If I'm a pro, using a "pro" device, why would I want to risk my livelihood with ill-informed repair people? Which is what this article really highlights.
And you have the option to take it to Apple.
Go back to the car example - if FedEx gets its trucks from Ford do they and should they need to go back to a Ford dealer for every repair? Or is it conceivable (I know, this is way out there) that a non-Ford mechanic might be qualified to make a repair?
If Ford requires all maintenance from Ford, you have the choice not to buy their product. Same with Apple. What you want is to dictate to Apple how they should run their company. Apple is in business to make money, not coddle to your whims.
Well that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? There is no valid reason for a company to require service by its service centers, despite all the Chicken Little screams by some people.
Apple can make money, just not by extorting repair fees from people.
Amazing to see all the fabricated assumptions defending Apple's decision to prevent third party repairs. Not qualified you say. How do you know if they are qualified? You assume this to defend Apple's position. Apple should not be held responsible if an "unqualified" person uses non Apple parts. Of course Apple is nor responsible. Who in their right mind would blame Apple? The warranty would be voided. Of course the warranty would be voided. If it were under warranty, they'd have taken it to Apple for free repair in the first place!
The argument here is that mane repairs can be carried out by competent techs with access to parts but Apple (like many companies) choose to discourage this for money and to make their lives easier by not having to deal with botched repairs. The other side of the argument is that consumers have rights (companies have certain legal obligations in this world) and one right is the right to reasonable repairs for devices where reasonable repairs are possible.
What’s described here looks to me like Apple foiling ‘chop shops’ from being able to swap around parts to sell stolen (or otherwise dubiously sourced) iPads.
Well yes, I guess it does prevent that. But who in their right mind would chop stolen iPads together, when you can just sell them unchopped? Much less effort.
It tends to be a bad idea to limit the freedom of law-abiding citizens in order to prevent actual or perceived criminality. See for example, attempts to add back doors to encryption standards.
The pathetic simping for Apple on display in this thread is utterly nauseating.
It appears that none of the self proclaimed rocket scientists here have any idea what the design and build process was on, for instance, the iPad. If one checks the auto industry, there are many instances of "replacement" parts that can only be used with VIN numbers within a range or engine numbers within a range. This is the result of needing changes to fix an issue or a vendor can no longer supply a necessary part.
One of the often cited reasons for the robust second hand market for Apple products is that they just last. Second hand is usually family, then third and beyond sales are the second hand market space the country favours. Every failure of a product is spread across the market as a reduction of Apples reputation. It matters not that many premature failures are caused by poor quality repairs, completed just to create a reduction in cost of the planed new item. Let’s face it, why repair an iPhone 7 screen except to reduce the amount spent on the iPhone 14 series. If the intention was to keep it you would make sure it was genuine parts you were inserting
It appears that none of the self proclaimed rocket scientists here have any idea what the design and build process was on, for instance, the iPad. If one checks the auto industry, there are many instances of "replacement" parts that can only be used with VIN numbers within a range or engine numbers within a range. This is the result of needing changes to fix an issue or a vendor can no longer supply a necessary part.
I have a PhD in Electronic Engineering. How about you?
One of the often cited reasons for the robust second hand market for Apple products is that they just last. Second hand is usually family, then third and beyond sales are the second hand market space the country favours. Every failure of a product is spread across the market as a reduction of Apples reputation. It matters not that many premature failures are caused by poor quality repairs, completed just to create a reduction in cost of the planed new item. Let’s face it, why repair an iPhone 7 screen except to reduce the amount spent on the iPhone 14 series. If the intention was to keep it you would make sure it was genuine parts you were inserting
Why are you talking about iPhones when this article is about iPads?
And why not try to make devices last as long as possible? When my son accidentally dropped his iPhone 6 (by then already a very old phone), and cracked the screen, we bought a third-party display and repaired the phone together, because we see value in trying to keep devices functioning for as long as they can be useful. You know: reduce, reuse, recycle and all that. The screen was replaced a couple of years ago and is still going strong.
But of course, the wonderful Apple has swooped in to save you all from the horror of using a repaired device, and it would be impossible to perform the same operation on a newer iPhone. Yay for Apple!
