mr. h

Wesley Hilliard said:

M68000 said:

So, now it’s bad to charge your phone to 100% ?  Lol,  so much different information out there.  It’s hard to know what to believe. 

Simple: ignore randombro69 on a forum and listen to the experts. We've detailed what you should and shouldn't do for iPhone battery health. My recommendation will always be "don't worry about it."

Really. This whole thing is getting silly. You can't beat physics.

And I would understand all the drama if battery replacements weren't readily available and cheap.

Who’s the expert here? You? Because your article is dead wrong. It has long been well established that charging lithium ion batteries beyond 80% accelerates the aging process. It’s not the charging per se; rather just being at that elevated state of charge. That’s why the optimised charging mode attempts to wait until the last moment to bring the battery to 100%: the theory is you will start using the phone soon after it reaches 100%, thus minimising the time the battery spends above 80%. However, in my experience the optimised charging is easily thrown off if the user has an inconsistent routine so I welcome this additional control provided by Apple.

AppleZulu said:

mr. h said:

AppleZulu said:

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. 

meterestnz said:

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!

ApplePoor said:

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?

AppleZulu said:

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.