Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

[Motherboard]Apple Is Lobbying Against Your Right to Repair iPhones, New York State Records Confirm

6K views 135 replies 40 participants last post by  Mand12 
#1 ·
Quote:
The bill, called the "Fair Repair Act," would require electronics companies to sell replacement parts and tools to the general public, would prohibit "software locks" that restrict repairs, and in many cases would require companies to make repair guides available to the public. Apple and other tech giants have been suspected of opposing the legislation in many of the 11 states where similar bills have been introduced, but New York's robust lobbying disclosure laws have made information about which companies are hiring lobbyists and what bills they're spending money on public record.

According to New York State's Joint Commission on Public Ethics, Apple, Verizon, Toyota, the printer company Lexmark, heavy machinery company Caterpillar, phone insurance company Asurion, and medical device company Medtronic have spent money lobbying against the Fair Repair Act this year. The Consumer Technology Association, which represents thousands of electronics manufacturers, is also lobbying against the bill.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/apple-is-lobbying-against-your-right-to-repair-iphones-new-york-state-records-confirm

Clickbait headline aside, corporations are fighting tooth and nail to thwart American consumer rights.
 
#2 ·
Bracing myself for the onslaught of the 'my rights!!!' crowd...

There are actually good reasons why a blanket ban like this is bad for consumers. These kind of things are how crap 'repair' shops are allowed to operate and the QC for device ecosystem gets terrible. This also greatly increases the amount of information the company has to give out about their products, which makes reverse engineering them much easier. Meaning they have to charge higher prices on the originals AND replacement parts to make their margins and support these new requirements before competition undercuts them with next to no research costs. Not to mention the additional burden of supply chain, support, and new work to create publicly consumable artifacts around their products.

What happens when that cheap knockoff iPhone screen which had nothing to do with apple gets properly installed but shorts the device, or overloads the battery? Who do you think gets the reputation hit from this, the no name cheap display producer who nobody knows about? Not a chance, the headlines would be iPhone quality terrible!!! Phones blow up like a Samsung! Apple is entirely innocent, and even gave the public what they wanted, and now they get the blowback because of someone else's crappy design and manufacturing. How much more time and money does the company need to spend to transition from a known platform to designing their devices defensively because the quality of other components can no longer be assumed? What happens when these 'repair' shops have nefarious intent? Does the screen firmware accidentally contain some firmware 'keylogger' for *insert bad actor nation / group here*?

Lets just finish this security related BAD THINGS which this bill implies with a summary of security in an iPhone specifically. Security and privacy depend entirely on trust, from the secure enclave for key management, through the processor, memory, and software which handles the processing at each level, the 'sender' and 'receiver' of information assume a level of trust. This trust follows the 'trust but verify' mentality, and performs checks to make sure the 'receiver' is actually supposed to get the information it is asking to obtain. Humans are the weakest part of any security model, so Apple is able to confidently ensure security on the phone because they are the only supplier of parts and labor to work on those devices. I know cynically this creates vendor lock-in with a nice revenue stream for apple, but it also creates confidence for consumers in the security of the phone. If you allow or facilitate other people to create replacement parts which are 'trusted', the ENTIRE security model fails. This isn't a 'chicken little' argument you either can guarantee security or you DO NOT have any, there is absolutely no gray area at all. The devices MUST trust other components for the system to function, and that trust is based entirely on the security of the system.

Is it likely the screen firmware can actually get in the way? Probably not because despite forbidding other screens to be used, apple is not naive enough to believe it doesn't happen. So they have likely a solution to encapsulate the screen firmware away from any other process, but bugs happen and malicious code could get into your phone through a vulnerability in the screen if it existed. The most important lesson here is that there are actually REALLY DAMN GOOD reasons why you want some things to be maintained by people who build the device.

I say all this with the massive caveat of course, John Deere is so blatantly off the deep end of 'reasonable' with their tractor DRM. There is a need to do SOMETHING here, but a blanket legislation like this is extremely dangerous even in the face of a cause as well intentioned as consumer rights. When every product you build is a single or network of computers with different physical capabilities, you can never escape the concerns of the underlying computers.

