iBone the Repair industry - Apple locks down batteries, marking own batteries as degraded

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

There is nothing for me to prove. It is well known to anyone in the industry, anyone with any electronics knowledge will know the inherent dangers of packaging a lot of energy in a small place. Fine if you do not want to take my word for it. I do have the qualifications and experience but you would not know that.  Here is a good article detailing what is in a battery, how they work, details of some recalls and incidents and details of the mitigation technology to prevent problems.

 

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/archive/lithium_ion_safety_concerns

 

That is not what you claimed.  You claimed that many batteries do not contained protection circuits. 

14 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Take away those protections and you are at risk. Brands do not want to loose their reputation for safety, it did hurt Samsung for a short while and cost them a lot. If a third party battery causes an issue, and they have, then the product maker can prove quickly that is was the fault of the third party product. That is what this change in IOS is about. The moving of the protection to on cell makes sense from a design point of view.

 

For someone claiming to work testing batteries you aren't exactly providing a good knowledge of batteries.   All phone batteries already have protection on them,  this chip is battery protection, so using it instead of the current offerings doesn't change that the battery has protection.  What this does change is the ability to monitor the battery without specific hardware on the main board and the ability to ID the chip (more specifically the battery).  So protection is not being moved to the battery, it is just being added to.   Your claims about it being safer or batteries being so dangerous they need this is erroneous because they already have sufficient protection.  

 

14 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

There are far worse uses of technology adding ID chips. Take for instance one brand of printer. Cartridges are region coded so you cannot but from a cheaper region and use in in your locale. To me that is wrong.

 

Which is just as wrong as not telling users the health of their battery because they didn't get it repaired at an apple store.   Or worse what could happen in the future (based on prior history) that they might start throttling or disabling the phone altogether. 

 

 

I am still waiting for anyone to give me a single reason why this tech is necessary.   Why does ID like this need to be added to a domestic device. Why are they not providing the battery health information.  There is no technical reason, in fact they have gone out of their way to program it not to show you, because otherwise the device can operate exactly as it did before and give you this information without any limitations.

[harryk]

9 hours ago, Phill104 said:

If a device then sets light to your love spuds, Apple can then blame the third party repairer and/or battery maker. I am sure that information will be sent back to Apple and their "improvement" servers the moment you switch on your phone after a repair.

I hadn't even thought about this but it is a very good reason. Now there is a software indication that the battery has been messed with by a third party, even if it was swapped with a genuine battery from a donor phone. A great way for Apple to clean its hands of any possible accusations of exploding phones. As far as I remember, every reported lawsuit regarding iPhones catching fire while charging were due to use of cheap knock-off chargers.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

That is not what you claimed.  You claimed that many batteries do not contained protection circuits. 

 

For someone claiming to work testing batteries you aren't exactly providing a good knowledge of batteries.   All phone batteries already have protection on them,  this chip is battery protection, so using it instead of the current offerings doesn't change that the battery has protection.  What this does change is the ability to monitor the battery without specific hardware on the main board and the ability to ID the chip (more specifically the battery).  So protection is not being moved to the battery, it is just being added to.   Your claims about it being safer or batteries being so dangerous they need this is erroneous because they already have sufficient protection.  

 

Which is just as wrong as not telling users the health of their battery because they didn't get it repaired at an apple store.   Or worse what could happen in the future (based on prior history) that they might start throttling or disabling the phone altogether. 

 

 

I am still waiting for anyone to give me a single reason why this tech is necessary.   Why does ID like this need to be added to a domestic device. Why are they not providing the battery health information.  There is no technical reason, in fact they have gone out of their way to program it not to show you, because otherwise the device can operate exactly as it did before and give you this information without any limitations.

Not all third party batteries have protection. You seem to be avoiding that point I made earlier despite me going out of my way to point that part out. There are also third party batteries that have a much lower quality of protection, or build in general. Skimping on insulators, using cheaper alternative materials etc. It can all happen and does.

