And yes, the scam of a trash after market battery to make the iphone battery life look good is well known. And guess how many parents and grandparents then go to apple to "fix" something that has nothing to do with Apple?
The scammers are the people putting the bogus batteries in. Apple saying that the battery is not confirmed genuine is not a scam. Its the truth.
People can't figure out why apple can charge such ridiculous premiums on what is otherwise a commodity product. This is why.
From applecare to the activation lock to app permissions to alerting user to bogus behavior to app store quality to reversible charging cables - all the activities HN considers "anti-consumer" have helped make consumers value apple products. This will be one of those situations.
Now when you buy a used phone, much more likely to have a real sense of the battery quality in what you are buying. 3 year used apple products ALREADY carry a much higher premium vs android phones, this will help continue that trend.
And no, it's NOT that hard to replace a battery in an iphone, seriously, for all the folks complaining about that go to an apple store or buy a kit, and compare the hassle to doing the same thing with a android phone.
You might want to check out Luis Rosmann's videos, a famous Apple repair geek who fixes for cheap the products Apple themselves misdiagnose in order to rip off their customers.
// teenager's MacBook's display is not working correctly so Geniuses tell him he needs a new motherboard replacement while Luis discovers in 2 seconds that the lid-close sensor cable is broken so he replaces it for $8
// customer's MacBook's display is not working correctly so Geniuses tell him he needs a new motherboard and display replacement while Luis discovers in two minutes that the display connector has a bent pin and fixes it for free
Luis complains that he can't find competent board level repair technicians to scale his business. The real problem is that it's a difficult expensive skill. Luis can't scale it, Apple can't scale it at a reasonable price either.
Human attention is expensive, that's the reason software is eating the world. Part of that means paying less attention to individual user's products when it requires less human attention to just replace parts in mass.
My 2 cents.
That may well be but they charge premium prices and position themselves as providing a premium service. They're the only business that calls their repair staff "geniuses", so I don't think it's too much to expect a "genius" to not go for the quick fix. People expect more from Apple because of how they present themselves.
What Luis heard from the store was a preliminary estimate, not a final bill.
While Luis is certainly a master-level expert on repairs (of course he could easily find cherry picked examples that could fool a Genius), in my opinion he is a classic example of an Apple hater and comes to this with a strong bias and a highly self interested agenda which includes 1) promoting his repair business and 2) creating juicy “gotcha” clickbait for his YouTube channel.
Which is a fantastic chance btw... despite what I’ve said it’s a great channel for learning a lot about hardware repairs.
As to Rossmann being a hater, I too have seen so many stories of Apple denying warranty for made up reasons (liquid damage, etc) that it is very difficult to believe that Apple is acting in good faith when it comes to repairs.
Seems unfortunate that some environments are harmful to electronics, but what would you have them do, guarantee the product in absolutely any conditions?
Might as well step up and not shirk your obvious responsibility for covering impact events as well, since those occur fairly often in many everyday situations. Let us know how that works out for you.
I think it's entirely reasonable to support hardware sold in 100% humidity central Florida where Apple is licensed to do business (covered under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.)
As to your second point, I’ve had only positive experiences with them with repairs both in and out of warranty. However some of that may be because I always buy at an Apple store, rather than at third parties, because doing so gives their systems more visibility into the detailed history of the specific item I buy, and thus they have more leeway and discretion to solve problems in very nice ways. It’s likely that many horror stories you’ve heard are dramatized after the fact by people who went for a sketchy discount purchase and want someone to blame. People do lie, and liquid damage is a real thing.
Apple got caught on hidden camera. Multiple times.
You can find plenty of these kinds of videos, but I think Rossman was referring to this one, featuring the man himself:
“It may or may not have been intentional, but I was guided to buy a more expensive option”.
The fact that he's then comparing "original" with "counterfeit" goes against that a little, but it feels more like confusion than malice, or using the same word in two different contexts. Saying these are original-spec components without Apple logos and not counterfeit might be true even if the reason they're not counterfeit is that they don't have Apple logos rather than because they followed the spec.
As to this claim that these examples are apple screwing over their customers - perhaps the frontline folks at a store can fix a certain set of issues, and if the machine looks dead (ie, no screen) they advise customer of potential cost and send it to a group better able to fix things?
