Slashdot Mirror
Latest iOS Update Shows Apple Can Use Software To Break Phones Repaired By Independent Shops (vice.com)
The latest version of iOS fixes several bugs, including one that caused a loss of touch functionality on a small subset of phones that had been repaired with certain third-party screens and had been updated to iOS 11. "Addresses an issue where touch input was unresponsive on some iPhone 6S displays because they were not serviced with genuine Apple parts," the update reads. "Note: Non-genuine replacement displays may have compromised visual quality and may fail to work correctly. Apple-certified screen repairs are performed by trusted experts who use genuine Apple parts. See support.apple.com for more information." Jason Koebler writes via Motherboard: "This is a reminder that Apple seems to have the ability to push out software updates that can kill hardware and replacement parts it did not sell iPhone customers itself, and that it can fix those same issues remotely." From the report: So let's consider what actually happened here. iPhones that had been repaired and were in perfect working order suddenly stopped working after Apple updated its software. Apple was then able to fix the problem remotely. Apple then put out a warning blaming the parts that were used to do the repair. Poof -- phone doesn't work. Poof -- phone works again. In this case, not all phones that used third party parts were affected, and there's no reason to think that, in this case, Apple broke these particular phones on purpose. But there is currently nothing stopping the company from using software to control unauthorized repair: For instance, you cannot replace the home button on an iPhone 7 without Apple's proprietary "Horizon Machine" that re-syncs a new home button with the repaired phone. This software update is concerning because it not only undermines the reputation of independent repair among Apple customers, but because it shows that phones that don't use "genuine" parts could potentially one day be bricked remotely.
The subject line seems a little inflammatory. Any company that makes hardware and software can do this. This isn't news. It would be news if they were actively doing it intentionally. In this case, they fixed the issue.
The moment you accepted that a remote agency could update the software on a machine in your possession without your direct involvement, this became a possibility, even a likelihood. Don't act surprised. If you care, use open source.
CFAA law bricking your phone = apple can be in from some hard time.
Do we have to post this every time when proprietary software and/or hardware pwns the user; Can't this be included at the bottom of every /. summary concerning such matters?
This seems a bit of a non-story.
You repaired your phone with some random third-party stuff. Apple updated some device driver somewhere, but didn't bother testing with these other devices that they don't have to support because they didn't make them, and may well not have had any of. Stuff broke. Then, they actually put out a fix for whatever they broke when they found out about it. Sounds like a company that actually cares about not screwing over their customers to me, rather than one that does.
Let's turn a story about Apple fixing a compatibility issue with non-warrantied third party parts into a story about how Apple is evil and could make phones that use third party parts not work!
You can buy Nikon lenses to go on your Nikon camera. You can buy Sigma lenses to go on your Nikon camera. Nikon never gave Sigma the specifications to make sure their lenses were compatible with Nikon's hardware. Sometimes when Nikon puts out a new camera body it breaks functionality with a Sigma lens. This is not Nikon's problem. When this happens you send your lens back to Sigma and they reflash it, or you buy a special dock that lets you do it yourself.
Making sure your third party screen keeps working when Apple does an update is not Apple's problem, but they did it anyway presumably because it was cheaper than the bad PR they would otherwise get. If it was a really complex problem to solve they wouldn't fix it and you'd have no right to complain about it.
That kind of shit would never happen.
We need right to repair with no authorized shop / tech only repair tools and restore software.
This only company that I will not name at this time just has update files but not the full SD images for embedded systems and no they are not wired up to be able to boot from USB you can put the update file on USB sticks and update.
I was able to get some working there (high level dev) give out the line saying we can give the out the full SD card image as some people who don't don't know what they are doing may wire the image to there HDD. But he did say that having one for each device is to big but I was able to get him to say that we will think about giving out a smaller base image (common for lots of there embedded systems) that can take the updater files that we have on our website right now.
This where right to repair is needed so they can't make so that you must buy a new SD with image loaded on it or may even say that software can only be gotten from an authorized tech / center.
Also need to make so they can't use things like the DMCA to shut down a web site hosting a copy of that recovery base image that say they will not get out to any but authorized techs or have end users pay say $40+ for a SD card (that they just need the image for).
We need right to repair
You have the right to choose to not purchase devices that do not meet your requirements. I highly recommend that you do your due diligence when choosing a vendor.
