Despite Some Progress, iFixit Says Apple’s Dedication To ‘Right To Repair’ Still Sucks

(Mis)Uses of Technology

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

HP Fails To Dodge Lawsuit Over Blocking Users From Using Their Printer Scanner If Ink Cartridges Aren’t Installed

Legal Issues

from the down-with-drm dept

When it comes to obnoxious DRM and bizarre, greedy restrictions, nobody does it better than printer manufacturers. The industry has long waged a not-so-subtle war on its own customers, routinely rolling out firmware updates or DRM preventing them from using more affordable, competitor printer cartridges.

A few years ago, printer manufacturers took this tactic one step further, and began preventing users from being able to use a multifunction printer’s scanner if they didn’t have company sanctioned ink installed. Canon was hit with a $5 million lawsuit in 2021 for the practice, but was able to quietly settle it privately without facing much accountability, or having to change much of its behavior.

In 2022 HP was also hit with a lawsuit (pdf) for preventing scanners from working without sanctioned ink cartridges installed, and not being transparent about this with customers. HP has spent a few years trying to wiggle out of the suit, but hasn’t had much luck. Last week, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that the case could proceed.

HP lawyers had tried several tactics to have the case dismissed, including claiming that the court couldn’t trust the word of one of its own support reps when they stated at the company’s own website HP printers were specifically designed to include this error. They also tried to play some semantic patty cake, insisting that customers couldn’t prove they were being “actively” misleading:

HP in seeking a dismissal said the customers failed to allege such a duty or that it “actively” concealed any defect.

Classy.

Amusingly, other companies like Epson have tried to use HP and Canon’s troubles to their advantage. The Verge notes that Epson has an entire page in their FAQ dedicated to how they haven’t pulled this sort of trick since 2008 (though the company engages in other dodgy shit, like rolling out purported “security updates” that covertly prevent users from being able to use cheaper third-party cartridges).

I think HP and Canon are very fortunate that U.S. consumer protection regulators generally don’t have (courtesy of decades of lobbying) the time, staff, or resources to police the massive amount of this type of fraud that occurs in this country on a daily basis. Especially when it comes to the kind of ham-fisted restrictions on what consumers can do with technology they purportedly own.

Filed Under: consumers, drm, hardware, ink cartridge, printer, restrictions
Companies: hp

Microsoft Continues About Face On ‘Right To Repair,’ Makes Its Hardware Easier To Fix

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the getting-on-the-right-side-of-history dept

Microsoft has long been one of several companies that attempted to monopolize repair in a bid for profit, particularly when it has come to the company’s game consoles. But in recent years the company appears to have realized that with state and federal lawmakers and regulators cracking down on this behavior, it might be smart to stop swimming upstream when it comes to “right to repair.”

Last May, for example, Microsoft began urging lawmakers to support the Washington State Fair Repair Act, which would ensure that consumers and indie repair shops have the parts, tools, and documentation to repair their own gear. The bill didn’t pass — in part thanks to Democratic Washington State Senator Lisa Wellman, a former Apple executive (Apple’s a notorious, bull-headed bully on this subject).

Still, Microsoft’s support was reflective of what seems to be a legitimate shift in tactics at Microsoft, in large part so the company can meet its goal of being carbon negative by 2030.

Elsewhere, Microsoft has been doing a better job ensuring that consumers have access to both service manuals and essential parts needed to independently repair the company’s hardware, ranging from its Surface tablets and laptops to Xbox game controllers.

The Microsoft Store now offers replacement controller boards, buttons, covers, sticks, and more for those looking to fix their own hardware. The company has also started doing a better job providing users with video tutorials on how to best safely repair their own hardware. You can get many of the same parts also from iFixit now (with a lifetime warranty as compared to Microsoft’s one-year warranty).

The about face comes as a growing number of states begin seriously pursuing right to repair legislation with an eye on consumer rights, environmental waste, counterproductive DRM, and high repair costs. Given the massive, bipartisan public support for such reform, hopefully Microsoft has genuinely realized it simply makes way more sense to be on the right side of history.

