Credit where it is due though… they could have remained silent and probably taken no flak… so good on them.
Their big request seems to be to make sure people are aware when a phone is fixed with off-brand parts. This also makes sense to me. Some portion of off brand parts will cause problems, which may show up as complaints back to or about Apple.
(An example: we have a system trained to map rail territory using head-end video using some visual odometery and 2010-era AI. A specific client has cameras that we can’t process well because of weird subtle artifacts. Apple is doing much more complicated stuff than we are.)
This is the old embrace and extend strategy. They know they are losing the argument, so they’ll embrace it and redirect to a version they control. It’s good for them, not the consumer.
In microelectonics, there’s not really such a thing as an “off brand part”. Nearly all the parts that matter in an iPhone are custom. You’re not going to buy just any old camera module and shoehorn it in. It won’t physically fit, and it likely won’t support the right commands. If somebody makes one specific for the iPhone, well… Look at that… It meets the specification.
Even if it does become an issue because (for example) the optics aren’t exactly the same and face ID doesn’t work, would someone complain to Apple or the repair shop that didn’t do an effective repair?
Really, because of the custom nature of most components, what Apple is trying to stop is the canibilisation of iPhones to fix other iPhones. That would give old broken iPhones value. Only Apple is allowed to exploit that value.
Any pre-owned device is going to inherently be less valuable than a brand new device. Phones are sharply depreciating assets.
What apple doesn’t seem to want is to recycle components from otherwise unusable devices into damaged devices . They want repair shops to have to buy parts directly from apple, so they can maintain control of the market.
Credit where it is due though… they could have remained silent and probably taken no flak… so good on them.
Their big request seems to be to make sure people are aware when a phone is fixed with off-brand parts. This also makes sense to me. Some portion of off brand parts will cause problems, which may show up as complaints back to or about Apple.
(An example: we have a system trained to map rail territory using head-end video using some visual odometery and 2010-era AI. A specific client has cameras that we can’t process well because of weird subtle artifacts. Apple is doing much more complicated stuff than we are.)
No. No credit.
This is the old embrace and extend strategy. They know they are losing the argument, so they’ll embrace it and redirect to a version they control. It’s good for them, not the consumer.
In microelectonics, there’s not really such a thing as an “off brand part”. Nearly all the parts that matter in an iPhone are custom. You’re not going to buy just any old camera module and shoehorn it in. It won’t physically fit, and it likely won’t support the right commands. If somebody makes one specific for the iPhone, well… Look at that… It meets the specification.
Even if it does become an issue because (for example) the optics aren’t exactly the same and face ID doesn’t work, would someone complain to Apple or the repair shop that didn’t do an effective repair?
Really, because of the custom nature of most components, what Apple is trying to stop is the canibilisation of iPhones to fix other iPhones. That would give old broken iPhones value. Only Apple is allowed to exploit that value.
Talk is cheap. They get flak for their actions, what here has changed.
Any pre-owned device is going to inherently be less valuable than a brand new device. Phones are sharply depreciating assets.
What apple doesn’t seem to want is to recycle components from otherwise unusable devices into damaged devices . They want repair shops to have to buy parts directly from apple, so they can maintain control of the market.