My god, the narrative. "Apple is doing this just to fuck with users, fuck apple" etc over and over despite zero evidence as to their intention here.
One sane person comes up with the more likely explanation:
> That implies to me the calibration is unique to each screen and a proper repair has a calibration setup step?
And someone just dismisses that perfectly logical explanation completely out of hand, declaring 'all the hardware is identical'
> No that is not the case. Its not a calibration that really happens here because the screens and the hardware are identical.
Tell me you don't know anything about mass production without telling me you don't know anything about mass production...
Their reply is further sense:
> If Apple wanted to prevent unauthorised replacements they would have no reason to cause erratic behaviour, they could just disable it.
I am so tired of people who interpret Apple's actions purely as anti-consumer fuckery. Even to this day, people still claim that "apple made people's phones slow down as they got older, so they would have to buy new ones" despite it being widely covered that Apple, like other phone manufacturers, slows down the CPU when they detect the battery's internal resistance rising to prevent brownouts so that the phone is usable for a longer period of time and all you have to do to restore original performance is replace the battery, apple or no.
You point that out and without admitting they were wrong, they shriek "well apple should have TOLD people that's what they were doing." No other manufacturer was telling people, either. Plenty of Android handsets just randomly start crashing as the battery's internal resistance goes up. I had one. A Google Nexus 6. It took me months and multiple re-installs of the OS to figure out what was going on before I read others saying that new batteries fixed their crashing.
You just can't win.
Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging - compared to USB-C, but apparently Apple are "dicks" for not going to a more fragile connector literally designed to break just like every USB connector before it. People even have the nerve to complain about Apple "taxing" cable manufacturers and their burdensome certification, ignoring the whole "random USB-C cables will fry your laptop and phone" problem and the fact that the USB alliance charges a license fee on every single product that bears the USB logo.
The USB-c male connector is deliberately designed to break so that if you stress a plugged in setup you'll break the cable instead of the connector soldered into your phone, which is harder to repair. Maybe they misinterpreted that?
Micro-USB had the opposite problem: all the wear would go to the female socket - i.e. the part you had to fix with a soldering iron. It's possible that they're just not aware that USB-IF fixed this design flaw.
I’ve had lots of USB mini/micro B ports do this on various devices (not C so far). I’ve never even heard of it happening to a Lightning port, and I’ve been through a lot of iDevices over the past decade.
It’s not the connector that physically breaks, it’s the spring-y part that holds the cable tight. In lightning ports, that part is on the female side, while in USB-C it is on the easier to replace male side.
With that said, it’s not a common problem in my personal experience of using previously used iphones daily for another 2 years.
This was a flaw on the Nokia N900. Or at least, on some of the devices.
I solved the issue by using TOPK magnetic cables. The magnet would remain in the port (microUSB, lightning, or USB-C, not sure about miniUSB but I got like one device which uses that), and all the cables would work with it. I even leave them connected (the LED does not draw much power and I got solar anyway) which allows me to quickly start or stop charging a device. Which, given I got quite a few, is very useful. Another issue is I keep getting leftover microUSB but need more and more USB-C for which the feature isn't very important (the more USB-C I'd have, the easier it'd be to stop using magnetic cables).
The exception is my MBP as it has a MagSafe (v3, my wife's MBP and my old MBP having v2) but I forgive Apple for that; its very useful and probably where TOPK got their inspiration from.
It seems conspiratorial but consider that the companies making the standards and manufacturing the cables have an incentive to get people to buy as many cables as possible and to do so regularly. It’s the same complaint that people leverage against Apple normally - that Apple designs their Lightning cables to be fragile so that people are forced to replace them. I don’t think there’s actually strong evidence for either argument. I have USB cables that I’ve had for years and then I’ve had cables that I had for a few months that went bad or were poorly made. I’ve mostly had good luck with my Apple cables and never had a problem with chargers or headphones like some.
It is very difficult to damage a lightning port by sticking something into it because the contacts are deep inside the port and only the tiniest bit is exposed, enough to mate with the plug, and the male plug has zero moving or bending parts:
In fact, it's remarkably easy to clean a Lightning port and the common advice is "just stick a toothpick in." There's almost no risk of damaging the pins inside. It's also very easy to inspect for debris.