Just take a breath and try to think non cynically for a moment for the actual benefits of these policies. Apple is right to lobby against a ill conceived blanket bill like this, just like they were right to fight the FBI on San Bernadino.
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post
What happens when that cheap knockoff iPhone screen which had nothing to do with apple gets properly installed but shorts the device, or overloads the battery? Who do you think gets the reputation hit from this, the no name cheap display producer who nobody knows about? Not a chance, the headlines would be iPhone quality terrible!!! Phones blow up like a Samsung! Apple is entirely innocent, and even gave the public what they wanted, and now they get the blowback because of someone else's crappy design and manufacturing. How much more time and money does the company need to spend to transition from a known platform to designing their devices defensively because the quality of other components can no longer be assumed? What happens when these 'repair' shops have nefarious intent? Does the screen firmware accidentally contain some firmware 'keylogger' for *insert bad actor nation / group here*?
The whole point of the right-to-repair laws is so third party repair shops have access to the genuine parts direct from Apple.etc.

Currently, as in right now, this very minute, repair shops are often forced to use non-genuine parts.

This fact negates your entire argument. What you proclaim the law will cause is already happening because manufacturers have component and diagnostic tool sales locked down entirely.

Browse through Louis Rossmann's videos on Youtube, he goes pretty in-depth on this stuff, and has already refuted your tired arguments.

Also, Massachusetts already passed right to repair for cars in 2012, the entire auto industry adopted those standards soon after. The auto industry is still here, and doing just fine.
:thumb:


Quote:

The manufacturer shall maintain a diagnostic and repair information system which shall enable the owner of the motor vehicle or the owner's designated independent repair facility, the capability to utilize such system via the worldwide web or other electronically available manufacturer repair information system on a hourly, daily, monthly or yearly subscription basis at cost and terms that are no greater than fair market value and nondiscriminatory as compared with the terms and costs charged to dealers or authorized repair facilities.

Manufacturers shall provide access to their diagnostic and repair information system through a non-proprietary vehicle interface that complies with SAE J2534 as required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR § 86.1808-01(f). The manufacturer's diagnostic and repair information system shall provide the same diagnostic and repair information, including technical updates, which the manufacturer makes available to its dealers and authorized motor vehicle repair facilities. The content of said diagnostic and repair information system shall be in the same form and shall be accessed in the same manner as is available to dealers and authorized motor vehicle repair facilities utilizing said information system. Manufacturers shall exclude diagnostic, service and repair information necessary to reset a vehicle immobilizer system.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: kckyle and kyrie74
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

Bracing myself for the onslaught of the 'my rights!!!' crowd...

There are actually good reasons why a blanket ban like this is bad for consumers. These kind of things are how crap 'repair' shops are allowed to operate and the QC for device ecosystem gets terrible. This also greatly increases the amount of information the company has to give out about their products, which makes reverse engineering them much easier. Meaning they have to charge higher prices on the originals AND replacement parts to make their margins and support these new requirements before competition undercuts them with next to no research costs. Not to mention the additional burden of supply chain, support, and new work to create publicly consumable artifacts around their products.

What happens when that cheap knockoff iPhone screen which had nothing to do with apple gets properly installed but shorts the device, or overloads the battery? Who do you think gets the reputation hit from this, the no name cheap display producer who nobody knows about? Not a chance, the headlines would be iPhone quality terrible!!! Phones blow up like a Samsung! Apple is entirely innocent, and even gave the public what they wanted, and now they get the blowback because of someone else's crappy design and manufacturing. How much more time and money does the company need to spend to transition from a known platform to designing their devices defensively because the quality of other components can no longer be assumed? What happens when these 'repair' shops have nefarious intent? Does the screen firmware accidentally contain some firmware 'keylogger' for *insert bad actor nation / group here*?

Lets just finish this security related BAD THINGS which this bill implies with a summary of security in an iPhone specifically. Security and privacy depend entirely on trust, from the secure enclave for key management, through the processor, memory, and software which handles the processing at each level, the 'sender' and 'receiver' of information assume a level of trust. This trust follows the 'trust but verify' mentality, and performs checks to make sure the 'receiver' is actually supposed to get the information it is asking to obtain. Humans are the weakest part of any security model, so Apple is able to confidently ensure security on the phone because they are the only supplier of parts and labor to work on those devices. I know cynically this creates vendor lock-in with a nice revenue stream for apple, but it also creates confidence for consumers in the security of the phone. If you allow or facilitate other people to create replacement parts which are 'trusted', the ENTIRE security model fails. This isn't a 'chicken little' argument you either can guarantee security or you DO NOT have any, there is absolutely no gray area at all. The devices MUST trust other components for the system to function, and that trust is based entirely on the security of the system.

Is it likely the screen firmware can actually get in the way? Probably not because despite forbidding other screens to be used, apple is not naive enough to believe it doesn't happen. So they have likely a solution to encapsulate the screen firmware away from any other process, but bugs happen and malicious code could get into your phone through a vulnerability in the screen if it existed. The most important lesson here is that there are actually REALLY DAMN GOOD reasons why you want some things to be maintained by people who build the device.

