Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Iphone Apple

Apple Stores Will Now Decline to Repair iPhones Reported as Missing (macrumors.com) 42

Posted by BeauHD from the bad-news-for-the-black-market dept.
Apple Stores and Apple Authorized Service Providers will now be alerted if an iPhone has been reported as missing in the GSMA Device Registry when a customer brings in the device to be serviced, according to an internal memo obtained by MacRumors. From the report: If an Apple technician sees a message in their internal MobileGenius or GSX systems indicating that the device has been reported as missing, they are instructed to decline the repair, according to Apple's memo shared on Monday. The new policy should help to reduce the amount of stolen iPhones brought to Apple for repair. The GSMA Device Registry is a global database designed for customers to report their devices as missing in the event of loss or theft. The report notes that Apple Stores and Apple Authorized Service Providers "are already unable to service an iPhone if the customer cannot disable Find My iPhone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Stores Will Now Decline to Repair iPhones Reported as Missing More

Apple Stores Will Now Decline to Repair iPhones Reported as Missing

Comments Filter:

  • I sell my device and then report it as stolen?

    • Sounds like your a genius.
      Apple like's to hire geniuses

    • Thats a thing that actually happens. People sell their phone, report it as missing, then try to claim insurance.

      It usually ends poorly for the person trying it on, as "find my iphone" tends to rat them out.

      • I'm not sure how that feature works on iPhones. Will it survive a factory reset by the new owner? Do people typically buy their insurance from Apple, or a third party? Are third party insurers given access to the Find My Phone API, or do they compel you to log into your own account with Apple and show them where the pin drops on the map?

    • I sell my device and then report it as stolen?

      If the buyer has a receipt, you could get nabbed for filing a false report.

      • how many receipts did you get for buying used stuff from strangers on kijiji / craigslits / whatever?
        how many receipts did you give to the buyer when selling your old stuff?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      Then the buyer demands a refund

    • Then if the customer doesn't have a receipt from you they're dumb.

      A great reason to buy this stuff over eBay and not from a local.

      • An ebay receipt, like any receipt, is worthless unless it contains the phone number / IMEI.

      • Then if the customer doesn't have a receipt from you they're dumb.

        I must be dumb then. Never got a receipt from any used stuff I bought (except if through a business, or for very large purchases such as a car or house).
        I also never signed receipts for any stuff I sold.

  • When it comes to phone theft, the real problem is the fact stolen phones are broken into parts and then used to restore non-stolen second-hand phones with signs of use back to mint condition (and then they are sold to eBay or Amazon as "new" or "new - other"). This leaves a nice margin for the seller without the risk of selling a phone with a reported IMEI. it's also why you can find "new" phones on eBay long after they stopped making the particular model. And that's why phone theft continues despite the fa

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      I mean, when you buy a replacement screen or back panel for your phone, do you know where it came from? The only way to fix the problem would be for the manufacturer to keep a parts index for every IMEI, so if a phone contains parts originating from a phone with a reported IMEI, they can decline the repair. But even then, you only get the buyer, not the seller.

      Apple did this, it did not go well. Apple got blasted for "locking" devices and "disallowing third party repairs" when things like this happens.

      It's

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        It's what makes right to repair a much more nuanced issue than it appears - because well, people strip parts off stolen devices to cobble together a working unit. I mean, who's to say a company like iFixit isn't simply being used as a fence for stolen goods? They buy used devices all the time, and I'm sure they do only the most casual of checks to make sure they aren't buying stolen property.

        They have to buy on the gray market because due to lack of right to repair, they can't buy known legit, new OEM parts.

        So how do you tell the difference by looking at it the difference between a part taken out of a broken phone vs a part taken out of a stolen phone?

        • They have to buy on the gray market because due to lack of right to repair, they can't buy known legit, new OEM parts.

          So how do you tell the difference by looking at it the difference between a part taken out of a broken phone vs a part taken out of a stolen phone?

          Why on earth would a repair shop buy OEM parts when the discount on stolen stuff will be huge?

          You might think that Right to repair has no downsides, but thievery of phones and the profit to be had will make for a great profit source.

          If you had the choice of a replacement front screen for 50 dollars, or 5 dollars - which one will you buy?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            Because a legitimate repair shop doesn't really want to buy somebody else's problem. The discount may not be that large if the new parts are sold at a non-rapacious mark-up.

