> A practice contrary to the principle of the anti-waste law
> In France, serialization is theoretically prohibited, according to Alexandre Isaac. Since the entry into force of the anti-waste law in November 2021, the consumer code mentions that "any technique, including software, by which a marketer aims to make it impossible to repair or recondition a device or to limit the restoration of all the functionalities of such a device outside its approved circuits is prohibited”.
So hypothetically if I get an app into iPhone app store, that is later removed by Apple for "duplicating functionality of the OS" (obviously, incomplete), would the inability to sideload the app from a web site be a violation of this law?
Any technique with makes it impossible to repair or recondition by definition also makes it more difficult to pwn. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35954422 for one example.
I remember how Apple had been turning magnets in the iPad covers so that reversed polarity prevented them from being compatible with iPad of previous generation despite having exact same form factor and size. Such a pro consumer corpo. :)
I don't mean to be the devil's advocate, but I'm pretty sure that disabling Face ID when replacing the camera with a generic one is primarily a measure to thwart potential hardware-based attacks...
There are simple ways to allow hardware changes without losing security. One straightforward idea: Once the phone is unlocked (e.g. by pin code) allow the user to authorize the new hardware.
This is effectively what Apple does already. The usual difficulties with asking users to make security choices don't really apply here: Physical changes to the hardware are requires, so security fatigue isn't as big a deal. Maybe you get some protection from wrench attacks by not having the authority to pair new internal hardware, but that seems like a very specialized use case...
> I'm pretty sure that disabling Face ID when replacing the camera with a generic one is primarily a measure to thwart potential hardware-based attacks.
I'm pretty sure it's not. The number of people which would be targeted by this is too small to justify the additional costs. The vast majority of people which would be targeted by this are pretty much screwed anyhow since the adversary already has physical access. It's much more likely a brand protection scheme to ensure there are fewer items out there with sub-par hardware.
If apple thinks it's an issue make it clear before letting me activate it that they no longer guarantee any safety (which they don't anyway, that's the joke, you already signed that way in the user agreement).
My ISP will provide me with a router and full support. If I change the settings or flash firmware they will no longer support it. However, if I let them restore the factory firmware and config they will again support it.
It's not hard and apple's motive here is clearly maximize stock value, nothing else.
I'm not sure I buy it. The sensor itself in the camera doesn't do mutual authentication with other components. If you have enough interest / access to mess with the hardware permanently, you'll be able to feed whatever image you want to the original camera chip.
The number of people who could be targets of an attack of such sophistication is so vanishingly small, that it seems irrelevant compared to the number of people who need repair work on their phones.
I honestly don’t get this sentiment, and why Apple is targeted for these — this is objectively the one category where Apple is unlike every other phone manufacturer. How many people walk around with 8 years old any Android phones? I bet that number is insanely small, yet I see it everyday in case of iphones, which manage to get 2 or even 3 owners in their lifetime.
Look at the resell value of any other phone, it basically drops to zero the moment you open the box, while even older iphones get sold for very fair prices. And getting that many years out of a phone is absolutely stellar.
Perhaps, but their policies and support for old hardware far exceeds anything you see in the Android world. But you point out THIS "shitty company" while not throwing your gaze towards all the other "shitty companies" like Samsung, or Google, or Sony, or Microsoft. Could it be that your disdain for the type of people that buy Apple products just rings through? The tried and true "them" vs "me" attitude.
Personally, I just let strangers like what they want to like. WTF do I care if they like this phone instead of this other phone.
My girlfriend's phone is stollen and last location is in China. I'm sure they are selling the parts and the motherboard is useless. If those parts wouldn't work with other phones this theft would be less incentivized.
Serial lock is a good thing if the owner had the option to unlock their phone's parts on Apple's website to be usable for repairs etc.
Scraping stolen goods for parts doesn't happen because it can be done. It is viable because manufacturers make access to spare parts artificially difficult or expensive.
Locking a device to serial is adding insult to injury when companies like Apple decide to campaign against Right to Repair. It must be said that Apple made strides towards making repairing phones easier, but as long as counterfeit or stolen parts remain economically viable, this kind of market will exist.
Why not give the owner the option to lock the parts instead? I bet a lot of people don't even consider potential reuse when they intentionally discard their phone.
