HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

>And best part: phone can be serviced on the cheap in almost any mall in the world. Everyone got spare screens, batteries,cases sell in dollar store.

Swapping parts like that on an iPhone doesn't work (anymore): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WhU77ihw8

⬐ bergenty

Is there no way to reliably manipulate data without direct leads like precise magnetism or something? Couldn’t you manipulate the serial numbers on what I assume is an isolated ROM in these components that way?

⬐ londons_explore

Apple has enough volume that they have custom made lots of bits of silicon for their phones now.

That means that it probably won't be just a serial number embedded in a ROM - instead it'll be a challenge-response system so even someone watching the data lines can't replicate a genuine apple part and trick the phone into accepting it.

⬐ josephcsible

The key takeaway: all of the parts have serial numbers that are paired together, so if you replace any of the components, even with other genuine Apple ones taken from another identical iPhone, you'll lose some or all of the following functionality, depending on exactly which components they were: True Tone, Auto Brightness, Battery Health, FaceID, Portrait Mode, and Cinematic Mode. And while they claim it's for security that they disable FaceID, the rest are all completely indefensible.

⬐ Kim_Bruning

Somehow this feels like progress regressing by 2 centuries or more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchangeable_parts

⬐ londons_explore

Someone somewhere made a policy decision that they wanted to make it hard, but not impossible, to live with a Frankenstein phone.

They totally could have had it refuse to boot... But they didn't.

They also totally could have just had a warning dialogue on bootup, followed by full functionality... But again they didn't.

I'd really like to see their rationale for the choice they made.

⬐ RikNieu

Probably wanted to degrade user experience enough to make users just go to Apple, but not enough to attract regulator attention.

Odd article considering everything is still software locked to the phone. Sure it's easier to repair, but if you get your parts from anywhere else than apple's program directly, a lot of features will stop working.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WhU77ihw8

⬐ viktorcode

> interchanging parts on two brand new iphone's and it disabled a lot of things including auto-brightness.

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.

⬐ smoldesu

Okay, let's discuss it then. Why do I need Apple's consent to repair the device I paid for? Why is there no way for me to (even temporarily) disable this feature if I actually want to fix my phone?

⬐ Gigachad

You chose to buy it knowing that's how it works. As a user I find this an extremely compelling feature that my phone is close to worthless to anyone who would try to steal it.

⬐ bogwog

I'm certain that at least 90% of iPhone buyers have no idea Apple does this. I suspect a lot of them would be pissed if they learned.

⬐ Gigachad

I suspect if you gave most users the choice between theft proof and aftermarket part swapping, they would pick theft proof. Considering you can buy parts from Apple or take the phone in to a store to have it fixed at a very fair price.

⬐ bogwog

Theft resistant would be more accurate, as it's certainly not theft proof. An iphone screen can be trivially reprogrammed to bypass that serial number check with a ~$90 device on ebay.

> 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.

⬐ Gigachad

Really this just means that the implementation needs more work, not that the idea is wrong. With more secure hardware, you realistically could make stolen parts useless. Combined with the ability to track a turned off phone with the Find My network, theft keeps getting harder while the potential payout does not get any higher.

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.

⬐ bogwog

> With more secure hardware, you realistically could make stolen parts useless.

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.

⬐ viktorcode

As a customer you don't need "Apple's consent". Just drop the phone to a repair shop of your choosing. As a repair servicemen, you need Apple's consent presumably because they don't want you buying stolen iPhones for parts.

⬐ cromka

> Why is there no way for me to (even temporarily) disable this feature if I actually want to fix my phone?

You want to be able to temporarily disable a feature that Apple introduced to prevent from installing potentially stolen parts in your phone?

⬐ smoldesu

Why shouldn't you be able to? If I have the password to my phone, I should be able to attest that I want the feature to be temporarily disabled for repair.

How do you see potential for abuse?