Filed Under: consumers, hardware, legislation, right to repair
Companies: microsoft

Gigabyte Motherboards Came With Sloppy Backdoor Users Had No Idea About

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the trust-no-one dept

It’s always interesting to me to watch and see what gets attention in the security and privacy space. For example, everybody spent the last two years suffering absolute embolisms at the idea that TikTok was a threat to privacy, but nobody much seems to care that an absolute ocean of “smart devices,” from your router to your television, routinely come with paper-mache-grade security.

Hardware you expect to be secure (like door locks advertised as a security upgrade) routinely… aren’t. That frequently applies to core technologies you don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about, from routers to PC components.

Last week, cybersecurity company Eclypsium issued a report that they’d discovered a hidden backdoor in the firmware of motherboards sold by the Taiwanese manufacturer Gigabyte. Code within the firmware activates each time a PC using these motherboards restarts. It’s supposed to help update the motherboard’s firmware, but it was implemented… poorly:

The firmware does not implement any cryptographic digital signature verification or any other validation over the executables. The dropped executable and the normally-downloaded Gigabyte tools do have a Gigabyte cryptographic signature that satisfies the code signing requirements of Microsoft Windows, but this does little to offset malicious use, especially if exploited using Living-off-the-Land techniques (like in the recent alert regarding Volt Typhoon attackers). As a result, any threat actor can use this to persistently infect vulnerable systems either via MITM or compromised infrastructure. 

Whoops! The flawed implementation, as they note, doesn’t adequately inform the end user, and could then be exploited by bad actors, undermining the trust PC owners have that their core devices are inherently secure. Their blog post lists 271 models of Gigabyte motherboards are impacted by this flaw. The company isn’t responding to requests for comment.

Despite the widespread potential impact of the problem, I’m going to assume I won’t see any Senators showing up on cable news freaking out about the issue.

Filed Under: backdoors, gigabyte, hardware, motherboard, pc components, privacy, security
Companies: gigabyte

More Details On How Tech Lobbyists Lobotomized NY’s Right To Repair Law With Governor Kathy Hochul’s Help

Policy

from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept

The good news: last December New York State finally passed a landmark “right to repair” bill providing American consumers some additional protection from repair monopolies. The bad news: before the bill was passed, corporate lobbyists worked with New York State Governor Kathy Hochul to covertly water the bill down almost to the point of meaninglessness.

Grist received documentation showing how Hochul specifically watered the bill down before passage to please technology giants after a wave of last-minute lobbying:

Draft versions of the bill, letters, and email correspondences shared with Grist by the repair advocacy organization Repair.org reveal that many of the changes Hochul made to the Digital Fair Repair Act are identical to those proposed by TechNet, a trade association that includes Apple, Google, Samsung, and HP among its members. Jake Egloff, the legislative director for Democratic New York state assembly member and bill sponsor Patricia Fahy, confirmed the authenticity of the emails and bill drafts shared with Grist.

The changes all directly reflect requests made by Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM and other companies desperate to thwart the right to repair movement from culminating in genuinely beneficial legislation. All of these industry giants are keen on monopolizing repair to drive up revenues, but like to hide those motivations (and the resulting environmental harms) behind flimsy claims of consumer privacy and security.

Among their asks: numerous cumbersome intellectual property protections, as well as the elimination of a requirement that manufacturers provide device owners and independent repair providers with “documentation, tools, and parts” needed to access and reset digital locks that impede the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of covered electronic devices.

Additional restriction added by industry and Hochul at the last second force consumers to buy entire “repair assemblages” instead of being able to buy just the independent parts they need, which advocates say further undermines the law (imagine being forced to buy an entire computer motherboard when just a single component is broken).

The bill already failed to include vehicles, home appliances, farm equipment or medical devices — all sectors rife with obnoxious attempts to monopolize repair via DRM or by making diagnostics either expensive or impossible. Between that and these last minute changes the bill is more ceremonial than productive, and yet another clear example of how normalized U.S. corruption cripples meaningful reform.

Filed Under: hardware, kathy hochul, legislation, new york, repair monopolies, right to repair, technology
Companies: technet

Apple Still Sucks On Right To Repair

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

Apple has never looked too kindly upon users actually repairing their own devices. 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).

