iFixit drops repairability score of iPhone 14

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

There are quite a number of potential problems, more than I can be bothered to think about, however I always recommend getting device repairs done by authorized repairers even if you have to suffer multiple weeks of extra time. Go the official support route always, only do something else if this is no longer available, it's just not worth the risk.

The waiting is what I think Apple knows most people can't do; waiting a week for a phone isn't a thing many people can do these days.  Whether it be important message groups regarding school, etc.  I think ultimately Apple knows this...and really not just the software limits but also the authorized 3rd party repair timelines should be taken into account by iFixit.

 

One gripe I do have with Apple though is their authorized repairs often quote replacing parts that do not need to be fixed (or parts are quoted as being damaged without even being looked at).  I witnessed it first hand, where the only thing broken was a harddrive; and the owners wife had been convinced it was the "mainboard" and it would just be better buying a new one as the cost would be so high.

 

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

-snip-

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

-snip-

You two seem to be under the impression that I am defending Apple here, or that my post is about Apple.

My comments were more about how boiling a complex subject down to a single numerical value is a bad idea because there are a ton of different angles to view things from.

Like I said earlier, should rewriting the software to fix issues be part of a "repairability score"? For example should access to the BIOS and its source code mean a higher reparability score than an otherwise identical laptop? Should validations such as secure boot get penalized because they prohibit these types of "repair it yourself" things in the software world?

 

I am not trying to debate that there is a right way and a wrong way of measuring things. In fact, I am doing the opposite. People will always value certain aspects more or less depending on their own skill set, values, views on things and so on.

 

I am not saying the iPhone deserves a score higher than 4. What I am saying is that the people who are saying "no, iFixit are doing things wrong by scoring this a 4 because this is clearly a X" should maybe take a step back and try and view things from a more nuanced perspective.

 

A lot of the questions and examples I have brought up have been rhetorical thought experiments. I have not been arguing that things should be a certain way. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

You two seem to be under the impression that I am defending Apple here, or that my post is about Apple.

Not so much defending, it's just the the point you raised that I was addressing while can be a problem isn't as directly related to device repair. There is a very simple way to look at it actually.

 

If you don't do an authorized repair of an Apple device the hardware does not function at all or not fully, where as Windows activation does not impact hardware functionality or repair at all, not of the device itself.

 

If you are rating how well a device can be repaired then Windows is not a factor at all. If you are rating the ability to provide customer service and satisfaction with regard to maintenance and repair of the device then Windows activation does matter.

 

But that's also why I said it's not really as big of a point as you might be thinking, the need/requirement to go down the not automatic online activation is so uncommon I don't think it provides much usefulness to the discussion. But it can be required. Then of course I could also win the Lottery making device repair of little impact to me, probably also not that useful to the disucssion.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

My comments were more about how boiling a complex subject down to a single numerical value is a bad idea because there are a ton of different angles to view things from.

It's really not a problem until you don't distinguish between in warranty and out of warranty. Some might say in warranty score doesn't really matter but I happen to think it really does since this influences not only the resolution time possible but also the probability of repair error/fault and further damage, or the cost of the repair which can influence replacement vs repair.

 

Out of warranty repair score could be very different to in warranty repair, repair authorization would be most applicable here. Then of course there is out of warranty but within Service Life which is the Apple Self Service Repair situation and I still think this should always be taken as you are still entitled to support while carrying out the repair.

 

So you have to really be talking about End of Service for this to be heavily weighting in to a final score.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Like I said earlier, should rewriting the software to fix issues be part of a "repairability score"? For example should access to the BIOS and its source code mean a higher reparability score than an otherwise identical laptop? Should validations such as secure boot get penalized because they prohibit these types of "repair it yourself" things in the software world?

I would caution against losing sight of the fundamental point of a reparability rating, being able to repair the device. Have a good think about how relevant this really is because I would say anything like this would influence any scoring by point values lower than 0.1.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I am not saying the iPhone deserves a score higher than 4. What I am saying is that the people who are saying "no, iFixit are doing things wrong by scoring this a 4 because this is clearly a X" should maybe take a step back and try and view things from a more nuanced perspective.

Their perspective very well could already be nuanced and well thought out. Saying that hardware repairs that require an authorization step even with genuine hardware should have a score limited to no higher than X value actually is an nuanced opinion. Just because the outcome of this opinion can have great effects like all Apple devices never being able to attain a score higher than this X value does not mean nuance was not applied.

 

Similarly saying a device should only be score against it's Service Life meaning it can score whatever it should also is applying nuance.

 

How long should we really expect to be able to keep devices functioning and how long should this impact consumer reparability scoring? Is this supposed to help a consumer choose a device or is it something else like an overall design, manufacturing and company rating?

[LAwLz]

32 minutes ago, leadeater said:

-snip-

I don't really disagree with anything you have said. I just think there is more to repairability than what can be expressed through a single numerical value.

I think iFixit is trying to do its best with the single-digit thing, and it's only natural for people to disagree with the score. That doesn't mean they are "wrong" with their score though.

 

But I strongly disagree that the iPhone 14 deserves a 0 because it requires activation though. A 0 should be the extreme and absolute end of the spectrum. I don't think that's a nuanced look at things. It's very black and white.