Nah, spark plugs are a super simplistic example. Every spark plus is essentially the same, if it fits it'll pretty much work. Maybe not optimally, but if the fuel gets blown up by a spark, it's done it's job.
No, this would be more like if you replaced your Mass Airflow sensor with a third party part that provides correct readings to your ECU under normal circumstances. However, Ford later updates the firmware to provide better performance or more efficiency and accesses a function of the MAF that the aftermarket part doesn't support causing your car to trip a code and set off the Check Engine light and/ or perform poorly or inefficiently due to incorrect readings from the MAF.
Then, once Ford is made aware of they issue, they release another update that checks for the aftermarket part and uses the compatible function call to read data from it, thereby making good to the end user.
Now that doesn't sound quite as bad, does it?
Or perhaps it is unsupported hardware and as such a code update caused it to stop working cause you know, why would they test against unsupported hardware? When they realized a non-significant number of people were affected and the fix was simple they pushed it out.
This is no different than people using undocumented APIs in their code then crying when they stop working. Be glad apple fixed it this time.
Actually this is probably them testing for it not being in specification and adapting to work rather than being malicious. They aren't obligated to test 3rd party hardware and certify it. You are making a choice to use a 3rd party screen replacement. Most do it because of cost.
Using a 3rd party replacement screen no longer automatically void their warranty btw.
Overall, this is a great company and its customers are extremely satisfied. But there's always a few bad Apples.
If you repair it, you won't buy another one. It would be interesting if it stops working if you disassemble and reassemble it *without* doing anything else to it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
We have a law called the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and within it are anti-tying provisions meant to stop exactly this kind of bullshit in the first place.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Nah, MAF sensors don't work like that. They just output a voltage or PWM signal. Any change to the MAF table in the ECU would throw off readings for all sensors, OEM or not.
Legally, it never did void the warranty. Magnuson-Moss and all that...
They tried to claim it did for years, I'm reasonably sure they stopped claiming it because they were about to lose in court.
Trump voters approve of this move. It is Big League!!!!
Now that doesn't sound quite as bad, does it?
Yes it sounds bad. Here's what the note says:
Non-genuine replacement displays may have compromised visual quality and may fail to work correctly.
This is the same kind of bullshit with those coffee machines that have some kind of DRM to prevent customers to buy generic pods.
At some point the douchebaggery will have to stop. With the already obscene profit margin Apple makes on the iPhone, and the hundreds of billions they have stashed abroad, they don't need this kind of extortion.
Fuck Apple and fuck every fanboi who makes apologies for their greed.
lucm, indeed.
On iOS devices using normal punctuation produces weird characters on this and other forums instead of producing the intended punctuation. This has been a problem since the first iOS 11 public beta but Apple could not be bothered to fix whatever the issue is. Thus you make a sane post and you look like you are drunk. Note how there is no punctuation in this post other than several periods. I have been using iOS 11 since the first public beta and am now on iOS 11.1 and this bug still exists. Fuck you Apple. Fucking fix it.
This isn't news. It would be news if they were actively doing it intentionally
That wouldn't be news. We've already seen that. I remember back when I had my iPod touch, I wanted an A/V output cable but they were like $50 for the authorized cables. Found one on eBay for $5 and it worked perfectly fine. Then the update for iOS 4 (I think that's the version) came out and suddenly the cable no longer worked, and the screen displayed a message box saying only authorized cables are supported.
Over the years there have been additional instances of the doing this same thing, though this is the most recent one I can personally attest to since (due to this sort of behavior) that iPod touch was the last apple product I will ever purchase.
The bottom line is we are on a slippery slope, losing our rights inherent in ownership itself.
Who is Apple to tell me what to do with a product that I purchased? Nikon does not sabotage the competition by embedding DRM into its lenses. Apple was intentionally breaking the phones when original parts weren't detected. By breaking, than fixing the problem, the evidence clearly indicates that Apple intended to interfere with a transaction between the owner of a product and third party support. At minimum, Apple's apparent sabotage should be investigated as monopolistic anti-competitive behavior.
HP was (?) doing something similar recently with ink cartridges. Are you telling me that they can force me to buy HP paper and ink forever simply because I purchased an HP printer?
What right does a company have to use software to force me to purchase overpriced replacement parts for their products that I already own? The last time that I checked, all of my vehicles don't brick themselves when Fram oil filters are installed. Then again, I don't own a John Deere tractor.
