Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs
-
@JaredBusch said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@travisdh1 said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Griffin said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
wtf...
Because Apple is special. Right to repair laws, pfft. Just one of many reasons I don't like Apple.
Or, you can pull your heads out of your collective asses and actually think.
@s-hackleman said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I'm OK with this one. If someone unauthorized messes with or replaces my fingerprint scanner, I'm OK with my laptop bricking.
Exactly.
If it was authorized by the owner of the phone, I'd agree. As it is, it's BS.
-
@s-hackleman said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I'm OK with this one. If someone unauthorized messes with or replaces my fingerprint scanner, I'm OK with my laptop bricking.
That's a security issue, not an inability to repair. One of those where if they have time to replace the fingerprint scanner without you knowing it happened, you have bigger issues to correct.
Lots of companies have gotten into trouble with this sort of thing. Those "Warranty void if removed or broken" stickers for one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Dashrender said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@s-hackleman said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I'm OK with this one. If someone unauthorized messes with or replaces my fingerprint scanner, I'm OK with my laptop bricking.
I tend to agree - if you're messing with the security features, the system should stop working.
Except it's someone authorized BY APPLE, not BY YOU. As someone who has had to have this done in a COUNTRY where Apple does not offer authorized service, I am not in any way okay with this.
I consider the security of the devices much more important than your inconvenience of having to mail in your device for service.
-
@travisdh1 said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@s-hackleman said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I'm OK with this one. If someone unauthorized messes with or replaces my fingerprint scanner, I'm OK with my laptop bricking.
That's a security issue, not an inability to repair. One of those where if they have time to replace the fingerprint scanner without you knowing it happened, you have bigger issues to correct.
Lots of companies have gotten into trouble with this sort of thing. Those "Warranty void if removed or broken" stickers for one.
Or those shaddy places that don't replace with like/real parts to give you the same level of security you had before the breakage. Then you end up with a potential security issue, yeah no.
-
@Dashrender said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@travisdh1 said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@s-hackleman said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I'm OK with this one. If someone unauthorized messes with or replaces my fingerprint scanner, I'm OK with my laptop bricking.
That's a security issue, not an inability to repair. One of those where if they have time to replace the fingerprint scanner without you knowing it happened, you have bigger issues to correct.
Lots of companies have gotten into trouble with this sort of thing. Those "Warranty void if removed or broken" stickers for one.
Or those shaddy places that don't replace with like/real parts to give you the same level of security you had before the breakage. Then you end up with a potential security issue, yeah no.
The point is, Apple is not giving you the choice. I don't take my stuff to anyone else to fix because I'm a competent bench tech as well. I wouldn't be allowed to fix any Apple device myself if they continue down this road.
If you're ok with not owning the device, that's just fine for you. Don't take away options for everyone else.
-
@travisdh1 said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Dashrender said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@travisdh1 said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@s-hackleman said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I'm OK with this one. If someone unauthorized messes with or replaces my fingerprint scanner, I'm OK with my laptop bricking.
That's a security issue, not an inability to repair. One of those where if they have time to replace the fingerprint scanner without you knowing it happened, you have bigger issues to correct.
Lots of companies have gotten into trouble with this sort of thing. Those "Warranty void if removed or broken" stickers for one.
Or those shaddy places that don't replace with like/real parts to give you the same level of security you had before the breakage. Then you end up with a potential security issue, yeah no.
The point is, Apple is not giving you the choice. I don't take my stuff to anyone else to fix because I'm a competent bench tech as well. I wouldn't be allowed to fix any Apple device myself if they continue down this road.
If you're ok with not owning the device, that's just fine for you. Don't take away options for everyone else.
Well - I suppose that you could argue that you should be allowed to purchase the certified fingerprint reader... and as such should be able to get access to the software to do the reset.. but that's not exactly the same thing.
A typical argument here is the 'right' to use 3rd party parts to fix things... which I can see they definitely want to avoid to prevent the security issues.