I say all this with the massive caveat of course, John Deere is so blatantly off the deep end of 'reasonable' with their tractor DRM. There is a need to do SOMETHING here, but a blanket legislation like this is extremely dangerous even in the face of a cause as well intentioned as consumer rights. When every product you build is a single or network of computers with different physical capabilities, you can never escape the concerns of the underlying computers.

Just take a breath and try to think non cynically for a moment for the actual benefits of these policies. Apple is right to lobby against a ill conceived blanket bill like this, just like they were right to fight the FBI on San Bernadino.
Not sure if serious...
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by budgetgamer120 View Post

Not sure if serious...
I can't entirely disagree with him. The law does seem a bit overbearing as proposed now. Requiring companies to release guides does seem a bit ridiculous, particularly if they wouldn't have been made in the first place. However, if all this entails is Apple and others releasing their already-existing internal tools and documentation, I see no problem whatsoever. I don't think Apple or any corporation should be required to go beyond that though.

Outlawing software locks is definitely a good thing too, though there are security risks. When replacing the home button on iPhones for example, they would brick the phone in order to reduce the risk of bypassing a fingerprint lock, either leaking private data or getting the phone to a factory state to sell on Craigslist as "lightly used." (Or that's what the logic appears to be - realistically it's probably just an attempt to monopolize the repair market.) I can see some downsides, but I think they'll prove to be niche cases overall.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post
I agree with the majority of what you say. Its so easy to sit here as a consumer and think this is a no brainer. However in reality there are a ton of hidden costs and things that are not explained. If this were to be passed you would see in an increase in costs for the sole purpose of a warchest to have available to combat all the bad news and blowback from other peoples mistakes that will land in their lap.

Edit: I didn't read the bill but if there are none they need to clearly outline protections for the businesses too.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheezman View Post

The whole point of the right-to-repair laws is so third party repair shops have access to the genuine parts direct from Apple.etc.

Currently, as in right now, this very minute, repair shops are often forced to use non-genuine parts.

This fact negates your entire argument. What you proclaim the law will cause is already happening because manufacturers have component and diagnostic tool sales locked down entirely.

Browse through Louis Rossmann's videos on Youtube, he goes pretty in-depth on this stuff, and has already refuted your tired arguments.

Also, Massachusetts already passed right to repair for cars in 2012, the entire auto industry adopted those standards soon after. The auto industry is still here, and doing just fine.
thumb.gif


Quote:
Yes they are, and this would provide counterfeiters with more information then they currently have now, remember the information is global it isn't like this doesn't have ramifications on markets and conditions in India, China.. etc.. etc.. Now, if you go to a non apple repair shop.. you know you aren't getting the right stuff, after this how do you know? Do you trust that random companies supplier? What about that suppliers supplier? It negates absolutely nothing. It is impossible for apple or any other tech company to control the gray market around their products, they simply have no influence or control. In the case of phones and electronics, what you get is essentially these laws telling Electronics company X they must help the gray market out by expanding their risk and participation in a way which is a net negative to the consumer, and a HUGE negative to the company.

I'm not dumb or naive, I know getting your iPhone fixed has a seriously stupid cost associated with it. But forcing this solution as a blanket ban is a really, really bad idea. We need reasonable caps on the repair services, and requirements for reasonable support periods to get rid of this planned obsolescence garbage, but making all these consumer electronic devices less secure is DEFINITELY NOT the answer.

I'm not super involved in this, I haven't read the Massachusetts bill entirely and I haven't read this one, but the summaries and arguments I'm hearing come OUT of it, are flat out short sighted and dangerous as I have outlined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budgetgamer120 View Post

Not sure if serious...
Very, though my perspective may confuse people. The initial repercussions of the arguments and summaries I see are GREAT for consumers, but they have really nasty 2nd order repercussions which are extremely subtle and NOT being discussed.

This article just calls out Apple and uses it to prove how big and bad they are, but they actually CITE the reason they don't want the Nebraska bill is it would become a mecca of 'bad actors', sound familiar... like you know.. my entire post above?