 

 

But as you said in your own post (and like I have said several times now) there are plenty of ways to look at things. In-warranty or out-of-warranty.

If you ask my mom I think she'd assume and say Windows is part of the "device", so any repair should not have an effect on it at all.

If you ask RMS he'd probably say firmware is part of the "device", so not being able to "repair" firmware means the device isn't as "repairable".

 

 

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to where these lines are drawn either. It will be different from person to person, and how much value you put on it will also be different.

You might think not being able to modify the firmware should only account for 0.1, but that's probably because it's something you don't want to repair anyway. For someone who are really interested in repairing that (because of their skillset or the particular issue they are having), it might be far more valuable than being able to change the RAM or whatnot.

 

 

35 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But that's also why I said it's not really as big of a point as you might be thinking, the need/requirement to go down the not automatic online activation is so uncommon I don't think it provides much usefulness to the discussion. But it can be required. Then of course I could also win the Lottery making device repair of little impact to me, probably also not that useful to the disucssion.

It was not my intention to make it sound like a big thing. I just brought up that drawing hard lines like "anything that requires a phone call should automatically be a 0 in reparability rating" is probably a bad idea, and brought up a scenario where it might occur. Again, I don't think that's very nuanced. It's very black-and-white way of thinking.

[Kisai]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

It was not my intention to make it sound like a big thing. I just brought up that drawing hard lines like "anything that requires a phone call should automatically be a 0 in reparability rating" is probably a bad idea, and brought up a scenario where it might occur. Again, I don't think that's very nuanced. It's very black-and-white way of thinking.

Again, my point in the discussion was that "why is calling apple a grounds to lower the score" when you have to do the same for Windows, Adobe, Autodesk, and probably dozens of other hardware-software packages that often have license's with dongles.

 

Calling Apple to authorize a replacement part, is no different than having to do so with Windows on HP/Dell/etc, and no different than moving the physical hardware key around for some of these other software packages, that still require you to do various authentication voodoo dances. 

 

This is a step that has NOTHING to do with the ability to repair, so why is it factored into the repairability score?

 

If you have to replace the SSD in a laptop, and you don't have the OEM's install media, you go through the same kind of hassle, from using a generic install disc/usb stick to finding the drivers, to activating the OS. How is that any less of a hassle than doing the same for Apple?

 

If "having to authenticate the repair" is a required step and the device is not operable otherwise, then it should be zero, but that's clearly not the case. 

 

The device is still clearly working.

 

iFixit seems to have forgotten what their score means.

 

Quote

We’re going to keep working to hold Apple and other manufacturers accountable the best way we know: By speaking the truth about repair restrictions as loudly as we can, by revising our scorecard to reflect any new obstacles to repair, and by pushing for Right to Repair laws that ban parts pairing.

https://www.ifixit.com/News/82493/we-are-retroactively-dropping-the-iphones-repairability-score-en

 

Yeah, no, I think iFixit doesn't understand the reason for this authentication nonsense, and neither do some people here. Chalking it up to greed, and not the criminal warranty fraud situation in Asia.

 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You might think not being able to modify the firmware should only account for 0.1, but that's probably because it's something you don't want to repair anyway. For someone who are really interested in repairing that (because of their skillset or the particular issue they are having), it might be far more valuable than being able to change the RAM or whatnot.

If iFixit ever gets in to testing and rating devices where this matters then sure but I don't think iFixit is going to be testing the reparability on industrial logic controllers and other sensor boards like water flow meters and such.

 

When is the last time anyone personally has actually "needed" to fix the firmware on a consumer device like a phone or a laptop with signed firmware that normally cannot be modified by anyone other than the manufacture anyway (without the device and software knowing and locking out tons of things)? XOC LN2 overclockers?

 

It's not a skillset issue, it's a relevancy issue. What is relevant is on a device and application basis and intended userbase. Is if fair to compare these against phones, tablets, laptops etc? I don't think so. If you want to start giving real applicable scenarios where this really does matter then you'll be near immediately outside of consumer examples.

 

While iFixit certainly has an agenda, who doesn't, they actually also have a valid point too. People just have different opinions on how much it matters and/or how much it should be effecting their scoring.

 

Those that actually need to know more specific information can read the full iFixit review and research other information, for the general person a simplistic number rating does actually contain value. It's no different to education, you have to do grading, there are different ways and you can grade different areas and aspects of subjects which are themselves not free of issues but you also tend to have a final overall grade as well. Standardized testing and grade is not actually some huge problem, it's not problem free but that doesn't mean it has no value either. Two students have gotten a B- in Physics 203, are they exactly equivalent students? No. Want to find out why and in what ways? Look in to their grades for each assignment, test and talk to them. 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

If iFixit ever gets in to testing and rating devices where this matters then sure but I don't think iFixit is going to be testing the reparability on industrial logic controllers and other sensor boards like water flow meters and such.

 

When is the last time anyone personally has actually "needed" to fix the firmware on a consumer device like a phone or a laptop with signed firmware that normally cannot be modified by anyone other than the manufacture anyway (without the device and software knowing and locking out tons of things)? XOC LN2 overclockers?

Who said anything about industrial logic controllers?

If it was even an option to fix these issues to begin with, I am sure plenty of people would find solutions to bugs and other issues all the time. It's just hard to do because it's usually so locked down nobody even attempts it.