Meanwhile with USB-C, you have a very, very thin piece of plastic in the center with contacts on either side, coming out very close to the face of the connector, so you end up with shit like this happening:
Further, the retention mechanism for Lightning is incredibly simple and durable. A large clip that snaps, either side, into large detents on either side:
On USB-C they do something kinda sorta similar, but instead of being around the outside of the connector and thus nice and beefy (and protected - there's no way to bend or deform the ends), it's tiny little prongs inside the connector, completely unsupported mechanically and exposed to being bent by debris in either connector, or something being jammed inside.
Further: look at the plugs and connectors. The male lightning connector? Really it just needs to be the right thickness and the pads need to be in the right places. The female connector is similarly very simple. The retention mechanism is also very obviously low-tolerance.
Look at the design of the USB-C connector and imagine the long list of tolerances needed to get it to work right because you have the entire working guts of the device-side connector in the center of said connector going into the plug.
The lightning connector has one major flaw: the springs are in the phone side.
Over time these wear out which is why its much better to have the phone side have simple static contact surfaces and the spring loaded contacts on the cable side which is much cheaper to replace.
USB until C also did this wrong and C fixed that mistake.
Springs will always wear out. Every connector has a number of rated insertions. Some are as low as tens of cycles only (like the 12HVPWR connector on GPUs), USB-A has 1500, USB-C 10,000 precisely because of this inversion.
For Lightning it's not known because it's a proprietary standard but it will have a number of mating cycles.
This is correct. On the internet you really can’t win because it’s not a debate, or even a conversation with another individual. You’re talking to an anonymous mob of unknown size and composition.
I've replaced 2 iPhones and and an iPad for no other reason than that the lightning socket came loose and unreliable after a few years (even though the devices were otherwise fine). I've never had a single issue with USB-C
I've had a MacBook Pro USB-C cable, it lasted around 2 years. An iPad USB-C cable, lasted for less than a year.
I don't even move them around much, but now I'm forced to use my Switch's USB-C cable to charge both. At least there are a lot of USB-C cables now that many things use them. Hopefully I don't end up using my headphone USB-C cable to charge everything.
The controller on the replacement screen has no calibration whereas the controller from the old screen has been calibrated to the old screen, apparently sufficiently close enough to the necessary calibration of the new screen to not show noticeable issues to most people.
The real test would be grabbing two screens with calibrated controllers and switch the controllers out, then compare accuracy after the swap with accuracy before the swap.
This similar to color calibration on your TV.
Replace the panel of your TV and reset all settings and a good chunk of people is going to notice that the colors are off.
Plugin the color settings used when calibrating the original panel and most people won’t notice it’s off by a little, only trained eyes might notice that it needs further calibrating to perfect the color output.
Another analogy would be new uninflated tires. Put them on your new car and everyone sees there’s something wrong.
Grab inflated tires from your old car and put them on your new car however and most people don’t notice that they need more/less air appropriate for this different make/model/weighted car.
If it really was about calibration, wouldn't you think Apple would've calibrated the screen at the factory and programmed the controller with the calibration data?
The real test would be grabbing two screens with calibrated controllers and switch the controllers out, then compare accuracy after the swap with accuracy before the swap.
That's what they showed in the video. The replacement screen was from a different iPad; it wasn't an entirely new one.
If the cal data is stored in the controller, it's likely that using the old controller with a different screen means the calibration is off a little, but if that's better than using the new screen and controller (presumably with cal data for the new screen) together, there's something going on beyond that.
> If it really was about calibration, wouldn't you think Apple would've calibrated the screen at the factory and programmed the controller with the calibration data?
That sounds like a process thing that could go either way. I can imagine a system where they wait until the ipad is assembled and then use the hardware on the ipad to run the color calibration against the screen being simpler/more sensible to integrate into production than a system where panels need to be plugged into a separate thing earlier on.
They've always split calibration between the factory and the Apple Store when it came to replacement parts.
Some of the calibration offsets are device specific, so for a full calibration the unit as a hole needs to be calibrated.