There is a bunch of stuff that goes on in these software updates, Apple obviously can't test dozens of third party modules, what's surprising to me is that they fixed it at all given they were under no obligation to do so and only did so for customer service reasons.
Windows breaks a lot more third party stuff on a regular basis and never fixes it, hence the reason why people still run outdated versions of Windows XP.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I can easily imagine a "smart spark plug" with feedback from another sensor/computer that ensures the spark occurs at the "optimum time and fuel mixture. Replaced by an aftermarket that is the same with the same "smarts but Ford makes a software change such that your gas mileage isn't QUITE the same (1 or 2 mpg), then updates the SW and "claim they "fixed a problem with 3rd party parts. Thus making it seem its the 3rd party parts that were the problem and not their original update.
The point is that with anything managed by SW (including firmware) where u have no access to the code you have no clue what the "hardware" company is doing. So, s yoo posed "hardware" companies should be required to open source all their software code. It is the only wa y we can be sure they aren't lying. Hardware circuits can be reverse engineered, SW too but it can change much faster than the HW, so the only way to be sure is to require open source any any device that is supposedly sold as "integrated HW and SW" from the same company. If HW companies simply specify interfaces that any SW company can use, than no problem. Anything else removes information from the public and in a "free markets both sides need to have full information to enter in to an "equal deal.
A sensor that outputs a PWM signal, or something that accepts it (such as a servo) has a specified allowable range and curve that it COULD use, and an actual range that it DOES use.
Servo controllers nominally output pulses between 1ms (zero position) and 2ms (full rotation). Actual servo models don't exactly conform to this "standard", so you tune your control to the specific model of servo.
Analogously, the DMX protocol standard says that the BREAK is signaled by a pulse of AT LEAST 88 microseconds (and up to one second). Many controllers fail to read the spec carefully try to output exactly 88 microseconds, sometimes falling a bit short. If you program your DMX to work according to the standard, and test it with truly conforming peers, it'll fail to work with the many DMX items that don't quite conform, or are borderline, sometimes falling a couple microseconds short. To have compatibility with "almost compliant" neighbors, DMX outputs can output a 92 microsecond break, and receivers can accept a 84 microsecond break.
I suspect that's what happened here. The third-party parts ALMOST matched the Apple parts. Maybe they were barely complaint to the spec while the Apple parts were well within spec, or maybe the third-party parts were almost compliant. Either way, they didn't work quite the same, so customers saw failures. Apple adjusted it to work within the parameters of the third-party parts.
I highly suspect if you tested MAF sensor or O2 sensor speced with an output range of "up to 0-5V", you'd find some model's actual range is 0.2-4.5V, while another model's actual range might be 0.3-4.7V. Firmware tuned for the first, the OEM model, wouldn't work quite work as well with the second one - even though they both have "0-5V output".
Please define "unsupported" hardware? If Apple publishes the exact specifications than anyone buildiing to that should work. Of course they don't do that so they can claim anything is "unsupported" even if it is exactly the same as their proprietary crap.
It's bullshit.
Apple is not going to willfully break a phone repaired with third-party parts, but they will never test for those parts. So in situations where Apple used X part from Y supplier, and used Z part from Q supplier in a different product. The firmware will only have the drivers for X and Z if both parts were used on different production lines for that product (such as the CPU in the 6S.) However in most cases, one manufacturer provides ALL the parts for the production line, therefor the firmware doesn't need that driver.
What was likely happening is that high latency in repaired devices were a result of 3D touch doesn't exist in repaired screens.
Please point me to Apple's open publishes specs of how the HW is expected to work. When they start doing that then u have a point.
So when the I buy a new car the sales people are going to lie about what the non dealer shops do to be and steer me to there shop for all work
Except it isnâ(TM)t bullshit. The parts are often cryptographically linked and I trust Apple 0 to do the right thing. Fuckiing free software hippies would know a good product if it ran up and bit you on the testicle
controlling bastards!
Fool. They fixed the issue beceause right-to-repair laws are being crafted, and they know theyâ(TM)re in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warantee Act. Theyâ(TM)ve been killing phones with software all of this time. How would it NOT have been intentional? Why you would defend the worldâ(TM)s most profitable company is between you and your psychiatrist, but this is some evil shit here.