⬐ smoldesu

All parts are 'potentially stolen', that's just a scary thing that John Deere and Apple says to justify their first-party stranglehold on repairs. Louis Rossmann and co. use donor parts for repairs all the time. If they own and can unlock the donor Macbook/iPhone, they should be able to attest that the device is being used for parts/repair and disable the protection. I see no potential for abuse here, and it prevents more iPhones from becoming landfill. Win/win, since Apple cares about the environment so much!

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.

⬐ saiya-jin

The amount of uncritical comments in any post around apple on HN is usually quite something, I wouldn't get too excited about that. Its mainly US website so that's to be expected.

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.

⬐ smoldesu

The problem is that we should be able to choose, not Apple. Overriding Apple's software choices should not necessitate leaving the ecosystem, period. Especially considering Apple is the largest company in the world, it shouldn't be a problem for them to add a few toggles. We need regulation to hold them accountable for these simple options, but knowing Apple (and how deep in bed they are with the US government) this won't happen.

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.

⬐ newtritious

Those few toggles would defeat the security protections. Most people want a security. Indeed most people never even repair a phone.

⬐ devrand

This does coincide with Apple changing Applecare+ to cover an unlimited number of incidents. Their motivation was simply to streamline their own internal repairs?

⬐ Someone1234

That "unlimited" thing only impacts a very small number of devices. It is a better headline than reality. Previously you could have two accidental damage incidents PER YEAR, which means four for a standard Applecare+ 24 months plan.

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.

⬐ reaperducer

How many people, realistically, had over four accidental damage incidents in a two-year period

My wife. Mostly because of the Minnesota State Fair.

⬐ astrange

Did she fall into the dunk tank?

⬐ dkonofalski

I don't even have a case on my phone (and never have on any phone in the past) and have never had an incident. I know at least 5 people that have broken their phones more than 4 times per year and they all use cases. Some people just do not treat their electronics like the expensive devices they are.

⬐ shuntress

Some people expect their expensive tools to withstand the rigors of daily use.

⬐ dkonofalski

Dropping devices on concrete is not "daily use". That's like saying that people should expect cars to be unaffected by randomly crashing into walls.

⬐ shuntress

> Some people just do not treat their electronics like the expensive devices they are

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"*

⬐ dkonofalski

Of course they do. Most phones, iPhones included, can withstand the occasional drop without any issue. That's clearly not what we're talking about here.

⬐ neon_electro

That's fair - but "the rigors of daily use" as parent post wrote absolutely include resilience and resistance to physical damage if/when a fall happens.

I agree dropping a phone every day is not accurate, but the risk exists with "the rigors of daily use".

⬐ dkonofalski

Well, anecdotally, I've had every other iPhone since the original and use it daily and have never had it break or otherwise needed to replace/repair it. People who use terms like "rigors of daily use" typically always mean wanton abuse.

⬐ Dylan16807

The fact that yours has never broken, as opposed to shattering the screen once or twice, could just be luck.

Which is not exactly an argument about multiple breaks per year, but it's relevant.

⬐ dkonofalski

Absolutely, and I've said as much in earlier replies. My point is that the iPhone is one of the most durable phones on the market and easily handles daily wear and tear. The issue is that most people who say things like that, though, seem to think that "daily wear and tear" means constantly and regularly dropping your phone, corner first, on concrete. Physics has its limits.

⬐ joshmanders

Not to mention I've dropped mine a LOT. scratched up screen, dings in the sides, everything. (No case/protection at all too) It definitely withstands daily use. Dropping it 4-5 times a day every day however probably slowly chips away at the sturdiness of the device.

⬐ synaesthesisx

I do not use cases, and have dropped my naked iPhone 13 Pro Max many many times (with $29 screen replacements via AppleCare, I'm fine taking the risk). This phone has literally hit concrete and has yet to crack, a testament to the durability improvements.

⬐ unethical_ban

I've been thinking about a future where deepfakes/AI are more everyday (which is soon).

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.

⬐ shuntress

And "Real Apple Hardware" supporting "Real Apple ID" on every device in the network.