Hypothetically speaking, if one had substantial data obtained through an atypical usage method that backed the hypothesis a manufacturer “soured the milk” on a widely used technology to pave the way for its removal, what would one do with such information, provided one desired to avoid imperial entanglements?
Rossmann mentioned using a user configurable password or encryption key to prevent theft. What did he mean? Did he mean to use a password or key to protect serialization information? But this would still require serialization of parts, which is what the regulators in France are against.
I’m all for protecting a users’ right to repair, but I’d also like to disincentivize thieves from stealing my phone for parts. Both are important to me. Rossmann seems to think that Apple is just greedy and that the solution is simple, but I don’t see a viable solution in his video.
Can someone with a better grasp on this subject enlighten me? Or did I just fall for clickbait?
The lack of backwards compatibility of older Mac hardware with newer MacOS operating systems and software effectively forces you to replace a perfectly functional computer if you need to upgrade the software.
Such considerations must incorporate public safety/crime considerations as well. Smartphones are often the most expensive thing we have on our person and became a huge target for thieves. Locking/bricking went a long way towards reducing this, and then limiting the value of resale parts did again.
Honestly I wish they would serial lock every single part of the phone possible. And then unlock them when you detach your apple account from it. Put up a message that says "This display is owned by another apple account" and refuse to function until it's removed or you contact the owner to have it unlinked.
Unless Apple is dealing with thefts at the factories before they make it in to a phone.
We need systems, processes, and technologies which ensures the authenticity (provenance) of a supply chain.
Art, food, electronics, materials, clothing, malware, root kits, ad nauseam.
I've been reading about counterfeit, black market, and gray market goods for decades. Do not want.
If I pay $1,000 for a Gucci handbag, I want an authentic $1,000 Gucci handbag. (I have zero issue with knockoffs clearly labeled as knockoffs.)
Anti-consumer, anti-labor, anti-customer, anti-fairuse and pro-monopoly bullshit regiments like DRM, DMCA, inability to repair, and price gouging are orthogonal issues. We can have provenance without these shackles if we choose to reign in corporate power.
As for Apple in particular, they're not the worst, and have been getting better. Their phones and laptops are the most reliable and are becoming easier to repair (design and logistics). The terms of their Apple Care have gotten more generous (forgiving).
Spitballing, I'd say Apple is ~1/3rd of the way towards a healthy cradle-to-grave product lifecycle. They can and should do much better with 3rd party repairs. Like making authentic parts available at cost. Certifying repairs shops. Certifying technicians. Etc.
Source: I was a tech at an Apple Dealer as a kid. Our leads were trained and certified. Our parts were all authentic. My notions are based on experience, not some utopian fantasy.
If the device becomes unusable because it is marked as stolen, disassembling it for parts should not be economic.
One way to do this is spend MORE money to make sure every single part of the device is waste and MUST go to a landfill.
Another way would be to do the opposite, and make the spare-parts readily available for everyone to make the sum of parts less valuable.
The mainboard is already unusable because it's flagged as stolen, the rest of the parts should not be worth more than 60-70USD. But because some of the parts cannot be purchased at all, they are currently worth alot more
2OEH8eoCRo0|2 years ago
> A practice contrary to the principle of the anti-waste law
> In France, serialization is theoretically prohibited, according to Alexandre Isaac. Since the entry into force of the anti-waste law in November 2021, the consumer code mentions that "any technique, including software, by which a marketer aims to make it impossible to repair or recondition a device or to limit the restoration of all the functionalities of such a device outside its approved circuits is prohibited”.
netsharc|2 years ago
Next on eBay: "Buy French ink for HP printers, use VPN to download the French drivers!".
"PC CHARGER LA LETTRE?! WTF does that mean?"
lostmsu|2 years ago
throwaway290|2 years ago
Yizahi|2 years ago
andsoitis|2 years ago
That's not actually what happened. See https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/the-case-of-the-myst...
arein3|2 years ago
rahen|2 years ago
okennedy|2 years ago
This is effectively what Apple does already. The usual difficulties with asking users to make security choices don't really apply here: Physical changes to the hardware are requires, so security fatigue isn't as big a deal. Maybe you get some protection from wrench attacks by not having the authority to pair new internal hardware, but that seems like a very specialized use case...
exabrial|2 years ago
Nobody is sneaking into my house and replacing the faceid middle of the night. This is happening to nobody you know, and nobody they know either.