 

I do not work in battery testing, I am a mainframe and enterprise support specialist. However, I have worked with a university on testing of batteries after doing some testing myself on camera batteries and writing a paper on it. I was invited in to do some work on the subject. The team at that university were also working with standards agencies and consumer protection agencies. All very interesting stuff and a couple of years involvement was quite an eye opener. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, harryk said:

I hadn't even thought about this but it is a very good reason. Now there is a software indication that the battery has been messed with by a third party, even if it was swapped with a genuine battery from a donor phone. A great way for Apple to clean its hands of any possible accusations of exploding phones. As far as I remember, every reported lawsuit regarding iPhones catching fire while charging were due to use of cheap knock-off chargers.

Talking of cheap knock off chargers, there were loads of cases here in the UK where people were getting electrocuted. The chargers looked like the small Apple ones and were being sold through eBay, Amazon, market stalls and even via a now bankrupt pound shop. While the charger electronics were not really bad, just poor, the casing was a different matter. It was quite common for people to try and unplug them by pulling but instead of the whole unit coming out the back would just fall off revealing live terminals behind. Most adults would not be stupid enough to touch them, but many kids would. Having said that there was one case where the back came off in the dark, wasn’t noticed and then zapped its owner.

 

It is actually worse than that in some cases. That back should remain in place should an event happen inside the charger. It should also be made of a self extinguishing plastic. There have been cases where capacitors inside have gone pop pushing off the back cover. There is one case I know off where someone died. The charger did this and because it was plugged in next to their bed it set the sheets alight. 
 

The backs of genuinely Apple chargers are a dog to remove by contrast.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Not all third party batteries have protection. You seem to be avoiding that point I made earlier despite me going out of my way to point that part out.

 

You can claim it all you like, but until you prove it,  it is just you making things up.   Again for like the 4th time, show me a phone battery (third party or otherwise) that doesn't have protection on it.

 

14 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

There are also third party batteries that have a much lower quality of protection, or build in general. Skimping on insulators, using cheaper alternative materials etc. It can all happen and does.

Except you can't show us any of them or any articles where the protection (or lack thereof) was the problem.

 

14 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

I do not work in battery testing, I am a mainframe and enterprise support specialist. However, I have worked with a university on testing of batteries after doing some testing myself on camera batteries and writing a paper on it. I was invited in to do some work on the subject. The team at that university were also working with standards agencies and consumer protection agencies. All very interesting stuff and a couple of years involvement was quite an eye opener. 

 

And yet you don't seem to be able to show a single example for your claims?  

 

I can show you many examples of phones catching fire because they were under pillows whilst charging, or that caught fire because the battery was broken/ruptured or because there was a fault/surge, but I can't find any examples of fire from, batteries due to the lack of protection or due to the protection being of poor quality by design.

 

What we have here is simply a case of apple adding a feature and blocking information that serves no purpose.

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You can claim it all you like, but until you prove it,  it is just you making things up.   Again for like the 4th time, show me a phone battery (third party or otherwise) that doesn't have protection on it.

 

Except you can't show us any of them or any articles where the protection (or lack thereof) was the problem.

 

 

And yet you don't seem to be able to show a single example for your claims?  

 

I can show you many examples of phones catching fire because they were under pillows whilst charging, or that caught fire because the battery was broken/ruptured or because there was a fault/surge, but I can't find any examples of fire from, batteries due to the lack of protection or due to the protection being of poor quality by design.

 

What we have here is simply a case of apple adding a feature and blocking information that serves no purpose.

 

 

Feel free to bury your head in the sand. It is not my problem and nothing I could post, show you or tell you would change your mind. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Feel free to bury your head in the sand. It is not my problem and nothing I could post, show you or tell you would change your mind. 

You haven't managed to answer a single question I have asked nor managed to produce a shred of evidence to backup your claims.   There is absolutely no way I am burying my head in sand, I am open to any evidence you have, you just need to provide it.

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You haven't managed to answer a single question I have asked nor managed to produce a shred of evidence to backup your claims.   There is absolutely no way I am burying my head in sand, I am open to any evidence you have, you just need to provide it.