 

If you want a very real-world example that constantly happens, look no further than smartphones and tablets which have things like locked bootloaders. That's something that affects a ton of people all the time. Should that impact the reparability score? 

It's only less of an issue these days because for example Samsung provides very long-term support, but isn't the idea of "right to repair" that we shouldn't have to rely on manufacturer sanction components? I don't really see why a line in the sand has been drawn by some people that it only affects hardware, except in this case when discussing Apple for some reason.

 

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's not a skillset issue, it's a relevancy issue. What is relevant is on a device and application basis and intended userbase. Is if fair to compare these against phones, tablets, laptops etc? I don't think so. If you want to start giving real applicable scenarios where this really does matter then you'll be near immediately outside of consumer examples.

Most smartphone users do not care about repairability. They will not attempt to repair the phones themselves, and it seems like most of them don't even go to a third-party repair shop.

So if you want to talk about relevancy, then I would argue that the iFixit score is irrelevant to begin with. It might appeal to people like on this forum, but that is a very small niche in the grand scheme of things.

1.39 billion smartphones were sold in 2022 alone. How many of those do you think end up in the hands of someone who will attempt to repair a device by themselves or through a third-party repair shop? My guess is that it's a single-digit percentage if not even less.

 

I don't think "the score should reflect what the average user in the intended audience for the device cares about" is a good argument because the average user will bring their phone to the Apple store if they ever repair the device to begin with.

 

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

While iFixit certainly has an agenda, who doesn't, they actually also have a valid point too. People just have different opinions on how much it matters and/or how much it should be effecting their scoring.

That's what I have been saying all this time.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

If you want a very real-world example that constantly happens, look no further than smartphones and tablets which have things like locked bootloaders.

What does this actually have to do with repairing a device? How does this actually prevent it? When, why and in what way. You're the one that mentioned firmware etc but I do not see how this prevents or effects changing a camera in a phone? (Unless Apple).

 

We have an example, yes. That example is currently only Apple. Only Apple requires they themselves to make a hardware part replacement work correctly.

 

Lets just put a hypothetical situation in here about now. What would happen if the Apple Self Repair Program and all authentic parts did not require an activation or peering process allowing genuine parts to be used in any device? If the device is genuine, the part is genuine and has signed firmware i.e. camera then does there really need to be some extra process involved by Apple outside of the device itself?

 

I understand the need to warn users if their device doesn't have a genuine part in it and if it's important like security related hardware, finger print reader or face, then disable that. But I do not accept that it should be done for actually genuine parts beyond requiring reinitialization/setup of these security/authentication features again.

 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I don't really see why a line in the sand has been drawn by some people that it only affects hardware, except in this case when discussing Apple for some reason.

Because in the case of Apple it effects hardware repair and it's what people here were talking about and what iFixit is talking about. Are we really all going to stand around and not acknowledge this. Or can we bring in some common ground?

 

If I have a genuine part in my hand, it has genuine Apple logo/identification on it, I can do a firmware inspection of it and it is genuine and I put this totally legitimate part in to literally any device for that part and the hardware is not functional after doing this are we not still talking about hardware repair? We are literally talking about something that is directly part of successful hardware repair.

 

Is this part of a Samsung device repair? HTC? Google? Nokia?

 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

It's only less of an issue these days because for example Samsung provides very long-term support, but isn't the idea of "right to repair" that we shouldn't have to rely on manufacturer sanction components?

Which Samsung component in a Samsung phone requires an in-line Samsung authorization step to allow it to work?

 

Also no it's not and has never been about being allowance to use non-genuine parts for repair. It's always been about the right to access for parts for repair and the right to do it. Apple Self Service Repair is a huge step forward in this regard, like absolutely huge but they undermine it by requiring hardware tethering.

 

If you can name any other consumer phone, laptop, tablet brand that has the exact same requirement for hardware repair as Apple then we can discuss why only Apple is the only one getting targeted by these complaints. Because until it's not only Apple then it will only be Apple under that spotlight.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think "the score should reflect what the average user in the intended audience for the device cares about" is a good argument because the average user will bring their phone to the Apple store if they ever repair the device to begin with.

As I said the score still matters in this situation, I covered this. If the device requires creating a block hole to compress time and space to remove the screen then I think that might be quite relevant to the risk involved to your device and the data on it taking it in to Apple to repair. If any repair is inordinately complicated and risky to do then there is a higher risk of technician error and you actually being affected even though you took it to Apple.

 

You are right, 99.9% don't care about a reparability score or even know someone is making them however that doesn't mean aspects of device design do not matter in any attempt for repair, official or otherwise. I've had enough bad experiences with Lenovo support to know this and their laptops are absolutely fantastic to repair and yet they still manage to not do it right. I'd hate to think what it would be like if they were actually difficult to open and service.

 

I had a think about it and maybe the rating should be more like IPXX i.e RRXX. First digit within support and service life and second digit after service life. Then you can give the iPhone 14 a score or RR74. For those that care even a little bit about iFixit scores then this would communicate more accurately the situation and allow device to score higher in the first category because certain aspects won't effect that score. So for example that iPhone 14 under the new scoring could actually be RR94 given that it is actually highly repairable and designed to be so. That way iFixit doesn't have to compromise on their idealisms.