That’s before you get to Apple’s often comical attacks on “right to repair” legislation, a push that only sprung up after companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, John Deere, and others created a global grass-roots coalition of activists and reformers via their clumsy attempts to monopolize repair.

While Apple has made some concessions to try and pre-empt right to repair legislation, there’s clearly still a long way to go. John Bumstead, a MacBook refurbisher and owner of the RDKL INC repair store, recently revealed that used MacBooks retailing for as much as $3,000 are being scrapped for parts because recyclers are prevented from logging into the devices.

Bumstead told Motherboard the culprit is Apple’s T2 security chip, which prevents anyone but the original owner from logging into the laptops. He also stated that despite Apple’s promises on right to repair reform, the problem has gotten notably worse over the last few years. As a result, a countless number of costly 2018/2019 era Macbooks can’t be completely repurposed:

“The progression has been, first you had certifications with unrealistic data destruction requirements, and that caused recyclers to pull drives from machines and sell without drives, but then as of 2016 the drives were embedded in the boards, so they started pulling boards instead,” he said. “And now the boards are locked, so they are essentially worthless. You can’t even boot locked 2018+ MacBooks to an external device because by default the MacBook security app disables external booting.”

Experts state that Apple could make this all go away by building more convenient unlocking systems for independent repair shops, but then Apple might sell fewer new laptops — and threaten its own lucrative repair monopoly — and you wouldn’t want that.

Filed Under: activism, hardware, laptops, right to repair
Companies: apple

John Deere Once Again Pinky Swears It Will Stop Monopolizing Repair

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the fool-me-once dept

Once just the concern of pissed off farmers and nerdy tinkerers, the last two years have seen a groundswell of broader culture awareness about “right to repair,” and the perils of letting companies like Apple, John Deere, Microsoft, or Sony monopolize repair options, making repairing things you own both more difficult and way more expensive.

John Deere’s draconian repair restrictions on agricultural equipment (and the steady consolidation and reduction in repair options) results in customers having to pay an arm and a leg for service, or drive hundreds of additional, costly miles to get their tractors repaired.

Like Apple and other bigger companies attempting to monopolize repair, John Deere keeps promising that things will soon be different. Like last week, when Deere struck a “memorandum of understanding” with the American Farm Bureau Federation promising that the company will make sure farmers have the right to repair their own farm equipment or go to an independent technician:

Dave Gilmore, Deere’s vice president of ag and turf marketing, said the company looks forward to working with the farm group and “our customers in the months and years ahead to ensure farmers continue to have the tools and resources to diagnose, maintain and repair their equipment.”

There are a few problems. One, this memorandum of understanding isn’t really binding. It’s part of a self-regulatory system the agricultural industry has constructed to pre-empt actual regulation and accountability. Farm Bureau officials will meet occasionally with Deere to try and work out solutions to “right to repair” issues, but there’s no meaningful enforcement or accountability mechanism here.

The MOU also does something I’d wager was a major reason for the agreement; it requires that the American Farm Bureau Federation avoid supporting any looming right to repair legislation:

AFBF agrees to encourage state Farm Bureau organizations to recognize the
commitments made in this MOU and refrain from introducing, promoting, or supporting federal
or state “Right to Repair” legislation that imposes obligations beyond the commitments in this
MOU.

Companies that have constructed lucrative but harmful repair monopolies desperately want to thwart the growing push for right to repair legislation. And they’ve had significant success in not only killing many such laws before they can be passed, but watering down any bills that do manage to survive as we just saw in New York State.

The other problem is that Deere has made similar promises before.

In late 2018, John Deere and a coalition of other agricultural hardware vendors promised (in a “statement of principles“) that by January 1, 2021, Deere and other companies would make repair tools, software, and diagnostics readily available to the masses. In short, they managed to stall right to repair laws in several states in exchange for doing the right thing.

That didn’t happen. And there’s no reason to think it will start happening now. What John Deere (like Apple and every other company monopolizing repair) wants is to do just enough to convince federal lawmakers to back off of new laws and any enforcement with actual teeth. That fairly consistency doesn’t actually result in reform, it results in theatrics.

