just use a removable component as a pass or fail doorman. So the system would have always been unsecure, it would just be more obvious in this scenario.
[1] https://www.apple.com/business-docs/FaceID_Security_Guide.pd...
If you have to worry about that I most certainly would hope that you wouldn't leave your phone to a repair-shop.
Regular, run of the mill encryption you can download at every corner store can withstand attacks from nation states.
Reflashing serial numbers of common i2c chips is routine, and not "harder."
It basically only deters self-taught repair shop owners, without electronics background.
I can answer for you: these are completely unrelated to security. It is just a middle finger from Apple to anyone wanting to repair their device.
edit: typo
Tracking serial numbers to black-list stolen parts (too much effort for too little value IMO but I'm not a bean counter for a nation-state-sized corporation so what do I know?) is very different from white-listing ordained parts.
Independent shops should be able to buy broken phones from individuals and part them out for repairs without jumping through Apple's hoops.
I assume in this scenario that all independent shops are trustworthy entities that won't use stolen, reclaimed, or third-party parts in order to save money, without informing the customer?
Tracking stolen phones and busting chop shops is probably something that should be handled by law enforcement.
Apple should protect me from a repair monopoly overcharging just enough such that a new device (also sold by said monopoly) looks more appealing than a repair.
The claim about them doing this to make you buy a new device is made up.
The goal is to make stolen iPhones worth nearly zero to thieves, which makes iPhones more valuable to all iPhone owners. Otherwise stolen iPhones are worth enough to incentivise a stolen iPhone economy. https://www.ifixit.com/Parts/iPhone_13/Screens Not having your phone stolen is worth your replacement cost to you.
Apple probably report way more data than a list of part IDs already.
A notification that says "this iPhone has stolen parts", some cooperation with the police, etc. could all work without locking down the part. There are a million ways to do it that don't involve destroying the planet and stomping on consumer rights.
Also, getting past the serial number lock isn't that hard. It's hard for the typical random asshole who steals phones, but not for someone knowledgeable enough to buy stolen phones to do repairs. Just search for "iphone screen programmer" on eBay and you'll find them selling for around ~$90.
$90 + an aftermarket screen is still less than what Apple charges for a repair, DIY or not.
How many people, realistically, had over four accidental damage incidents in a two-year period wherein they benefit from this "unlimited" change? As I said, it is good marketing, a very niche change in reality.
I agree dropping a phone every day is not accurate, but the risk exists with "the rigors of daily use".
Which is not exactly an argument about multiple breaks per year, but it's relevant.
Phones hit the floor sometimes. It just happens and it is normal in daily use.
You aren't wrong that phones are expensive devices but your comment oozes a toxic elitist "PEBCAK" attitude similar to something like "The antennas are VERY well designed you're just holding it wrong"*
My wife. Mostly because of the Minnesota State Fair.
I can imagine Apple doing some kind of hardware-level signing of camera and video data, so that any image shot by an iPhone/iPad would have a signature declaring that is was not edited by the user in any way. Details on whether RAW or any kind of auto-cleanup could be included.
In other words, a chain-of-custody kind of thing so that images can be asserted as real vs. created by a computer.
Depending on how such a system would be implemented, this would require "real Apple hardware" from the ground up.
If you want to take a signature you need to extract a secret key from an iPhone in this scenario, which would be probably stored in the secure enclave.
That's how asymmetric cryptography works.
This exists, and is why the (Canon?) cameras used by police departments at crime scenes are so expensive.
Apple is preparing to legislative changes in EU that hardware must be repairable. This law is already a reality in France https://www.ecr-community.org/implementing-the-reparability-...
I think one problem is not being discussed enough is iPhones being stolen for parts (since in most cases they can't be reactivated). I strongly suspect inability to simply switch parts without remote authorisation is Apple's way to address the problem.
You want to be able to temporarily disable a feature that Apple introduced to prevent from installing potentially stolen parts in your phone?
If I own my device and can enter the password on it, I should be able to decide which software features are enabled and disabled. That shouldn't be a controversial opinion.