I'm not that impressed with support I've gotten at other places selling laptops (walmart / target) but maybe apple really is the worst here.
There is a healthy after market ecosystem primarily because apple charges so much. Not the other way around.
Furthermore, in the video on the ifixit site, the blogger replaced the battery with a genuine secondhand apple battery and it would not recognize it.
This is predatory behaviour from Apple on its consumers.
For example, you are claiming that just attaching a chip from an old apple battery to a new one should read as genuine in the phone. That is a total scam.
The detection feature is tied to a chip, not to the cell chemistry itself. If chips from old iphone batteries are all it takes to show a scam battery is genuine, given the high volume of old batteries, EVERY scam battery would show as genuine. This is a workaround already used and well known in other situations. To avoid this workaround you need to tie a specific chip in, not just any apple chip in.
Seriously - how do YOU propose apple alert the user to a bogus third party battery.
The phone detected this tampering and disabled the compromised component.
And you are disappointed that the part has been “locked down”.
If it were really Apple’s intention to prevent you from servicing your device, would they only disable the Touch ID sensor? Why wouldn’t they make the whole device inoperable, rather than make you suffer a minor inconvenience by having to use a passcode?
The less exciting answer is that the sensor was designed to certain security parameters and modifying it invalidates those. Yes, the threat model includes nation-state actors. Disabling the sensor preserves system security; designing for a potentially adversarial sensor is difficult and increases risk.
They did by mistake: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205628
And as for future use of the phone, that's already hopeless, because if you have the capability to fabricate a rogue fingerprint scanner, install it in the phone and unlock the phone to activate it, you could just keep the original phone and replace it with a fully rogue phone that you've copied the original data to.
But each device has a unique encryption key that is implemented in hardware. The flash storage cannot simply be moved to a new device. Cloning the storage and the hardware key is assumed to be significantly harder (and more costly) than replacing the sensor with something similar-looking (see any number of Chinese knockoffs).
Which was the second point. They can replace the whole phone and you're in the same situation. Having two components authenticate each other just requires them to replace both.
> The flash storage cannot simply be moved to a new device.
Not the way they've designed it, but there is no security reason not to allow that once the phone has already been unlocked.
How? This would require decrypting the data, wouldn't it?
Why would I give them that? I'm handing the phone over powered-down and without revealing my passcode.
So they can repair your phone.
And they get the same thing when they give you the rogue phone back and you try to unlock it, at which point it sends the PIN to them and they can use it to unlock your original phone and then mount it over the network to display the same data until they've finished copying it.
Though even that only makes the attack more expensive, because again, they can just replace the whole phone. Doing that undetected is harder because you have to connect the rogue phone to the original one as soon as they give the rogue phone what you need to unlock the original, which is a sophisticated attack. Though manufacturing custom malicious hardware already implies a pretty sophisticated attack.
This very situation happened right in front of me while I was waiting at the Apple store to pick up my 4yo 6s after a screen repair.
A helpless woman had strange issues with her new iPhone. Turns out it was a “refurbished” phone from a shady shop. The Apple guy went through half an hour of diagnostics and calmly explained all the little details (manufacturing date, battery cycles, actual mAh, various parts misbehaving and reporting obviously bogus information to the diag tools) that had no way of adding up, which led to the conclusion that she had been scammed (although he could not be sure so he never stated it as such).
As it turns out, no, you can’t get a brand new iPhone X for less than 200€.
That said, I think this mostly OK as long as Apple doesn't actually try to prevent replacement batteries from working. They could probably do a bit better with the messaging here, letting the user know there's not necessarily a problem, just that the provenance and quality of the battery can't be verified.
It's why they can charge such a premium for commodity batteries -- which is the problem.
> From applecare to the activation lock to app permissions to alerting user to bogus behavior to app store quality to reversible charging cables - all the activities HN considers "anti-consumer" have helped make consumers value apple products.
Let's apply this logic to history. Suppose Microsoft makes it so that Office doesn't run on anything but Windows and Windows won't run any office suites other than Microsoft Office.