Filed Under: hardware, independent repair, right to repair, technology, tractors
Companies: american farm bureau, john deere

After Dumb Lobbying Delays And Ample Watering Down, NY Passes Landmark ‘Right To Repair’ Bill

Policy

from the fix-your-own-shit dept

New York State has finally passed a landmark “right to repair” bill proving American consumers some additional protection from repair monopolies. After some annoying delays created by lobbyists, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed the legislation on December 29.

The legislation gives New York consumers the right to fix their electronic devices themselves or have them repaired by an independent repair shop, instead of being forced to only obtain repairs through costly manufacturer repair programs. Groups like Consumer Reports were thrilled:

Marta Tellado, president and CEO of Consumer Reports, said, “This landmark law will save New Yorkers money, provide them with more convenient repair options, and cut down on waste. When your device is broken, you should have more options than a high-priced service or the landfill. The Digital Fair Repair Act will ensure that New York consumers have the choice to fix their own electronic products or have them fixed by a servicer they choose, including those independent of the manufacturer.

The final version of the bill enjoyed rare bipartisan support, passing the state assembly 147–2 and the senate 59–4. To make this happen, the bill doesn’t include vehicles, home appliances, farm equipment or medical devices — all sectors rife with obnoxious attempts to monopolize repair via DRM or by making diagnostics either expensive or impossible.

The final version of the bill stalled on Hochul’s desk as lobbyists attempted to weaken it further. With some success; according to Gothamist reporter Jon Campbell, the final bill strips away language requiring that manufacturers provide consumers, all “passwords, security codes, or materials to override security features,” as well as some additional intellectual property protections demanded by industry.

There are also some additional restrictions that force consumers to buy entire “repair assemblages” instead of being able to buy just the independent parts they need, which advocates say further undermines the law (imagine being forced to buy an entire computer motherboard when just a single component is broken):

It’s still a meaningful win, especially given the massive, well-funded, cross-industry opposition to the bill. Right to repair coalitions put it this way:

Repair supporters are justifiably upset that the law signed bears little resemblance to our original. The governor never made a statement of her intent, but it’s clear now that she never wanted the bill to include more than cell phones and laptops purchased at big box stores. At the same time, we know that lobbyists had her ear – and TechNet in particular has clearly had the most influence. But it still moves the ball forward so we’ll take our fight to the next level elsewhere.

So it’s nowhere near the landmark bill it professes to be, but it’s still a step forward. While it’s been a fairly dark decade for U.S. consumer rights, the “right to repair” movement’s shift from niche to mainstream continues to be one of the more promising trends in recent memory.

Filed Under: consumer rights, electronics, hardware, independent repair, new york, repair monopolies, right to repair

Patients Are Being Left High And Dry When Medical Implant Makers Implode

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the my-heart-no-longer-gets-firmware-updates dept

Techirt has long discussed how in the modern era, the things you buy aren’t actually the things you buy. And the things you own aren’t actually the things you own. Things you thought you owned can be downgraded, bricked, or killed off entirely without much notice.

That game console with backward compatibility? It no longer has backward compatibility. That smart home hub or smart speaker at the heart of your living room setup you’ve enjoyed for years? It no longer works. The movies and books you thought were permanently in your personal catalog? Sorry, they aren’t anymore. That perfectly good two-year-old phone? It no longer gets security updates, putting you and your data at risk.

This is all bad enough when talking about smart home hubs or smart refrigerators, but it’s another thing entirely when it comes to life-saving or pain-reducing medical implants. Like in 2020, when a company named Argus shut down, leaving customers losing the gift of sight thanks to their medical implants no longer being supported.

Nature Magazine last week took a deeper look at the problem of medical implant customers suddenly being left high and dry by either incompetence, policy changes, or bankruptcies. It’s very much worth a read. They start by profiling a man who has an implant in his cheek made by Autonomic Technologies (ATI) that routinely saves him from crushing cluster headaches.