What’s described here looks to me like Apple foiling ‘chop shops’ from being able to swap around parts to sell stolen (or otherwise dubiously sourced) iPads.
Well yes, I guess it does prevent that. But who in their right mind would chop stolen iPads together, when you can just sell them unchopped? Much less effort.
It tends to be a bad idea to limit the freedom of law-abiding citizens in order to prevent actual or perceived criminality. See for example, attempts to add back doors to encryption standards.
The pathetic simping for Apple on display in this thread is utterly nauseating.
Nobody’s limiting your freedom. You don’t have to buy the device if you don’t like it or how its manufacturer works.
It’s not “simping” to postulate reasons other than nefarious money-grubbing why Apple might restrict functionality when parts are swapped out.
A number of Apple’s device security measures are aimed squarely at stifling the viability of a market for stolen Apple products. Making stolen devices reliably worthless on the black market protects consumers by making it less likely their devices will be targeted for theft in the first place. Without those measures, you’d better believe that theft of iPhones, iPads and MacBooks would be rampant, and would be worse for Apple products than other brands, because of their higher value.
So Apple takes measures to assure a stolen device will be scrap. If “chopping” stolen devices could provide a means around those security measures, that absolutely could make chopped devices worth more than the alternative. Thwarting such tactics is not “limiting your freedom” any more than is closing the “back door” that would enable a third-party actor to wipe a user-locked device and re-set it for for resale.
What’s described here looks to me like Apple foiling ‘chop shops’ from being able to swap around parts to sell stolen (or otherwise dubiously sourced) iPads.
Well yes, I guess it does prevent that. But who in their right mind would chop stolen iPads together, when you can just sell them unchopped? Much less effort.
It tends to be a bad idea to limit the freedom of law-abiding citizens in order to prevent actual or perceived criminality. See for example, attempts to add back doors to encryption standards.
The pathetic simping for Apple on display in this thread is utterly nauseating.
Nobody’s limiting your freedom. You don’t have to buy the device if you don’t like it or how its manufacturer works.
It’s not “simping” to postulate reasons other than nefarious money-grubbing why Apple might restrict functionality when parts are swapped out.
A number of Apple’s device security measures are aimed squarely at stifling the viability of a market for stolen Apple products. Making stolen devices reliably worthless on the black market protects consumers by making it less likely their devices will be targeted for theft in the first place. Without those measures, you’d better believe that theft of iPhones, iPads and MacBooks would be rampant, and would be worse for Apple products than other brands, because of their higher value.
So Apple takes measures to assure a stolen device will be scrap. If “chopping” stolen devices could provide a means around those security measures, that absolutely could make chopped devices worth more than the alternative. Thwarting such tactics is not “limiting your freedom” any more than is closing the “back door” that would enable a third-party actor to wipe a user-locked device and re-set it for for resale.
Yes, it absolutely is limiting people's freedom to conduct cost-effective repairs on their legally-owned hardware.
Apple have become increasingly hostile to third-party repair over the years. Where is the evidence that this has resulted in a reduction of Apple device theft?
Like I said, there is no choice because all major manufacturers do this. So what you are saying is, "if you don't like this situation, quit complaining and don't have any modern personal computing device". This is not a realistic suggestion.
I honestly cannot believe that so many people have been duped into thinking that this situation is a net benefit to them. It's disgusting.
You have also failed to show how, in the specific scenario shown here, this is hampering the selling of stolen iPads. How does preventing screens from being swapped from one device to another put people off stealing iPads? How many opportunistic thieves think to themselves "oh, I better not steal that iPad, because I won't be able to swap its display onto that other iPad I stole last week"? This is an imagined scenario; it doesn't happen! Preventing law-abiding citizens from repairing their own devices because it might stop criminals stealing things is not a good solution.
It appears that none of the self proclaimed rocket scientists here have any idea what the design and build process was on, for instance, the iPad. If one checks the auto industry, there are many instances of "replacement" parts that can only be used with VIN numbers within a range or engine numbers within a range. This is the result of needing changes to fix an issue or a vendor can no longer supply a necessary part.
I have a PhD in Electronic Engineering. How about you?