Now you argue that Microsoft is doing their customers a great favor -- they can make sure nobody sells them a computer with some off-brand office suite that can't read their documents. But it's pretty clear what the problem with that argument is at this point, right? People should be able to make that choice for themselves. Corel shouldn't be able to call their office suite Microsoft Office, but it should still be possible to use it with Microsoft Windows when people are informed of what they're actually getting.
And then, does the fact that Windows and Office are tied together cause more people to buy them? Maybe, but not in the good way where people like it. In the anti-competitive way where you need Windows and some office suite and you choose Microsoft Office only because none of the others can run on Windows and the choice is forced on you.
I wonder if they're required to disclose they’re employees of Apple. If so, they could hire an external company to do the Job.
Hard to know these days.
I pop open the back and put in a different battery. No tools required. And it's even got a decent water proving rating.
I had to upgrade my S2 after 5 years of service because it was getting too slow for the crap people call a navigation app nowadays. Now I'm on an S5 that has easily kept up so far.
Some, while non user replaceable, are very easy. Others require you to take the phone almost entirely apart to replace it
I think if they lowered the price of common repairs to "reasonable", then good things would happen.
If instead of becoming a source of profit, repairs became more costly to apple, maybe they might: make things more modular and repairable, make parts available, allow external repairs.
(I could be idealistic and wrong)
Whatever, can't lose if you never play Apple's game.
Sounds like a problem deliberately created by Apple.
Two days later battery health was down to 71%. A week later the battery was dead. And of course it was not an original Apple battery by any means.
So, it might be bad communication by Apple, but for buyers a sign that the battery isn‘t original is very welcome.
If buying a second hand device, you want to know the screen and parts are original. If they are not original parts, you can still choose to buy the iPhone, but you are likely to offer less. Or you might just say no if you are nervous about batteries exploding, or security. That helps everyone avoid a market for lemons.
Third party components are very often lower quality in my experience. And if you've ever watched anyone fixing a phone, you would understand why many people don't want a phone "fixed" by phone technicians or DIY repairers.
Preventing repairs (a la error 53) is evil. A place to see unofficial repairs is fine so long as it isn't obnoxious (no popups) and doesn't arbitrarily disable functionality (Apple shouldn't report battery health of a battery they didn't fit, as they can't do so reliably. Disabling truetone seems wrong: it's ok if a replacement screen looks bad).
Disclaimer: generally I'm not an Apple fan.
Because of what actually? The "because" part mainly defines if Apple is doing "good" or "bad". Many people believe it is because they want to sell more new iPhones. I believe they're doing it to protect people like you.
Likewise: "iFixit wrote this article, because..."
Of course you should be allowed to fix your own phone in any shop and with any parts but this should be obvious in the phone to discourage fraud.
Let's look at it from a different angle. You got to take advantage of an aftermarket in order to find a cheap phone. In this case you got scammed, but for the time being you still have the option of getting a cheap battery replacement to fix your device with minimal losses.
Apple's moves are clearly designed to squash an aftermarket. I'd prefer to have the option to buy cheap old phones. I'd especially prefer to be able to replace the batteries on my own old phones.
Maybe it’s inline with Apple’s messaging because Apple’s messaging is inline with the customer concerns?
My phone's battery actually started expanding and nearly pushed the screen off of the back. Apple wouldn't touch it, though, so I just took it to another 3rd party battery replacer.
If there was a way to have known that the battery was replaced by a shit one before I had bought the phone, I would've had a much easier time
I have a Jailbroken iPhone, and I'd love to find a good non-Apple repair place for the next time I need to get my battery swapped.
It’s quite common to refurb expensive things because you can be relatively sure you will get a return on it. Double so if you can refurb with discount parts.
Repair a 3rd party screen, the worse that go wrong is maybe your contrast and image quality is a smidge worse than original
But w/ all those reports of battery fires, explosions, or just duds, my suspicion is this is both more of a QC but also a "cover your ass" liability kind of move by Apple.
If their battery health tightly calibrated to report on Apple’s OEM battery, it could provide misleading information about third-party batteries.
My guess is that Apple is bored of dealing with complaints about devices which have been modified by third parties.