This stuff is complicated, and to most people a black box of voodoo. You just want to get your iPhone fixed cheap, cool that is a real good and valid goal. We all saw how the ACA not thinking things through had some seriously unwelcome side effects along with the good ones. When you write law, its damn important to try to think about the things that could go wrong that you don't intend. Everything I mentioned is things that could go wrong in a blanket requirements kind of law.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

I can't entirely disagree with him. The law does seem a bit overbearing as proposed now. Requiring companies to release guides does seem a bit ridiculous, particularly if they wouldn't have been made in the first place. However, if all this entails is Apple and others releasing their already-existing internal tools and documentation, I see no problem whatsoever. I don't think Apple or any corporation should be required to go beyond that though.

Outlawing software locks is definitely a good thing too, though there are security risks. When replacing the home button on iPhones for example, they would brick the phone in order to reduce the risk of bypassing a fingerprint lock, either leaking private data or getting the phone to a factory state to sell on Craigslist as "lightly used." (Or that's what the logic appears to be - realistically it's probably just an attempt to monopolize the repair market.) I can see some downsides, but I think they'll prove to be niche cases overall.
I have no corporate interest. So I don't care what cost Apple might.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by budgetgamer120 View Post

I have no corporate interest. So I don't care what cost Apple might.
I'm not suggesting you have to care about corporate interests at all, only your own. This will drive up your cost for devices across the board, and will result in a less secure electronics ecosystem.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

I'm not suggesting you have to care about corporate interests at all, only your own. This will drive up your cost for devices across the board, and will result in a less secure electronics ecosystem.
Ive heard the scare of security and pricing before. Apple is only seeking a strangle hold which then will make them more money.

Not just Apple... Others also
 
#12 ·
I don't agree with this crap law and I'm all for the free market. However, I wish we could get a class-action lawsuit and a ruling to prevent companies from permanently locking software. Currently, companies are intentionally breaking older devices to force consumers to purchase new ones. Most people just think their device has gotten outdated - which is NOT the case.

AT&T in conjunction with Samsung just rendered my S5 unusable with forced updates. Half of my text messages aren't even ever received. There was no way to decline the update (or turn off updates), the bootloader is locked, and neither AT&T or Samsung wants to take responsibility for breaking my device. Nor will they unlock the bootloader at my request so that I can fix it myself. Total BS.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post

I don't agree with this crap law and I'm all for the free market. However, I wish we could get a class-action lawsuit and a ruling to prevent companies from permanently locking software. Currently, companies are intentionally breaking older devices to force consumers to purchase new ones. Most people just think their device has gotten outdated - which is NOT the case.

AT&T in conjunction with Samsung just rendered my S5 unusable with forced updates. Half of my text messages aren't even ever received. There was no way to decline the update (or turn off updates), the bootloader is locked, and neither AT&T or Samsung wants to take responsibility for breaking my device. Nor will they unlock the bootloader at my request so that I can fix it myself. Total BS.
In regard to anything software, that's out of the question. IP is entitled to a myriad of privileges hardware makers can only dream of.

It's like if your phone bricks. It's usually very trivial to recover it with JTAG. Problem is, companies protect their JTAG tools and will DMCA the crap out of anywhere the files are shared.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

I can't entirely disagree with him.
The law does seem a bit overbearing as proposed now. Requiring companies to release guides does seem a bit ridiculous, particularly if they wouldn't have been made in the first place. However, if all this entails is Apple and others releasing their already-existing internal tools and documentation, I see no problem whatsoever. I don't think Apple or any corporation should be required to go beyond that though.

Outlawing software locks is definitely a good thing too, though there are security risks. When replacing the home button on iPhones for example, they would brick the phone in order to reduce the risk of bypassing a fingerprint lock, either leaking private data or getting the phone to a factory state to sell on Craigslist as "lightly used." (Or that's what the logic appears to be - realistically it's probably just an attempt to monopolize the repair market.) I can see some downsides, but I think they'll prove to be niche cases overall.
It's killing you to have to agree with me, isn't it?

The problem with outlawing something, especially something which is by itself neither good nor bad, is that you eliminate the potential to get the benefits of that thing. You really don't want to have your camera, fingerprint sensor, modem, and perhaps screen to come from an un-trusted source. It really is a major security risk. All security is based on a trust established by how hard a particular math problem is to solve. Software processes blindly trust any component which is able to perform the math correctly, and if you can artificially reduce the difficulty of performing that math, you lose all security. The saying goes that if a party has physical access to a device then there is no security which can't be broken. What this ENTIRE discussion about is giving more people and more vectors physical access to the device. Your desire to write this off as a cover story is doing a huge disservice to anyone who views you as a source of technical expertise.

I'm not being unreasonable, I will reiterate as an examlpe: John Deere is so blatantly off the deep end of 'reasonable' with their tractor DRM.

