Latest iOS Update Shows Apple Can Use Software To Break Phones Repaired By Independent Shops (vice.com) 128
The latest version of iOS fixes several bugs, including one that caused a loss of touch functionality on a small subset of phones that had been repaired with certain third-party screens and had been updated to iOS 11. "Addresses an issue where touch input was unresponsive on some iPhone 6S displays because they were not serviced with genuine Apple parts," the update reads. "Note: Non-genuine replacement displays may have compromised visual quality and may fail to work correctly. Apple-certified screen repairs are performed by trusted experts who use genuine Apple parts. See support.apple.com for more information." Jason Koebler writes via Motherboard: "This is a reminder that Apple seems to have the ability to push out software updates that can kill hardware and replacement parts it did not sell iPhone customers itself, and that it can fix those same issues remotely." From the report: So let's consider what actually happened here. iPhones that had been repaired and were in perfect working order suddenly stopped working after Apple updated its software. Apple was then able to fix the problem remotely. Apple then put out a warning blaming the parts that were used to do the repair. Poof -- phone doesn't work. Poof -- phone works again. In this case, not all phones that used third party parts were affected, and there's no reason to think that, in this case, Apple broke these particular phones on purpose. But there is currently nothing stopping the company from using software to control unauthorized repair: For instance, you cannot replace the home button on an iPhone 7 without Apple's proprietary "Horizon Machine" that re-syncs a new home button with the repaired phone. This software update is concerning because it not only undermines the reputation of independent repair among Apple customers, but because it shows that phones that don't use "genuine" parts could potentially one day be bricked remotely.
And Microsoft can stop supporting hardware because (Score:5, Insightful)
The subject line seems a little inflammatory. Any company that makes hardware and software can do this. This isn't news. It would be news if they were actively doing it intentionally. In this case, they fixed the issue.
Re: And Microsoft can stop supporting hardware bec (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't news. It would be news if they were actively doing it intentionally
That wouldn't be news. We've already seen that. I remember back when I had my iPod touch, I wanted an A/V output cable but they were like $50 for the authorized cables. Found one on eBay for $5 and it worked perfectly fine. Then the update for iOS 4 (I think that's the version) came out and suddenly the cable no longer worked, and the screen displayed a message box saying only authorized cables are supported.
Over the years there have been additional instances of the doing this same thing, though this is the most recent one I can personally attest to since (due to this sort of behavior) that iPod touch was the last apple product I will ever purchase.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I had the EXACT same thing happen with a docking station that worked fine for 3+ years then an iOS update and all a sudden "this device is incompatible with your iphone and may damage the device".
Fuckers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple tightly regulates the market around their widgets- that has been the case for a very long time. They really want you to only use their HW and SW with their products, and would claim that this leads to a consistent and improved experience. There are examples where we can see negative
Re: And Microsoft can stop supporting hardware be (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s a conspiracy theory. Apple doesnâ(TM)t design their devices to stop working, and not only do benchmarks prove this but Apple engineers promised they would resign if ever asked to do that by apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple engineers promised they would resign if ever asked to do that by apple.
That's meaningless. They can always hire more subservient engineers.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. This is bullshit. They put out an update to fix it which they really didn't need to do. And why is Apple a special case where you think they should be responsible for third party part? If your garage uses a third party part in your car and it causes a problem, do you blame the car maker? I just had this, bad caliper. Didn't think to blame Honda.
Re: And Microsoft can stop supporting hardware be (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, spark plugs are a super simplistic example. Every spark plus is essentially the same, if it fits it'll pretty much work. Maybe not optimally, but if the fuel gets blown up by a spark, it's done it's job.
No, this would be more like if you replaced your Mass Airflow sensor with a third party part that provides correct readings to your ECU under normal circumstances. However, Ford later updates the firmware to provide better performance or more efficiency and accesses a function of the MAF that the aftermarket part doesn't support causing your car to trip a code and set off the Check Engine light and/ or perform poorly or inefficiently due to incorrect readings from the MAF.
Then, once Ford is made aware of they issue, they release another update that checks for the aftermarket part and uses the compatible function call to read data from it, thereby making good to the end user.
Now that doesn't sound quite as bad, does it?
PWM signal spec vs actual (Score:5, Informative)
A sensor that outputs a PWM signal, or something that accepts it (such as a servo) has a specified allowable range and curve that it COULD use, and an actual range that it DOES use.