A friend did buy a Nexus 6P battery replacement kit from Amazon, but the process was so byzantine, and no shop was willing to do it, that they just ended up getting a new device.
I did like back in the day when I could pop the back off my Samsung Galaxy and replace the battery, but those days are gone and Apple is the only company that has any sort of concerted program to keep their older devices operating.
More anecdotes, but it's too bad you don't know me. I've replaced 3 or 4 phone batteries in the last decade. Needless to say, they've all been Android, as I've been able to do them all myself. Most of the batteries have been $30 or so and have given me years more life on my phones than I otherwise would have gotten.
Maybe for high end phones.
It's still a very common feature on low-mid end phones. My motorola g4 which I got just a couple years ago has it.
Tim Cook put on his "Make Changing Batteries Expensive Again" hat.
Have to recode the battery, and it's been that way for years.
In the BMW community, we justify technical reasoning behind the battery coding of our automobiles' features, but apparently phones, with their comparable levels of complexity, are supposed to use AAA batteries because the company that makes replacement parts has a loud voice. Maybe I am mistaken, but this could be considered a double-standard. I am not apologizing for Apple, I have my own frustrations with the company lately, but I strive for consistency when I opine.
Bought the code reader from AliExpress for $150. Then sold it locally once I was done for close to $200.
My biggest gripe was getting the battery in and out of the trunk.
Anywho, a half decent scan tool pays for itself.
I’m also not the only driver and I like the idea of anyone borrowing it being able to pull codes at any time.
If Apple doesn't want to show the estimated health state for aftermarket batteries, that's fine, but they should have simply refrained from displaying that field. Displaying scary but meaningless warning messages just comes across as rent-seeking behavior. It will (or at least it should) encourage their customers to contact their representatives to support Right To Repair legislation.
The simple truth is that the market for third party non-Apple replacement parts is super sketchy. In the US and other countries where it's convenient to purchase from a reliable site like ifixit, you have legitimate options. For the rest of the world, you have AliExpress. It's not a matter of finding a local reseller, you really just don't have many good options.
I opted for my own 3rd party replacement via AliExpress and a few other resellers who shipped to the country I'm in, and while the price was right (about $10 or so), the battery shipped was just trash. It did not charge properly, even when I wired it up myself, and once fully charged that way, the batteries turned out to be counterfeit and had labels posted over the actual capacities.
It's a mine field, and unless you have the technical background to know whether it's the phone or the battery itself causing the issue, it really starts to look like it's Apple making things bad. In my case, I have the rudimentary knowledge to know that I just was sold batteries that were not fit for purpose. Go to the most common online retailer for most US persons (Amazon) and you are inundated with shoddy 3rd party batteries, the exact same ones I got from AliExpress.
How exactly are they supposed to protect the consumer here when __not__ noting that this is an unofficial battery results in the phone/user getting the impression something is wrong with the phone, not the battery.
I love iFixit, but in this case, I feel maybe they're misjudging the situation. I'd totally trust a battery from them 100%, but it's not feasible to ship to my country of residence from iFixit. Many people in the world are in this situation.
This is just more of the same. Apple needs to be more open so reputable companies like ifixit can keep doing what they're unwilling to, due to low profits or for whatever reason.
They don’t seem reputable.
1. You can't get genuine Apple replacement parts in such a way that the end-consumer can actually verify they are not counterfeits.
2. Apple charges an exorbitant brand premium for genuine Apple products.
3. Apple doesn't believe that unapproved persons are capable of repairing its devices correctly.
If one could order a replacement battery from Apple, at a price that approaches the actual cost of a genuine replacement battery, plus the actual cost of QA, plus the actual cost of splitting off single units from the batch and shipping them, most would never need to bother with sketchy third-party batteries. You could just buy an Apple battery, and either DIY replace it, or take it to an electronics repair-person that you trust.
So it is Apple making things bad. By refusing to recognize consumer right to repair at all, it is automatically excluding the possibility that there is a difference between a shoddy home-repair, and one that would otherwise meet Apple's repair standards, if only it had been performed by an Apple-blessed individual.
