Except that car makers (possibly excluding Tesla) actually sell replacement parts to end users at reasonable prices. So there's not as much of a 3rd-party/black market for auto parts.
And so where are the torches and pitchforks going after Tesla?
As I said, it is not that uncommon, and the more proprietary the component, the less like.y it will be available outside a controlled group of outside sources.
If Apple sold replacement parts at a reasonable price over the counter, this type of scam/black market wouldn't be needed.
I have both worked as a repair tech for consumer electronic gear and as an embedded developer for, among other employers, one that made industrial controls, and it is my experience that many companies have policies of not selling parts nor service docs to non-authorized service centers, or simply not selling any replacement parts at all for their products.
For example, I can pretty much guarantee if I kill some custom part in my LG TV, I won't be able to buy it from anyone, either.
Sorry to ruin your ideal view of the world; but, Right or wrong, Apple is doing nothing different from what a zillion other companies are doing every day.
If they buy on EBay, who knows the real source? And ultimately, who cares? Shops need to stay in business, and Apple makes it impossible to officially buy parts unless you're blessed, authorized, and branded for life by Apple.
So, simply ripping-off the parts is perfectly ok, then?
Every component looks so high end in an iphone, I cannot imagine any of those reproduced by a third party. Maybe the ribbon cables.
The person accepting the phone never gets to that level of detail. As long as it doesn't change the OUTWARD APPEARANCE of the Phone, it will likely be accepted. The trick that makes this work is that the phones are SUPPOSED to be non-functional when presented by the "mule".
The margins must be pretty thin on this scheme. You presumably buy the original phone a full retail, then buy a crappy screen (it must cost something), replace it for the OEM screen, then return the phone, sell the replacement at a small loss (I presume), then sell the OEM screen. If the crappy replacement screen cost 50% of a genuine pare, and you get 90% for the returned phone, that can't leave a lot of room for paying all the middle men.
Who says the "screen" is even an actual Display? These "phones" are SUPPOSED to be BROKEN, remember? Unless the Genius Bar took the time to actually pop the glass off the phone before accepting it for replacement (which Apple MAY start doing with it's new in-store robotic repair machine), there is really no way to tell the difference between a gutted phone and completely non-functional one. I assume that, whatever fake parts are put in the phones, the WEIGHT is close-enough to the same to avoid tipping-off a fraudulent phone by that simple metric.
Apple is said to have discovered a highly sophisticated fraud scheme in which organized thieves would buy or steal iPhones, remove valuable components like the processor or logic board, swap in fake components, and return the "broken" iPhones to receive replacements they could resell.
How about simply selling the bought/stolen iphones instead? I don't understand the scam, unless they are removing enough parts over time to occasionally construct a whole iphone. And even then I don't understand.
Is this just propaganda pushing a narrative to justify Apple locking out third-party repair services?
You aren't comprehending the scope of this.
The fraudsters are taking out anything that doesn't show without a disassembly, then returning the phones for an EXCHANGE. Apple then has to pretty much SCRAP what is left.
They're fighting this battle because they've made a very lucrative market by refusing to sell spare parts at any price. That's further inflated because Apple charge huge amounts for simple repairs.
That makes no sense. Just randomly swapping components could break the phone regardless of any Apple security features. And non-working phones would be replaced anyway, so...
There is no good reason for Apple's tight-fisted control over repairs other than greed. They can push people toward purchasing entire replacement units rather than cheap repairs.
I am here to tell you that factory-repairs, and ESPECIALLY Warranty Repairs, are NEVER a profit center for ANY company. At best, they may generate a LITTLE profit; but certainly not enough to design elaborate schemes to protect.
So for a long time I kinda didn't like how Apple would disable iPhones because they were not repaired by authorized dealers or by Apple itself. I thought Apple was trying to monopolize the repair works to itself... Now that I read this article, I see what kind of battle they've been trying to fight.