Servo controllers nominally output pulses between 1ms (zero position) and 2ms (full rotation). Actual servo models don't exactly conform to this "standard", so you tune your control to the specific model of servo.
Analogously, the DMX protocol standard says that the BREAK is signaled by a pulse of AT LEAST 88 microseconds (and up to one second). Many controllers fail to read the spec carefully try to output exactly 88 microseconds, sometimes falling a bit short. If you program your DMX to work according to the standard, and test it with truly conforming peers, it'll fail to work with the many DMX items that don't quite conform, or are borderline, sometimes falling a couple microseconds short. To have compatibility with "almost compliant" neighbors, DMX outputs can output a 92 microsecond break, and receivers can accept a 84 microsecond break.
I suspect that's what happened here. The third-party parts ALMOST matched the Apple parts. Maybe they were barely complaint to the spec while the Apple parts were well within spec, or maybe the third-party parts were almost compliant. Either way, they didn't work quite the same, so customers saw failures. Apple adjusted it to work within the parameters of the third-party parts.
I highly suspect if you tested MAF sensor or O2 sensor speced with an output range of "up to 0-5V", you'd find some model's actual range is 0.2-4.5V, while another model's actual range might be 0.3-4.7V. Firmware tuned for the first, the OEM model, wouldn't work quite work as well with the second one - even though they both have "0-5V output".
Re: (Score:1)
Starting to do that now (RDM). Why 5 pin cable (Score:2)
The parent meant "replies". He's asking about having a stage lighting fixture report back when it has finished moving to the position.
DMX equipment is starting to implement that now. It's an enhancement to DMX called Remote Device Management. It's backward compatible with older DMX fixtures, but not older splitters. RDM allows two kinds of communication from fixtures to the controller. First, discovery. Rather than programming in all of your fixtures, your controller can query "which fixtures are availa
Continued due to filter (Score:2)
Originally, the protocol was designed to be able to have fixtures talk back to the controller, without a request from the controller first. That's why the standard specifies a five-pin connector - one pair for data from the controller, one pair for data back from fixtures, and a ground. The exact protocol for fixture-to-controller communication wasn't established, but the standard said there should be a pair of wires for that, so that a later version could define the specifics.
Unfortunately people didn'
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Now that doesn't sound quite as bad, does it?
Yes it sounds bad. Here's what the note says:
Non-genuine replacement displays may have compromised visual quality and may fail to work correctly.
This is the same kind of bullshit with those coffee machines that have some kind of DRM to prevent customers to buy generic pods.
At some point the douchebaggery will have to stop. With the already obscene profit margin Apple makes on the iPhone, and the hundreds of billions they have stashed abroad, they don't need this kind of extortion.
Fuck Apple and fuck every fanboi who makes apologies for their greed.
no it's not (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't really say what apple is or isn't doing but I'm quite sure you can't either. There's huge distance between a firmaware driven device with serial communication protocols of incredible complexity and a coffee filter. I don't think it's reasonable to expect apple to support every possible emulation of it's API. I can't think of any cas ein the history of modern community where a clean room emulation had 100% bit compatibility with the original. WHy would you expect a non compatible screen to maintain it's compatibility as the OS changed.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
There's huge distance between a firmaware driven device with serial communication protocols of incredible complexity and a coffee filter. I don't think it's reasonable to expect apple to support every possible emulation of it's API. I can't think of any cas ein the history of modern community where a clean room emulation had 100% bit compatibility with the original. WHy would you expect a non compatible screen to maintain it's compatibility as the OS changed.
WHy would one expect a previously working digitizer to stop working and become "incompatible" due to a software update?
Either Apple explains in detail what innocent change they made causing the incompatibility OR I'll just assume what is obvious to me given their prior track record.
I can't really say what apple is or isn't doing but I'm quite sure you can't either.
Exactly. You can never tell for sure even when it's obvious to you.. Even when a deliberate decision becomes toxic and they back away from it with laughable doublespeak there is always plausible deniability.
In the real world we
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't work that way... you claim that they are guilty, it's on you to prove it.
As for why a working digitizer stops working after an upgrade? Simple... The easiest explanation is a change in the code that drives that piece of hardware. This change might have been done to improve precision, improve power consumption or any other innocent reason. The original hardware will have no problem with that change since the driver was written with it in mind. But the 3rd party hardware is obviously not 100% compatib
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work that way... you claim that they are guilty, it's on you to prove it.