It appears that none of the self proclaimed rocket scientists here have any idea what the design and build process was on, for instance, the iPad. If one checks the auto industry, there are many instances of "replacement" parts that can only be used with VIN numbers within a range or engine numbers within a range. This is the result of needing changes to fix an issue or a vendor can no longer supply a necessary part.
I have a PhD in Electronic Engineering. How about you?
Big deal, you obviously failed charm school.
That was obviously a response to the "self proclaimed rocket scientists" jibe, which was clearly intended as an assertion that supporters of right to repair actually don't know what they are talking about.
What’s described here looks to me like Apple foiling ‘chop shops’ from being able to swap around parts to sell stolen (or otherwise dubiously sourced) iPads.
Well yes, I guess it does prevent that. But who in their right mind would chop stolen iPads together, when you can just sell them unchopped? Much less effort.
It tends to be a bad idea to limit the freedom of law-abiding citizens in order to prevent actual or perceived criminality. See for example, attempts to add back doors to encryption standards.
The pathetic simping for Apple on display in this thread is utterly nauseating.
Nobody’s limiting your freedom. You don’t have to buy the device if you don’t like it or how its manufacturer works.
It’s not “simping” to postulate reasons other than nefarious money-grubbing why Apple might restrict functionality when parts are swapped out.
A number of Apple’s device security measures are aimed squarely at stifling the viability of a market for stolen Apple products. Making stolen devices reliably worthless on the black market protects consumers by making it less likely their devices will be targeted for theft in the first place. Without those measures, you’d better believe that theft of iPhones, iPads and MacBooks would be rampant, and would be worse for Apple products than other brands, because of their higher value.
So Apple takes measures to assure a stolen device will be scrap. If “chopping” stolen devices could provide a means around those security measures, that absolutely could make chopped devices worth more than the alternative. Thwarting such tactics is not “limiting your freedom” any more than is closing the “back door” that would enable a third-party actor to wipe a user-locked device and re-set it for for resale.
Yes, it absolutely is limiting people's freedom to conduct cost-effective repairs on their legally-owned hardware.
Apple have become increasingly hostile to third-party repair over the years. Where is the evidence that this has resulted in a reduction of Apple device theft?
Like I said, there is no choice because all major manufacturers do this. So what you are saying is, "if you don't like this situation, quit complaining and don't have any modern personal computing device". This is not a realistic suggestion.
I honestly cannot believe that so many people have been duped into thinking that this situation is a net benefit to them. It's disgusting.
You have also failed to show how, in the specific scenario shown here, this is hampering the selling of stolen iPads. How does preventing screens from being swapped from one device to another put people off stealing iPads? How many opportunistic thieves think to themselves "oh, I better not steal that iPad, because I won't be able to swap its display onto that other iPad I stole last week"? This is an imagined scenario; it doesn't happen! Preventing law-abiding citizens from repairing their own devices because it might stop criminals stealing things is not a good solution.
I offered a hypothesis as an alternative to the Apple-is-evil narrative.
You haven’t proven that the issue raised here has anything to do with intentionally undermining user repairability, either. Since my initial comment was in response to the suggestion that Apple did this to target repair shops, the burden of proof is on that side, not on mine. I just had to offer a plausible alternative to that argument. Here’s another: Honestly, the most likely explanation is there’s no intentionality involved at all. Some system calibration in the code doesn’t anticipate that there would be a mismatched screen and so you get a bug when there is. End of story.
What’s described here looks to me like Apple foiling ‘chop shops’ from being able to swap around parts to sell stolen (or otherwise dubiously sourced) iPads.
Well yes, I guess it does prevent that. But who in their right mind would chop stolen iPads together, when you can just sell them unchopped? Much less effort.
It tends to be a bad idea to limit the freedom of law-abiding citizens in order to prevent actual or perceived criminality. See for example, attempts to add back doors to encryption standards.
The pathetic simping for Apple on display in this thread is utterly nauseating.
Nobody’s limiting your freedom. You don’t have to buy the device if you don’t like it or how its manufacturer works.
It’s not “simping” to postulate reasons other than nefarious money-grubbing why Apple might restrict functionality when parts are swapped out.
A number of Apple’s device security measures are aimed squarely at stifling the viability of a market for stolen Apple products. Making stolen devices reliably worthless on the black market protects consumers by making it less likely their devices will be targeted for theft in the first place. Without those measures, you’d better believe that theft of iPhones, iPads and MacBooks would be rampant, and would be worse for Apple products than other brands, because of their higher value.