⬐ samatman

Cryptographic signatures can be decoded by anything which has the public key, that's not how this would work at all.

⬐ illiac786

Cryptographic signatures are _meant_ to be decoded and verified.

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.

⬐ reaperducer

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.

This exists, and is why the (Canon?) cameras used by police departments at crime scenes are so expensive.

⬐ lukas099

I think that what you are saying is valid, but this should still be celebrated as a win for consumers. You don't have to see something as all good or all bad.

⬐ agilob

Rooting even those easily fixable Android, with unlocked bootloader and coming with Android One still voids the warranty and might break cameras. Unlocking more potential of a software, breaks hardware.

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-...

⬐ buildbot

Good! I want to know that even a used and repaired iPhone has genuine parts in it

⬐ rasz

>interchanging parts on two brand new iphone's

⬐ Bilal_io

Exactly! One important argument for Right to Repair is the environment. If I cannot salvage parts from a dead phone then it'll be e-waste. This doesn't help the consumer nor the environment, but it will definitely affect Apple's pockets in a positive way.

⬐ specialist

Applying zero trust (or equiv) to a system's internals is pretty cool.

⬐ thepasswordis

Ah, so there is a way to disable auto brightness! Are there any aftermarket upgrades which will also permanently disable "live photos"?

⬐ incanus77

Settings > Camera > Preserve Settings > Live Photo

⬐ thepasswordis

Yeah I've done this. It somehow keeps getting turned back on wether it gets grazed by my finger, an update happens and resets the setting, or whatever else.

I'm saying i want a way that disables it and then prevents it from ever being re-enabled.

Also: it's a joke.

⬐ pb7

Jokes are supposed to be funny.

⬐ lostlogin

OP wants an aftermarket method.

⬐ kube-system

Ship me the phone and I will click the button for you for only 3 easy payments of $19.95.

⬐ laweijfmvo

The Settings menu

⬐ reaperducer

Not aftermarket, but Apple offers something for both of those. It's called The Manual.

You can get one here: https://support.apple.com/manuals/iphone

It's even free!

⬐ noja

This also has a good side: it makes using stolen parts less attractive.

Does everyone not remember how common phone theft was?

⬐ twawaaay

> Odd article considering everything is still software locked to the phone.

They mentioned it.

⬐ millzlane

This makes it easier for my technicians when customers lie by omission when they have had their device repaired someplace else and they bring it back to us for repair. It's not until we get into the repair and find out someone has stripped screws that can't be removed without extraction tools and replaced LSI's.

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.

⬐ shuntress

You are conflating separate concerns.

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.

⬐ dwaite

> 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?

⬐ shuntress

Nothing exists in a vacuum.

Tracking stolen phones and busting chop shops is probably something that should be handled by law enforcement.

⬐ newtritious

Until it is, Apple are serving their customers by protecting them from this problem.

⬐ shuntress

I am much more likely to need a phone serviced than have a phone stolen.

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.

⬐ newtritious

They are also protecting you against repair shops using substandard parts, and compromising device security.

The claim about them doing this to make you buy a new device is made up.

⬐ robocat

Apple could provide a genuine parts and stolen parts tracking tool for the most valuable parts: screen, camera, motherboard.

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.

⬐ tjoff

The first part doesn't require functionality to be disabled though.

⬐ buildbot

Probably a combination of missing calibrations and the software locking. It seems better to fail visibly than to have a device silently phoning home that it is non-genuine.

⬐ bogwog

> 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.

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.

⬐ pbhjpbhj

You can sign things without locking them though. The utility you're speaking of is identification, what's the utility for a user in locking a device against repair?

Apple probably report way more data than a list of part IDs already.

⬐ Veliladon

The other thing is that Apple is trying to make things harder for people with large amounts of resources (think nation states) to exfiltrate data by using pwned components. Like when you take it into a repair shop, how do you know that the replacement part isn't compromised?

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?

⬐ tjoff

If you give your phone to an adversary with large amounts of resources it is game over.