I've made no claims. I'm not going around proclaiming either guilt or innocence. I've simply made a judgment based on what I know of publically available information I believe this more likely than not to be a deliberate act.
You are free to evaluate the same data and come to different conclusions. I am willing to re-evaluate my position if specific technical data is made available.
As for why a working digitizer stops working after an upgrade? Simple... The easiest explanation is a change in the code that drives that piece of hardware. This change might have been done to improve precision, improve power consumption or any other innocent reason.
No doubt both nefarious and innocent possibilities exist. I don't have the requisite information to determine either the spe
Re: (Score:2)
Because a screen is a screen is a screen.
There is no reason at all it should stop working.
Anyway, in the article the OS upgrade fixed non working screens. People who can read have a strong advantage ...
Re: (Score:2)
You're a moron
I'll let that one slide because based on the way you spell things like "colour" or "authorised", I suspect that you live in some unfortunate part of the world. Maybe even Europe. The fact that you bought a Sony smartphone also points out to a difficult upbringing.
Good luck to you, Tiny Tim.
Re: And Microsoft can stop supporting hardware be (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps it is unsupported hardware and as such a code update caused it to stop working cause you know, why would they test against unsupported hardware? When they realized a non-significant number of people were affected and the fix was simple they pushed it out.
This is no different than people using undocumented APIs in their code then crying when they stop working. Be glad apple fixed it this time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were exactly the same, then there wouldn't be any problems.
The fact that there are problems shows that it's not the same hardware.
Re: And Microsoft can stop supporting hardware be (Score:1)
Actually this is probably them testing for it not being in specification and adapting to work rather than being malicious. They aren't obligated to test 3rd party hardware and certify it. You are making a choice to use a 3rd party screen replacement. Most do it because of cost.
Using a 3rd party replacement screen no longer automatically void their warranty btw.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Legally, it never did void the warranty. Magnuson-Moss and all that...
They tried to claim it did for years, I'm reasonably sure they stopped claiming it because they were about to lose in court.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah... Magnuson-Moss does not do what you think it does. Apple can very definity void your warranty for using low quality parts.
Re: (Score:1)
It's bullshit.
Apple is not going to willfully break a phone repaired with third-party parts, but they will never test for those parts. So in situations where Apple used X part from Y supplier, and used Z part from Q supplier in a different product. The firmware will only have the drivers for X and Z if both parts were used on different production lines for that product (such as the CPU in the 6S.) However in most cases, one manufacturer provides ALL the parts for the production line, therefor the firmware d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the replacement part was 100% compatible it would always work (and Apple wouldn't be able to detect it). The touch id sensor being an exception since it has to be 'married' to the rest of the phone to fulfill it's intended purpose. If you were able to just replace that sensor with another one it would defeat the purpose of touch id. Replay attacks and all that.
The fact that replacement parts failed after a software upgrade shows that they are NOT 100% compatible. It doesn't need any malicious intent to b
This is not news. (Score:4, Insightful)
The moment you accepted that a remote agency could update the software on a machine in your possession without your direct involvement, this became a possibility, even a likelihood. Don't act surprised. If you care, use open source.
Re:This is not news. (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Apple can’t update them remotely. Users have for as long as I can remember had to provide their password to confirm any updates to the OS. It’s specifically done that way to prevent attackers from loading updates they created or control.
B) iOS has always been billed as being made to run specifically on Apple’s hardware. You’re welcome to try using it on unsupported hardware, but Apple has never claimed it supports any hardware other than their own. If you choose to try doing so, you do so at your own risk.
C) Hanlon’s razor would suggest it’s more likely that this was a simple mistake than a case of malice. After all, it’s hardly unreasonable that an entirely unsupported hardware configuration would accidentally get broken by a major OS update. Were this a case of malice, it wouldn’t be getting fixed at all, let alone as quickly as it was.
Re: (Score:2)
C) Hanlon’s razor would suggest it’s more likely that this was a simple mistake than a case of malice. After all, it’s hardly unreasonable that an entirely unsupported hardware configuration would accidentally get broken by a major OS update. Were this a case of malice, it wouldn’t be getting fixed at all, let alone as quickly as it was.