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You two seem to be under the impression that I am defending Apple here, or that my post is about Apple.

My comments were more about how boiling a complex subject down to a single numerical value is a bad idea because there are a ton of different angles to view things from.

The issue is that you are talking about "nuance" and "child-like view of the world" and yet you are giving a response that is flawed at the very core of "needing to call Microsoft" and lacks the nuance of what the person is trying to say.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But I strongly disagree that the iPhone 14 deserves a 0 because it requires activation though. A 0 should be the extreme and absolute end of the spectrum. I don't think that's a nuanced look at things. It's very black and white.

This is exactly why I am saying you missed I think more of the nuance or at least the basic sentiment that @Thaldor was getting across.

 

The general point being that if hypothetically software blocks you from effecting any repair then it should get a score of 0.  In that sense it's not some "complex subject", your whole response of framework and Microsoft if you still believe that to be  true in the analogy is just showing your general lack of understanding then of what is being brought forward.

 

Now where I don't agree with @Thaldor is that the score should be 0 in this case; as the fundamental that the full repair isn't blocked but rather some features are blocked; while still technically having a method of repair

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Most smartphone users do not care about repairability. They will not attempt to repair the phones themselves, and it seems like most of them don't even go to a third-party repair shop.

I know lots of people who break their screens on Android which bring it into 3rd party repair shops.  It's pretty much the go-to because it's quick and cheap.  There are people I know who are Apple users where if they shatter their screen they will buy a new phone, not because they can't get it eventually replaced by Apple but because they can't just wait the few weeks for it to be repairs (which is effectively what Apple is forcing on customers, longer wait times for repairs)

 

Do they necessarily purchase a phone based on repairability?  A bit, it actually does  weigh on some people's decisions.

 

For those users, that's where iFixIt comes in handy and their scoring.  IFixit isn't catering towards the people who want to re-write code to repair a device, it's catering towards the people who are at least slightly comfortable around electronics and a screwdriver and want to fix a device.  So weighting a score based on the software limiting what you can do is very important.

 

No one wants to look at a repairability score of 7 and think it might be in their wheelhouse to repair only to find out they can't repair it because you need an Apple account and wait 2 weeks for the "official" battery to arrive.

 

54 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I understand the need to warn users if their device doesn't have a genuine part in it and if it's important like security related hardware, finger print reader or face, then disable that. But I do not accept that it should be done for actually genuine parts beyond requiring reinitialization/setup of these security/authentication features again.

Well I would say, if it's an important security feature, such as a camera, just have a giant warning when you are enabling it that it's not genuine and issues may arise (instead of straight up disabling it).  As then you start having the problem with what Apple has done in the past, where they tie in "security features" into unrelated components so they can disable it later saying it's for security.

 

I 100% agree with you comment that it should not be done on genuine parts, whether from a donor board or purchased from Apple.

 

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

Again, my point in the discussion was that "why is calling apple a grounds to lower the score" when you have to do the same for Windows, Adobe, Autodesk, and probably dozens of other hardware-software packages that often have license's with dongles.

If you have read any of the posts by me or LeadEater you would know why.  You don't "have to do the same for Windows".  iOS is forced on users, and the software is FORCING Apple repair program

 

Windows doesn't care about what hardware you replace it with, as long as it's hardware that meets the specs.  Sure sometimes you have to reactivate Windows, but you will rarely have to do anything for that; and the activation is more inline with preventing someone cloning a harddrive and putting it on a bunch of home machines.  Apple's method is about stopping you from using hardware

 

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

If you have to replace the SSD in a laptop, and you don't have the OEM's install media, you go through the same kind of hassle, from using a generic install disc/usb stick to finding the drivers, to activating the OS. How is that any less of a hassle than doing the same for Apple?

If the OEM install requires specific drivers you can only get from them and only install with the OEM  install media which they then charge for or don't make readily available unless you belong to some repair program then yes, it would be the same as Apple.

 

It's not the hassle of having to contact Apple, it's that Apple is setting up intentional obstacles  in a means to get you to only use their parts, and their service program.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If you have read any of the posts by me or LeadEater you would know why.  You don't "have to do the same for Windows".  iOS is forced on users, and the software is FORCING Apple repair program

Nope. If you don't jump through the exact hoops Microsoft and your computer/motherboard manufacturer expects you to, you will be phoning microsoft to activate windows, and they will ask you all the stupid questions of "is this installed on any other machine"

 

This is no different.

 

Some companies look to avoid having to pay for extra licences by moving their licence key hardware dongles around, and then you end up having to not only install drivers for these stupid things, but they talk to each other on your network, preventing you from starting the program and removing the dongle.

 

All this nonsense is about making sure the customer has paid for the thing they paid for, and hasn't:

a) Stolen it

b) Acquired it from a third party who has stolen it

c) Acquired a counterfeit part from a third party who doesn't care if it destroys your device

 

To go back to LAwLz earlier comment about LTT not activating windows on their test benches. Legally, they should. For practical reasons it's simply too much work, and the only part that actually matters is the number of licenses they actually own. Those keys of authenticity that are supposed to be affixed in a non-removable way to the chassis of the computer.

 

Remember how computer stores would violate the spirit of the OEM license by selling Windows discs with like a power cable or SATA cable? 