If you have to worry about that I most certainly would hope that you wouldn't leave your phone to a repair-shop.

⬐ mechanical_bear

Or leave your MacBook at a repair shop with texts and emails to various VIPs, etc on it… oh wait.

⬐ sosull

It’s a very fair point, but stranger things have happened. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controvers...

⬐ Spivak

Everyone keeps parroting this like it's 1995 but infinite resources doesn't really help you. In the US FBI case they happened to chain a few now patched exploits in the lightning port that did nothing except allow them the ability to brute force the password. Had the password been strong it would have been game over.

Regular, run of the mill encryption you can download at every corner store can withstand attacks from nation states.

⬐ chasd00

well, depending on the adversary, the resources required could be trivial.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png

⬐ solardev

Zero-days are a thing, as well as companies that find them specifically to sell to governments

⬐ _V_

How does disabling TrueTone/autobrightness help your security? Or vibration motor? Or battery? Or rear facing camera?

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

⬐ baybal2

> The other thing is that Apple is trying to make things harder for people with large amounts of resources (think nation states) to exfiltrate data by using pwned components.

Reflashing serial numbers of common i2c chips is routine, and not "harder."

It basically only deters self-taught repair shop owners, without electronics background.

⬐ lofaszvanitt

Do you actually believe that nation states with shitton level funding can't waltz in and out of an original iPhone?

⬐ jonny_eh

Maybe? But shouldn't we (and Apple) at least try to make things more secure?

⬐ buildbot

This exactly. To have a more secure device this is one of the trade offs. Can you imagine the articles if you could swap out faceID systems to unlock an encrypted iphone?

⬐ sennight

> Can you imagine the articles if you could swap out faceID systems to unlock an encrypted iphone?

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.

⬐ jorvi

I mean.. they could just show a pop-up after required passcode unlock: ‘your iPhone recently had its FaceID/brightness/battery/whatever swapped - do you wish to fully enable the replacement part for this iPhone?’

⬐ dylan604

because the $badGuy doing the swap could just okay that request

⬐ phpisthebest

That is right. You will own nothing, and you will be happy about because security is always more important than liberty.

These comments are really sad, the number of people that falsely believe this is about security, that there is no other way to secure hardware then to make it impossible to repair and are willing to give up freedom in exchange for this false security.

⬐ pb7

You are at liberty to buy other products and leave these to those who are happy about the security considerations.

⬐ shuntress

Sort of. For now. How much higher do the walls need to become before it's no longer reasonable to live outside Apple's garden?

⬐ pb7

Slippery slope fallacy. Wake me up when it actually happens because it never does.

⬐ heavyset_go

This is the fallacy fallacy. Just because you can identify a potential logical fallacy in a statement doesn't mean it isn't true.

⬐ shuntress

It's not a slippery slope. It's just the natural progression of a monopoly.

⬐ pb7

It’s not a monopoly.

⬐ shuntress

It's the natural progression of a monopoly.

⬐ joshmanders

> How much higher do the walls need to become before it's no longer reasonable to live outside Apple's garden?

Do you mean "How much longer do I have to watch people enjoy their cake before I give in and want to eat the cake too?"

I find it pretty absurd that people demand Apple do things differently because their choice of alternative feels the need to follow Apple instead of leading themselves.

⬐ stale2002

Hey, if Apple doesn't want to follow the new Right to Repair laws, then it can shutdown the company or move to a different country.

They have an obligation to follow the law as much as any other company.

⬐ sennight

You know, I bet somebody responded very similarly to a complaint about the first game studio to put loot boxes in their games. Now we are plagued by them.

"Don't like it? Well just make your own ____!" is another classic.

⬐ eropple

If you play AAA games or mobile games, sure, you're plagued by them.

I don't play either. The games I do play don't have much in the way of that sort of thing at all. And I think they're more fun games besides.

⬐ sennight

I don't understand your point, which effectively seems to be "not all games!"