-
We're not talking about something like the camera, but heck, really when it comes to a phone, I suppose pretty much any/every part has security concerns.
This isn't like John Deere tractor where you're trying to replace a gear that could easily be made by any vendor (as long as the specs match exactly) - we're talking about security components that should be signed and verified so the end to end security is maintained.
This is a situation where I'm OK with this kind of lock out.
You can bet your ass the automakers will do the same with self driving cars with the components that ensure security within their systems, well at least until they are required federally to make each component talk to each other through standard APIs - oh wait, that will never happen.. LOL.
-
It should be the same as cars, and probably will be regulated at some point to be similar by the government. With cars, you are supposed to be able to have the right to repair it using 3rd parties if you desire so. It helps reduce the possibility of a monopoly for that car maker. Tesla is kind of fighting that idea at the moment, but any time the consumer is forced to only use the OEM, it gives the OEM all the leverage and the consumer is left with no option but to use them at whatever price point the OEM thinks they can get away with. It also puts the consumer at risk of the OEM arbitrary deciding that they no longer wish to offer that service at any price, and the consumer is now completely screwed. This is like MS arbitrarily deciding they dont like your o365 or azure account, and just disabling or deleting it. Imaging if MS tried to say that if you were going to run windows in the cloud, you HAD to use azure or else windows would lock itself out and become inoperable.
I am fine with the idea that apple would not honor warranties when third party attempted repairs, but the consumer should still have that right to get the service done without fear of triggering booby traps.
-
@Dashrender said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@travisdh1 said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Dashrender said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@travisdh1 said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@s-hackleman said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I'm OK with this one. If someone unauthorized messes with or replaces my fingerprint scanner, I'm OK with my laptop bricking.
That's a security issue, not an inability to repair. One of those where if they have time to replace the fingerprint scanner without you knowing it happened, you have bigger issues to correct.
Lots of companies have gotten into trouble with this sort of thing. Those "Warranty void if removed or broken" stickers for one.
Or those shaddy places that don't replace with like/real parts to give you the same level of security you had before the breakage. Then you end up with a potential security issue, yeah no.
The point is, Apple is not giving you the choice. I don't take my stuff to anyone else to fix because I'm a competent bench tech as well. I wouldn't be allowed to fix any Apple device myself if they continue down this road.
If you're ok with not owning the device, that's just fine for you. Don't take away options for everyone else.
Well - I suppose that you could argue that you should be allowed to purchase the certified fingerprint reader... and as such should be able to get access to the software to do the reset.. but that's not exactly the same thing.
A typical argument here is the 'right' to use 3rd party parts to fix things... which I can see they definitely want to avoid to prevent the security issues.
It sounds like an excuse. Their are laws about right to repair, and then we create a false security concern to justify not needing to allow it.
-
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I am fine with the idea that apple would not honor warranties when third party attempted repairs, but the consumer should still have that right to get the service done without fear of triggering booby traps.
That's a huge violation of warranty law. You can't make warranties dependent in that way, or you can effectively use that, like the false security concerns, as an effective end run around the right to repair law.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I am fine with the idea that apple would not honor warranties when third party attempted repairs, but the consumer should still have that right to get the service done without fear of triggering booby traps.
That's a huge violation of warranty law. You can't make warranties dependent in that way, or you can effectively use that, like the false security concerns, as an effective end run around the right to repair law.
I wont disagree, but that is still much better than actually taking steps to brick the device with unauthorized repair. One is a legal issue, the other is a functional issue.
-
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@scottalanmiller said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I am fine with the idea that apple would not honor warranties when third party attempted repairs, but the consumer should still have that right to get the service done without fear of triggering booby traps.
That's a huge violation of warranty law. You can't make warranties dependent in that way, or you can effectively use that, like the false security concerns, as an effective end run around the right to repair law.
I wont disagree, but that is still much better than actually taking steps to brick the device with unauthorized repair. One is a legal issue, the other is a functional issue.