The rest of us just want our $800 paper weight to work again.
jeroenhd|2 years ago
Why would the camera be of consequence, though? Isn't authentication data stored in the proprietary TPM thing Apple includes in their devices?
meragrin_|2 years ago
I'm pretty sure it's not. The number of people which would be targeted by this is too small to justify the additional costs. The vast majority of people which would be targeted by this are pretty much screwed anyhow since the adversary already has physical access. It's much more likely a brand protection scheme to ensure there are fewer items out there with sub-par hardware.
sschueller|2 years ago
If apple thinks it's an issue make it clear before letting me activate it that they no longer guarantee any safety (which they don't anyway, that's the joke, you already signed that way in the user agreement).
My ISP will provide me with a router and full support. If I change the settings or flash firmware they will no longer support it. However, if I let them restore the factory firmware and config they will again support it.
It's not hard and apple's motive here is clearly maximize stock value, nothing else.
crote|2 years ago
If I am not mistaken, they also disable Face ID when you replace the camera with a genuine Apple camera from a donor phone.
viraptor|2 years ago
perryizgr8|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
wiredfool|2 years ago
shaky-carrousel|2 years ago
[deleted]
beardyw|2 years ago
[deleted]
pibechorro|2 years ago
flappyeagle|2 years ago
1 phone that’s not thrown away is 1000s of parts saved.
nickpeterson|2 years ago
kaba0|2 years ago
Look at the resell value of any other phone, it basically drops to zero the moment you open the box, while even older iphones get sold for very fair prices. And getting that many years out of a phone is absolutely stellar.
GoofballJones|2 years ago
Personally, I just let strangers like what they want to like. WTF do I care if they like this phone instead of this other phone.
msoad|2 years ago
Serial lock is a good thing if the owner had the option to unlock their phone's parts on Apple's website to be usable for repairs etc.
gchamonlive|2 years ago
Locking a device to serial is adding insult to injury when companies like Apple decide to campaign against Right to Repair. It must be said that Apple made strides towards making repairing phones easier, but as long as counterfeit or stolen parts remain economically viable, this kind of market will exist.
crote|2 years ago
Kaibeezy|2 years ago
gigel82|2 years ago
Our_Benefactors|2 years ago
gaucheries|2 years ago
kjreact|2 years ago
I’m all for protecting a users’ right to repair, but I’d also like to disincentivize thieves from stealing my phone for parts. Both are important to me. Rossmann seems to think that Apple is just greedy and that the solution is simple, but I don’t see a viable solution in his video.
Can someone with a better grasp on this subject enlighten me? Or did I just fall for clickbait?
thewileyone|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
joseph_grobbles|2 years ago
Gigachad|2 years ago
Unless Apple is dealing with thefts at the factories before they make it in to a phone.
specialist|2 years ago
Art, food, electronics, materials, clothing, malware, root kits, ad nauseam.
I've been reading about counterfeit, black market, and gray market goods for decades. Do not want.
If I pay $1,000 for a Gucci handbag, I want an authentic $1,000 Gucci handbag. (I have zero issue with knockoffs clearly labeled as knockoffs.)
Anti-consumer, anti-labor, anti-customer, anti-fairuse and pro-monopoly bullshit regiments like DRM, DMCA, inability to repair, and price gouging are orthogonal issues. We can have provenance without these shackles if we choose to reign in corporate power.
As for Apple in particular, they're not the worst, and have been getting better. Their phones and laptops are the most reliable and are becoming easier to repair (design and logistics). The terms of their Apple Care have gotten more generous (forgiving).
Spitballing, I'd say Apple is ~1/3rd of the way towards a healthy cradle-to-grave product lifecycle. They can and should do much better with 3rd party repairs. Like making authentic parts available at cost. Certifying repairs shops. Certifying technicians. Etc.
Source: I was a tech at an Apple Dealer as a kid. Our leads were trained and certified. Our parts were all authentic. My notions are based on experience, not some utopian fantasy.
rickdeckard|2 years ago
One way to do this is spend MORE money to make sure every single part of the device is waste and MUST go to a landfill.
Another way would be to do the opposite, and make the spare-parts readily available for everyone to make the sum of parts less valuable. The mainboard is already unusable because it's flagged as stolen, the rest of the parts should not be worth more than 60-70USD. But because some of the parts cannot be purchased at all, they are currently worth alot more
throwaway290|2 years ago