Unlike apple, JD is definitely and without any doubt whatsoever, using their DRM software locks as vendor repair lock-in to ensure the monopoly continues. They are using the DCMA for exactly that purpose, they are the bad actors which need to be stopped.

This is exactly the point I made, we can't blanket ban it because people make the assumption software locks are always bad, because on your iPhone it definitely isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b.walker36 View Post

I agree with the majority of what you say. Its so easy to sit here as a consumer and think this is a no brainer. However in reality there are a ton of hidden costs and things that are not explained. If this were to be passed you would see in an increase in costs for the sole purpose of a warchest to have available to combat all the bad news and blowback from other peoples mistakes that will land in their lap.

Edit: I didn't read the bill but if there are none they need to clearly outline protections for the businesses too.
These mega corps aren't going to accept lower margins for themselves and their investors, so all these added burdens are going to get tacked on to the cost of the goods you buy from them, full stop.

It's not just protections for the businesses, this law as outlined to my understanding (I didn't read the whole thing) forces consumers to trade their entire personal security for some cheaper but security eviscerating replacement parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by girugamesh View Post

Education? I'd say propaganda, but those concepts are often indistinguishable.

Regardless, you started your post expecting an onslaught from the "my rights" crowd. As opposed to what, the "muh corporations" crowd? "My American economic freedom" [insert laugh track here] crowd?

Every one of your arguments is in defense of corporate interests only - broke my heart right there - but there's a bias in there as if this would be a problem not worth the benefits, and a problem that would plague Apple above all. But yes, sure, the economy will be in shambles now. The US will be ruined. Give me a break.

The only argument that would make some sense for consumers, the security of devices, is baloney. I mean, unless I missed the part where the entire planet collapsed due to the inherently awful security (per your standards) of an open computing system like the desktop.
rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif
Are you educated in security and software? If not, your cynical reaction is paranoia for the sake of paranoia.

I added the caveat because the "muh rights" crowd isn't exactly known for critical thinking and you know... like.. this entire response to my post? Spoiler alert, I'm trying to protect THEM from their own ignorance, not everyone is a software or electrical engineer and will know these really important side effects.

The desktop has extremely strong supply chains at high value parts and is aggressively policed by the government and actors throughout the entire supply chain to meet strict standards set by people who think about all this stuff. There are massive corporations whose entire profit structure is based solely on delivering guaranteed and warrantied products to companies like Dell, HP, EMC.. etc. Do you think they will all have the resources to police the volume of import electronics parts at $5 unit price or less? No, they are already ridiculously overburdened, that is why companies like Apple are able to do that QA and supply chain security for them.

The irony is, the desktop and IoT garbage actually IS a huge problem because ... manufacturers can't secure and can't make changes to your system! IoT crap devices have been released with no regard to security whatsoever, and now people are unintentionally broadcasting a public live stream of their infants sleeping.

I get it, you think all business decisions are inherently evil, the problem is even if the cost is higher it is a net win for you to have this security for your devices. When that security breaks down, your phone is a hot mic for anyone to listen to, a GPS locator for anyone to follow, and an instant communication device for anyone to fool. It's so personal I can't imagine how accepting no security on the device could ever be seen as acceptable.

If you want to learn, I'm seriously more than happy to assist in providing resources for your education. If you want to argue with me from a position of ignorance spewing nonsense anecdotal garbage, I'm going to continue to refute your garbage with disdain.
 
#15 ·
Well thanks for the enlightenment Mr. Big Brains. Now I never said IoT isn't crap, but in the current situation, the choice is there for the fools. Like cheap Chinese phones with embedded malware. If ensuring a high volume of those parts is impractical - proven empirically, not just conjectured by you - then by all means, rectify that requirement.

And no I don't think bizniz is teh evilz, but I'm not a fool either. But the free market can take care of MOST simple parts just fine - even more so with the proper documentation. Funny you left this one out. Yes, there SHOULD be documentation. It's obvious companies have internal docs for maintenance themselves, as well as simple schematics at the least. At worst this would have little additional cost.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post
Without a doubt we as consumers will eat the costs of this stuff. What I would like to see is manufacturers to be forced to allow replacement parts to be bought directly by a consumer. For example the battery on my blade was shot. I could not use my laptop without it being plugged in. Razer does not sell batteries to the public so my options were new laptop or pay to ship my laptop to razer, buy a battery, pay 150 for them to even look at it, then pay the like 100 bucks for the service. So like 400ish just to replace a battery that I could do myself easily. But on the same token we need to protect the manufacturer from me. Their needs to be clear provisions that state they will not be liable for anything I do with a part that wasn't serviced by them and a well articulated way to manage that.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by girugamesh View Post

Because security through obscurity has always been remarkably efficient.
You are the one suggesting security through obscurity, this isn't obscuring anything, this is about securing the device the ONLY way possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by budgetgamer120 View Post

Ive heard the scare of security and pricing before. Apple is only seeking a strangle hold which then will make them more money.