That being said, there are some good points raised here by folks. If you don't like how Apple does things overall, there are mighty fine competitors that provide even more in some areas and are not Chinese, but they do charge premium for their quality too. Just expect some similar/other limitations there too.
I agree though, and I've been moving myself away from Apple products since Catalina. The water is now lukewarm, and this little frog doesn't intend to be around when they put the lid on the pot.
> Considering you can buy parts from Apple or take the phone in to a store to have it fixed at a very fair price.
What is a "fair" price? After market screens can be found online for incredibly cheap. I replaced my XS Max display myself in 10 minutes using a kit I bought for ~$50 on Amazon with free 2 day shipping.
Sure, I don't have "true tone" anymore, and the display is an inferior LCD rather than an IPS, but I don't care. It looks great, works great, and it beats paying Apple $329.
The main problem with after market parts is there is often not informed choice. These parts very frequently advertise themselves official or equivalent to official. With fake specs, fake labels, and fake brands. And then these phones get resold on to others who have no way of knowing that the reason their experience is compromised is due to fake parts.
Ideally Apple would present some kind of UI to the user which allows them to unregister the parts of their phone and allow them to be used in another phone for genuine swaps of owned devices. And allowing the installation of non genuine parts with some on boot message explaining exactly which parts are not genuine. So on sale the new owner knows what they are getting.
I really doubt that. People always find a way around these types of things, especially for something as popular as an iPhone. It's all effectively DRM, which has never been fool-proof in any implementation as far as I know, whether it be hardware or software. It's not like Apple has some magic super secure supply chain. Internal manuals get leaked and parts stolen off assembly lines all the time.
> The main problem with after market parts is there is often not informed choice. These parts very frequently advertise themselves official or equivalent to official. With fake specs, fake labels, and fake brands.
The same could be said about literally everything. Counterfeits are not a new phenomenon, it's just a fact of life (especially on the internet, and particularly on Amazon)
> ...And then these phones get resold on to others who have no way of knowing that the reason their experience is compromised is due to fake parts.
> ... And allowing the installation of non genuine parts with some on boot message explaining exactly which parts are not genuine. So on sale the new owner knows what they are getting.
The argument you're making here is that Apple should inflict major harms on consumers in order to marginally improve their business. By preventing independent repairs via serial number locking, Apple is able to ensure that second-hand iPhones are higher quality, and the people who buy them are more likely to be impressed and will want to buy a brand new iPhone in the future. That minor benefit to Apple's business/brand should be more important than the damage to consumers' wallets, rights, and the planet.
Everyone has their own view of the world and value systems. This reasoning just seems bonkers to me, but I understand that we're probably completely different people with polar opposite viewpoints on this, and you probably think my views are insane. I can respect that. I'm not going to change your mind about it, and you're not going to change mine. So I think the conclusion here is to end this discussion on mutual disagreement.
"Every Android phone opens from the back."
I have replaced screens an a couple different models of Motorola phones, and the screens popped off the front. Just looking at my Pixel 5a, the screen clearly pops off the front.
This wouldn't bother me as much, except it is on the ifixit web site, which posts videos on screens repairs, that clearly show any number of Android phones being opened from the front.
Disappointing mistake, coming from ifixit.
This puts Apple’s recent “no limit to accidental repairs” policy update in perspective. When I saw that I said, “well I guess this is how they are going to use their cash reserves, because no way will this be net profitable”
To boot, I always wondered why it was so cheap - $200 for AC+ then $29 per screen or back replacement. When considering the employee time and equipment, that’s absolutely a loss.
As someone that just wants good things in the world, this makes my heart flutter. It’s wonderfully aligned with customers and does good for the bottom line.
Sorry to all my fellow repair brethren still slogging it out there. Accuse me of being a fanboy - but this is amazing.
[Edit]: This may potentially eat into the phone case market as well. The feel of a bare iPhone is that much better and you can put the cost of the case toward AC+.
Are Apple products such garbage or so hard to repair that shorter more expensive warranties lose money? Seriously?