This is actually an example of Apple's serious decline in software quality. Apple rolled this out as a security feature in iOS 10 (I think it was 10). It only occurs on devices with Touch ID. The issue is that the fingerprint hardware is replaced with the screen and Apple does not allow third party screens to become authorized on Touch ID. The Touch ID chip in the display has to register with hardware on the main board in order to allow it to unlock the phone. Apple decided that it was not secure to ev
Re: (Score:3)
Then I suggest you file a bug report or take your device in for service, because it's not working like it's supposed to and not like anyone else's. iOS on all devices has always required both your approval to install an update and your password. It will become a pest after a point however, constantly reminding you that there's an update available, but it will never install it without your permission an
Re: (Score:3)
BS, several updates have clearly started on their own on my 5S despite my deliberately avoiding updating.
You’re mistaken. They’ll download themselves and prompt you to install them, but they won’t actually do so until they have your go-ahead. Moreover, in addition to Apple’s white papers making the process I described clear, I also have firsthand experience with your particular model, since it’s the same one I use on a daily basis, and I’ve never observed the behavior you’re reporting.
Re: (Score:3)
A) Read through Ken Thompson’s Reflections on Trusting Trust [win.tue.nl]. No major OS provides the guarantees you’re talking about. If you want those sorts of guarantees, you need to be compiling your OS updates from source using compilers you compiled from source that were themselves compiled using compilers you compiled from source, and so on down the entire toolchain until you’re in binary, and then we’ll need to have a talk about the trust you place in your hardware. If you’re that con
Re: (Score:1)
The screen working/disabling wasn't deliberate. The user had it replaced with a non-standard part, which obviously didn't conform to the specs that the genuine display part was set to (ie: datasheet specs for the component) and the touch stuff stopped working as a result.
The issue isn't with apple, which test their hardware on their phones to make sure it works. They do /not/ and are /not/ responsible for third party hardware which is used. They can't test for it, probably don't know about it, and as seen
CFAA law bricking your phone = apple can be in (Score:1)
CFAA law bricking your phone = apple can be in from some hard time.
Re: (Score:3)
your phone
Found the problem right here.
Re: (Score:1)
your phone
Found the problem right here.
Spot on. The phone is not the product. The phone is merely the delivery mechanism for the right to walk around with the Apple logo, and therefore it's ludicrous that someone could consider "owning" that device for a mere thousand bucks.
Not tested with non-Apple hardware shocker (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems a bit of a non-story.
You repaired your phone with some random third-party stuff. Apple updated some device driver somewhere, but didn't bother testing with these other devices that they don't have to support because they didn't make them, and may well not have had any of. Stuff broke. Then, they actually put out a fix for whatever they broke when they found out about it. Sounds like a company that actually cares about not screwing over their customers to me, rather than one that does.
Re: (Score:1)
Get out of here with your reasonableness. It will not be tolerated.
Re: (Score:1)
It's also quite likely that the third party doesn't expend as many resources designing OR producing their part as Apple did on the "genuine" part.
Apple suffers great damage to their reputation and hurts their bottom line if they make and sell 50 million iPhones that they have to replace/repair because of a design problem so they need to be cautious. They also can afford to spend those resources as they are amortized over a great many phones and Apple certainly isn't trying to the the "low price leader".
The
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I think people are jumping to conclusions about this being a malicious act on Apple's part. This looks more like it's just another example of how buying into a closed platform can bite you.
Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's turn a story about Apple fixing a compatibility issue with non-warrantied third party parts into a story about how Apple is evil and could make phones that use third party parts not work!
You can buy Nikon lenses to go on your Nikon camera. You can buy Sigma lenses to go on your Nikon camera. Nikon never gave Sigma the specifications to make sure their lenses were compatible with Nikon's hardware. Sometimes when Nikon puts out a new camera body it breaks functionality with a Sigma lens. This is not Nikon's problem. When this happens you send your lens back to Sigma and they reflash it, or you buy a special dock that lets you do it yourself.
Making sure your third party screen keeps working when Apple does an update is not Apple's problem, but they did it anyway presumably because it was cheaper than the bad PR they would otherwise get. If it was a really complex problem to solve they wouldn't fix it and you'd have no right to complain about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's what you say:
Agree totally -- this is Apple going out of their way to fix something that is totally not their problem.
Here's what the summary says:
So let's consider what actually happened here. iPhones that had been repaired and were in perfect working order suddenly stopped working after Apple updated its software.