Fuck Apple and fuck every fanboi who makes apologies for their greed.
Iâ(TM)m not sure I want to know how youâ(TM)re going to go about fucking that apple - maybe turn it into a warm apple pie first? - but if youâ(TM)re going to get busy on all those apple fanbois, you better get started. Thereâ(TM)s a lot of us, and youâ(TM)re going to be sore in the morning.
I can't really say what apple is or isn't doing but I'm quite sure you can't either. There's huge distance between a firmaware driven device with serial communication protocols of incredible complexity and a coffee filter. I don't think it's reasonable to expect apple to support every possible emulation of it's API. I can't think of any cas ein the history of modern community where a clean room emulation had 100% bit compatibility with the original. WHy would you expect a non compatible screen to maintain it's compatibility as the OS changed.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As a consumer YOU have all of the power in the world to register your disapproval with your wallet.
I don't know anyone who buys Apple products who has not complained about their iPhones or iWatches literally coming unglued and falling apart. Apple is peddling mediocre quality overpriced hardware and profit from it's predictable failure by artificially raising the barrier to entry for third parties.
Spare me the bullshit about you being powerless and only one person.
News at 11.
Yawn. We all know you don't buy Apple unless you're deep into BDSM (and enjoy the sub part).
(Captcha: remind)
Apple's advantage in quality and update reliability comes entirely at the cost of using Apple-approved parts only. This dramatically limits necessary testing and simplifies the writing of system software. If unapproved hardware functions differently in any way from the approved hardware, count on problems because the system software is not designed with compatibility in mind. That is their advantage.
If you want hardware flexibility, never choose Apple and don't complain about how the system doesn't seem as perfectly integrated. Other systems are solving a dramatically different problem. Comparing the problems that Apple solves with its vertically limited silo to those solved by Microsoft and Google with their much richer hardware domains is... well Apple is apples and MS and Google are oranges.
I had the EXACT same thing happen with a docking station that worked fine for 3+ years then an iOS update and all a sudden "this device is incompatible with your iphone and may damage the device".
Fuckers.
You're a moron who has had the good fortune to never use a third party replacement screen for a smartphone. If you are lucky it'll just be the colour calibration that's off, much of the time the they're randomly unresponsive to touches. I'm sure there are good quality replacements and the difference might not justify the cost but, having experienced a non-authorised replacement on a Sony smartphone, I'd pay the extra to have an official, guaranteed part properly fitted.
Just watch Light Bulb Conspiracy documentary about planned obsolescence and how companies are conspiring with each other. 1 guy have filed a case against Apple because of his iPod touch malfunctioning at a certain time, a weakness which was intentionally designed by Apple so you keep on buying the latest, shiniest and the greatest. Corporate greed, nothing new.
If the replacement part was 100% compatible it would always work (and Apple wouldn't be able to detect it). The touch id sensor being an exception since it has to be 'married' to the rest of the phone to fulfill it's intended purpose. If you were able to just replace that sensor with another one it would defeat the purpose of touch id. Replay attacks and all that.
The fact that replacement parts failed after a software upgrade shows that they are NOT 100% compatible. It doesn't need any malicious intent to break them, it just needs a change in how the driver controls that part that the original part has no problem with (since the driver was written for it) but the replacement part can't handle.
There is a reason why old iPhones, even if broken, still fetch good prices, they are used as a source of genuine parts.
If it were exactly the same, then there wouldn't be any problems.
The fact that there are problems shows that it's not the same hardware.
I broke the screen on my 6s a while back. After having it replaced, I would get this exact issue happen every once in a while. I assumed that it was the phone slowly dying or something.
What's strange is that I had my screen replaced at an actual Apple Store. So, either their ability to target devices is flawed, or their stores had been using non-genuine parts for official repairs
Just imagine the shit storm they'd get if suddenly a bunch of phones repaired with 3rd party batteries started to explode. Or if replaced home buttons (the finger print scanner) caused a security breach that exposes Apple Pay? Then there are contractual requirements with third party content providers around DRM chains which could be compromised by third party parts (yes, I know most on /. are anti-drm, but it's still a business constraint for Apple).
There are some very legitimate concerns in today's environment that make locking down hardware and restricting who can repair devices a prudent choice. One bad part in enough phones could both open Apple up to expensive litigation and completely destroy the reputation of iPhones.