 

 

I’ve linked to an explanation of battery technology, I have given details of the inherent problems and the issues faced. I have pointed out, and there are plenty of articles detailing this, that batteries need to be made with good standards and well tested etc. If you want to use cells made by a reputable manufacturer good on you, at least the manufacturer have the backup should something go awry. If you want to use a battery or charger made by a complete unknown source, that is your choice. If something goes wrong who will you turn to? Apple are doing very little here but you seem to want to make out as if they are evil incarnate for first providing some information to you, then taking it away if you use a third party.

Do the research yourself, read the article I posted. Or don’t bother, why should I care? The thing is I actually do care. I have seen cases of injuries from faulty or poorly made batteries and chargers. People have died as a result of faulty batteries and the fires they caused. 
 

I am certainly not going to waste any more of my time on this as whatever I do or say you will not believe it. 

[mr moose]

Just now, Phill104 said:

I’ve linked to an explanation of battery technology,

I already know the battery technology, I have a formal education in EE.  

The issue is your link doesn't support your claims that phone batteries have no protection.

Just now, Phill104 said:

I have given details of the inherent problems and the issues faced. I have pointed out, and there are plenty of articles detailing this,

Except you won't link me to even one of them. 

Just now, Phill104 said:

that batteries need to be made with good standards and well tested etc. If you want to use cells made by a reputable manufacturer good on you, at least the manufacturer have the backup should something go awry. If you want to use a battery or charger made by a complete unknown source, that is your choice. If something goes wrong who will you turn to? Apple are doing very little here but you seem to want to make out as if they are evil incarnate for first providing some information to you, then taking it away if you use a third party.

Do the research yourself, read the article I posted. Or don’t bother, why should I care? The thing is I actually do care. I have seen cases of injuries from faulty or poorly made batteries and chargers. People have died as a result of faulty batteries and the fires they caused. 
 

I am certainly not going to waste any more of my time on this as whatever I do or say you will not believe it. 

 

You have moved the goalposts something fierce here.  You claimed many phone batteries lack protection or have inadequate protection. I have asked you to show me where these supposed batteries are and what incidents they have caused, you haven't done that.  Until you prove your claims you have nothing to say.   I am not doing your research, There is a reason telling people to do their research is against the CS.  Either backup your claims or stop making them.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I already know the battery technology, I have a formal education in EE.  

The issue is your link doesn't support your claims that phone batteries have no protection.

Except you won't link me to even one of them. 

 

You have moved the goalposts something fierce here.  You claimed many phone batteries lack protection or have inadequate protection. I have asked you to show me where these supposed batteries are and what incidents they have caused, you haven't done that.  Until you prove your claims you have nothing to say.   I am not doing your research, There is a reason telling people to do their research is against the CS.  Either backup your claims or stop making them.

Please show me exactly where I Said  “Many phone batteries lack or have inadequate protection”, I didn’t. I also never said phone batteries have no protection, just some third party batteries in many bits of electronic kit. free to put whatever words in my mouth you wish. Actually don’t bother, I’m off to bed as it is now 1:30 here.

[HWLights92]

I always tried to look at Apple in a good light because of them appearing to care about user privacy. After some of the news I've seen, combined with their battle against right to repair, I definitely look at them differently.

 

Going to be interesting to see how these lawsuits that will inevitably pop up go.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Please show me exactly where I Said  “Many phone batteries lack or have inadequate protection”, I didn’t. I also never said phone batteries have no protection, just some third party batteries in many bits of electronic kit. free to put whatever words in my mouth you wish. Actually don’t bother, I’m off to bed as it is now 1:30 here.

OK:

3 hours ago, Phill104 said:

 Some iffy third party batteries do not contain even the minimum of cell protection.

...

Of the fifty or so either rip off packs, ebay specials or supposedly regarded third party brands, not many made the grade.The worst were seriously poor with no protection at all. In one case all that was in the case were two unprotected recycled cells with nothing more than a resistor for current limiting. It lacked even the thermal sensor to cut the cells off if they go thermonuclear.

...

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Not all third party batteries have that protection. ...

 

Not all phones have charge protection on board, they in some cases rely on the charger. ...

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Phill104 said:

Not all third party batteries have protection...

 

There are also third party batteries that have a much lower quality of protection, or build in general. Skimping on insulators, using cheaper alternative materials etc. It can all happen and does.

...