I can't explain why you think Apple is the hero here, but it has nothing to do with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but he's not agreeing with the summary, is he ? I knew reading comprehension on this site had declined, but I was hopeful it wasn't as bad as this...
Here's how it works.
1) A story is posted
2) Comments are made
3) Each comment can have a hierarchy of sub-comments. The text of any given comment is relative to its parent.
Just like this comment, calling your statement [the parent comment to this one] idiotic.
He was agreeing with his parent's comment, which is (rightly, IMHO) pointing out that Apple is actua
Re: (Score:3)
He was agreeing with his parent's comment, which is (rightly, IMHO) pointing out that Apple is actually going out of their way
That's pure speculation based on nothing presented in the summary or the linked article.
Here's what can be found in the linked article, though:
A scare like this happened last year. "Error 53" bricked many iPhones that had third party screen replacements. After widespread consumer outrage, Apple fixed the bug.
So you call that "going out of their way", but in the article they say "after widespread consumer outrage". This is not a subtle difference, it's called fanboism.
Re:Give me a break (Score:4, Informative)
This is not a subtle difference, it's called fanboism.
How is Apple supposed to prevent issues like this happing with third party replacement parts? It's not realistic for them to somehow find out about all such parts being produced, acquire samples themselves, and then test their software updates against them. If repairers are not advising customers that they're using non-Apple parts then the fault is with the repairers, otherwise the fault is with the customers.
The only way I could see it being Apple's fault would be if they intentionally, maliciously released an update to fail with third-party parts. Nobody outside of Apple can be sure about whether they did that or not so it just degenerates into an argument between the haters and the fanbois. If "Error 53" was Apple malice, later thought better of, why would they try again with this latest issue?
Re: (Score:1)
Apple designs their products using components which match a certain specification. It then codes the software with those specifications in mind. If you install something that works, but doesn't match the specifications and it breaks, it's not their fault the component didn't match the specs, however it is good of them to rework the software to fix the issue. If you ask any programmer if he should write their software to account for every thing a customer might do, down to let me see if this x86 code will
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
That Apple broke a third party part doesn't bother me. Such is the norm. What bothers me is Apple doesn't provide a means of undoing the change which broke the functionality of the phone. This means that Apple is the only one that can fix the issue, and that if Apple does not fix the issue then a phone or device is rendered unusable unnecessarily, and the cost of ownership of the device is driven through the roof.
I wonder A) what kind of Apple partisan modded your perfectly rational post "troll" and B) if that person ever feels like upchucking when seeing themselves in the mirror and C) if not, then why not.
What bothers me about Apple? Basically everything, but especially the jihadists, or salaried online forum slimeballs, I have no way of knowing which it is in this case, but it is one of the other.
Thanks. (Score:1)
I'm not anti-Apple, but I'm not a fanboy either.
I've had a Mac, a PowerPC 7200/75 running System 7, and then OS 8.0. I've also had a graphite G4 tower running OSX. Every smart phone I've ever had has been an iPhone, currently on the 7.
I've also recently purchased a Surface Pro 4, a line of product notorious for not being repairable due to being glued together.
However, I am also a tinkerer. I've built PCs, and upgraded PCs. I write some primitive code, and modify scripts and source code when
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, then I do not agree with the point of your example. Whether Apple screwed up its QA on the update or honestly misses something that was difficult to catch, there is no justification for it to cast FUD upon third party repair businesses. Which just makes Apple look evil, but then... haven't we known that since forever?
Apple is indeed under no obligation to do anything in particular, but we on the other hand are under no obligation to give Apple a pass on behavior that appears on the face of it to be self
Re: (Score:2)
OK, then I do not agree with the point of your example. Whether Apple screwed up its QA on the update or honestly misses something that was difficult to catch, there is no justification for it to cast FUD upon third party repair businesses. Which just makes Apple look evil, but then... haven't we known that since forever?
Show me the company that says any bozo can repair our tech with junkyard scraps and duct tape and we'll support it. Unless it's serial number matching or some other kind of pairing explicitly designed to avoid replacement parts, the fact that it fails is proof that the third party parts/work is not identical to Apple's own. That it took an OS update before the difference was exposed doesn't change that, consider for example an over-spec'd part that can be replaced by an inferior one - until a new tuning pro
Re: (Score:1)
Where has anybody asserted that they had a bozo use junkyard scraps and duct tape to repair their Applephone? Now you're just disparaging those you argue against.