Not just Apple... Others also
Because they know what they are talking about? Apple is like #2 company behind the Open Whisper Systems with the Signal protocol for intentionally securing the device and communications as much as possible.

You are late for a flight for a vacation to Fiji, so you take you Buggati Veyron to get through traffic a bit faster and pull right up to the departure entrance. An absolute stranger not associated with the airport walks up to you. You don't know them and can't trust them, but you need to get on your flight so you give them the keys to your insanely awesome car. You tell them you'll be back in 3 weeks and ask if they will park it, take good care of it, not drive it anywhere but the parking lot, and have it in this exact spot when you return.

Would you be comfortable with this scenario? Of course not, you don't trust this person and the car is really valuable, so you can easily see why trust is so important.

Lets add a few layers to the trust game, you're a properly frugal fellow not looking to be overcharged for services, so you decide to take your veyron to the lowest bidding garage within 500 miles of your house and you definitely can expect awesome service here. The mechanic says there's a problem in the engine computer and you're going to need to replace it, the part costs 10k through the channels but he has a friend who knows a guy whose brother works at a junkyard that got 2 of these in, and will sell you the used computer for only 2k. Frugally minded, you jump at the chance to save yourself 8 thousand dollars! Unfortunately and unknown to you the friends guy's brother just so happens to be a rather intelligent but mischievous sort who learned how to program F-150 used computers to perform most of the functions of any computer in any car on the market while he was in prison for fraud.

Do you still think this supply chain is a good way to supply parts that you need
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post

I don't agree with this crap law and I'm all for the free market. However, I wish we could get a class-action lawsuit and a ruling to prevent companies from permanently locking software. Currently, companies are intentionally breaking older devices to force consumers to purchase new ones. Most people just think their device has gotten outdated - which is NOT the case.

AT&T in conjunction with Samsung just rendered my S5 unusable with forced updates. Half of my text messages aren't even ever received. There was no way to decline the update (or turn off updates), the bootloader is locked, and neither AT&T or Samsung wants to take responsibility for breaking my device. Nor will they unlock the bootloader at my request so that I can fix it myself. Total BS.
Software locking isn't bad, locking software for illegal or unethical purposes like planned obsolescence is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by girugamesh View Post

In regard to anything software, that's out of the question. IP is entitled to a myriad of privileges hardware makers can only dream of.

It's like if your phone bricks. It's usually very trivial to recover it with JTAG. Problem is, companies protect their JTAG tools and will DMCA the crap out of anywhere the files are shared.
There is such a thin line between hardware and software anymore. Most 'hardware' functionality is really just implemented in firmware on a generic controller.

That being said, the issue is the carriers still want to be a middleman in an OS they didn't write, so they add the locks to their phones because they don't have the money or manpower to validate another release for an old device because they needed to put some software in the OS because someone paid them a ton of money. Both the carriers and google are responsible, but this seems to be something which will be a problem of the past after this years android. It won't help old devices, but google is giving carriers a sandbox to make changes and additions they want, which won't get in the way of good OTA updates.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by girugamesh View Post

Well thanks for the enlightenment Mr. Big Brains. Now I never said IoT isn't crap, but in the current situation, the choice is there for the fools. Like cheap Chinese phones with embedded malware. If ensuring a high volume of those parts is impractical - proven empirically, not just conjectured by you - then by all means, rectify that requirement.

And no I don't think bizniz is teh evilz, but I'm not a fool either. But the free market can take care of MOST simple parts just fine - even more so with the proper documentation. Funny you left this one out. Yes, there SHOULD be documentation. It's obvious companies have internal docs for maintenance themselves, as well as simple schematics at the least. At worst this would have little additional cost.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth regarding IoT, I was using it as the perfect example it is next to your personal desktop argument. I make no 'conjecture', you don't seem prepared to follow a discussion of the proof you are asking for, so why should I bother to write it out?