 

So where are they? which of these batteries that have no protection, or phones that don't adequately have charge protection.  List them, show me links to shops that sell these batteries. Show me something to prove they exist.

 

 

I put it to you that you may find one or two really dodgy batteries out of thousands on aliexpress or something like that if you go looking really hard, but most phone repairers are not that stupid, if you are able to replace your own battery you are at least competent enough to know what you are buying.  I mean I put it to you that the problem you insist is out there is no where big enough to warrant this type of response.  And I certainly don't believe that one or two dodgy batteries out of millions constitutes a need for better battery management than what is currently used in nearly every single phone on the market.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

OK:

 

 

So where are they? which of these batteries that have no protection, or phones that don't adequately have charge protection.  List them, show me links to shops that sell these batteries. Show me something to prove they exist.

 

 

I put it to you that you may find one or two really dodgy batteries out of thousands on aliexpress or something like that if you go looking really hard, but most phone repairers are not that stupid, if you are able to replace your own battery you are at least competent enough to know what you are buying.  I mean I put it to you that the problem you insist is out there is no where big enough to warrant this type of response.  And I certainly don't believe that one or two dodgy batteries out of millions constitutes a need for better battery management than what is currently used in nearly every single phone on the market.

You’ve taken posts regarding the CAMERA BATTERIES we tested and applied them to phones, your mistake.

 

As for listing the shops, providing details of cases etc. I do have that information, in  piles of paperwork etc. Am I willing to provide it? Certainly not as it would breach data protection. I’ve given advice, your choice whether to take it on board or not.

 

As for batteries, here there are many shops, market stalls and the like replacing batteries and repairing phones, There are some really iffy companies. Wherever they buy their batteries from how does the end user know they are of good quality? How do they know the insulators are up to spec? How do they know the repairer is qualified to know what they are doing, or the battery has been safely shipped? The end user has no idea. Should apple be liable in the case something goes wrong with that third party repair? Certainly not IMO. Having a warning that really does not affect anyone is barely an issue.

 

Here to have Apple replace your battery it costs £45 for most models. X series phones cost £65 if it is out of warranty which most will not be. The cheapest shops are not much less, in fact some cost more. Either way it is not expensive compared to the cost of the phone. You then have the backup, are protected by UK and EU consumer laws. Joe bloggs repair on a market stall is going to be very hard to claim any recompense from.

 

A well regarded repair shop charge £4.99 more than Apple for a battery on the iPhone X https://gadgetclinic.net/product/iphone-x/

 

One terrible shop I can mention as they are no more, especially after the BBC Watchdog report https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/clip/b6aba71b-548e-4bcc-94c3-f3e179890cdb and score on trust pilot https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.foneangels.co.uk
 

The quality of repair shops varies vastly, just ask Mr Rossman. He is often lambasting technicians, the ones where he ends up sorting their disasters. You would have to be really naive to believe there are only well trained high quality repair shops out there. Plenty of shops have setup learning all they know from a few YouTube videos, some are good, others....

 

Another example is the Samsung problems. Those batteries were damaged. The tolerances were also very tight. If a third party uses a wrapping material just slightly thicker that tight tolerance increases the chance of damage*. Even big manufacturers have trouble with their suppliers, Samsung, Sony, Dell, Apple etc all have in the past. Third parties will swap materials unbeknown to the OEM. However the OEM has the resources to do good quality control, monitoring of failures and provide backup. Will Ali express or joe bloggs repair have that ability?

 

All this change from Apple really does is protect Apple from litigation. As I said, many brands do and have gone this route long before Apple.

 

Forgive me if the above is poorly written, I really am tired now (It is 02:35) but cannot sleep.

 

* I’ve replaced circa 30 iPhone screens over the years (I have clumsy family and friends) most of which were purchased on Amazon from different marketplace and fulfilled by sources. Not all of them fitted well, batteries likewise.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

You’ve taken posts regarding the CAMERA BATTERIES we tested and applied them to phones, your mistake.