As for the examples given in the synopsis, it's very conceivable that software (especially kernel drivers) could inadvertently break third party replacements. Not by them inserting code to disable such things, but by them not fully meeting specs. It's hyperbole to claim that they're doing this on purpose.
Turning off smart punctuation in the keyboard settings fixed it for me.
I don't like the haters who keep complaining about Apple's self serving business model. If you do not like it, buy something other then a Apple product.
As long as Apple can be as successful as Apple has been doing exactly this. Why would they quit?
Is anyone else getting a feeling of "I've read this article before"? I'm not trying to be funny or anything but it really feels like this has shown up on Slashdot before.
Apple just try to be perceived as "nice and consumer friendly" to thwart the right-to-repair laws. It's a red herring! We wouldn't have those problems when Apple would sell genuine spare parts to independent repair shops. But they prefer the rip-off-o-service with quality control for maximum control and profit as any other large corporation. Watch Louis Rossmann on YouTube and you'll understand.
I bought an iPhone 6s a couple of years ago. It was my first, and will be my last apple purchase, and I will not be updating iOS on it any longer.
And apple didn't give you the right to take your own risk.
Forget parts they could brick you for any damn reason they want. This is a HUGE security flaw giving some corporate entity a loaded gun.
so I wake up with my iPhone updated and now requires a full login, which doesn't go well because the password isn't accepted, it's been 24 hours now, a full fing day wasted trying to get my account reactivated so I can use my phone .... never again will I buy an iphone
Thatâ(TM)s a conspiracy theory. Apple doesnâ(TM)t design their devices to stop working, and not only do benchmarks prove this but Apple engineers promised they would resign if ever asked to do that by apple.
Thatâ(TM)s a very skewed way to look at it.
Apple has to look out for security for users. The TouchID sensor is tied to the Secure Enclave, replacing it will cause the phone to detect it and fail to work. Thatâ(TM)s an important security feature; otherwise anyone could swap the TouchID sensor and log into any phone with their existing fingerprints. And Apple explained this back during the iPhone 5S; since they have to be resynced it means Apple canâ(TM)t support third party parts for the secure portions of hardware. Itâ(TM)s not a plot to scam more money from you, since a pretty small user base ever needs to replace TouchID sensors etc. The FaceID sensors will be the same as they have a unique key that seeds the faces to prevent forgery and replay attacks.
False analogy. Microsoft has never in its history pushed out code to intentionally prevent you from using so called counterfeit hardware. Hardware ceases being supported in updates because the hardware vendors stopped updating their drivers to be compatible with the latest version of Windows. You can roll back the updates and use the hardware as it was and disable future updates using Group policy settings.
yeah... Magnuson-Moss does not do what you think it does. Apple can very definity void your warranty for using low quality parts.
All you whiners should realize that open source software doesn't support ALL hardware either. Hardware interaction is far more complex than you think.
Apple continues to force customers to buy their hardware and service by punishing customers who go to third-party repair services or put third-party components on their phones because the standard ones have broken. This is the same crap AT&T tried to pull before the local phone network was deregulated, remember? All those "non-standard" phones would damage the network and therefore couldn't be allowed. But even AT&T did not destroy the third-party equipment that was installed. And how did that all work out for AT&T? Apple has always insisted on total control of hardware and software in the equipment they sell, and thereby total control of their customers.
Apple engineers promised they would resign if ever asked to do that by apple.
That's meaningless. They can always hire more subservient engineers.
It would seem that the IBM plug-issue as a method of regulating third-party trade might rear its ugly head here. The purpose of some of Apple's 'innovations' are not new ideas, but to prevent an aftermarket of things.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Why assume the worst?
Consider:
- Apple makes device
- 3rd party replaces part with something that works
- Apple makes changes to software to add features/fix bugs/etc.
- New changes use previously-unused function or uses something in a new way... but this is verified with Apple's device
- 3rd party part only supports 90% of the actual features of the Apple part... which was previously "good enough" but no longer is.
- Update breaks phones with non-Apple parts
As a hardware/software developer I can EASILY see how this happens. 3rd party parts are NOT exact copies. They're reverse-engineered to simulate the same functionality... but they can't test/develop for functionality that isn't yet in use. They may work now, but may not always work. This is ABSOLUTELY a valid reason that Apple doesn't support 3rd part parts. The fact that they "fixed" it for these 3rd-party screens is actually pretty uncharacteristic of them - they didn't have to.
