Apple hardware chief John Ternus insists parts pairing is not evil
Apple SVP of Hardware Engineering John Ternus has defended Apple's use of parts pairing, while also insisting the company still supports the use of third-party parts in repairs.
A repair of a MacBook Air
On Thursday, Apple expanded its self-repair programs to allow consumers to use parts pairing, a process that can allow legitimate second-hand components to be reused in repairs.
Under the process, which will be implemented in the fall, Apple said it will still block off components associated with a device that has Activation Lock enabled, typically meaning stolen parts.
Parts pairing is an issue that third-party repair outfits and Right to Repair advocates have complained about, with accusations of limiting user options and generating e-waste.
In an interview released after Apple's announcement conducted withTechCrunch, Apple's SVP of Hardware Engineering John Ternus defended Apple's practice.
"Parts pairing' is used a lot outside and has this negative connotation," Ternus insists. "I think it's led people to believe that we somehow block third-party parts from working, which we don't."
"The way we look at it is, we need to know what part is in the device, for a few reasons. One, we need to authenticate that it's a real Apple biometric device and that it hasn't been spoofed or something like that. Calibration is the other one."
Ternus declares that Parts Pairing is "not evil," and that it's really Apple making sure that users get the best quality from a module being installed in a device, by knowing what module is in there. "Why's that a bad thing?" he asks.
By way of example, Ternus explains that Touch ID and Face ID are critical pieces of infrastructure in a smartphone because of how a person's entire digital life is accessible via the device.
"We have no way of validating the performance of any third-party biometrics," Ternus admits. "That's an area where we don't enable the use of third-party modules for the key security functions. But in all other aspects, we do."
A long slog to repairability
According to Apple, the process to enable the announced repairability changes has taken around two years, with Ternus offering that his team has been working on repairability in the face of various inbound legislative changes.
"We want to make things more repairable, so we're doing that work anyway," the executive states. However, at the same time, Ternus proposes "Repairability in isolation is not always the best answer."
Commenting on how some people focus on repairability as being a goal to achieve, Ternus claims "The reality is repairability is a means to an end. The goal is to build products that last, and if you focus too much on [making every part repairable], you end up creating some unintended consequences that are worse for the consumer and worse for the planet."
Apple is also an organization that "fundamentally supports" the right for users to use third-party-sourced parts for repairs, but there must be transparency as well.
With hundreds of millions of iPhones in use that are second-hand or third hand, Ternus calls them a great way for people to use iPhone at a lower price point. However, he adds that it is important for consumers to know whether that device had been repaired, as well as what had been used in the repair.
"We don't block the use of third-party batteries," he confirms, but believes it is still important to tell consumers whether there's a genuine or third-party battery in use. The hardware chief hopes "that will motivate some of these third parties to improve the quality."
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
There is a lot of hazy commentary in his words.
Parts pairing can be a great thing when control is governed by the user and under good legislation.
That legislation should ideally cover true legal IDs when it comes to identifying the true legal owner of a device. A voluntary step for users that want an official stamp of ownership.
No one would argue that stopping known 'non-clean' parts from working is a bad thing.
No one would argue that knowing which parts are non-original is a bad thing.
The problem is that Apple wanted to take decisions for everyone and in its own interest.
This particular move should never have been an' add-onv. When parts pairing was first put on the table it should have ended up in the design.
Repairabilty should have been a design goal.
No out of warranty core part should have to go back to Apple. Not even under the guise of a credit. The broken part belongs to the user and there may well be a better end point for it elsewhere.
Everything else, they do.
In no way would I wish to buy a phone where they give up security to enable the ultra, ultra micro-niche of people who want to get replacement biometrics for an obsoleted model. Nope, nope. You want that? Go buy a knockoff and knock yourself out.
For parts pairing to be beneficial to everyone, a system which allows users to decide is required.
Having said that, Apple should do a better job making their devices easier to open. iPads for example, are essentially sealed shut. I have an old iPod classic that I want to upgrade to flash storage, but I'm dreading the idea of opening the unit up because from what I've seen on YouTube, opening a 7th gen iPod is slightly less complex than diffusing a bomb.
I have to chuckle when I see the highly vocal and bitter minority attempting to use catch-phrase virtue terms for things that have nothing at all to do with their real intent. Sure, they'll talk about e-waste management and maintaining a level and competitive playing field and customer choice. Unfortunately, but predictably, their true intentions are simply to gain access to the massive customer pool that Apple has accrued. How did this pool form? By Apple's unwavering customer commitment to product and service quality, security, and privacy. Sorry guys, we buy what we like.
If Apple didn't build all of these amazing products, or if what Apple did build was simply another incarnation of the mediocre junk being peddled to us by so many others, none of these discussions would even be taking place. I'm not saying that Apple is the be-all to end-all. No, they definitely have some major issues. But they've also taken a lot of big swings, taken on enormous risks, and put a lot of regular folks' financial futures on the line. They made some very smart choices and their customers have rewarded them with their loyalty and repeated purchases across Apple's entire portfolio. Customers have chosen Apple in environments that have always had multiple other available options. Customers have cast their vote and provided positive reassurance to Apple, time and again, that they believe in what Apple is doing for them. Apple's customers are the one's propping up Apple, not some nefarious scheme to snooker the masses into blind loyalty and unquestioned compliance.
No matter how these regulators and self serving opportunists try to convince me otherwise, I have always had choices, some of which required serious affordability considerations and sacrifices. I've always chosen and voted with my wallet for the companies that have provided me with the best qualities, products, services, ongoing support, and especially, those that have earned my trust. It's never been about Apple in the greater global context, it's always been about me at a very personal level. I don't think that I'm alone in this regard. Behavior follow rewards.
Much of Apple's approach kills off the market for stolen, chop-shop iPhones. This means you're vastly less likely to have your iPhone stolen, which ought to be a good thing. It also means that Apple will sell a lot fewer new iPhones to replace the stolen iPhones. They would make a lot more money selling replacement phones if they didn't hinder theft and black market sales than they do now selling replacement parts and Genius bar appointments. Also, a robust black market for iPhones would do far more to cut into sales of cheap Android phones than it would to compete against Apple's own sales. So I would argue that going along with the complainers here would make Apple a lot more money than adhering to their current approach.
So would you diminish the device in it's supported life to extend its' unsupported life?
I think not but its a trade. I certainly think they could do more to have devices supported by security updates longer even go as far as an open source low feature low security version of the OS (swiftOS) they can allow devices to be used as Kiosk type uses. Afterall after the screen break and battery software is the biggest thing making devices redundant.