But ATI collapsed in 2019, leaving implant owners screwed; unable to access the device since the company hadn’t apparently thought that far ahead:

The company’s closure left Möllmann-Bohle and more than 700 other people alone with a complex implanted medical device. People using the stimulator and their physicians could no longer access the proprietary software needed to recalibrate the device and maintain its effectiveness. Möllmann-Bohle and his fellow users now faced the prospect of the battery in the hand-held remote wearing out, robbing them of the relief that they had found. “I was left standing in the rain,” Möllmann-Bohle says.

The story continues along these lines, highlighting similar collapses by companies that make spinal-cord stimulators, vision implants, chronic pain management systems, and other medical implant technologies that make life bearable for millions. Sometimes users had expensive alternatives they could flee too, often they did not. Even when they did, it required costly, painful new surgeries.

Few of them designed systems that could withstand company collapse, and like most modern tech companies few, if any, supported independent consumer or third-party repair. That greatly restricts not only who these patients can turn to for help, but the availability of parts and documentation.

And, even if they can find parts, they’ll often run into trouble with their insurers. Or with companies that quickly acquire the patents shortly after a medical implant company implodes, then do nothing with them.

There are some things that can be done to help these patients. Passing right to repair laws would be a good start, but so far these laws are few and far between, and often don’t include medical hardware. Advocates have also pushed for various reform changes and the creation of nonprofits to try and prevent these problems:

Suggestions include the company setting up a partner non-profit organization to manage funds to cover this eventuality; putting aside money in an escrow account; being obliged to take out an insurance policy that would support users; paying into a government-supported safety network; or ensuring the people using the devices are high-priority creditors during bankruptcy proceedings.

But there’s very little indication any of that’s happening on any real scale. Fixing this could potentially require a law that protects these users, but that’s a big ask for a comically corrupt and perpetually gridlocked U.S. Congress, and isn’t likely to happen until there’s a scandal that’s so ugly, denying the problem is not longer possible. And even then patients will likely be waiting a long while.

Filed Under: hardware, medical implants, patient rights, retinal implants, right to repair
Companies: ati, autonomic technologies

Mercedes Puts Faster Acceleration Behind A Subscription Paywall

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the working-windshield-wipers-for-$50-extra-a-month dept

Back in July, BMW raised a bit of a ruckus when the company announced that it would be making heated seats a luxury option for an additional $18 per month. Now, Mercedes aims to take the concept one step further by announcing that buyers of the company’s new Mercedes EQ electric models will need to pay a $1,200 (plus taxes and fees) yearly subscription to unlock the vehicles’ full performance.

The Drive points to Mercedes’ online store, where they note that buyers of the vehicle will need pay a monthly subscription to unlock an “acceleration increase”:

According to Mercedes, the yearly fee increases the maximum horsepower and torque of the car, while also increasing overall performance. Acceleration from 0-60 mph is said to improve by 0.8-1.0 seconds and the overall characteristics of the electric motors are supposed to change as well. The extra performance is unlocked by selecting the Dynamic drive mode.

As with BMW’s vision, you’ll likely see a lot of folks with more disposable income than common sense lauding this sort of stuff as pricing and technological innovation, largely because they want to justify their desire to pay a giant company extra for what they perceive as additional status.

The problem: you’re buying a vehicle with this technology (whether it’s faster acceleration or heated seats) already in the car. The cost of that technology is always going to be wound into the existing car’s price one way or another, as no manufacturer is going to take a bath on the retail price.

So you’re effectively paying for technology you already own to be turned on. Then, over time as subscription costs add up over the life of the vehicle you (and other later owners) own, you’re are paying significantly more money for that technology than what it’s worth (see: paying Comcast thousands of dollars in rental fees for a modem that costs them $50).

The need for quarter over quarter returns at any cost opens the door to rampant nickel-and-diming in the future, putting customers on an endless treadmill where paying to turn on technology you already own is constantly getting more expensive in a way that’s just completely untethered to real-world costs.

These subscription services also create an arms race with hackers and modders, with the right to repair (something you already own) debate waiting in the periphery. And the FTC is watching companies like a hawk, waiting to see if auto makers make simply enabling something you already own a warranty violation.

Filed Under: automotive, cars, electric cars, ftc, hardware, heated seats, ownership, right to repair, subscription service, warranty
Companies: mercedes