> A practice contrary to the principle of the anti-waste law
> In France, serialization is theoretically prohibited, according to Alexandre Isaac. Since the entry into force of the anti-waste law in November 2021, the consumer code mentions that "any technique, including software, by which a marketer aims to make it impossible to repair or recondition a device or to limit the restoration of all the functionalities of such a device outside its approved circuits is prohibited”.
Next on eBay: "Buy French ink for HP printers, use VPN to download the French drivers!".
"PC CHARGER LA LETTRE?! WTF does that mean?"
It seems clear to me though that they violate this law, we just lack enforcement.
[0]https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-will-pay-c...
You can also buy fake iphones today which are near indistinguishable from the real thing unless you have a deep knowledge into the product, you can have a look on youtube.
Preventing repairs did not help them on that aspect.
If you can touch it, you can pwn it. This is applicable to every piece of hardware ever existed, including the M2 Macs. Just because we don't have the (publicly available) tools (yet) doesn't mean that they can't be pwned.
More difficult? Yes. So difficult that currently thrown away Macs with Activation Lock on are solid e-waste? Yes. But don't expect it to stay so forever.
That's not actually what happened. See https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/the-case-of-the-myst...
Some users on ifixit said that switching the polarity worked for them: https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/83099/Smart+Cover+Magnet...
This is effectively what Apple does already. The usual difficulties with asking users to make security choices don't really apply here: Physical changes to the hardware are requires, so security fatigue isn't as big a deal. Maybe you get some protection from wrench attacks by not having the authority to pair new internal hardware, but that seems like a very specialized use case...
I don't think most users are capable of auditing their generic hardware to be sure it is free of backdoors.
Nobody is sneaking into my house and replacing the faceid middle of the night. This is happening to nobody you know, and nobody they know either.
The rest of us just want our $800 paper weight to work again.
Why would the camera be of consequence, though? Isn't authentication data stored in the proprietary TPM thing Apple includes in their devices?
Insisting on approved camera avoids making it easier for bad actors to stealthily capture's a victim's biometrics and then use a third party "camera" to replay that information and unlock the victim's phone without them being present.
I'm pretty sure it's not. The number of people which would be targeted by this is too small to justify the additional costs. The vast majority of people which would be targeted by this are pretty much screwed anyhow since the adversary already has physical access. It's much more likely a brand protection scheme to ensure there are fewer items out there with sub-par hardware.
If apple thinks it's an issue make it clear before letting me activate it that they no longer guarantee any safety (which they don't anyway, that's the joke, you already signed that way in the user agreement).
My ISP will provide me with a router and full support. If I change the settings or flash firmware they will no longer support it. However, if I let them restore the factory firmware and config they will again support it.
It's not hard and apple's motive here is clearly maximize stock value, nothing else.
If I am not mistaken, they also disable Face ID when you replace the camera with a genuine Apple camera from a donor phone.
1 phone that’s not thrown away is 1000s of parts saved.
Depends if you count community support or not because nobody beats Lineageos at this game.
Look at the resell value of any other phone, it basically drops to zero the moment you open the box, while even older iphones get sold for very fair prices. And getting that many years out of a phone is absolutely stellar.
Personally, I just let strangers like what they want to like. WTF do I care if they like this phone instead of this other phone.
Interestingly Microsoft actually seems to be supporting right to repair but it could be some kind of PR stunt, still though that’s a good step forward
Samsung does shitty things, but they are open and honest about it.
Serial lock is a good thing if the owner had the option to unlock their phone's parts on Apple's website to be usable for repairs etc.
Locking a device to serial is adding insult to injury when companies like Apple decide to campaign against Right to Repair. It must be said that Apple made strides towards making repairing phones easier, but as long as counterfeit or stolen parts remain economically viable, this kind of market will exist.
The point of serialization is precisely to make stolen parts unviable economically, so you’ve painted yourself into a bit of a corner there.
> It is viable because manufacturers make access to spare parts artificially difficult or expensive.
After paying a shop to repair an iPhone with a generic screen, I believe genuine parts cost more because they are better, not due to artificial scarcity. Not only were the colors off, the battery life was less with the new screen.
I’m all for protecting a users’ right to repair, but I’d also like to disincentivize thieves from stealing my phone for parts. Both are important to me. Rossmann seems to think that Apple is just greedy and that the solution is simple, but I don’t see a viable solution in his video.
Can someone with a better grasp on this subject enlighten me? Or did I just fall for clickbait?
Unless Apple is dealing with thefts at the factories before they make it in to a phone.
Art, food, electronics, materials, clothing, malware, root kits, ad nauseam.
I've been reading about counterfeit, black market, and gray market goods for decades. Do not want.
If I pay $1,000 for a Gucci handbag, I want an authentic $1,000 Gucci handbag. (I have zero issue with knockoffs clearly labeled as knockoffs.)
Anti-consumer, anti-labor, anti-customer, anti-fairuse and pro-monopoly bullshit regiments like DRM, DMCA, inability to repair, and price gouging are orthogonal issues. We can have provenance without these shackles if we choose to reign in corporate power.
As for Apple in particular, they're not the worst, and have been getting better. Their phones and laptops are the most reliable and are becoming easier to repair (design and logistics). The terms of their Apple Care have gotten more generous (forgiving).
Spitballing, I'd say Apple is ~1/3rd of the way towards a healthy cradle-to-grave product lifecycle. They can and should do much better with 3rd party repairs. Like making authentic parts available at cost. Certifying repairs shops. Certifying technicians. Etc.
Source: I was a tech at an Apple Dealer as a kid. Our leads were trained and certified. Our parts were all authentic. My notions are based on experience, not some utopian fantasy.
One way to do this is spend MORE money to make sure every single part of the device is waste and MUST go to a landfill.
Another way would be to do the opposite, and make the spare-parts readily available for everyone to make the sum of parts less valuable. The mainboard is already unusable because it's flagged as stolen, the rest of the parts should not be worth more than 60-70USD. But because some of the parts cannot be purchased at all, they are currently worth alot more