So Apple takes measures to assure a stolen device will be scrap. If “chopping” stolen devices could provide a means around those security measures, that absolutely could make chopped devices worth more than the alternative. Thwarting such tactics is not “limiting your freedom” any more than is closing the “back door” that would enable a third-party actor to wipe a user-locked device and re-set it for for resale.
Yes, it absolutely is limiting people's freedom to conduct cost-effective repairs on their legally-owned hardware.
Apple have become increasingly hostile to third-party repair over the years. Where is the evidence that this has resulted in a reduction of Apple device theft?
Like I said, there is no choice because all major manufacturers do this. So what you are saying is, "if you don't like this situation, quit complaining and don't have any modern personal computing device". This is not a realistic suggestion.
I honestly cannot believe that so many people have been duped into thinking that this situation is a net benefit to them. It's disgusting.
You have also failed to show how, in the specific scenario shown here, this is hampering the selling of stolen iPads. How does preventing screens from being swapped from one device to another put people off stealing iPads? How many opportunistic thieves think to themselves "oh, I better not steal that iPad, because I won't be able to swap its display onto that other iPad I stole last week"? This is an imagined scenario; it doesn't happen! Preventing law-abiding citizens from repairing their own devices because it might stop criminals stealing things is not a good solution.
I offered a hypothesis as an alternative to the Apple-is-evil narrative.
You haven’t proven that the issue raised here has anything to do with intentionally undermining user repairability, either [...]
I did say earlier that I am confident that this whole thing didn't start with the express intention of limiting repairs, it's just that it is a side effect. However, things like this have been going on long enough that Apple cannot possibly not know what the knock-on effects are, with respect to repairability of their devices.
It doesn't matter if it was originally intended with the express purpose of limiting repairs. The fact remains that that is what serialisation does. There are other means to help prevent chopping of significant sub-assemblies between devices. For example, with "Find My x" active on an Apple device, the motherboard is rendered useless without the iCloud password of the iCloud account to which the motherboard is paired. Apple could use the same locking mechanism to lock other sub-assemblies, such as screens. i.e., if you swap a screen from a "locked" iPad onto another iPad, it won't work. This would help to prevent chopping of stolen parts, whilst not preventing legitimate repairs.
If one can not afford the cost of repairs, then don't buy the item.
One does not buy a Ferrari unless they have the resources to maintain that vehicle at a shop with Ferrari trained mechanics and authorized access to Ferrari specific parts.
Same idea with airplanes. I have owned several over the years. I went to a licensed A&P mechanic as I did not want parts falling off while in the air.
At an Apple Store/repair facility, one expects the employee is trained on Apple gear and knows how to fix it and has access to the correct parts.
The above three examples have folks trained to work on their specific brands and that training was not free, so the cost of training is in the prices of those items or shops labor rates.
If I need brain surgery, I go to a doctor trained in that field, not a witch doctor on some island that claims he/she knows how to do the surgery.
Everything mechanical man made can need repairs. I prefer to get the repair done once and done.
If one can not afford the cost of repairs, then don't buy the item.
One does not buy a Ferrari unless they have the resources to maintain that vehicle at a shop with Ferrari trained mechanics and authorized access to Ferrari specific parts.
Same idea with airplanes. I have owned several over the years. I went to a licensed A&P mechanic as I did not want parts falling off while in the air.
At an Apple Store/repair facility, one expects the employee is trained on Apple gear and knows how to fix it and has access to the correct parts.
The above three examples have folks trained to work on their specific brands and that training was not free, so the cost of training is in the prices of those items or shops labor rates.
If I need brain surgery, I go to a doctor trained in that field, not a witch doctor on some island that claims he/she knows how to do the surgery.
Everything mechanical man made can need repairs. I prefer to get the repair done once and done.
It's not entirely clear why you liken third-party repair technicians to "witch doctors". That's just ignorant and breathtakingly cynical and rude towards many talented individuals. Third-party repair folk are usually dramatically more informed and capable than the "officially trained" technicians, because the only thing that the officially trained technicians are allowed to do is replace entire sub-assemblies such as a motherboard or battery.