Apple obviously has undocumented features in the screen that made it difficult to produce a third party replacement part. They themselves probably aren't even aware of said undocumented features, and a software update made use of these features and broke support for the third party replacement part.
Apple is a company barely capable of supporting
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the third party parts use workarounds to work, maybe something that is borderline an exploit because they don't know any other way to make it work, and Apple then FIXES that exploit, that means that yes, the third party part stops working and is to blame. Would you rather exploits don't get fixed because some piece of hardware USES IT?
And no, I'm not an Apple fanboy. The only iPhone I have ever touched belongs to one of my mom's friends. But fixing an exploit, and then building a tunnel for this specific
Re: (Score:3)
If the third party parts use workarounds to work, maybe something that is borderline an exploit because they don't know any other way to make it work, and Apple then FIXES that exploit, that means that yes, the third party part stops working and is to blame...
If.
And even if, Apple still comes out looking more than a little douchebaggy. Think: they could have boasted instead about how they went the extra distance to cover for their third party repair "partners". But that's not what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most insightful/informative post of the thread!
I was just thinking, at best this whole saga is indicative of fragile design, Apple itself being the party most at risk of getting bitten by it. And once bitten, twice defiant, that's Apple style all the way. Ah, maybe that's the deep meaning of the black apple with a bite out of it? Bitten. Black. Yessiree, it all falls into place now.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's turn a story about Apple fixing a compatibility issue with non-warrantied third party parts into a story about how Apple is evil and could make phones that use third party parts not work!
Well, "iPhones that had been repaired and were in perfect working order suddenly stopped working after Apple updated its software. Apple was then able to fix the problem remotely. Apple then put out a warning blaming the parts that were used to do the repair." Seems reasonable to conclude that Apple is evil.
Your spin doctoring is pretty much what I have come to expect from Apple and its hangers-on. First, Apple creates a problem where there is none, most probably by incompetence. Then Apple opportunistically attempts to capitalize on their crap QA with FUD about genuine Apple parts blah blah blah. Apple partisans jump in with victim shaming. No right to complain? Hah.
Actually, I agree, Apple users shouldn't complain. They should just never waste their money on that junk again.
Apple employees with mod points, busily spreading their decaying corporate culture to Slashdot. Please try to hold that pustulence inside yourselves guys! Does a lot to show why nobody should ever give money to that gang.
You don't get it. (Score:1)
The bottom line is we are on a slippery slope, losing our rights inherent in ownership itself.
Who is Apple to tell me what to do with a product that I purchased? Nikon does not sabotage the competition by embedding DRM into its lenses. Apple was intentionally breaking the phones when original parts weren't detected. By breaking, than fixing the problem, the evidence clearly indicates that Apple intended to interfere with a transaction between the owner of a product and third party support. At minimum, A
Re: (Score:2)
Except most of the time here we aren't talking about Nikon vs Sigma. We're talking Nikon vs Nikon grey market. Most Apple parts a genuine and come from single sources (genuine here defined as the final product, not what the manufacturer's will have you believe by stamping an invalid serial number).
we need right to repair with no authorized repair (Score:2)
We need right to repair with no authorized shop / tech only repair tools and restore software.
This only company that I will not name at this time just has update files but not the full SD images for embedded systems and no they are not wired up to be able to boot from USB you can put the update file on USB sticks and update.
I was able to get some working there (high level dev) give out the line saying we can give the out the full SD card image as some people who don't don't know what they are doing may wire
Re: (Score:1)
We need right to repair
You have the right to choose to not purchase devices that do not meet your requirements. I highly recommend that you do your due diligence when choosing a vendor.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a law called the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and within it are anti-tying provisions meant to stop exactly this kind of bullshit in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
So when the I buy a new car the sales people are going to lie about what the non dealer shops do to be and steer me to there shop for all work
Re: (Score:1)
We need right to repair with no authorized shop / tech only repair tools and restore software.
agreed, some form of this is necessary, especially for simple things like battery replacement.
This only company that I will not name at this time just has update files but not the full SD images for embedded systems and no they are not wired up to be able to boot from USB you can put the update file on USB sticks and update.
I lost you at this point in your rant, sorry. There's too much context from whatever you went through that's missing, and that I'd rather not hear about anyway.