I’ve been a Mac service technician at an Apple Store for almost a decade. I’ve had an extremely competitive wage for the entire time vs other jobs of this level, I get RSUs, and a very comprehensive benefits package even though I’m currently part-time. me and my team are expensive for what we are (essentially, just retail workers).
The majority of appointments I take on the Genius Bar in a day have no charge; software/iCloud issues, data migrations, or just how-to questions are free and unlimited. Most, though certainly not all, repairs are done in warranty.
Yes, repairs are often expensive, but when I think about the daily operating costs and salaries of my entire team vs how much revenue we bring in per paid repair transaction, I can’t see how repair costs & AC sales cover even half of it. That’s to say nothing of the extremely busy call centres that Apple waived the per-call fees for over five years ago.
Take that for what it’s worth, but when you see how much traffic flows to and from the Genius Bar every day with no money ever changing hands, it would take a lot to convince me that AC is a profit centre, and not a huge loss leader.
Also, the title is from Apple's PR in one of those congressional hearings where they're responding to (often over-simplified) complaints of anti-competitive behavior. It's going to be spun like none other. Apple also claims a way higher effective tax rate in Europe than what they're regularly accused of, and calculated some way they're probably technically correct.
I know since meeting my gf who is tech dumb, my device is more beaten up than it ever had been before due to just her using it randomly here and there.
I can be very careful with something I don't understand, and I can be reckless with something I do understand.
But maybe the person doesn't buy a new one. The cost of the consumer replacing a years-old iPhone is the used price. Personally I would never buy a used iPhone from eBay or something anymore, since there are too many gotchas with SIM locking and whatnot, but Apple also sells older models at a discounted price.
Generally insurance is never positive-EV for the buyer unless peace of mind is considered, and to that I say, it's cheaper to find peace with the risk of breaking your phone.
So little that the 1 time it could happen in the 2 years of AppleCare makes it pay for itself.
I can't see how Apple really loses money on this move unless people just start throwing their $1,000 pocket computers on the ground.
A logic board randomly dying 10 days after purchase would certainly be covered under the factory warranty.
Due to this it is certainly mandatory to buy applecare+ for macbooks. I have not used iphones after the 5s so can't comment on that but it seems they have less problem than Macs.
I also think that makers should have the freedom to design computers whose software tightly integrate with the hardware. Repairing a broken part with a third-party is exactly the opposite of tight integration. If people didn’t want tight integration, then products that are built specifically for tight integration are just not the right tool for the job that they want to do, and I don’t understand why they can’t simply choose not to buy the product. It’s not like the phone and computer markets are monopolies either. Androids and PCs of all form factors and OSes exist.
It would make more sense to me to call for regulation against pricing abuse for the repairs of tightly integrated products. The Right to Repair movement as it stands just doesn’t resonate much with me, nor do I agree with it, because integrated products that come with everything you need make for great user experiences.
Storage though, I agree with :)
Making the device easier to repair is also desirable, both for Apple and for third parties, because these things break all the time and need to be repaired. It saves everyone time and reduces waste.
Huh? If the act of repairing is difficult (and extremely, in Apple’s case), then do you actually have the right, or is it only a right on paper? Is Right to Repair nothing more than printing out manuals no matter how difficult the process of repair itself is?
The nature of the device itself may make for difficult repairs, but that's a different issue.
Right-to-repair regulation isn't about stifling innovation, it's about giving the consumer leverage in the lifecycle of the product they own. Before now, Apple has gone out of their way to make life as hard as possible on third-party repair shops - that shouldn't be an engineering incentive. Regulation gives us the power to force Apple to put consumers before profit margins, and innovation somewhere in between.
It might be worth the hit, but naive to think such an accomplishment is without innovation cost.
My point is: improved repairability always comes at the expense of something else.
If regulators instead went after service pricing abuse, that would force companies like Apple to drive down their repair prices—which might force them to design their hardware in a more modular manner, but not necessarily, so that if it becomes negligibly cheap to manufacture and replace the entire part of a less modular architecture, then they still have the freedom to design electronics in a less modular architecture. Repairability, considering the arbitrariness of the level of modularity that it stops, really does seem like a constraint on innovation.