Actually you presented that information, if it doesn't relate to what I am saying or doesn't support your position that is your fault,  Also you directly mention phones in your posts, I quoted you claiming this is an issue with phones.   So I am not sure what you are trying to present here.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

As for listing the shops, providing details of cases etc. I do have that information, in  piles of paperwork etc. Am I willing to provide it? Certainly not as it would breach data protection. I’ve given advice, your choice whether to take it on board or not.

So nothing then. 

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

As for batteries, here there are many shops, market stalls and the like replacing batteries and repairing phones, There are some really iffy companies. Wherever they buy their batteries from how does the end user know they are of good quality? How do they know the insulators are up to spec? How do they know the repairer is qualified to know what they are doing, or the battery has been safely shipped? The end user has no idea. Should apple be liable in the case something goes wrong with that third party repair? Certainly not IMO. Having a warning that really does not affect anyone is barely an issue.

 I asked for evidence of your claims, not further claims. 

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Here to have Apple replace your battery it costs £45 for most models. X series phones cost £65 if it is out of warranty which most will not be. The cheapest shops are not much less, in fact some cost more. Either way it is not expensive compared to the cost of the phone. You then have the backup, are protected by UK and EU consumer laws. Joe bloggs repair on a market stall is going to be very hard to claim any recompense from.

We are not debating how much it cost,  I am asking you to provide evidence to backup your claims.

 

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

A well regarded repair shop charge £4.99 more than Apple for a battery on the iPhone X https://gadgetclinic.net/product/iphone-x/

That's nice.

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

One terrible shop I can mention as they are no more, especially after the BBC Watchdog report https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/clip/b6aba71b-548e-4bcc-94c3-f3e179890cdb and score on trust pilot https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.foneangels.co.uk
 

The quality of repair shops varies vastly, just ask Mr Rossman. He is often lambasting technicians, the ones where he ends up sorting their disasters. You would have to be really naive to believe there are only well trained high quality repair shops out there. Plenty of shops have setup learning all they know from a few YouTube videos, some are good, others....

again, evidence to your claims, you didn't claim repair shops were dodgy, you claimed batteries didn't have protection or that phones didn't.

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Another example is the Samsung problems. Those batteries were damaged. The tolerances were also very tight. If a third party uses a wrapping material just slightly thicker that tight tolerance increases the chance of damage*. Even big manufacturers have trouble with their suppliers, Samsung, Sony, Dell, Apple etc all have in the past. Third parties will swap materials unbeknown to the OEM. However the OEM has the resources to do good quality control, monitoring of failures and provide backup. Will Ali express or joe bloggs repair have that ability?

And that has nothing to do with the protection circuit.  I am getting tired of asking for you to backup your claims and just getting a whole lot of irrelevant stuff in return.

 

Samsung batteries didn't explode because of the protection circuits in the batteries, they exploded because there wasn't enough physical room for the battery in the case.

You still haven't shown me a single case of a fire or problem caused by the protection circuit.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

All this change from Apple really does is protect Apple from litigation. As I said, many brands do and have gone this route long before Apple.

 

Which ones?  which phone has this chip in it doing the same thing?

 

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Forgive me if the above is poorly written, I really am tired now (It is 02:35) but cannot sleep.

 

* I’ve replaced circa 30 iPhone screens over the years (I have clumsy family and friends) most of which were purchased on Amazon from different marketplace and fulfilled by sources. Not all of them fitted well, batteries likewise.

 

 

 

I don't mind poorly written, I don't even care about grammar or spelling, it's the content that is important. 

 

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Samsung batteries didn't explode because of the protection circuits in the batteries, they exploded because there wasn't enough physical room for the battery in the case.

You still haven't shown me a single case of a fire or problem caused by the protection circuit.

Whilst Samsung themselves have never said it, according to that unofficial test by a third-party and one of Samsung’s pledges to better battery safety since the fiasco (that of ensuring adequate space for battery expansion due to heat), it may have been a contributory factor, albeit not a main one.

 

From what I’ve known, the core reason on the failure of those from SDI was that they had a manufacturing/design fault that caused some of the terminals to bend and short circuit, causing the fires. The ones from Amperex failed because they had a whole host of manufacturing defects, probably due to the mad rush of making more batteries to meet a deadline. Had those batteries been properly checked, I reckon we’d still be seeing a Note7 until September 2017.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

Whilst Samsung themselves have never said it, according to that unofficial test by a third-party and one of Samsung’s pledges to better battery safety since the fiasco (that of ensuring adequate space for battery expansion due to heat), it may have been a contributory factor, albeit not a main one.