            The problem with $50 parts is that they cost $12 to manufacture and get marked up like crazy.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ormy ( 1430821 )
            If that is the most serious downside of strong right to repair legislation (i.e. something with teeth that is actually enforced) then I accept it gladly. The new profits made by criminals will be a tiny fraction of the additional profit electronics manufacturers are making right now by intentionally making their devices difficult or impossible to repair. At the end of the day all that money comes from us, the consumers. Would you rather lose a small amount to petty criminals or a large amount to corporat

      • I mean, when you buy a replacement screen or back panel for your phone, do you know where it came from? The only way to fix the problem would be for the manufacturer to keep a parts index for every IMEI, so if a phone contains parts originating from a phone with a reported IMEI, they can decline the repair.

        The right to repair specifically and undeniably enables turning stolen phones into the electronic equivalent of Chop shops. Steal it, disassemble it, and sell the parts.

        If a manufacture has zero control - and that is what is demanded, any part is a good part, no matter where it comes from. The free market in action.

        Boys at the corner gas call this a profitable unintended consequence. Maybe they can make chains like bikers use to hold their wallets for phones.

        • People were selling "cobbled together" phones long before Right To Repair legislation was a thing. In fact, Right To Repair makes replacement parts available to third-party shops, which means shops can advertise the fact they use manufacturer-sourced parts (with the appropriate paperwork from the manufacturer to prove it), something which wasn't possible before.

          • People were selling "cobbled together" phones long before Right To Repair legislation was a thing. In fact, Right To Repair makes replacement parts available to third-party shops, which means shops can advertise the fact they use manufacturer-sourced parts (with the appropriate paperwork from the manufacturer to prove it), something which wasn't possible before.

            The problem is that the typical user is highly focussed on price.

            I once saw two nerds almost get in a fistfight over 5 cents difference in RAM price.

            And chop shops for stolen automobiles are inarguably popular. I find it difficult to imagine that a highly portable, easily stolen item like a smartphone won't be even more popular, to thief, disassemble, and sell the parts for a small percentage of the manufacturer sourced parts. As for appropriate paperwork, I know I can produce paperwork attesting to th

      • People were selling "cobbled together" phones long before Right To Repair legislation was a thing. In fact, Right To Repair makes replacement parts available to third-party shops, which means shops can advertise the fact they use manufacturer-sourced parts (with the appropriate paperwork from the manufacturer to prove it), something which wasn't possible before.

        Apple got blasted for trying to block all third-party repairs and for not making replacement parts available to third-party shops, which means th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Apple could just record the serial numbers of all the parts (which they use to detect when they have been replaced) and offer to blacklist them when a phone is reported as stolen. Then any device with stolen parts in it will flag that up.

        There is no need to block legitimate repairs in the way that they do.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      Actually, they could put a big dent in that market by making genuine new OEM parts easily available to 3rd party repair shops at reasonable prices. Legitimate shops only buy take out parts because they either aren't allowed to buy new or the markup on the new parts is greater than the markup on the assembled phone ever was, causing the customer to accept (or even demand) use of take outs rather than new. The legitimate places do try to get non stolen grey market parts, but it's impossible to tell the differ

      • I agree with that. Still, shady eBay/Amazon sellers will continue to buy parts from wherever to restore non-stolen second-hand phones, so I still think each IMEI should have a parts list attached to it (aka a list of serial numbers of the parts that went into making it), and each part should have its serial number "pressed" into the part so it cannot be wiped out, so parts originating from stolen phones can be easily identified as such.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          I suspect that will be followed shortly by the bad guys figuring out how to wipe the serial number off and make the part look like a really good clone.

  • Are contributing to CHILD exploitation!

    • Interestingly, nobody talks about how "think of the children" types are exploiting children themselves. To win a personal argument, or for political gain.

      Seems like those tactics end up damaging the kids half the time, too. But even when the kids don't realize what's going on, it's still scummy and exploitative.

      As far as Apple goes, they're hardly limit themselves to children. They're a progressive company that believes in equal-opportunity slavery.

  • This would explain why I was asked to disable Find My Mac in Australia back in 2019 when I had a 2018 MBP screen repaired. The tech didn't explain why at the time, just said they couldn't accept it for repair with Find My Mac enabled.
    • They always ask you to do this, going way back. The reason is two fold - one, that way they can verify its you, and two, if they are unable to repair, or dont have the time, and happen to have another phone/ipad/mac in stock that matches the config, they may just swap it out. This is also why its important to ensure your icloud backup is up to date before bringing it in for repair (at least for a iphone/ipad). You may get back a different device.
  • Had a phone stolen while visiting the islands...got it locked within an hour....and found out from Verizon it was eventually turned in (where ? to whom ? by whom?) in Miami....

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close