User-serviceability is another unnecessary requirement, in my opinion, and in this regard, regulators can go after service availability. Electronics manufacturers who insist on tight integration of their products should make their repair services highly available, which seems like a fair trade-off.
How would this work in a manner that isn't vastly more invasive than right to repair bills? I can't think of anything similar.
Also, how is this level of regulatory inspection invasive? The architectural tight integration almost guarantees that the device manufacturer has a monopoly on servicing their products—it’s just that the monopoly is being allowed because it’s the kind that allows for innovation. The regulatory crackdown would be fair and justifiable.
No they haven't. They just had no reason to prioritize or put effort into making sure that third-party repair shops had an easy time to do this. Not putting effort into something isn't the same as actively putting effort into making things more difficult.
That’s certainly one interpretation. What’s the security rationale behind disabling functions if you don’t pair the phone’s replacement glass panel? Or if you take a genuine battery from another phone (since Apple doesn’t sell them for most models directly) and put it in your phone? It’s a genuine battery but it’ll nag you and disable functionality because you didn’t pair it with your phone using software Apple didn’t release.
This goes beyond security and is downright hostile to user repair.
1. >disabling functions if you don’t pair the phone’s replacement glass panel?
That's not what's happening. The "glass panel", as you put it, is the same part as the FaceID and TouchID sensors. They're cryptographically paired so that someone doesn't replace that part with a compromised sensor that would allow them access to the device. If you're referring to the back glass, then it needs to be paired to the hardware only on newer devices because of the Magsafe functionality and the fact that the cameras are built into the back. Compromising the back panel could allow an attacker access to any photos taken with the camera or, in some cases, access to data on the phone via the Magsafe connection.
2. >take a genuine battery from another phone (since Apple doesn’t sell them for most models directly) and put it in your phone
The only functionality that's disabled when this happens is the health measurement of the battery because there's no way to tell if the battery being installed is brand new unless the chain of trust for the hardware is intact. It doesn't nag you at all. It simply says on the battery health screen that the battery that's installed can't be verified. It doesn't affect the usage of the phone at all outside of the battery health display.
You're either being disingenuous or just outright lying here.
Just in case, what about auto brightness on the iPhone 14? If you swap the display with a genuine one from another iPhone 14, auto brightness is now disabled which means that your screen is black every time you unlock the phone and you have to manually go and crank the brightness up again (without actually seeing anything in the display) every time you unlock the phone.
I’m sure this makes the phone way safer too and is actually intended for your own good rather than being actively hostile to self repair by making the phone obnoxious to use as a result.
When LTT did a review of the Framework laptop for example they also did a size comparison with a similarly specced Dell laptop and found that the framework both thinner and sturdier than the Dell laptop, next to being obviously more repairable ¯\_( ツ )_/¯
This, a million times. I never understand the take “this product is a runaway, worldwide success, and I want to use it as well because it’s by far the best, but I also want various other of my own, individual priorities factored in” in some sort of mythical unicorn product.
And because many of us are hackers/makers/programmers/tinkerers, one of those priorities is the ability to have all of the above, but also unfettered access to the internals to modify it as we please.
It’s like… this car is perfect for my needs in every way, and far and above the best in its class. But I want it to run on hydrogen, so if they could just do that, it’d be perfect. Why are they forcing me to run on electric?
Dude, don’t buy it?
Just because a product is a runaway success does not mean it's also not a potential environmental disaster waiting to happen. Cars were also a runaway success. So were plastic bags and straws. So was snake oil and so are various sugary fizzy drinks that destroy your health.
We can't just leave everything to the free market and the uninformed preferences of the consumers and watch everything around us burn because $THING is successful because $CORPORATION advertises it and consumers love it, otherwise we end up in the dystopian Idiocracy scenario of "Brawndo is what plants crave because it has electrolytes and is the no. 1 thirst mutilator".
That's why we should regulate products that are a runaway success to make sure their success doesn't come at the expense of other things around us.
Yes, I agree completely. But I wasn't talking about regulation, I was talking about tinkerer users not understanding how the delicate balance achieved by a product is the reason that it is successful and good.