 

From what I’ve known, the core reason on the failure of those from SDI was that they had a manufacturing/design fault that caused some of the terminals to bend and short circuit, causing the fires. The ones from Amperex failed because they had a whole host of manufacturing defects, probably due to the mad rush of making more batteries to meet a deadline. Had those batteries been properly checked, I reckon we’d still be seeing a Note7 until September 2017.

 

Regardless,  given they are really the only phone/tablet to have a design issues with batteries leading to fire/explosion,  I think it's fair to say that the protection circuitry* on the millions of batteries (genuine and non genuine alike) out there is doing an adequate job.   

 

*the only thing under contention at the heart of this discussion.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

Regardless,  given they are really the only phone/tablet to have a design issues with batteries leading to fire/explosion,  I think it's fair to say that the protection circuitry* on the millions of batteries (genuine and non genuine alike) out there is doing an adequate job.   

 

*the only thing under contention at the heart of this discussion.

Not really. The protection circuit is just one element. You seem obsessed with that tiny part of it. It really is not as simple as your obtuse argument and I am sure you know that. The corporate point of view is what I am trying to present. Back when those laptop batteries were going pop 1 in 200000 was enough for these big firms to do a recall. They did it to protect themselves sure, but they also I am certain do not want anyone hurt by their products. Samsung did the right thing with the phones, they spent millions on the recall and investigation. As a result they have improved their products and QA folding phones aside. 
 

I see nothing wrong with what Apple are doing. Other manufacturers do similar, and more will in the future.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Not really. The protection circuit is just one element.

Yes really, it is the one thing you claimed that you haven't managed to show anything for.  That is the whole point.

9 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

You seem obsessed with that tiny part of it. It really is not as simple as your obtuse argument and I am sure you know that. The corporate point of view is what I am trying to present. Back when those laptop batteries were going pop 1 in 200000 was enough for these big firms to do a recall. They did it to protect themselves sure, but they also I am certain do not want anyone hurt by their products. Samsung did the right thing with the phones, they spent millions on the recall and investigation. As a result they have improved their products and QA folding phones aside. 
 

I see nothing wrong with what Apple are doing. Other manufacturers do similar, and more will in the future.

You are sidestepping and dodging still. 

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

 They did it to protect themselves sure, but they also I am certain do not want anyone hurt by their products.

Yeah sure, they are happy with foxconn workers jumping out of buildings but they don;t want one of their precious customers frying themselves with a DIY battery swap.

 

This has nothing to do with protecting themselves or anyone else for that matter,  when was the last time any phone manufacturer was sued because someone put a generic battery in and hurt themselves?  Even In Australia with some of the worlds tightest consumer laws Apple cannot be held liable for someone replacing their battery. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yeah sure, they are happy with foxconn workers jumping out of buildings but they don;t want one of their precious customers frying themselves with a DIY battery swap.

 

This has nothing to do with protecting themselves or anyone else for that matter,  when was the last time any phone manufacturer was sued because someone put a generic battery in and hurt themselves?  Even In Australia with some of the worlds tightest consumer laws Apple cannot be held liable for someone replacing their battery. 

In some ways the Foxconn stories make it more important that the Industry in general up their act. How many 16 yr olds working long shifts on top of school will not be making mistakes in production? I know when I had a part time job at that age my standards were variable to put it mildly. 
 

on your final point, all this IOS change really does is make it easier for Apple to prove is was not their product that was the heart of the matter. They can now show evidence the device had been tampered with, something almost impossible to show when a device has turned into a melted mess. The information I am sure will be on their (Apples’) own servers with other data they harvest.

[D13H4RD]

I’ll believe anyone who says “It’s done for safety” when there’s actual evidence that shows this is exactly what it’s done for.

 

As it stands, I’m not convinced, especially when it’s done by a mega-corporation whose historically been anti-repair. 

[williamcll]

Gonna wait for the Chinese override.