Early on they did calibration in store with machines like these[0], but it caused too many issue.
In part because geniuses, like the one in question, like to draw conclusions based on incomplete data and as a consequence get overconfident in their ability repair and asses.
Where this confidence comes from is beyond me, because most of their work has been relegated to a paint by numbers process using tools that abstract as much as possible away, limiting critical thinking.
Ironically, the fuckups caused by this confidence, causes more to be abstracted away limiting the experience and knowledge they build up, and the more this is limited the more confident they get and so this Dunning–Kruger cycle goes on and on.
In any case, in part because of too many issues with these machines Apple has worked to move as much as the calibration process away to the factory, limiting the actions that are necessary in the Apple Store to using a special app nowadays[1].
Whatever the case, both the machines used back in the day and the app currently in use combine local data with remote data.
Information about factory calibration is looked up in a cloud database based on screen ID number, that calibration data is downloaded and combined with calibration data that is collected locally by running a special firmware to run some local calibration tests.
Everything is verified before being finalized and the part is married to the device via serial numbers, storing the relevant calibration data in the relevant sides of the equation (i.e. screen controller and device).
If at any point in the future there's a mismatch, the offsets (i.e. calibration data) is ignored entirely and no offsets are applied at all.
This serves a couple of purposes, but the important ones being the prevention of damage and a way to remind the person observing it (i.e. presumed to be the worker repairing it) that calibration is still necessary and/or has not been completed successfully.
A colorimeter could be used to calibrate a screen's colors, including a TV. I'm not aware of such a device for touchscreens though. The touchscreens I replaced via iFixit were each good enough replacements. But to be fair: I never did drawing on them.
Regarding the issue, I find it pretty simple to address: I believe Apple should allow third party repair shops to achieve such, and if they're unwilling or unable to, they should by law be forced to do it themselves for free, with S&H on them, too.
This sure as hell isn't about "calibration". Using the old controller with the new screen causes it to start working correctly. If anything that would be more likely to be using the wrong calibration constants (the ones for the old screen).
> I am so tired of people who interpret Apple's actions purely as anti-consumer fuckery.
But it is because they don't care about it working after a third party repair. They're trying to profit twice: once from sale, once from hardware repair support which is very expensive (lol, 600 EUR to replace a MBP 2014 screen ..) inflates the price and warrants the higher price of a new device.
> Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging
Depends on the device. You can charge a smartphone wirelessly, too, and you might want to use wired for transferring data. Yes, I know, it is a cloud world but that isn't my choice. And if you want to transfer data via lightning... prepare for the fun experience of 480 mbit/sec called USB2.
> People even have the nerve to complain about Apple "taxing" cable manufacturers and their burdensome certification, ignoring the whole "random USB-C cables will fry your laptop and phone" problem and the fact that the USB alliance charges a license fee on every single product that bears the USB logo.
Indeed, I do, because Apple wants to earn large margins on everything. I also recommend against using random cables, see e.g. O.MG cable.
The problem is that with Apple, when anything needs calibration, that's used as an excuse to serialize the part. Apple doesn't release calibration tools to the public, nor can you program it yourself because there's public key crypto cancer everywhere.
In a world where Apple wasn't trying to dynamite the repair industry, they'd have a website with all their calibration tools and low level format documentation on it. Things that actually need to be paired for security reasons (e.g. fingerprint sensors, TrueDepth cameras, the angle sensor, etc) would have a click-through notification saying "hey, if you didn't get this part fixed someone might be spying on you" and simple tests to verify that the new part works, instead of just permanently disabling the associated features (Touch ID, Face ID, the ability to put your MacBook to sleep).
The phrase "undue burden" is probably going through your head. The problem is that Apple wants you to think it's an undue burden for them to make their devices more repairable. Their process for locking out repair shops is to find a plausibly deniable reason to do so - i.e. security - and then half-ass everything associated with that. So the actual security rationale gets implemented but all the 'ecosystem stuff' Apple is normally very good at just... isn't there.