It sounds similar to the Apple news cycle, though:
- A reasonable-seeming request would be, "don't break repaired phones with updates. If it worked after repair, it should keep working."
- The current way to implement this request is with sof
It's a consumer product (Score:2)
If you repair it, you won't buy another one. It would be interesting if it stops working if you disassemble and reassemble it *without* doing anything else to it.
Who is writing these articles? (Score:1)
There is a bunch of stuff that goes on in these software updates, Apple obviously can't test dozens of third party modules, what's surprising to me is that they fixed it at all given they were under no obligation to do so and only did so for customer service reasons.
Windows breaks a lot more third party stuff on a regular basis and never fixes it, hence the reason why people still run outdated versions of Windows XP.
greedy (Score:2)
controlling bastards!
This is why people buy Apple, not a problem (Score:1)
Apple's advantage in quality and update reliability comes entirely at the cost of using Apple-approved parts only. This dramatically limits necessary testing and simplifies the writing of system software. If unapproved hardware functions differently in any way from the approved hardware, count on problems because the system software is not designed with compatibility in mind. That is their advantage.
If you want hardware flexibility, never choose Apple and don't complain about how the system doesn't seem as
My phone was having this issue (Score:1)
I broke the screen on my 6s a while back. After having it replaced, I would get this exact issue happen every once in a while. I assumed that it was the phone slowly dying or something.
What's strange is that I had my screen replaced at an actual Apple Store. So, either their ability to target devices is flawed, or their stores had been using non-genuine parts for official repairs
Re: (Score:2)
In today's world of liability and reputation (Score:1)
Just imagine the shit storm they'd get if suddenly a bunch of phones repaired with 3rd party batteries started to explode. Or if replaced home buttons (the finger print scanner) caused a security breach that exposes Apple Pay? Then there are contractual requirements with third party content providers around DRM chains which could be compromised by third party parts (yes, I know most on /. are anti-drm, but it's still a business constraint for Apple).
There are some very legitimate concerns in today's envir
Re: (Score:2)
Deja vu? (Score:1)
Skewed headline (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s a very skewed way to look at it.
Apple has to look out for security for users. The TouchID sensor is tied to the Secure Enclave, replacing it will cause the phone to detect it and fail to work. Thatâ(TM)s an important security feature; otherwise anyone could swap the TouchID sensor and log into any phone with their existing fingerprints. And Apple explained this back during the iPhone 5S; since they have to be resynced it means Apple canâ(TM)t support third party parts for the secur
Guess What? (Score:2)
All you whiners should realize that open source software doesn't support ALL hardware either. Hardware interaction is far more complex than you think.
Buy parts from us or we'll brick you (Score:1)
Apple continues to force customers to buy their hardware and service by punishing customers who go to third-party repair services or put third-party components on their phones because the standard ones have broken. This is the same crap AT&T tried to pull before the local phone network was deregulated, remember? All those "non-standard" phones would damage the network and therefore couldn't be allowed. But even AT&T did not destroy the third-party equipment that was installed. And how did that al
And IBM's plug anti-trust (Score:2)
It would seem that the IBM plug-issue as a method of regulating third-party trade might rear its ugly head here. The purpose of some of Apple's 'innovations' are not new ideas, but to prevent an aftermarket of things.
Or... think of it from their side before flamebait (Score:2)
Why assume the worst?
Consider:
- Apple makes device
- 3rd party replaces part with something that works
- Apple makes changes to software to add features/fix bugs/etc.
- New changes use previously-unused function or uses something in a new way... but this is verified with Apple's device
- 3rd party part only supports 90% of the actual features of the Apple part... which was previously "good enough" but no longer is.
- Update breaks phones with non-Apple parts
As a hardware/software developer I can EASILY see how t
Thinking about apple (Score:1)
Re: Well, duh... (Score:1)
On iOS devices using normal punctuation produces weird characters on this and other forums instead of producing the intended punctuation. This has been a problem since the first iOS 11 public beta but Apple could not be bothered to fix whatever the issue is. Thus you make a sane post and you look like you are drunk. Note how there is no punctuation in this post other than several periods. I have been using iOS 11 since the first public beta and am now on iOS 11.1 and this bug still exists. Fuck you Apple. F
Re: Well, duh... (Score:2)
Turning off smart punctuation in the keyboard settings fixed it for me.