Despite Some Progress, iFixit Says Apple’s Dedication To ‘Right To Repair’ Still Sucks
from the we've-changed-but-not-really dept
Apple has never looked too kindly upon users actually repairing their own devices, or using lower cost independent repair services. The company’s ham-fisted efforts to shut down, sue, or otherwise imperil third-party repair shops are legendary. As are the company’s efforts to force recycling shops to shred Apple products (so they can’t be refurbished and re-used).
Recently, Apple has made a few pivots on this front, including, most notably, its apparent about face on California right to repair legislation. And while Apple has also made some modest progress in backing off its attempt to monopolize repair (see: its Self-Service Repair Program), outside organizations like iFixit say the tech giant still has a long, long way to go.
iFixit recently dropped the reparability score for the iPhone 14 from a recommend 7 out of 10 to a do-not-recommend 4. Why? The organization took heat from hardware geeks who noted the 7 out 10 score wasn’t accurate because Apple is still using “parts pairing” to ensure that independent, affordable repair is either cumbersome as hell or simply impossible.
From a pure hardware perspective the reparability architecture of the iPhone has definitely improved, but only if you follow Apple’s sanctioned process and buy the parts from Apple. If you buy the parts independently, the new parts you or your independent repair shop installed won’t work due to Apple’s sophisticated software protections:
“Today, you need one more thing: a software handshake, using Apple’s System Configuration tool. It contacts Apple’s servers to “authenticate” the repair, then “pairs” the new part to your system so it works as expected. Of course, it can only authenticate if Apple knows about your repair in advance, because you gave them the exact serial number of your iPhone, and they’ve pre-matched it to a display or battery. This is only possible if you buy the screen or battery directly from Apple. Forget harvesting parts—which is a huge part of most independent repair and recycling businesses. It’s also impossible to pair any aftermarket parts—which means only Apple-authorized repairs can truly restore the device to full functionality.”
That’s a lot of environmental waste and added consumer costs and restrictions created by a company that claims to have seen the light on “right to repair.” And as iFixit notes, Apple implements systems like this without much in the way of meaningful transparency:
“In a move that will not surprise close observers of Apple, they have developed the system without notifying the people who do the actual repair work that it impacts.”
Tech industry lobbyists are increasingly using their influence to ensure right to repair laws don’t cover the most problematic industries on right to repair (like medical equipment, game consoles, or autos), then they’re increasingly using software restrictions to make make affordable, independent repair as cumbersome and annoying as possible. All while soaking up media praise for having seen the light.
Filed Under: cellular, hardware, independent repair, iphone, right to repair, tinker, wireless
Companies: apple, ifixit
Comments on “Despite Some Progress, iFixit Says Apple’s Dedication To ‘Right To Repair’ Still Sucks”
Apple’s dedication to right to repair can only be described as “monopolizing the whole damn process.”
Re:
It is also priced to get people to buy new devices rather than repair older d3evices.
And this.. Is legal under the new California bill.
From what I read elsewhere, the official excuse is “theft”: without pairing, someone could steal your phone, harvest the parts, and sell them on the black market. Maybe they’d end up at independent repair shops and in someone else’s phone.
It’s bullshit, of course: that’s no reason to prevent the paired phone from un-pairing each part that’s still in a working state, for people more concerned with future breakage than theft (or who just want to sell that part). And obviously Apple could ship parts in an un-paired state, and it shouldn’t take much work to add a web-based “generate re-pairing code” feature for people with Apple accounts but no currently-working phone.
Re:
The irony is: IF theft of Apple phone parts ever was a serious issue… it’s one of Apples making. If the parts were available at reasonable prices on the market nobody[1] would bother stealing a phone for scalping.
[1] Well technically there probably would be a few people. If you can think of a stupid thing to do, there’s probably some small group of people willing to do it. But that group wouldn’t be effected by the “it’s a stupid, pointless thing to do” argument, by definition.
Re: Re:
I think you’re misinterpreting this. The concern isn’t that they’ll steal a phone for parts to repair their own. It’s that they’ll steal phones to turn them into cash.
This has nothing to do with the reasonability of prices. Android phone displays are often in the $50 to $150 range too, and of course are attached to some other parts people might need. A thief might be able to get fifty dollars for a phone, after the middlemen take their cuts.
And then they won’t sell parts. Replace the whole thing!
Re:
We’re getting closer to that. We’ve got RAM stacked on the CPU, all soldered to the board. Flash is probably soldered to the same board, maybe to also be stacked eventually. That means all this stuff counts as a single replacement module (which happens to contain all your data).
The E.U. is going to force more easily replaceable batteries, at least: “with no tool, a tool or set of tools that is supplied with the product or spare part, or basic tools. … the process for replacement shall be able to be carried out by a layman.” It’s likely that the rest of the world will benefit from that.
Apple repairs
Apple is hamstrung by government regulations. Component level encryption (pairing parts) is needed for FIPS 140-3 certification. If they break their FIPS certification, they can’t sell to the government. Medical devices, which iPhones kind of are, also have onerous cybersecurity requirements. It takes a long time to recertify anything because the testing labs are very busy. So, immense regulatory burdens are driving Apple’s control freakery.
Re:
Do you have a citation? The implementation guidance is 174 pages long and I’m not finding those keywords in it. The standard itself is only 11 pages but references a bunch of unavailable ISO documents. It only seems to apply to “cryptographic modules”, though, and what’s that in the context of a phone? The whole phone? Just a security chip? The CPU and display?
I find it hard to believe FIPS requires pairing even of batteries. And cameras? Some agencies don’t even want cameras in phones. I’d also be surprised if it prohibited un-pairing or re-pairing by the authorized owner. A re-keying ability is generally considered advantageous for security. Generally, governments like to have centralized “device management” software, and I see no reason they shouldn’t be able to change the components associated with any of their phones (like: un-pair the current and broken display, and accept a new display with serial number X).
Re:
They do not have to keep all devices FIPS certified, only the ones they sell to the government, where they could use that to sell at a premium.
Also, if changing a screen, the most common repair, can compromise the phones security, the design is bad.
Re: Re:
How do you figure? The screen is necessarily a trusted component in almost any security system. Like, if it says I’m approving a $10 payment when it’s actually $1,000, that’s a big problem. Or if poor RF design allows people to spy on what’s being displayed (TEMPEST). Not that pairing is a good way to fix any of this.
You reap what you sow
Anyone still buying anything Apple related after 2015 is certified dumbass by my account.
It’s why they’re so powerful, y’all keep feedin’ the beast!
You can’t beat stupid, I guess.
Re: re: You reap what you sow
I agree. Built in obsolescence, no respect for the environment,
I quit buying Apple products years ago
Years ago I bought a Brand new Performa 475 “040” CPU based apple Mac . Within 1 yr apple said it was obsolete. 2 Years later they sent me a CPU based on class action litigation because it really only had an LC040, and not the full 040 as advertised. Then they wanted me to pay an apple certified tech a couple hundred dollars to install it in an “obsolete” computer. That was the point I gave up on Apple forever. I have purchased only 1 mac since (used) and that was only because I needed 64 bit Mac OS to test some code of mine.
If you are buying Apple products currently you need to have your head examined. They are expensive at the onset and expensive to repair. Apple loves to have people tied into their “upgrade train” as they make each item obsolete one after another.
THEY PUT THEIR PROFITS OVER THE ENVIRONMENT AND SHOULD BE SHAMED FOR THAT!