It’s exactly because it’s a runaway success that people care about repairability, environmental impact etc.
(Old 3rd party repair shop; thousands of data points)
Just look at screen repairs. Apple checks in software to verify the integrity of some of the hardware in screens and, in the past, it led to people being locked out of their devices when they were repaired with screens that had dummy FaceID/TouchID sensors.
No one should have the "right" to create products that turn to garbage when any part of it breaks. A clean planet is more important than "great user experiences". The second thing that they did it only for profit, is ergonomics of new repairable iphone any worse?
Also "software locked" parts should be banned by EU regulators.
Let's not forget, this is also about reducing e-waste and it's not an option anymore to dump new phones because one part broke and you can't repair yourself.
I want Apple to be allowed to create any device they want, but I think iPhone and Mac repairability can be currently improved without noticably hurting features. Prioritizing it would be the right trade off to do. In that case they should go for it (as they apparently decided to do).
Even without fighting for regulation, we can still celebrate companies when they decide to create repairable products with long term software support and complain about them when they don't.
A regulation that I would like to see would be to perhaps force 'makers' to sell genuine spare parts to anyone (same goes for Tesla and others).
Regulation places the cost of those externalities and/or the responsibility to prevent them back in the lap of the manufacturer.
I think for me repairability comes down to: how long do you think this phone is supposed to be usable? Even if you don't own it (have gifted or sold it). Probably an ecological argument there.
Primarily, given there is no up-to-date free/opensource phone OS (not to mention baseband software updates) after Apple iOS support ends... the phone can realistically only last till then unless you want to use legacy software (I have one relative who has such a device - but I'd not want one myself).
Sure, by tightly integrating you are getting material benefits (size, consumption, optimization, etc). But by doing this, you go further down into high-tech, which means complexity and energy intensive build/repair/dispose [1]. At this point i'm reformulating your tradeoff, in which you choose the material benefits.
Now, one part of the right-to-repair movement comes from "low-tech" underpinning and objects the material benefits. Indeed, the point of a smartphone is not to crunch some machine instructions, it's to communicate with friends/family/world, interact with network services etc. Crunching code is just a byproduct of reaching this goal. It's even the same with supercomputers which one could think as performance-oriented: their goal is not to do the peta-flops, it's to solve some simulations at a given precision level. Nothing is built just for fun (or should): if you build a tool you better have a problem. And if you forget the goal, your tool will most likely be garbage. This is the objection of the r2r/lowtech movement: it's an assertion that a lot of high-tech has lost the sight of it's actual use and hence is hindering progress more than anything else.
This is a direct opposition with the pov which is widespread in modern western tech thinking that "if you build the tool they will use it". Obviously this pov has some depth to it, it's not completely nonsense (in the sense that creative and explorative processes are useful, i know i'm myself doing research in foundations of math). But this pov is also very extreme, and is in fact a corner-stone of the offer-driven production that is hegemonic today (with market economies). This same offer-driven production is also posing many social problems because of the need for aggressive marketing, problems with long-term stable availability of basic goods, with the focus on big/fast/shiny. We've gone too far into that direction and that a part of the reason for the pollution and resource exhaustion crisis (being themselves big parts of the climate and biosphere crisis going on rn).
The position of r2r/lowtech is obviously not to go to the other extreme which would be completely planned production based on somehow knowing what needs to be done (which we already see cannot really work and is very conservative by nature). But there has to be a balance. My position: the bulk of the energy-intensive and stable mass-manufacturing of basic known-to-be-useful-and-desirable goods should be done by planning, with open standards, user-groups, cheap repair, and some fraction of the resources should be reserved to the free-for-all market-driven exploratory research. Obviously this poses a couple problem with the fat cats running mass-manufacturing and other commodity services.
Hope this was a balanced explanation of the position.
[1] The matter will be ordered on a smaller scale so: (1) to build it you need to put a lot of energy into putting everything in order (entropy!); (2) to repair you both have to diagnose a complex thing and then act on it precisely; (3) to dispose of properly you need to put a lot of energy into separating everything again (entropy again!). Here i say "energy" in a large sense, this energy might be embodied as direct energy put into the process but also as human time, dependency on high-tech tooling (hence cost), etc. Another concept linked to this is "capital intensity".