A shop that values its reputation would almost certainly offer customers the choice of OEM-original replacement parts, or brands known by them to be good, such as iFixit parts, if it could. As it is now, the only OEM-originals they can get, come from devices purchased new for the explicit purpose of dissassembly for parts, and broken, unrepairable devices that still have some good parts in them. That pushes the prices up.
There would be nothing to prevent there being poorly stored batteries that are genuine being sold and causing the same issue.
Apple is trying to have the cake, by designing a product with a longer except-for-the-battery service life, and eat it too, by making the battery intrinsic to the construction, and not easily replaceable. These are incompatible goals for product lifecycle. Either you make cheap garbage that may break before the battery fails, or you have to account for repairing or replacing a failed battery in a product you have not owned in any way ever since you sold it to the consumer.
The consumer-friendly way to go about this would be to offer OEM-blessed battery replacements by sanctioned professionals AND sell repair parts directly to anyone who wants to buy them AND publish specifications for 3rd-party replacement batteries AND publish instructions on how to replace the battery AND write your software to detect and report incorrect installation or out-of-spec replacement parts, while also actually accepting any repair done correctly with in-spec parts without complaint.
The "issue" is that the current software is essentially saying, "we know everyone in the world who can properly replace an Apple battery, and whoever it was that replaced this battery wasn't one of them". Rather than offload the cost of their brand protection scheme onto the consumers, they could write their word trademark and mfg date to the chip in the battery, read it from the phone to report as part of battery health, and prosecute battery-counterfeiters in civil court, on their own dime, rather than using some bullshit para-DRM scheme.
Your propose a costly scheme that would require significant ongoing investments in engineering and bureaucracy to maintain in order to support a network of less reliable repair shops policed by a never ending cycle of offensive lawsuits.
Not only would that not protect the brand, but it would harm consumers through increased pricing, and harm the repair shops by targeting them with lawsuits.
How can this possibly be better than the current situation where people are free to repair the device and use whatever batteries they like, and there are no lawsuits - only a message on a screen buried in the settings app!
Google keeps location tracking a secret from you until you view your data, then once you go look at it, they start sending you monthly summaries of your travels.
Any don't get me started on the facial recognition in Photos. Take a photo of someone else's kids, and it will show you a helpful popup asking if you want to send the photo to the kid's parent.
It's not a secret and I believe you have to opt in at some point.
I believe you can turn off facial recognition in Photos' settings.
Disclaimer: I am a Google employee, my opinions are my own.
You mean far superior because Firefox actually has extensions for their mobile browser?
Honest question: How can Apple KNOW it's a genuine apple battery, if it's not replaced from THEIR inventory? Moving a battery from one phone to another doesn't really mean anything, as the article states you can move the TI chip from one battery to another battery. Seem to me then that the underlying battery can be something other than the GENUINE battery.
Amazon is replete with fraudulent SD cards pretending to be one make/capacity when in reality they're not the same quality/size as a real card.
Honestly, we should stop Apple-ogizing. They are getting very user hostile. They should acknowledge and support end users right to repair.
I love jumping on the apple hate train as much as the next person, but this is not a valid reason to do so.
Depending on the aftermarket battery, those reported values could be completely wrong / misleading to the user. If you are looking for proof, just buy a random battery off amazon for your computer and tell me how accurate the current reported charge is.
Plus, I would like to know if a used device I buy has a non-OEM battery. As long as it stays in that settings screen and doesn't turn into a consistent annoying pop-up (or doesn't stop the user from upgrading, as was the case with the home button debacle of days passed) I don't think this deserves the outrage.
Also, the title is a bit misleading. Nothing is being locked, the device functions as it should. An ideal solution would be that apple allows third party battery manufacturers to go through a certification process so apple could ensure quality control. Fat chance in you-know-what apple would ever do that.
Or DRM. Do you want battery DRM?
The Right-to-Repair discussion often ignores a key problem companies have: figuring out whether a device is under warranty (i.e. whether they’re obligated to repair the device for free) when it’s submitted for repair.