The rest is already addressed in previous posts, go back and read them. Hint: New artifacts for public consumption (artifacts including but not limited to documentation and GUIDES).

rolleyes.gif
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

I wasn't putting words in your mouth regarding IoT
I didn't say you were.
Quote:
I was using it as the perfect example it is next to your personal desktop argument.
Perfect example of why your point is moot, that's what. Some morons are getting spied on. Pls gibs us all more proprietary locked down junk. I love prisons.
Quote:
I make no 'conjecture', you don't seem prepared to follow a discussion of the proof you are asking for, so why should I bother to write it out?
You're the one throwing around claims.
Quote:
The rest is already addressed in previous posts, go back and read them. Hint: New artifacts for public consumption (artifacts including but not limited to documentation and GUIDES).
I see you did. It's just trash though, and why I asked if you were a shill or the (not always, but commonly) kind of American that prefers to get hosed for reasons incomprehensible.
 
#20 ·
Well I assume this is still being pushed as a viable means of profiteering because the insurance market has become interested in "your phone's safety." Stop those fools from buying "warranties" and get them on the monthly plan, and so forth.

Of course, around here we know the difference between repairing something and "breaking better." If it ain't broke, make it go faster.
 
#22 ·
Seems grey to me. It would be silly for a car manufacturer to require you to buy their brakes through a software lock, but it would also be silly for an auto shop to require from the same car manufacturer the method to replace the car's on-board computer, finally it would be silly for the law to list all the parts to all the products for which this law covers or doesn't cover.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
WARRANTORS CANNOT REQUIRE THAT ONLY BRANDED PARTS BE USED WITH THE
PRODUCT IN ORDER TO RETAIN THE WARRANTY;
This seems a bit far. I definitely don't want my car to refuse to start if I change the oil myself, or my phone to brick itself if I take the back cover off, but forcing manufacturers to honor warranties on what are effectively not their products does not seem reasonable.

What this bill should be trying to do, IMO, is disallowing companies from building devices that will refuse to function with an unsigned repair. I think it misses the mark in that regard, focusing too much on compelling the company to support the repair itself. After a third party repair I would not necessarily expect the warranty to be honored, but I would also expect the device to continue functioning if it can.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

Bracing myself for the onslaught of the 'my rights!!!' crowd...

There are actually good reasons why a blanket ban like this is bad for consumers. These kind of things are how crap 'repair' shops are allowed to operate and the QC for device ecosystem gets terrible. This also greatly increases the amount of information the company has to give out about their products, which makes reverse engineering them much easier. Meaning they have to charge higher prices on the originals AND replacement parts to make their margins and support these new requirements before competition undercuts them with next to no research costs. Not to mention the additional burden of supply chain, support, and new work to create publicly consumable artifacts around their products.

What happens when that cheap knockoff iPhone screen which had nothing to do with apple gets properly installed but shorts the device, or overloads the battery? Who do you think gets the reputation hit from this, the no name cheap display producer who nobody knows about? Not a chance, the headlines would be iPhone quality terrible!!! Phones blow up like a Samsung! Apple is entirely innocent, and even gave the public what they wanted, and now they get the blowback because of someone else's crappy design and manufacturing. How much more time and money does the company need to spend to transition from a known platform to designing their devices defensively because the quality of other components can no longer be assumed? What happens when these 'repair' shops have nefarious intent? Does the screen firmware accidentally contain some firmware 'keylogger' for *insert bad actor nation / group here*?

Lets just finish this security related BAD THINGS which this bill implies with a summary of security in an iPhone specifically. Security and privacy depend entirely on trust, from the secure enclave for key management, through the processor, memory, and software which handles the processing at each level, the 'sender' and 'receiver' of information assume a level of trust. This trust follows the 'trust but verify' mentality, and performs checks to make sure the 'receiver' is actually supposed to get the information it is asking to obtain. Humans are the weakest part of any security model, so Apple is able to confidently ensure security on the phone because they are the only supplier of parts and labor to work on those devices. I know cynically this creates vendor lock-in with a nice revenue stream for apple, but it also creates confidence for consumers in the security of the phone. If you allow or facilitate other people to create replacement parts which are 'trusted', the ENTIRE security model fails. This isn't a 'chicken little' argument you either can guarantee security or you DO NOT have any, there is absolutely no gray area at all. The devices MUST trust other components for the system to function, and that trust is based entirely on the security of the system.

Is it likely the screen firmware can actually get in the way? Probably not because despite forbidding other screens to be used, apple is not naive enough to believe it doesn't happen. So they have likely a solution to encapsulate the screen firmware away from any other process, but bugs happen and malicious code could get into your phone through a vulnerability in the screen if it existed. The most important lesson here is that there are actually REALLY DAMN GOOD reasons why you want some things to be maintained by people who build the device.