Both are legal, actually.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@scottalanmiller said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I am fine with the idea that apple would not honor warranties when third party attempted repairs, but the consumer should still have that right to get the service done without fear of triggering booby traps.
That's a huge violation of warranty law. You can't make warranties dependent in that way, or you can effectively use that, like the false security concerns, as an effective end run around the right to repair law.
I wont disagree, but that is still much better than actually taking steps to brick the device with unauthorized repair. One is a legal issue, the other is a functional issue.
Both are legal, actually.
you're being pedantic. They both have legal components, but the latter also has functional issues. Do you disagree that shady warranty practices are less bad than purposely and actively bricking devices?
-
I suppose what you want apple to do instead is put a huge warning on the screen - There is a non verified device attached to this phone - you have been warned that your security may have bee compromised.
I guess I'd be equally OK with that.
-
@Dashrender said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I suppose what you want apple to do instead is put a huge warning on the screen - There is a non verified device attached to this phone - you have been warned that your security may have bee compromised.
I guess I'd be equally OK with that.
Covers Apple from lawsuits too?
-
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@scottalanmiller said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@scottalanmiller said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
@Donahue said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I am fine with the idea that apple would not honor warranties when third party attempted repairs, but the consumer should still have that right to get the service done without fear of triggering booby traps.
That's a huge violation of warranty law. You can't make warranties dependent in that way, or you can effectively use that, like the false security concerns, as an effective end run around the right to repair law.
I wont disagree, but that is still much better than actually taking steps to brick the device with unauthorized repair. One is a legal issue, the other is a functional issue.
Both are legal, actually.
you're being pedantic. They both have legal components, but the latter also has functional issues. Do you disagree that shady warranty practices are less bad than purposely and actively bricking devices?
Agree, one is worse than the other, but that's missing the point that there are supposed to be laws that protect us from both. It's equally a legal issue in both ways.
-
@Dashrender said in Some New Macs Risk Bricking from Third Party Repairs:
I suppose what you want apple to do instead is put a huge warning on the screen - There is a non verified device attached to this phone - you have been warned that your security may have bee compromised.
I guess I'd be equally OK with that.
Yes, warnings are fine. Intentionally destroying something belonging to someone else to try to extort money is a crime.
-
Now if it was a setting that you could turn on and off, that would be fine. Options for this stuff is no problem, it's forcing it that is a problem.
And it's not like this is something in the end user's favour, this directly puts a lot of money in Apple's pockets.
-
puts on tinfoil hat... adds extra foil just to be sure
I have a serious problem when a device cannot be audited by a customer. If you want a sticker fine, but sabotaging the device is insane and should be illegal.
Could you imagine a car that stops running as soon as the oil is changed? Ok maybe the oil is ridiculous example, but what about an alternator or a steering column?
**tightens tinfoil hat even tighter **
So 10 years from now when we have hundreds of iot devices on a single home network, you cannot even do hardware audits of your devices to make sure there isn't extra hardware performing functions it shouldn't aka spying.
But hey corporations would never do shitty things. I can't think of a single corporation that's got caught doing something it shouldn't
-
This article from 2002 about printer companies chipping their cartridge seems strangely relevant.
EU bans printer cartridge chips
Here's an exerpt :hp claims that the chips used in their printer cartridges don't prohibit reuse. they say that only 10% of their cartridges include chips that monitor the level of ink in the cartridge. thus, the only negative effect from refilling an hp ink cartridge with an embedded chip should be loss of the features of that chip, and not loss of use of the cartridge itself.
We can say HP is a big evil corporation or we can look at it from a business perspective and see how the incentive to screw you is there.
Eliminating competition on an extremely high profit item is brilliant. Not to mention that the item is a consumable for the device you already sold the customer. It will 100% fail. With a mac or iPhone battery, it may not fail on you if you buy a new device every 2 years. The guy that buys your old device eventually replaces the battery.
Oh and if you get stopped , it's a slap on the wrist with no money lost. Only money gained for as long as the scheme works.