Some repairs make themselves obvious, and so make the removal of warranty obligation obvious. Other repairs—like third-party battery replacements, done following the Apple process for repair and with Apple OEM components—make the warranty status of the device illegible. If the phone accepted a new Apple OEM battery without saying anything about it, the user might be misled into thinking that the device is still under warranty. But it’s not. It’s been repaired by a non-authorized third-party. It’s no longer Apple’s fault if the device breaks, because that third party may have screwed things up inside the device in any number of ways.
This is, in a sense, a “chain of trust” thing. It’s the same reason Chromebooks have that on-boot warning in development mode. The user needs to be aware that the chain of trust between the OEM and the end-user has been broken; and that, when that happens, anything may potentially have been done to the device.
That’s not to argue against Right-to-Repair. Non-authorized third-party repair shops should have every right to operate as businesses, and end-users should have every right to do business with them. But Apple also should have every right to warn users that the chain of trust has been broken—because it has. The user knowingly broke it themselves! (And, of course, Apple shouldn’t have the right to misconstrue breaking the chain of trust as anything more than that. The battery health is unknown because it’s not an Apple-certified repair, certainly; but that doesn’t mean that the battery is bad, and it would be anti-competitive to claim that.)
I get where you are coming from but this isn't so cut and dried, as incompetent repairs are certainly capable of damaging or destroying other components. Someone I know once unknowingly messed up an antenna in the process of replacing a phone battery with an after market one, which caused all sorts of odd and intermittent symptoms with communication issues. Why should a manufacturer be expected to deal with that under warranty?
Part of the problem with consumer electronics is that they aren't really particularly designed to be serviceable, let alone user-serviceable. So it's not like a car manufacturer saying they'll refuse to warranty a rear shock because you changed your own oil or whatever.
I'm a strong supporter of right-to-repair, but I'm not convinced that should extend to forcing user serviceable designs where there is an actual design tradeoff. On the other hand this is pretty hard to prove - maybe all you can do is go after user-hostile design changes that serve no other purpose.
If such "basic math" exists, can someone please point me to it? Estimating capacity on a fully known, completely characterized cell is the bane of my existence.
Basic math that can help estimate approximate capacity of an unknown replacement battery- that's a billion dollar startup worthy technology right there.
As long as the chemistry is known it should hold true, sure, you'll get some variation based on load but you should be able to account for that pretty with some testing or careful probing at minimal current draw.
Accubattery seems to give a pretty good approximation using just this information at least, would definitely be sufficient for detecting cells that were fraudulent by more than 10-20%. If you want higher accuracy, yeah I'm sure things could get extremely involved, but many of the fraudulent batteries are 25-50% of the expected capacity.
If only it were that simple. In the real world, when you have a load that’s drawing from the battery, the voltage across the terminals will be different from the voltage on an open circuit for the same battery at the “battery level” (state of charge is the commonly used term)
To make matters worse, the life of the battery remaining at any point depends upon the current drawn from it. If you were to draw a smaller current, it’ll last longer - and this is purely because batteries are weird and has nothing to do with the charge curve. For something like a LED flashlight that always draws the same current - this isn’t a problem. A modern smartphone on the other hand is essentially unpredictable.
Then you have the numerical problem with integrating current over time - the errors add up over time too! Now you have to measure the current out of the battery with a high sampling rate with a great adc - it’s a massive power draw. Most modern fuel gauge ICs are moving away from measuring current because of all the trouble with cumulative errors.
I can go on for a while longer, but I think you get the picture.
> Accubattery seems to give a pretty good approximation using just this information at least, would definitely be sufficient for detecting cells that were fraudulent by more than 10-20%
Accubattery can afford to monitor multiple charge and discharge cycles before converging on a battery model. A smartphone needs to know what battery it has when you plug in your newly replaced battery to charge it for the very first time to ensure it doesn’t become a fire or safety hazard. Similar concerns with discharging a battery. Look up the exploding Samsung Galaxy note 7 for an example of how serious this can be.
> As long as the chemistry is known it should hold true, sure, you'll get some variation based on load but you should be able to account for that pretty with some testing or careful probing at minimal current draw.
If only it were this easy. I’ve had battery vendors - the people who make this stuff - give me specs on charging that battery that would kill the battery in 250 charge cycles.