 

It does not take much to look up how many different scenarios exist where a customer either knowingly or unknowingly tried to save a few pennies, wound up with bad kit, and bricked their device in the process. If everyone was honest, all this authentication nonsense would not need to exist. 

 

But it does, because of a criminal element that victimizes Apple customers and Apple itself. As much as people love to hate on Microsoft, the best thing Microsoft ever did was make upgrading from Windows 7, 8, 8.1 to 10 Free, because that removed the entire criminal secondary market of buying second hand windows licenses off written off (recycled) machines. Now you only have to buy a new license if you want to run that old computer with the previous OS still on it.

 

And before you try to bring it up again, Windows will attempt to activate every time you boot it up inside a Virtual machine and the hardware configuration changes. You are not going to call Microsoft every time you want to boot your Windows VM, just because the VM thinks it's in a new piece of hardware. So if you use the same license between the VM and the real bare metal computer, Microsoft says, pay again. Despite it running on the exact same hardware.

 

Nothing is as simple as people want it to be, and if your argument is "Activating Apple repair parts, and activating Windows License is not the same" then you're mistaken. It's exactly the same, and it's only Apple has gotten into this game late, not Microsoft having gotten out of it. Microsoft has less leverage over small OEM's than it does large ones, where large OEM's like HP and Dell have entire license number sequences that are specific to their HP and Dell machines, you can't yoink that license and add it to your generic windows license pool, those licenses will only work for HP or Dell respectively. If your office decides to switch from HP to Dell or vice versa, you have to buy all new licenses. You're gonna tell me that's not a pain in the ass and a half of contacting Microsoft, Dell, or whoever is doing your IT stuff to make sure everything is licensed?

 

When HP and Dell hardware is repaired, the tech replaces the mainboard and then reprograms the serial number. How is that different from this?

 

The problem here is the perspective that "Apple doing a bad" when everyone else is doing the same bad, and it just doesn't inconvenience them because they often aren't the victim of being scammed. They just want to complain about something they will likely never have to do in the first place because that is someone elses job.

 

If your device is under warranty, why the hell are you trying to fix it yourself?

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Those keys of authenticity that are supposed to be affixed in a non-removable way to the chassis of the computer.

Only OEM Windows License are, there is no such restriction or requirement of that for Windows Retail product license which is what they own.

[Blademaster91]

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

The device is still clearly working.

 

iFixit seems to have forgotten what their score means.

That is not the same as the device working as it did before a part broke, if you replace the battery yourself you get a warning claiming "the battery is not genuine" even if you swap a battery from another new phone and the phone loses battery health stats. If you replace the screen or cameras you also lose functionality because Apple would rather treat its consumers like criminals than going after the people making low quality counterfit parts.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Nope. If you don't jump through the exact hoops Microsoft and your computer/motherboard manufacturer expects you to, you will be phoning microsoft to activate windows, and they will ask you all the stupid questions of "is this installed on any other machine"

 

This is no different.

What Microsoft is doing isn't even close to being the same, MS doesn't block you from reinstalling the OS yourself, OEM Drivers are easily obtained from the OEM or Windows automatically detects drivers through Windows update. What Apple is doing is forcing you to go to Apple for parts and to validate the parts, if you don't the device won't function as intended even if the parts are new from Apple.

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

The problem here is the perspective that "Apple doing a bad" when everyone else is doing the same bad, and it just doesn't inconvenience them because they often aren't the victim of being scammed. They just want to complain about something they will likely never have to do in the first place because that is someone elses job.

 

If your device is under warranty, why the hell are you trying to fix it yourself?

No the problem here is no one else blocks repairs on the level that Apple does, and a repair score should take into account the ability a user has to replace a part and have their phone work as it did before when it was new.

The whole point of fixing it yourself is what iFixit is supporting with Right to Repair, the warranty isn't going to be an option especially when Apple has the reputation of charging nearly what the phone is worth to replace a screen or pushes their users to buy a new phone instead of repairing it.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Nothing is as simple as people want it to be, and if your argument is "Activating Apple repair parts, and activating Windows License is not the same" then you're mistaken

No we are not, because we are talking about device repair, hardware. If you think I have to call Microsoft during a hardware fix of a computer then you'd be wrong, because what I did not tell you in this hypothetical story is that I'm running Ubuntu.

 

Where as in this other hypothetical story I would have to call Apple even if I were running Ubuntu on this Apple device, impossible to do I know.

 

You are mistaken here.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

When HP and Dell hardware is repaired, the tech replaces the mainboard and then reprograms the serial number. How is that different from this?

Because when they forget to do this, which they do, the device and Windows continue to work exactly the same as it did and Windows will simply and successfully activate again without requiring a phone call.

 

It's different because it actually is different.

 

And at no point did the HP/Dell technician ever have to communicate with Microsoft to carry out the hardware repair, or Red Hat, or Canonical, or SUSE etc

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

If your office decides to switch from HP to Dell or vice versa, you have to buy all new licenses.

I suggest you do not talk about things you don't know about, at least not confidently state it as fact when it's pretty obvious with a little bit of logical deduction that this is not actually how it works and wouldn't be a viable way of managing Windows license from Microsoft's side or any business. All OEM devices from HP and Dell come with their own Windows license keys, they are OEM licenses and built in to the device cost. You can't buy them without unless they offer an option to purchase without Windows at all.