I think the same is true of Macbooks. There is no real reason that the SSD has to be soldered to the motherboard, Apple could easily put the NAND chips on a slim socketed daughterboard (they already do this on the Mac Studio).
I won't say that every laptop needs to be built like the Framework, but I do think that any component that could be considered a "wear item" (batteries, NAND flash, OLED screens) should be designed to be replaced.
I think the sanest compromise would be adopting Firefox, Chrome, and/or Edge as second party browsers. I guess we will see what happens in 2024 because I doubt it will be opening the floodgates.
Communism is a thought experiment about how people might organize if we ever achieved post-scarcity. We haven't yet figured out how to achieve post-scarcity. We have absolutely no idea how to do it, if it is possible at all.
Quite different.
The technology to secure it surely already exists or ios devices are already insecure.
Everyone who's like "just sandbox it" -- yeah that's exactly what JSC is for.
Like we're talking about code running in a VM completely isolated from the host system but has one teeeeny tiny escape hatch, a single WX page used by the JIT and that has been exploited multiple times.
With the way cameras are going and the use of iPad external docks, it would be a pretty great ultimate mobile device.
...well, except for Edge which is a third monopoly in this equation forcing itself onto unsuspecting consumers. Even if it's still Chrome under the hood, that probably looks like "healthy competition" from the clueless people at the FTC.
I think it’s bad taste on how he keeps on knocking tech reviewers. Of course they won’t notice because they don’t open phones for a living.
It also implies this question: Best reviewers? Or most popular?
Uh, look at that wonky Qualcomm SDR735 chip.
Actually looking at it a bit closer it seems like the board was destroyed during disassembly?
1. https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iPhone+14+Pro+Max+Chip+ID/15322...
https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2022/09/18133340/iPhon...
> We are hearing reports that Apple is continuing their hostile path of pairing parts to the phone, requiring activation of the back glass after installation. You really shouldn’t need Apple’s permission to install a sheet of glass on a phone that you already own. Using software to prevent the use of aftermarket parts gets a big thumbs down from us. These locks are frustrating and ultimately futile—Apple simply can’t control all the repairs that happen with their products, no matter how hard they try.
Tradeoffs, unintended consequences.
Risk/reward just does not match - it'll be most likely few years or even probation for simple robbery with good ol' bats, and tens of years for robbing at gunpoint, a good part of it from illegal firearms possession. Not to mention that actual murder for smartphone will move it much closer to life sentence.
Yeah, instead you’d be robbed at knifepoint. And if not at knifepoint, then by using any serious of improvised weapons.
Victims can get dragged into traffic and killed, or stabbed if they resist. Robbery is robbery, a handgun is just one way to threaten someone in the process.
Yeah, it'll be the end of the world if an iPhone is disassembled and its parts sold worldwide! /s
If preventing theft was the real goal behind requiring software activation for repairs, then Apple can simply display a warning to the user that a replaced part is stolen and to inform the police. The real reason for this anti-repair feature is to ensure that iDevice users are forced to buy Apple care, are forced to buy parts from Apple at artificially inflated prices and to prevent them from sourcing cheaper parts from elsewhere. When I buy an iPhone, I own it. If I want to replace a part in it with a non-genuine non-apple spare part it is my right to do so, and Apple doesn't have any right to prevent me from doing so.
Rather bold of you to assume that you understand the motivations behind any of the decisions within the Apple organization.
This is Apple, they totally would have. If the flagship was also similarly repairable.
As it is, this is making the 14 more appealing to me than the 14 Pro.
I find this line hilarious because it's an example of law of the instrument[0]. iFixit and other activist repair shops treat these devices as if their(the iPhones) purpose is getting a repair and all this talk over they years about iPhone repairability was from that standpoint.