This is actually a zero sum scenario, games that are pay-to-win would have been something else had the concept not been popularized. Even games that are completely structured around these gambling mechanics... no, they wouldn't necessarily be different games in an alternate reality - they'd just be a different use of the dev's time. So maybe a birdhouse. Also, if this was a derail attempt - well done, I'm now thinking about carpentry instead of how much I dislike Apple.

⬐ eropple

> I don't understand your point, which effectively seems to be "not all games!"

It's more "capitalism dot txt is a thing, yes, but you're opting in."

Which you can totally do. I am saying that this is a venue where you don't have to.

⬐ pb7

Weird, I have never played a game with lootboxes nor have I had to even think about avoiding it. Only supports my point that your fear of it affecting you is unfounded in reality.

⬐ pb7

Weird, I have never played a game with lootboxes nor have I had to even think about avoiding it. Only supports my point that your fear of it affecting you is unfounded in reality.

Except I didn't say make your own, I said pick from the variety of competitors. Who are you to dictate what a third party does, especially when that third party's decisions are well liked by their customers? I don't want the "freedom" to put in cheap aftermarket parts in my high end device, I want it to work extremely well and it does.

⬐ sennight

> Except I didn't say make your own...

No, that is what comes next - after somebody mentions Apple's part in the herpes like spread of chicklet keyboards.

> Who are you to dictate what a third party does...

Who are you to put words in my mouth? I've counseled something other than compulsion, I've suggested that you and apologists like you should be openly mocked for reasons that I can't list - because it would be bullying, run afoul of various codes of conduct, etc.

⬐ phpisthebest

Dont worry I do, the problem is all the other companies play "Follow the Apple"

The solution is never just "dont by apple if you do not like it" the solution is highlighting why it is bad, and getting people to pressure companies like Apple to change.

Right to Repair is movement, and it is winning. Part of right to repair includes resistance to parts serialization, and/or ensuring that approving new parts that are serialized is free and open to all end users not locked down to only "Authorized repair"

⬐ sennight

> ... the solution is highlighting why it is bad, and getting people to pressure companies like Apple to change.

I don't think pressure campaigns are the solution, for a lot of reasons: but the top two are obvious: they are easily astroturfed and manipulated by moneyed interests, but more importantly the game theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny - asymmetric costs (constant vigilance = time).

This would be my solution: unrestrained ridicule for their customers. Apple productions are all about conspicuous consumption, users desperately want you to know that this isn't just any soon to be e-waste - this is the kind that telegraphs a specific message from a specific type of person. By unrestrained I mean unrestrained... I'd provide an example, but it would very likely be flagged by useful idiots. If you are familiar with Terry Davis and his opinion on Microsoft customers, you are in the right ballpark. The problem would work itself out very quickly, as soon as Apple customers start stuttering "...bbbut not all Apple fanboys..." the value of their product falls through the floor. This forces systemic change inside their comically pretentious HQ, or drives them out of the market.

⬐ pb7

Your "solution" to people buying products they love is "unrestrained ridicule"? Who hurt you that you have such disdain for people choosing to live the way the want? Look inside yourself and seek help dude.

⬐ sennight

> Look inside yourself and seek help dude.

You'd benefit from that kind of introspection more than I would. Consider your response to the perfectly logical solution I propose in order to counteract a brand built on classic status signaling marketing, an intentionally wasteful brand that does in fact have externalities to the otherwise disinterested: make that signaled status an undesirable one. To that you imply that people "love" their purchased products, and that these products are intrinsic to these people's way of life? Think about that for a second, how incredibly disturbing those ideas really are, and how easily you were manipulated into thinking those things were not only reasonable - but worthy of defense.

> Who hurt you

`make -j64 buildworld buildkernel` is slow when debug is enabled.

⬐ pb7

>the problem is all the other companies play "Follow the Apple"

Then blame the companies you buy from. You are not an Apple customer so they don't owe you anything. Frankly I'm tired of people that don't even buy the products constantly trying to dictate what those products should be.