 

If you are a small business and purchased Retail Package Windows License then you have the right to transfer that license to any hardware as often as you like so long as it's only on one device at a time. But why buy Retail Windows Licenses anyway, is this small business DIY building their computers? Otherwise no reason to be purchasing Windows Retail, use the license that comes with the device.

 

If you are larger and have a Volume License Agreement then your Windows licenses are upgrade rights entitlements only, the device MUST have a Windows OEM license key or you must associate with it a Retail License. You can no longer buy full Windows licenses under a Volume License Agreement and that has been the situation since Windows 7.

 

So no you do not have to buy all new licenses, they either came with the device as is or you likely were never complaint in the first place.

[wanderingfool2]

46 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Nope. If you don't jump through the exact hoops Microsoft and your computer/motherboard manufacturer expects you to, you will be phoning microsoft to activate windows, and they will ask you all the stupid questions of "is this installed on any other machine"

 

This is no different.

Please take the time to actually understand what is being compared against.  Like I've said, you can easily swap your MB/CPU combo without phoning MS.  To call MS is a very rare thing.  And you seem to still not be able to comprehend that there is a difference between a software complaining about activation; which is 100% about the software level of stuff...vs software complaining about HARDWARE and limiting what is being done on the HARDWARE.  There is a choice with MS's version, and on top of that MS's thing is independent of the hardware.

 

Like I said, a better example would be if MS forced you to use only MS's repair parts for the Surface and if you don't they refuse to activate Windows.

 

50 minutes ago, Kisai said:

All this nonsense is about making sure the customer has paid for the thing they paid for, and hasn't:

a) Stolen it

b) Acquired it from a third party who has stolen it

c) Acquired a counterfeit part from a third party who doesn't care if it destroys your device

To be frank, the evidence doesn't support that.  If it was purely about it being "stolen" or anything in relation to security, get this.  Apple WOULD allow 3rd party repairs to purchase it from them BEFORE the device breaks.

 

The simple fact is that Apple essentially requires your device to be broken, or the customer to be initiating the repair which is adding potentially a week or two to get the device repaired.

 

This is about Apple and Apple being able to profit by controlling the market.  By delaying authorized repairs by a week or two the person is more than likely to buy a new phone instead.

 

56 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The problem here is the perspective that "Apple doing a bad" when everyone else is doing the same bad, and it just doesn't inconvenience them because they often aren't the victim of being scammed. They just want to complain about something they will likely never have to do in the first place because that is someone elses job.

Again,  you are entirely missing the point

 

You have to purchase Apple parts, from Apple, that is linked to your phone, and then contact Apple to get it working

MS, you can purchase any laptop, replace any MB/CPU combo, and then most likely never have to contact MS as it just automatically authenticates.  The only time you have to call MS is WHEN they suspect that you are abusing the license.

 

Are you seriously too blind to see the difference here?  Apple is forcing you to use specific parts and even if you got your Apple parts 100% legally not from Apple, Apple will refuse to accept it as "genuine".

[Kisai]

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Are you seriously too blind to see the difference here?  Apple is forcing you to use specific parts and even if you got your Apple parts 100% legally not from Apple, Apple will refuse to accept it as "genuine".

Sorry no. That is not the case. If you got your "100% legal parts" not from Apple itself, then you aren't doing it right.

 

This nonsense is because of stories like this:

https://apnews.com/article/2bb06c9bc74e45d1900b0b8d37427f05

 

and this:

https://www.engadget.com/2018-10-10-iphone-chop-shop-parts-ring-china.html

 

Stolen parts are still "genuine" parts.

 

If you have two iPhone's and one has a broken screen and the other has a dead battery, the logical thing to do is yoink the battery out of the one with the broken screen and fix the one with a dead battery right? So you phone apple and go "yep, I own both of those devices" done.

 

You do that with the SSD in a computer, and Microsoft, Adobe, or whoever else you bought software from will ask why you are installing the software on multiple computers when you are in fact installing it to the same computer. And they will all do it in the tone of "Why are you stealing software"

 

[wanderingfool2]

11 minutes ago, Kisai said:

If you have two iPhone's and one has a broken screen and the other has a dead battery, the logical thing to do is yoink the battery out of the one with the broken screen and fix the one with a dead battery right? So you phone apple and go "yep, I own both of those devices" done.

Have you read anything what I've been saying.  It doesn't work like that; Apple has a history of blocking donor parts from other iPhones; despite 100% genuine and legal.

 

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You do that with the SSD in a computer, and Microsoft, Adobe, or whoever else you bought software from will ask why you are installing the software on multiple computers when you are in fact installing it to the same computer. And they will all do it in the tone of "Why are you stealing software"

So from what I gather, you are just being blissfully ignorant then.

[Kisai]

41 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I suggest you do not talk about things you don't know about,

Oh please. I never write something out something confidently that I didn't personally experience.

 

You know what happens when a customer brings in a computer to a computer store and the computer store deems if cheaper/faster to wipe the machine? They then have to call Microsoft to activate the OS because they don't have the customer's recovery media. Even if they were an authorized Compaq/HP dealer.