I say all this with the massive caveat of course, John Deere is so blatantly off the deep end of 'reasonable' with their tractor DRM. There is a need to do SOMETHING here, but a blanket legislation like this is extremely dangerous even in the face of a cause as well intentioned as consumer rights. When every product you build is a single or network of computers with different physical capabilities, you can never escape the concerns of the underlying computers.

Just take a breath and try to think non cynically for a moment for the actual benefits of these policies. Apple is right to lobby against a ill conceived blanket bill like this, just like they were right to fight the FBI on San Bernadino.
Some truth here, but you're far too dismissive of the (valid) reasons that consumers need alternative choices for repair. You'd be forced to come to a different conclusion if you took the time to anticipate and resolve consumer issues, rather than only illustrating the position of manufacturers.

You touch on the negative effect this will have on the "device ecosystem". While true, it doesn't seem self-evident, to me, that Apple should have any control over the condition of devices that have already been sold to consumers. Consumers choose when the condition of the device is below their own personal standards -- Apple cannot make this decision for them, due to the obvious conflict of interests. The same goes for the device ecosystem -- resale condition and circulation of refurbished units may have some indirect impact on Apple's "image," but this does not give Apple the right to lock down the market with anti-competitive practices. Granting them this right would be akin to granting automakers the right to impose upkeep standards upon vehicle owners / resellers, simply because the vehicle ecosystem indirectly impacts consumer-opinion of the automaker. The answer should be obvious -- if their "image" requires this much protection, the onus is on the manufacturer to pay for the upkeep. If they don't want low-quality devices to be in circulation, they must compete with low-quality repairs. The consumers are choosing alternative repair options for a reason, and Apple is attempting to circumvent this with direct legal action and artificial barriers rather than responding to consumer needs. As such, the cost to maintain Apple's reputation ends up coming out of the consumer's pocket -- an obvious injustice.

As far as devices blowing up because third-party screens are shorting out devices -- this is in part due to their choice to use use unprotected batteries (otherwise it could not happen.) Repair shops and third-party screen manufacturers would bear responsibility for the consequences, and the media would bear responsibility for libel if they misrepresent the cause or prevalence of these unlikely and infrequent device failures. What damage this does to Apple's reputation could, however, again be described as casually linked to Apple's choice to use unprotected batteries (because that's the only way such a thing could happen.)

As for security compatibility and such, we're again talking about something that becomes compromised entirely due to the choices of consumers and third-party repair shops. I very much doubt that repairs such as screen replacement (the most common repair) or replacement of any OEM parts can cause any meaningful software or hardware security issues. Aftermarket parts could feasibly create security issues, but they would be limited to the consumer and responsibility would be placed on either the consumer, third-party repair outlet, or aftermarket part manufacturer -- Apple would not be at fault and thus would only be responsible for proving that fact in the unlikely event of a legal dispute.

So we can dispense with the idea that Apple's reputation is theirs to control to this extent.

The next point I wanted to touch on is the notion that costs will be imposed upon Apple which are inordinate and casually linked to allowing consumer choice in regards to repair / aftermarket parts (on the assumption that Apple can even intentfully disallow this without trampling on the rights of consumers / businesses in the ecosystem.) To this I would say that the cost is completely normal for the industry, and can simply be described as the cost of doing business. Selling replacement parts / proprietary repair tools is standard for any manufacturer; and the cost of providing repair guides is superfluous, especially considering they'll no longer be bearing the expense of developing artificial software lockouts. By developing software lockouts, the manufacturer is preemptively side-stepping regulations that already exist to protect consumers.

This isn't the one sided issue that you've made it out to be. Consumer rights, regardless of how you disparage and dismiss those people who value them (in this "my rights!!! crowd" as you describe them,) are still important. There is a middle ground, and I believe this legislation has done a good job of finding it -- providing repair guides, selling proprietary repair tools, OEM parts, and ceasing the software lockdowns; these are not high standards for manufacturers to meet, and they go a long way to prevent consumer's from being taken advantage of.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mookster View Post

So we can dispense with the idea that Apple's reputation is theirs to control to this extent.
Quote:
these are not high standards for manufacturers to meet, and they go a long way to prevent consumer's from being taken advantage of.
Because I wore myself out on consumer advocacy a long time ago. I've chosen the much less depressing route of accepting that I am the only one who will truly benefit from what I know.
happysmiley.gif


That being said, why are they not concerned with how their actions reflect on their image?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top