Third-party repair technicians, on the other hand, are able to diagnose specific faults, and if they are able to source the components, to effect a repair by replacing only the failed component. Hence third parties being able to fix a fault for $50 (replace broken component on motherboard) instead of Apple who will charge $500+ (replace motherboard).
Oh, and there's also plenty of evidence that even the "official" technicians that customers never get to interact with, but who do "refurbishment" of failed sub-assemblies that subsequently become replacements to be used in other repairs, are often shockingly incompetent and do a significantly worse job than third-party repair technicians.
Comments
The argument here is that mane repairs can be carried out by competent techs with access to parts but Apple (like many companies) choose to discourage this for money and to make their lives easier by not having to deal with botched repairs. The other side of the argument is that consumers have rights (companies have certain legal obligations in this world) and one right is the right to reasonable repairs for devices where reasonable repairs are possible.
It tends to be a bad idea to limit the freedom of law-abiding citizens in order to prevent actual or perceived criminality. See for example, attempts to add back doors to encryption standards.
The pathetic simping for Apple on display in this thread is utterly nauseating.
And why not try to make devices last as long as possible? When my son accidentally dropped his iPhone 6 (by then already a very old phone), and cracked the screen, we bought a third-party display and repaired the phone together, because we see value in trying to keep devices functioning for as long as they can be useful. You know: reduce, reuse, recycle and all that. The screen was replaced a couple of years ago and is still going strong.
But of course, the wonderful Apple has swooped in to save you all from the horror of using a repaired device, and it would be impossible to perform the same operation on a newer iPhone. Yay for Apple!
Apple have become increasingly hostile to third-party repair over the years. Where is the evidence that this has resulted in a reduction of Apple device theft?
Like I said, there is no choice because all major manufacturers do this. So what you are saying is, "if you don't like this situation, quit complaining and don't have any modern personal computing device". This is not a realistic suggestion.
I honestly cannot believe that so many people have been duped into thinking that this situation is a net benefit to them. It's disgusting.
You have also failed to show how, in the specific scenario shown here, this is hampering the selling of stolen iPads. How does preventing screens from being swapped from one device to another put people off stealing iPads? How many opportunistic thieves think to themselves "oh, I better not steal that iPad, because I won't be able to swap its display onto that other iPad I stole last week"? This is an imagined scenario; it doesn't happen! Preventing law-abiding citizens from repairing their own devices because it might stop criminals stealing things is not a good solution.
It doesn't matter if it was originally intended with the express purpose of limiting repairs. The fact remains that that is what serialisation does. There are other means to help prevent chopping of significant sub-assemblies between devices. For example, with "Find My x" active on an Apple device, the motherboard is rendered useless without the iCloud password of the iCloud account to which the motherboard is paired. Apple could use the same locking mechanism to lock other sub-assemblies, such as screens. i.e., if you swap a screen from a "locked" iPad onto another iPad, it won't work. This would help to prevent chopping of stolen parts, whilst not preventing legitimate repairs.
One does not buy a Ferrari unless they have the resources to maintain that vehicle at a shop with Ferrari trained mechanics and authorized access to Ferrari specific parts.
Same idea with airplanes. I have owned several over the years. I went to a licensed A&P mechanic as I did not want parts falling off while in the air.
At an Apple Store/repair facility, one expects the employee is trained on Apple gear and knows how to fix it and has access to the correct parts.
The above three examples have folks trained to work on their specific brands and that training was not free, so the cost of training is in the prices of those items or shops labor rates.
If I need brain surgery, I go to a doctor trained in that field, not a witch doctor on some island that claims he/she knows how to do the surgery.
Everything mechanical man made can need repairs. I prefer to get the repair done once and done.
Third-party repair technicians, on the other hand, are able to diagnose specific faults, and if they are able to source the components, to effect a repair by replacing only the failed component. Hence third parties being able to fix a fault for $50 (replace broken component on motherboard) instead of Apple who will charge $500+ (replace motherboard).
Oh, and there's also plenty of evidence that even the "official" technicians that customers never get to interact with, but who do "refurbishment" of failed sub-assemblies that subsequently become replacements to be used in other repairs, are often shockingly incompetent and do a significantly worse job than third-party repair technicians.