 

Everyone hates on the Microsoft account, but that's the only thing keeping you from having to call Microsoft every time you change hardware configurations. Prior to Windows 10, if you wanted to reinstall ANY computer without the OEM media, the store would have had to ORDER the OEM media to correctly repair the machine, or, what nearly everyone else did, they grabbed whatever was the closest OEM media (be it for that machine or not) and install the OS with OS disc of that one, and then call Microsoft over the phone to manually activate it. They can't send the customer home with that mess.

 

When I worked for Futureshop, they literately had cd-wallets of compaq-HP cd-rom's for every model the store sold, and it was not a tiny thing. The way stuff works now is extremely less nasty to deal with.

 

But that does not change the fact the activation process is essentially unchanged. Especially with VLK's, which were especially popular with piracy channels. 

 

I've done Retail, I've done corporate, I've done educational, I've done desktops, laptops, servers. I've probably done more in my lifetime, and have more experience with diverse computer equipment going back to the IBM XT's than you have. I've seen things change.

 

But what has not changed is the direction of hardware-software integration. It will not surprise me if the entire "requires a TPM" in Windows 11 is a foreshadowing of the same kind of Apple hardware authentication being brought to corporate and retail laptops. Military and Government agencies want this kind of security, while the average person deems it an unnecessary nuisance.

 

Quit pointing your fingers at Apple and going "this is an inconvenience" and start pointing your fingers at who is asking for this TPM stuff.

https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/nsa-to-recommend-tpm-standard-for-government-use/

Quote

“All COTS, IA, and IA-enabled IT products acquired for the use to protect information on National Security Systems shall comply with the requirements of the NIAP [National Information Assurance Partnership] program in accordance with NSA-approved processes and where applicable the requirements of the FIPS [Federal Information Processing Standards] cryptographic validation program. In light of the fact that hardware and firmware-based security mechanisms can enhance the overall security of IA and IA-enabled IT products, TPMs should be used”.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/german-government-refutes-windows-backdoor-claims/

Quote

The new specifications, dubbed TPM 2.0, will be activated by default, according to the BSI. While older versions of Windows use the older TPM 1.0 specification, Windows 8's security contains TPM 2.0 technology. The article's author wrote that Windows 7, as an existing alternative to Microsoft's latest operating system, can "be operated safely until 2020," the piece notes, referencing the time which Microsoft will no longer support the software, and will no longer issue security updates. Windows XP faces a similar fate this coming April.

 

According to an internal document from the Ministry of Economic Affairs (BMWI), dated in early 2012, that the German government will lose "full sovereignty" of its machines, concluding that, "the security objectives 'confidentiality' and 'integrity' is no longer guaranteed."

 

The Right-to-Repair runs head first into the brick wall of TPM. If you don't want to use a "secure" operating system, and use something like Linux or FreeBSD that let you run without a TPM. That is your choice.

 

But you do not have that choice with Windows, and do not with MacOS.

 

Again, I say "this is no different" and complaining that apple is doing this, while Microsoft has been doing this for 10 years is kinda like "you're only complaining about this because it's Apple" because it's new for them.

[Kisai]

6 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Have you read anything what I've been saying.  It doesn't work like that; Apple has a history of blocking donor parts from other iPhones; despite 100% genuine and legal.

And you clearly haven't read the articles I linked to. There is no difference between a donor part and a stolen part. What is preventing someone from paying people to steal iphones to operate a iphone chop shop hmm??? HMM????

 

6 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So from what I gather, you are just being blissfully ignorant then.

You're just arguing in bad faith.

[wanderingfool2]

15 minutes ago, Kisai said:

And you clearly haven't read the articles I linked to. There is no difference between a donor part and a stolen part. What is preventing someone from paying people to steal iphones to operate a iphone chop shop hmm??? HMM????

You're doing a whataboutsim.

 

What kind of lunacy is required in thinking that it's acceptable for a company to block all legitimate repairs via software just because they might have used stolen parts.

 

It's like saying that  you can only ever use OEM purchased parts for a vehicle; because you know chop shops are a thing.  If Apple was serious about stopping lets say stolen goods, they would actually allow people to buy the parts from them (instead of limiting it to waiting a few weeks).

 

Apple only cares because it gives them the monopoly on the repair of an iPhone.

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You're doing a whataboutsim.

 

What kind of lunacy is required in thinking that it's acceptable for a company to block all legitimate repairs via software just because they might have used stolen parts.

 

It's like saying that  you can only ever use OEM purchased parts for a vehicle; because you know chop shops are a thing.  If Apple was serious about stopping lets say stolen goods, they would actually allow people to buy the parts from them (instead of limiting it to waiting a few weeks).

 

Apple only cares because it gives them the monopoly on the repair of an iPhone.

Try and order parts for a Dell. You can't. Try to order parts for an HP. You can't for ANY OEM. 

Only an "authorized" tech can, or maybe if you phone Dell and convince them you can do the repair yourself they will send you out a part, and you have to return the old one. Exactly what Apple does.

 

Because that's how you keep people from abusing the warranty program.

[HenrySalayne]

18 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because that's how you keep people from abusing the warranty program.

Which warranty program sends out parts?!?

You either pay for the replacement part yourself outside of warranty or the manufacturer will replace the part under warranty. This is just a nothingburger.