It’s a very bizarre field to work in - many times, you can get away with very crude approximations and no one can tell the difference. But once in a while, a very very tiny deviation from the spec will give you exploding devices and have your product be announced as a safety hazard in every flight before take off (yay! free publicity...)
The challenge is that you never know when you can get away with something and when 1 in a million devices will explode on a tech journalist/reporter/reviewer.
With batteries, esp with Lithium Ion cells, nobody is going to take chances with approximations.
This is just plain silly, even Apple's current implementation doesn't prevent it charging the battery even if you plugged a garbage one in. Indeed they have the very same luxury of monitoring many charge cycles.
Immediately rejecting the battery and refusing to charge doesn't seem to be an implementation any phone manufacturer today has chosen.
The other stuff this article claims was designed to stop third-party repairs, such as the stuff to do with Touch ID, was actually security-related (basically, the device couldn't trust Touch ID anymore after the repair). I hadn't heard about True Tone disabling before, but that's probably because AIUI each device's screen is individually calibrated in the factory, and if you swap the screen yourself then you've lost that calibration.
People are still going to send Apple their phone and say, "why is my phone displaying this message?", which support is going to have to deal with. This isn't going to all the sudden save Apple money on support.
I work as an electrical engineer and understand Apple’s position very well. Nobody wants, that user try to service their devices. Some get lucky and device works fine, but majority end up wanting free support for their failures. Especially when YouTube is full of tutorials teaching untrained folks how to do even complicated repairs. Without proper skill it ends up very quickly in a disaster <- see this daily in my job.
Third party battery replacements aren't even that much of a savings over having Apple do it.
$49 for the "iPhone SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and all other eligible models." Those are the ones that now have batteries that are probably wearing down more.
You have to go to an Apple Authorized Service Provider to have the replacement done. But guess what? Best Buy locations are now AASPs as well and they can do it.
I'm ok with that.
Sherman anti trust law
“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States”
Someone could argue that monopolize battery repair is a form of monopoly. I understand the battery safety part from Apple though.
it seems a razor and a low wattage solder iron will fix it.
and im guessing a few little guys may end up fattening thier wallets this way. Im wondering how apple might catch the play, and how they would change the hardware so a chip transplant is no longer a workaround.
Read RAM image before desoldering. Write image to RAM after resoldering.
For that matter, read RAM image from old battery and write it to new battery, no soldering required. Or MITM the connection between phone and battery, and the bypass device can pass-through battery health information while intercepting and responding to authentication-related signals.
You will never be able to enforce hardware security indefinitely against an attacker with device-in-possession.
Sure, a bypass battery is possible. The point here isn’t 100% security (which as you say is impossible), it’s to make the operation difficult enough that most give up or have to charge more than an official battery replacement.
Dissolve the chip casing in fuming nitric acid and use probe needles. The official pins are not the only way to interface with the silicon, when you have device-in-possession.
Use a timing attack. Find a collision.
It is very likely that the same private key is locked up inside every chip, and one reverse-engineer, probing one of them once, can compromise the key for all of the chips manufactured before their publication date, and probably would last until the OEM ran out of those chips, and then deprecated the key after some time with a software patch. The one-time cost would be worth it for any manufacturer of off-brand batteries.
The battery controller chip is not going to be an impenetrable security vault, in any case. The cost of parts is a factor, even for Apple.
Asymmetric keys don't work if the attacker is in possession of the private key, no matter how many padlocked boxes you put it in. The attacker has the key, and getting it out in usable form is a matter of time, not possibilities.
If nobody does it for payment cards, there’s no way they’ll bother doing it for smartphone batteries.
Now, even a phone listed in "9 Best Phones With Removable Battery In 2019" has a battery replacement process like this.
I'm holding onto it until Librem Phone comes out, which also has a replaceable battery.
Having phones with non-replaceable batteries just seems incredibly wasteful to me, so I won't ever buy one on general principle.
Apple has a monopoly for Apple phones, but that isn’t a monopoly. If you buy an Apple product, you are agreeing to buy an Apple product with all that entails. If you want a user replaceable battery, you buy a different phone. Apple isn’t using market dominance to prevent you from buying alternatives. If Apple owned a majority of the battery market and created a monopoly on batteries, that’s different than them controlling the batteries in their own product. Apple’s actions don’t have any bearing on someone’s ability to buy a repair a phone — just the ability to buy and repair an Apple phone.