Releasing calibration tools for this sort of thing would be a rounding error in Apple's accounting. And it would improve people's perceptions of their products, too. The thing is, I already knew about this problem despite not knowing there was a calibration step involved. /r/ipad would regularly get posts once a week about people whose iPads just couldn't draw lines straight, and I just assumed I'd gotten lucky with my iPad Pro M1. Turns out, they all had gotten their screens replaced at one point or another, and there's ZERO indication that doing so will fuck up your Pencil digitizer.
People assume Apple's actions are anti-consumer because Apple - and, as you pointed out, the entire industry - has eroded their own trust by gaslighting users. No buddy, it's for your safety and security that we fuck up your pencil and break Face ID if you get a screen swap.
The users might as well gaslight Apple back.
> Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging
USB-C as an ecosystem is hilariously poorly thought out but charging is the one thing I can reliably do with it. The only problem I've had is getting USB-C cables that will carry video or charge at high voltage. That last one miiight sound like a point in Lightning's favor except for the fact that it's only a problem at laptop charger levels. Apple switched their entire laptop range to USB-C back in 2016 and the only iPad that still charges with Lightning is the last-gen model. If Lightning was superior for charging Apple would have used that on their laptops instead.
You can get dodgy Lightning cables from the same people selling dodgy USB-C. Both will be uncertified knock-off garbage made by people who probably aren't paying royalties to anyone - neither Apple nor USB-IF.
I don't think USB-C is as bad as its reputation. Yes, it's tough to find a cable that will carry data and video signals and high voltage charging. But how does that compare with the alternatives? You can't do it with Lightning, period. You can't do it with any other cable standard, period. Sure it could be improved, but the fact is I can get a cable with all those features after (minimal) research, and before it just wasn't possible.
Not to mention any connection device should be designed to break first. I know I would rather snap a $20 cable than damage the device itself. Much like the complaints about camera lens attachments breaking when mishandled: much better that than the damage if it did stay attached.
It’s like $70 after 5 years of usage. That’s quite a good price-value ratio, over having to replace your perfectly fine phone 2 years down the line because it has no more software updates..
> I am so tired of people who interpret Apple's actions purely as anti-consumer fuckery. Even to this day, people still claim that "apple made people's phones slow down as they got older, so they would have to buy new ones" despite it being widely covered that Apple, like other phone manufacturers, slows down the CPU when they detect the battery's internal resistance rising to prevent brownouts so that the phone is usable for a longer period of time and all you have to do to restore original performance is replace the battery, apple or no.
What they did was chase thinness and so they didn't include an adequate power source for the processor they were using.
One sane person comes up with the more likely explanation:
> That implies to me the calibration is unique to each screen and a proper repair has a calibration setup step?
And someone just dismisses that perfectly logical explanation completely out of hand, declaring 'all the hardware is identical'
> No that is not the case. Its not a calibration that really happens here because the screens and the hardware are identical.
Tell me you don't know anything about mass production without telling me you don't know anything about mass production...
Their reply is further sense:
> If Apple wanted to prevent unauthorised replacements they would have no reason to cause erratic behaviour, they could just disable it.
I am so tired of people who interpret Apple's actions purely as anti-consumer fuckery. Even to this day, people still claim that "apple made people's phones slow down as they got older, so they would have to buy new ones" despite it being widely covered that Apple, like other phone manufacturers, slows down the CPU when they detect the battery's internal resistance rising to prevent brownouts so that the phone is usable for a longer period of time and all you have to do to restore original performance is replace the battery, apple or no.
You point that out and without admitting they were wrong, they shriek "well apple should have TOLD people that's what they were doing." No other manufacturer was telling people, either. Plenty of Android handsets just randomly start crashing as the battery's internal resistance goes up. I had one. A Google Nexus 6. It took me months and multiple re-installs of the OS to figure out what was going on before I read others saying that new batteries fixed their crashing.
You just can't win.
Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging - compared to USB-C, but apparently Apple are "dicks" for not going to a more fragile connector literally designed to break just like every USB connector before it. People even have the nerve to complain about Apple "taxing" cable manufacturers and their burdensome certification, ignoring the whole "random USB-C cables will fry your laptop and phone" problem and the fact that the USB alliance charges a license fee on every single product that bears the USB logo.