On 9/21/2023 at 12:47 PM, Kisai said:

If the hardware can be successfully repaired, then it doesn't deserve a score below 5, but if it's going to be hindered by Apple and rendered non-functional anyway, then why isn't it a zero?

 

Do you see the problem? Yes, the device can be repaired, and yes you can call Apple and have it successfully working, but the only reason to give it a zero is because you HAVE TO call apple? Really? Isn't the score about repairability and not political motivation?

I bought a Macbook in 2011 directly from Apple. Everything was great until late 2015 when the GPU broke. So I called Apple for a MB replacement and they told me, yes, this is a known manufacturing defect, but they just stopped the free replacement program and shredded their entire stock of spare parts two weeks ago and the device is unrepairable - even if I want to pay for it.

 

Quite frankly, serialization is just another form of planned obsolescence and full control of the replacement part market. Car manufacturers MUST allow third party replacement parts, electronics manufacturers should as well.
 

[OhioYJ]

19 hours ago, Kisai said:

There is no difference between a donor part and a stolen part. 

That is a bridge too far. While I'm sure your "chop" scenario happens, it's probably less common than you think. I actually use donor parts from time to time to repair my own electronics to get parts I can't otherwise get. Never have I gotten the impression I might have acquired these from a chop shop.

 

19 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because that's how you keep people from abusing the warranty program.

 

Does it? Or is this gated BS just part of the problem. I know this annoying garbage cause me headaches every time I need parts for my furnace, air conditioner, water heater, etc. Not everyone is trying to scam the system. There should be some sort of happy medium here. 

[Kisai]

18 minutes ago, OhioYJ said:

That is a bridge too far. While I'm sure your "chop" scenario happens, it's probably less common than you think. I actually use donor parts from time to time to repair my own electronics to get parts I can't otherwise get. Never have I gotten the impression I might have acquired these from a chop shop.

Billions of dollars of chop parts isn't "less common" it's the only source of parts not from Apple itself that isn't a consequence of people dumpster diving stuff that users abandon at computer stores or recycling depots.

 

18 minutes ago, OhioYJ said:

 

Does it? Or is this gated BS just part of the problem. I know this annoying garbage cause me headaches every time I need parts for my furnace, air conditioner, water heater, etc. Not everyone is trying to scam the system. There should be some sort of happy medium here. 

 

Look, I'll draw the line again:

 

I do not like the fact that Apple has to do this nonsense to keep people from building counterfeit phones, committing fraud against the warranty program, having chop shops popping up everywhere to launder stolen phones through, etc. Apple's greatest strength is it's greatest weakness here, and a lot of anti "right-to-repair" BS is levied at Apple, when it's about themselves trying not to be victimized, and not have it's customers be victimized. Quite frankly some people on the forum have their head way too far up their butt and want to frame it as Apple being greedy and ignore the evidence that very large crime rings exist just to defraud Apple.

 

If Apple had it's way, the sure fire way to prevent all this chopshop criminal crime ring stuff is to epoxy the entire PCB and glue the PCB into the back of the phone so there is no replacing anything. That is a strong waste of materials, and is absolutely stupid that they were doing things close to this. But they're not the only manufacturer who does this, they just happen to be the biggest target.

 

Go look at ebay, look up "battery" for any particular laptop, and then go to the website for the OEM it's for and try to buy the same one. Dell, for what it's worth, has 101 batteries listed on it's site. ASUS has ZERO. Apple, it's zero. HP, zero.

 

 

But what is the right solution that doesn't inconvenience customers too much, but also doesn't incentivize fraud? Hmm? Comparing it to Windows Activation is precisely accurate, just like comparing it to hardware dongles for software. These are completely unnecessary things if people were honest. But they aren't.

 

It seems to be that a better solution is to go into your apple account, and mark devices that you have disposed of, and which way you disposed of it, so that if it's parts show up somewhere else, they are either free to be used, or stolen. Instead of using negative authentication, where you need to approve every single part,  use positive authentication where you've expressly told Apple that this device has been removed from service to use as parts. That also gives Apple a nice geographic identifier to see if phones are being stolen in the US to be chopped up in another country. Because, again, that's how people have generally avoided theft blacklists, If a device was blacklisted in the US, it'll still activate like a new device in Canada or Mexico.

 

Remember Sim-locks? Remember the purpose of sim-locking? Originally designed as a way to prevent theft by third party stores selling one company's phones with another carrier's service, carriers took it one step too far and decided to lock even fully-paid for devices.

 

We've all seen the song-and-dance before. It's not new. It just wears different clothes when people recognize it too frequently. 

 

Apple, has "taken it to an aburd extent" and I no doubt see them having to find a way to make it less of a hinderance, otherwise it will just become another "sim-lock" type of fiasco where Apple has no reason to refuse a user from repairing their own device, and can't hit back with "well pay full price for the phone then." Apple does not "own" the hardware the user paid for, otherwise Apple would only rent phones, like we all used to do in the 80's.

 

And maybe that might be an end-game goal, but right now I don't see that. The only reason people are having a hissy fit about having to call Apple at all is because it's out of their control. It would be different if Apple was actively refusing repairs from parts purchased from them for the user to do their own repair, but so far I have not seen news like that. Just nerds on the internet making a big deal about the wrong detail.