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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.