I'm happy that Apple is making the new iPhones easier to repair but I never in my life purchased a brand new device with intention or plan to repair it. Why would anyone try to sell me a device by talking about how easy it is to repair it? What I expect is that it would never need a repair and if it needs a repair the vendor will handle it. Also, iPhones were always the easiest phones to repair because specialists who repair iPhones could be found on every corner. Every repair shop repairs iPhones, so repairing an iPhone was never a real issue but something that repair nerds like to speculate on. It's almost as if the happiest they could have been if Apple shipped the iPhones broken but easy to repair using some cheap generic part.
I had my iPhones replaced, repaired or self services by buying the parts online through the years. It's no accident that iPhones always were best at retaining second hand value.
I guess Framework laptops must have a hidden compartment full of gold, because they keep selling like hotcakes.
I like Framework, it's nice concept and if I had a few thousand dollars expandable money I would definitely buy one to fiddle with.
There are many ways to be successful.
> Why would anyone try to sell me a device by talking about how easy it is to repair it? What I expect is that it would never need a repair and if it needs a repair the vendor will handle it.
Because people value reparability, which someone posted evidence for. Buying a computing device that you can use and depend on for decades is a laudable goal, and reparability is table stakes for that goal because stuff breaks.
At what point was the timeframe when you threw away your iPhone because was not possible to repair on a high street repair shop? I never had and I don't know anyone who ever had an issue with repairing their iPhone. Was it at the iPhone 3G years?
My last repair was getting the battery and the front glass of my iPhone 6s that I still use as a secondary phone replaced. It cost me about 50$ if I recall correctly.
We all expect our devices to work forever and never break while we are still using them.
Yes, Apple handles the repairs, but they are _expensive_. If you are not in the US, chances are that some 'authorized' third party will repair it. So now you are into 'expensive' and potentially dodgy territory. I've seen substandard repairs over the years. One common issue is that a repair is done but FaceID (or Touch ID) no longer works.
Repair shops manage to repair some things but many repairs are not economically viable. A phone that's easy to repair is also cheaper to repair.
Case in point: you have to take your phone to a repair shop to replace the battery (unless you are pretty handy yourself). That costs money. When phones had removable batteries, repair labor cost was $0. Just get a new battery and replace yourself, in seconds.
When the back glass on my iPhone X broke, I stopped buying iPhones. Authorized service providers would have charged more for repairing the device than it costs on the second hand market, and 3rd party repair shops would probably do a half assed job because it is so difficult to do.
It's really ridiculous that the part that breaks most easily is hardest to repair.
I ended up buying an Android with a plastic back, and I kind of hate some parts of it, but I also hate that iPhones are so fucking fragile.
Good point but I think this is more like an insurance because accidents happen. People also buy cases and screen protectors so they are definitely aware that these things can break but the plan is always not to break it.
No one really cares if that the device would be hard or easy to repair as long as they know that repair is a thing and it is a thing because people see the shops on the high street, know apple store fixes broken iPhones or know people who got their devices repaired. Hard or easy to repair is not very relevant to most people because they wouldn't care how much effort took the technician to do their job.
Devices don't last forever. What happens when inevitably, it fails? I don't want to be buying a new iPhone all the time — money still doesn't grow on trees — and even outside of Apple's ridiculously overpriced products, replacing e.g., my entire laptop¹ because a component failed is not enticing. Better if the design permits a $5 replacement, instead of a $70 or $700 replacement.
And as an engineer, it hurts when you know a small change to the design could have made the repair $5 instead of $75, without impacting anything on the manufacturer's end — except, of course, the amount they're getting manufacturing replacement parts nobody needs!
Not to mention the e-waste generated by re-manufacturing then entire device just to fix a single component.
> What I expect is that it would never need a repair
Alas, stuff breaks. Such is the world.
> and if it needs a repair the vendor will handle it.
… well, good luck finding such a vendor. Apple, in particular, does not offer compelling warranties. (Though IME warranties have shrunk across most vendors. Which is a proxy for quality: the manufacturer themselves don't think their device can withstand more than 1 or 2 years at most.)
¹phones are, unfortunately, extremely limited in what you can repair with almost any model on the market today. It's a shame.