⬐ heavyset_go

You don't have to be an Apple customer to be affected by Apple's anticompetitive business practices. Apple's actions affect the whole market and all consumers in that market, that's the point behind antitrust law and litigation.

⬐ pb7

How do their actions affect you as an Android user?

⬐ heavyset_go

Easily, Apple and Google collude to maintain dominance in the mobile OS markets and leverage that duopoly to dominate other markets like mobile app distribution and mobile app payments. Google's app payments policy is now nearly identical to Apple's, you must use their payment platform to distribute apps on their app store. Just like Apple's policy to prevent competition in the mobile app payments market prevents app developers from even mentioning alternative payment methods in apps or app store listings, Google quickly followed suit and implemented the exact same anticompetitive policy.

⬐ pb7

>Apple and Google collude

Citation needed.

⬐ heavyset_go

Yes, it's just a coincidence that Apple and Google's anticompetitive policies in the mobile OS and app distribution markets have converged such that they are both practically identical and also allow them to leverage their dominance in those markets to dominate other markets like mobile app payments, as well.

⬐ pb7

Right, just like every car manufacturer in the world colluded since they all converged on 4 wheels and are practically identical.

⬐ colejohnson66

Copying your competitors is not collusion.

⬐ None

None

⬐ ElCheapo

I don't see how bringing up a right wing conspiracy meme adds anything to what your parent said. Your biometrics should be processed and gathered by the most secure parts of the device, which means going through more hoops to get a replacement.

⬐ phpisthebest

It is neither right wing nor a conspiracy, the fact that you believe both of those things seems to be commentary on your sources of news content more than anything

>Your biometrics should be processed and gathered by the most secure parts of the device, which means going through more hoops to get a replacement.

The problem here is not just limited to biometrics but even if it where many many many many people have posted long commentary on how it could be implemented in a way that is friendly to right to repair, nothing about security is in compatible with repair. NOTHING

⬐ ScoobleDoodle

I do like both security and freedom. How do we get both in this scenario?

Have the iOS device ask the user for permission to allow unverified hardware to work? Also have a periodic reminder that unverified hardware is installed and the possible consequences?

⬐ mqus

yeah, let the logged-in user re-pair (pun not entirely intended) their swapped-out components and log it somewhere for future technicians. Apple can also go an extra step to register stolen components to also show that once it is inserted into another devices. ofc there then needs to be some core to pair with but apple will figure it out.

⬐ smoldesu

> Have the iOS device ask the user for permission to allow unverified hardware to work?

Why is 'asking the user' out of the question? If Apple detects a non-OEM component, then give me a modal when I power the device on asking me if I want to enable it. I certainly don't trust Apple to make that decision for me, everything they've done in the past suggests that they're primarily motivated by increasing profit margins.

⬐ pb7

A company that wants to make money? Gasp, say it ain't so!

⬐ smoldesu

It wouldn't be so distressing if they weren't already valued beyond a trillion dollars.

⬐ pb7

You don't become a trillion dollar company selling products people don't love.

⬐ smoldesu

Correct, companies can only get there with subterfuge and good marketing.

⬐ pb7

Marketing only works until you get your hands on the product. People love Apple products. No subterfuge required, nor cringeworthy marketing like this: https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/09/samsung-apples-new-iphone-14-...

⬐ phpisthebest

Do we want to talk about labor conditions in China and how that contributes to becoming a Trillion Dollar company?

⬐ candiddevmike

AFAIK face ID generates a key used to decrypt the data. Swapping the system wouldn't let you unlock it, unless it was performing a MitM against the user of the phone. Honestly most of the TPM and trusted enclave stuff Apple does is mostly to prevent that kind of MitM situation. For most users, I don't see it as a threat to worry about.

⬐ neilalexander

It’s even more impressive than that — the infrared dot pattern of every Face ID sensor is also physically unique. You can’t swap out Face ID sensors and keep the same enrolment data as a result because the replacement sensor will produce a slightly different pattern.

[1] https://www.apple.com/business-docs/FaceID_Security_Guide.pd...