muthuk_vanalingam

elijahg said:

Apple is being absurd. The amount they will lose in sales likely amounts to more than the amount they'd have to pay to license the patents especially if you include the legal fees. They'd rather jilt their own customers than pay a fee for what appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry case - and in the future potentially sell watches with sub-par blood oxygen detection because they don't want to pay. I wonder if the non-blood oxygen watches will have the feature switched back on if Apple pays in the future, or if Apple can come up with a software workaround?

They rightfully got royally pissed off that Samsung ripped off the early iPhones so blatantly, but when they rip off someone else it's fine?

I have lost respect for Apple over this.

blastdoor said:

I wonder how Samsung is doing in the alternate universe in which they did not lose apple as a foundry customer. My guess: much better than in this universe. Was it really worth losing apple’s foundry business just to sell a few more iPhone knock off smartphones, Sammy?

Same for Intel. Imagine if Intel had agreed to fab the SOC for iPhone. 

gatorguy said:

Google Pixel sales were up 48%?? That sounds excessive, but there's nothing I can find disputing it. Still questionable IMO, which makes the overall figures at least a little suspect. 

dewme said:

tht said:

Google Project Ara rises like a Phoenix?

Modularity doesn't reduce or reuse anything. It's just wasting resources and increasing the carbon footprint of the product. Instead of a bunch of old phones in a drawer, people would just have a bunch of parts of old phones in a drawer. It may end up being more total parts.

Require the OEM to take back their products and require that they recycle them.

I think your recycling approach makes a lot more sense.

Without nitpicking too much, when people say they want modularity I believe what they are actually asking for is modular replaceability and modular repairability. The iPhone is already modular since it is built from components and subsystems around an architecture that Apple has designed. Apple is able to assemble all of the required components into a complete product, and technically speaking, is able replace individual components and subsystems using the tools at their disposal. They can and do make some of those tools available for DIY repair as well. If the iPhone were a non-modular or monolithic design this would not be possible. 

To achieve modular replaceability and modular repairability as those calling for "modularity" are seeking, Apple would have to design an architecture with very clearly defined and strictly managed physical, electrical, and logical interfaces that can basically be frozen for some very long (how long?) period of time. If the designers of these interfaces could predict the future, or were remarkably lucky, or didn't have to compete in the marketplace, they may be able to push the effective lifetime of the modular product out a bit, but how far is anyone's guess.

Unfortunately, without the ability to predict the future there are so many ways this approach can fail. Once you start modifying the "frozen" and well defined interfaces the scope of modular replacement starts to erode. No problem, bring on the dongles, shims, and adapters. Who doesn't like those? With a frozen architecture you would place serious constraints on the design team's ability to update the product to take advantage of new innovations, new technology, and better ways of solving the same problem. This would seriously inhibit product innovation and competitiveness. Don't believe me? How many current automobiles still use the standard sized round (and later rectangular) headlamps that were required at one time. Imagine what a current car with a sharp or sloping nose would look like with big round headlights sticking up out of the hood. (Or just find a 1975 AMC Matador to see what an atrocity it would be.) 

 There are some functional elements or subsystems that could potentially be "locked down" for a certain period of time, say the battery compartment, but other areas have dependencies on the granularity of the underlying components and the partitioning of functionality that were established when the architecture was locked down. The granularity of functionality has changed dramatically over the past few years alone. Think about SoC and Apple Silicon.

Designing software architectures that support modular replaceability over a long period of time is very difficult. But at least software can be changed to a moderate degree after it's incorporated into an integrated solution. Doing the same thing in a competitive commercial product environment with hardware is practically impossible unless you and your competitors are willing to live with many negative consequences and limitations. The military has tried to build such systems and they end up being ridiculously expensive and quickly become obsolete because the competition isn't going to freeze its progress to delay your system's obsolescence.

Achieving modular replaceability can theoretically be achieved, but only if you agree to freeze progress for some period of time. So be careful what you ask for, which brings is back to the recycling argument. With recycling the unit of modular replacement and repairability becomes the entire device. That level of modularity can actually work without requiring architectural perfection, which is inherently unachievable.

danox said:

Xed said:

StrangeDays said:

Good thing I don’t know anybody who gives a shirt about that, let alone any normals. 

You know you can like Apple products -and- want them to be easier for DIYers to repair and upgrade.

I found the video interesting and I'm glad that these are easier to repair. 

Why so that a market in stolen parts is made? The fantasy of a little mom and pop shop fixing high end electronic devices is coming to an end, future SOC'S and devices like the Apple Vision are getting smaller due publics demand smaller and more powerful equipment.

If my iPhone, Mac Studio Ultra or XDR monitor go down Apple will be the one's to fix them.

avon b7 said:

"The EU's statement nor the text of the law does not clearly address the issue of parts pairing, where firms make devices fail if spare parts are not bought from the manufacturer. Apple has already allowed used parts in repairs, and there is no scenario where a 3D printed part will need to be activated."

I believe that aspect is covered by the Eco Design legislation... 

"Replacement of serialised parts

From 20 June 2025 or from one month after the date of placement on the market, whichever is later, manufacturers,

importers or authorised representatives shall, at least until 7 years after the date of end of placement on the market:

(a) In case the parts to be replaced by spare parts referred to in point 1(a) are serialised parts, provide non￾discriminatory access for professional repairers to any software tools, firmware or similar auxiliary means needed

to ensure the full functionality of those spare parts and of the device in which such spare parts are installed during

and after the replacement;

(b) In case the parts to be replaced by spare parts referred to in point 1(c) are serialised parts, provide non￾discriminatory access for professional repairers and end-users to any software tools, firmware or similar auxiliary

means needed to ensure the full functionality of those spare parts and of the device in which such spare parts are

installed during and after the replacement;

(c) Provide, on a free access website of the manufacturer, importer or authorised representative, a description of the

procedure for the notification and authorisation of the intended replacement of serialised parts by the owner of

the device referred to in point (d); the procedure shall allow for remotely providing the notification and

authorisation;

(d) Before providing access to the software tools, firmware or similar auxiliary means referred to in points (a) and (b),

the manufacturer, importer or authorised representative may only require to have received a notification and authorisation of the intended part replacement by the owner of the device. Such notification and authorisation

may also be provided by a professional repairer with the explicit written consent of the owner;

(e) Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall provide access to the software tools, firmware or

similar auxiliary means referred to in points (a) and (b) within 3 working days after having received the request

and, where applicable, the notification and authorisation referred to in point (d);

(f) The access to the software tools, firmware or similar auxiliary means referred to in point (a) may, as regards

professional repairers, be limited to professional repairers registered in accordance with points 2(a) and (b)."

That is from an older document that I have but I don't have the source link unfortunately so I can't know if it's up to date.

22july2013 said:

Hreb said:

What?  Of course you did.  I walked into an Apple store in 2007 and bought an iPhone (8gb) and I never had a cell contract.  This was in the US of course -- I believe the only market with iPhones at that time.  In any case no one was spending $1000 on an original iPhone.

Okay, you should go correct wikipedia, which says a contract was required to purchase the first generation iPhone. And you should learn how subsidies work: Apple gets paid by the carrier, an amount that the public never sees, which provides more money to Apple on top of the original purchase price.