You may remind me about design failures of Apple where the devices would break down but Apple does repair programs or recalls when something like that happens. That's also why we have warranties.
Usually those repair programs are limited to a few years after purchase. I still have a 2015 MBP where the reflective coating is damaged (screen looks really bad) but it only got bad after the repair program has expired.
I also had a 2016 MBP (gave it to a relative) but I'm scared that the flex cable or the keyboard are going to fail and repair is going to be too expensive and Apple won't fix it because it is too old.
Your comment is fine, so I'm going to detach it so it doesn't get downweighted by proxy.
The last two laptops I bought, repairability was a very high priority. The T440s I had before my current HP Envy x360 I actually bought because I got burned with a cheap Acer, where I couldn't find any replacement touchpads. A less repairable laptop wouldn't have lasted me even two years, since I broke the display around that time.
At first, I wanted to buy a used enterprise laptop, since they often have repair guides available and parts can be found on eBay. However, HP made the repair guide and parts for this "consumer-grade" notebook available officially, which gave me the confidence that this laptop could last me five years or more.
I think people who expect their electronics to last more than the length of a warranty should definitely consider repairability to be a big factor. You don't want to buy a beefy laptop for the next decade, only to have it made useless by a broken keyboard or screen.
Unfortunately they are not good memories. The slightest, barely visible bend or sub-par repair and the back glass would peel up in one corner and coat the underside of the camera in dust and condensation
I’m not sure I would risk buying a phone with this design again. Apple will have to have worked some serious magic to make it strong and robust
I wonder how the team behind that redesign must have felt when they watched the keynote. Probably like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZCszIUcyVM
Hopefully that's not the case. Why go through the effort of a redesign like this if you're just going to continue handicapping repairs that way? Clearly it wasn't a marketing gimmick since they haven't mentioned it at all.
Reading through this article made me really start to consider buying a new iPhone. I've had my mind set on switching to Android for the past year, but a pro-repair pro-planet move like this needs to be rewarded in the marketplace, and I'll be telling everyone I know to get a 14.
...that is, unless they're still locking parts down with serial number checks.
First privacy/security, which they didn't give a crap about until they realised it was marketable.
Now right to repair, which they also didn't give a crap about and often went out of their way to prevent. Suddenly public awareness has increased and it's not become a marketable feature. So not surprising that Apple has jumped on it.
If you tear one off you can usually use a little bit of IPA to loosen it.
iPhone 12: 1.5mm, iPhone 12 Pro: 1.7mm, iPhone 13: 2.51mm, iPhone 13 Pro : 3.65mm
Didn’t they upgrade AppleCare to include unlimited repairs and brag about that? I think this might be related, and a better way of marketing the feature.
Took a few years and a few hundred millions difficult to repair devices to get there.
Apple is greedy not stupid. They don't want third party app stores because it would cause competition and interfere with their almost entirely vertically integrated consumer milking machine... they don't care about malware, they care about control, controlling the user, to make sure they spend as much money as possible with Apple.
Notice that they have been increasingly swapping out as much third party as possible so they can take all of the profit, they "produce" film and tv shows and sell those tv shows on a device they make with a payment processing method they own... lots of layers of profit, it goes well beyond monopoly, they are destroying the concept of a free market. They do similar things with hardware and tech, buying out or forcing businesses into positions where they have to sell to Apple out or get pushed out.
No, your reasoning is nonsensical, you can defend anything with that argument. If you apply it to the rest of the world then no one can do evil because you can never know someone's true motivations... at a certain point you have to draw conclusions from actions, and it's pretty hard to see Apple's actions as not intending to maximise wealth extraction at this point, sure "tech" stuff still happens there out of some necessity and momentum, but the people at the helm clearly have a singular goal.
If your argument is merely that strong inference is flawed, then you are in for a lot of disappointment with reality in general, since 99.9% of what everyone does every day is based upon it out of necessity.
HN: <crickets>
It's quite normal for a thread to get upvoted but not get comments for quite a while. If that means people are reading and digesting the article, that's great. We want reflective comments, not reflexive ones (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) and those take time.