Hugh Jeffreys made a video interchanging parts on two brand new iphone's and it disabled a lot of things including auto-brightness.
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.
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.
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'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!