If you actually read what people write fully instead of projecting what you want to hear, you'll be a much better conversationalist.
Current iPhone X / XS / XR Battery Replacement is $69, which is roughly double the price of being replaced on streets with similar battery. Now of course there are scammers who tries to replace a crappy battery, but going to well know Repair Shop normally prevent that from happening.
I would have no problem paying double the price for an Apple Store replacement, except not only would have I have to wait hours or days for replacement depending on which part of the cities, countries, world you are in. You will also have to wait and go into that awful Apple Store and try and get someone to help. What is an 30 to 45 min job elsewhere, in the worst case you could wait 45 min just to get someone in Apple Store.
Here I am paying double the price for worst experience.
But that is not the worst part.
Apple Refuse to replace your Battery if your screen is broken, has slight crack on the edge, water damage or whatever damage they claim it has. You will first have to pay and fix those damages.
Again I am perfectly fine with paying to fix it, except more than 99% of times Apple will quote you a price roughly 30 - 50% of your iPhone's that is now already 2 - 3 years old. And it makes much more sense to buy a new one instead. ( This remind me of the so call logic board damage I had with MacBook Pro 2 years ago. Sometimes I wonder why I am still using Apple )
"Subpar" is a very mild word to describe what was done there.
1) I want to be able to open and repair my own things.
2) Every time I use a non-Apple battery, or buy a refurbished phone, I have issues ranging from battery life is shorter, to battery swelling.
I bought an 8s from Amazon’s refurbished line last week for a family member and the battery health started at 89% but is now at 81%. Sketch. Hard to trust any refurbished seller. Ultimately that leads to bad experiences with Apple products — my dad gets a replacement phone and all he knows is the battery life is poor.
And why replace a cable when you can replace both boards, then maybe the cable too. They do seem very quick to recommend replacing major parts or to buy new. They could try the easy fixes (such as cables), I think people would rather risk a small fee before deciding if it is worth shelling out for more expensive components.
Apple’s customer service is second to none. If you buy their products, you should buy AppleCare too and not worry about shady repair shops.
> If you replace the battery in the newest iPhones, a message indicating you need to service your battery appears in Settings > Battery, next to Battery Health.
This is not a warning that you are using a non-OEM part. This is an imperative for the user to get the part replaced.
Even if most non-Apple batteries are terrible, this is not a reasonable approach. IMO, it is bad for Apple to refer to anything they have not approved as defective and very misleading to the customer.
This is the reason why it gets more and more locked down.
I once bought a MacBook with weirdass problems. Turned out to be a bad data cable used by someone.
Chips are still swappable, because not many people do this / screw up, but also... a battery is quite a dangerous component
This is not "taking ownership" in the way you intended, but it is demonstrating ownership.
What’s a person to do?
I don't feel like dying because someone spent $15 on a replacement battery purchased at the same place they by their Vape juice.
Literally enough said.
Odd-numbered days: PRIVACY DAY - we love our users!
Even-numbered days: HARDWARE DAY - we hate our users!
Pick one and stick with it, guys.
Why third parties exist at all? They must be doing something better: either they're cheaper, faster, more competent, in more convenient locations, or something else along these lines.
Apple has long repair times and that would be my argument for preferring a local repair shop over shipping the phone or computer god-knows-where.
They're making an assumption about intent. Unless you can prove you're part of the Apple team responsible for this hardware behavior, you're just going to be doing the same.
iFixit are therefore making a misstatement.
The only thing Apple is doing is not making assessments about the condition of off-brand replacements. This is pretty obvious and expected behavior.
iFixit are using a misrepresentation of this to generate publicity using the same narrative as they always do.
This is akin to my check engine light always being on whenever any mechanic makes repairs to my car. Yes, Kia is "protecting themselves from liability of damages by 3rd party behavior" but they're also creating a UX problem for me.
As the end user: this is stupid, and I don't like it, and it seems like a choice not a need on the company's part.
I have personally run into this when I replaced a battery myself back in the iPhone 4 era.
Metaphor still works.