That's assuming you believe they didn't break them on purpose in the first place.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Indeed. This is bullshit. They put out an update to fix it which they really didn't need to do. And why is Apple a special case where you think they should be responsible for third party part? If your garage uses a third party part in your car and it causes a problem, do you blame the car maker? I just had this, bad caliper. Didn't think to blame Honda.
It's only meaningless if, for some reason, the quitting engineers are unable to speak out about why they all quit.
We need right to repair with no authorized shop / tech only repair tools and restore software.
agreed, some form of this is necessary, especially for simple things like battery replacement.
This only company that I will not name at this time just has update files but not the full SD images for embedded systems and no they are not wired up to be able to boot from USB you can put the update file on USB sticks and update.
I lost you at this point in your rant, sorry. There's too much context from whatever you went through that's missing, and that I'd rather not hear about anyway.
It sounds similar to the Apple news cycle, though:
- A reasonable-seeming request would be, "don't break repaired phones with updates. If it worked after repair, it should keep working."
- The current way to implement this request is with software integration testing. For example, Android shops have rooms full of hundreds of different Android phones wired up over USB to automated build hosts. They can test an app or a "Google Play Services" update on all the devices quickly. Apple surely already does this with different variants of iPhones---for example, different minor steppings, or different versions if they have, for example, two battery suppliers. It's common for phones of the same model not to contain precisely identical parts over time which is why you hear of only certain serial number ranges being recalled. Apple would have to expand this testing room with partial combinatoral expansion of all possible repair parts, without any authority to limit the diversity or quality of the parts, or deny future contracts to disappointing parts vendors.
so the request is, on a closer look, definitely not reasonable. Right-to-repair and the software maintenance contract for "n years of OS updates" that you get when you buy an iPhone are in conflict.
However you should at least get the right-to-repair if you accept the possibility the phone will break on update. You could possibly take the demand further, no "intentional" bricking of repaired phones, backed up by legal discovery and class action.
You could also demand right-to-downgrade-software, but I think this is a bad idea because:
- security. It's a step backwards we can't afford at this stage in computing's history, and this is more important than right-to-repair.
- it's a rabbit hole because it's not really just software maintenance you're getting for the software maintenance period. It's guaranteed compatibility with Apple's cloud services. Everything "phones home" now, so if it's not updated it won't necessarily work with the cloud servers any more. The same impossible testing meshes would be needed to make, for example, Apple's "push services" keep working with old iOS versions as Apple updates the push services servers.
The parent meant "replies". He's asking about having a stage lighting fixture report back when it has finished moving to the position.
DMX equipment is starting to implement that now. It's an enhancement to DMX called Remote Device Management. It's backward compatible with older DMX fixtures, but not older splitters. RDM allows two kinds of communication from fixtures to the controller. First, discovery. Rather than programming in all of your fixtures, your controller can query "which fixtures are available?" and automatically load the profiles for those models of fixture. Secondly, the controller can send a data request to the fixture and the fixture can respond. So "are you done moving to the new position yet?", "Yes I am.". Fixtures can't initiate communication of their own accord because there is only one data line, and the controller is sending on that line until it relinquishes the line to a fixture.
Its easy to understand the anger and frustration this causes, especially when something works for some time and then ceases to function; we suspect for commercial reasons. But it may not be (just?) for commercial reasons.
Apple tightly regulates the market around their widgets- that has been the case for a very long time. They really want you to only use their HW and SW with their products, and would claim that this leads to a consistent and improved experience. There are examples where we can see negative effects of allowing any and all accessories to be produced cheaply- here is a recent one.
It may not be so black and white.
Originally, the protocol was designed to be able to have fixtures talk back to the controller, without a request from the controller first. That's why the standard specifies a five-pin connector - one pair for data from the controller, one pair for data back from fixtures, and a ground. The exact protocol for fixture-to-controller communication wasn't established, but the standard said there should be a pair of wires for that, so that a later version could define the specifics.
Unfortunately people didn't follow the protocol specification. American manufacturers use a three-pin connectors, the same connectors as audio cables. European manufacturers used the other pair of wires for all sorts of different things.
The other reason the protocol required a five-pin connector was to avoid exactly what the American manufacturers did - having the DMX connector match the audio connector. That makes it very easy, when quickly running dozens of cables before a show, to accidentally connect an audio device to the lighting network or vice-versa. When a DMX fixture is attached to a mic cable with 48V phantom power for the mic, it can destroy the fixture. The DMX chip is designed to accept up to 12 volts, not the 48 volts that some microphones take. Conversely, accidentally connecting a lighting console to a passive microphone can ruin the mic. Mics are designed to output millivolts at 2Khz sine wave, they aren't designed to be fed 12V at 250Khz square wave. If manufacturers followed the standard, it wouldn't be possible to connect DMX and microphones together, because they are supposed to have different connectors.
Similarly, using microphone cable rather than DMX cable is a common cause of unreliable DMX control. Mic cables are designed to Max out at 2Khz and can have significant capacitance. DMX operates at 250Khz and needs cables with acceptably low capacitance.
Ignore the following. The Slashdot lameness filter is tripping on this post because it I used the same words multiple times. Based on gzip, it looks for repetition. Repeated characters, words, or phrases compress well and could indicate a silly post such as ascii arts with lots of spaces. To get around this stupidness I have to add random words to the post which will reduce how well it compresses.
The problem is...these parts were working fine until Apple pushed out an update.
It's like you installing a 3rd party muffler, it works for 4 years, the cars firmware gets updated, the muffler stops working.
Your blind faith in apple doesn't change the law.
You're a moron
I'll let that one slide because based on the way you spell things like "colour" or "authorised", I suspect that you live in some unfortunate part of the world. Maybe even Europe. The fact that you bought a Sony smartphone also points out to a difficult upbringing.
Good luck to you, Tiny Tim.
lucm, indeed.
A bad programming might have hard coded some data which would make touch functionality work only when genuine apple parts are present. After getting complaints from people, apple engineers fixed that and gave out patch. This happens all the time with every software/hardware. If apple refused to fix even when large number of people were affected, you can then blame apple.
In 2015, google OTA bricked many Nexus 5 and its response was to tell users to contact LG despite the fact that the phone is google branded and sold on google website as google phone. Oh, this didn't even have 3rd party parts.
Thanks.
I'm not anti-Apple, but I'm not a fanboy either.
I've had a Mac, a PowerPC 7200/75 running System 7, and then OS 8.0. I've also had a graphite G4 tower running OSX. Every smart phone I've ever had has been an iPhone, currently on the 7.
I've also recently purchased a Surface Pro 4, a line of product notorious for not being repairable due to being glued together.
However, I am also a tinkerer. I've built PCs, and upgraded PCs. I write some primitive code, and modify scripts and source code when necessary. Even with Windows 10 forcing upgrades down the pipe, there are ways to mitigate the damage, or revert changes that break a device as thoroughly as the iPhone issue. System Restore for one, external/alternative input devices for another.
The Apple approach with the iPhone is really anti-American, and anti-Capitalistic. Its not even individualistic, because it is disempowering the individual, to empower the corporation. I can see it being somebody's dream of the only support being first party support. Unfortunately, the economy is neither flat nor linear. The economy is rather dynamic, and fluid, and adaptive. Which means it is best served by having more control at the consumer's end regarding repair options, not the manufacturer's end. Not unless Apple's dominance is superceeded by thousands of smaller more locally tailored operations, which wouldn't be able to compete on price due to the efficiencies of manufacturing in larger scales.
If the parts were identical, the software wouldnâ(TM)t differentiate.
This has happened for years in other fields. Eg, my old SEAT car wouldnâ(TM)t accept an ABS pump from a VW Polo that was completely the same in all practical ways - apparently. While I had the VAGcom plugged in I noticed the factory Number was different between the two parts and that was identifying the VW part as not SEAT. So, I flashed the part number and it instantly worked.
This is completely the same, non standard parts identified by software and blocked. Big deal. Use the right parts.
simple as that. All companies spy on you with no choice. all companies fuck you over.
Example - Bought Office 2016 which needs a horrible "Microsoft Account" for no reason at all. Created one, redeemed Office. Microsoft shuts off account and holds the software I paid money for hostage. No reasonable way to get it back. I'm out $199. going to file in small claims.
All Data/computing companies are turning evil and user-hostile.
I think this website should help us: https://www.dunya.com/sirketle...