If you are referring to the infamous "Error 53" when an aftermarket replacement was done on the iPhone's Fingerprint Sensor, that was found to be the result of some debug code left in the Production build of the OS, and was corrected by an OS update.
But yes, Apple, more than ANY other company on the planet, has to deal with this sort of fraud for years, and especially for their iOS-based products.
More just working, the extra care and attention apple put in really is worth the premium, right, right....right?
Sure!
Wake me when Android has zero bugs...
Idiot Haters.
Wake me when apple stuff 'just works' and doesn't have its cheapest model with a 1080 screen over a grand.
IMHO, the "It Just Works" catchphrase was a mistake, from a marketing standpoint. Why? Because it opens Apple up to EXACTLY your kind of snarky comment, whenever even the most inconsequential issue comes up. However, it is important to point out that it was not Apple that came up with that oft-quoted phrase: It was some writer in the tech press. Apple actually avoided using the phrase for quite some time, and still except for one slide in one Keynote (which showed the phrase as a quote from a REVIEW) doesn't use it in any marketing materials or advertisements.
In fact, this Reddit thread (yeah, I know...) seems to posit that same position, that the phrase did not originate from Apple (see last post) :
So kindly stop that meme, because the phrase was NOT coined by Apple to describe THEMSELVES; but rather from OTHERS describing the difference between the majority of things Apple does, vs., primarily, Windows (but it CERTAINLY would stand in contrast to the typical LINUX experience as well!).
And what makes you think that Apple DOESN'T know how to test?
I can't believe you can ask that with a straight face. Ok maybe its not that they don't know how maybe it's just they don't bother properly.
I ask that, rather rhetorically, because even if APPLE didn't thoroughly test internally (which of COURSE they do), that the many months of Developer Previews and Public Betas serve to get a sense of any serious problems only seen in the wild.
But, the real answer is, there is NO software with ZERO issues, period.
Oh, and BTW, testing all the HARDWARE variants doesn't come even CLOSE to testing ALL the possible variations of App Loads. And I submit, THAT is where nearly all of the "Surprise!" post-release issues come from.
Isn't that why the app store is so tightly controlled though, and aren't those apps basically independent of each other and the OS?
No.
The App Store is "so tightly controlled" for these reasons:
1. Security/Privacy/Malware considerations.
2. Acceptable Content. (This "line" can be argued until the Sun goes out).
3. Application is not in some way fraudulent. (Doesn't do what it says).
4. Other App Store guidelines are followed. (No private APIs, etc.) Again, this "line" can be endlessly debated.
But none of that makes the testing of the OS any less complicated.
Did they STAY "fired", or were they just replaced with a different Team?
Spoiler Alert: See below for the answer...
Considering the fact that Apple does their own Mechanical Product Testing, I would be VERY surprised if they didn't have an internal (human) Software QA Team, too.
In fact, these recent Job Postings make it pretty clear that Apple most CERTAINLY has an internal Software QA Team:
I have tried it. It's my job sometimes. Much of it could be automated. I'd have a room with 20 WiFi APs and an app to test connecting to them all, for example. Also employees running nightly builds.
Yeah, MS thought they could do automated testing, too.
Problem is, Automatd testing mostly only catches EXPECTED errors.
And what makes you think that Apple DOESN'T know how to test?
That's not a lot of models. Maybe multiply by 3 to account for all hardware variations. Should be no problem for one of the richest companies in the world to organise testing that lot fully with every release cycle.
Of course. Predictable response.
I could have cited ANY number, and you would have claimed it to be "inconsequential".
Howabout YOU try it some time?
Oh, and BTW, testing all the HARDWARE variants doesn't come even CLOSE to testing ALL the possible variations of App Loads. And I submit, THAT is where nearly all of the "Surprise!" post-release issues come from.
Ok, so let's do a quick price comparison. Picked the same configuration for both - i5, 8GB RAM, 128GB storage All prices are in US$, taken directly from Google's and Microsof't web stores, no discounts applied.
Surface Pro 6 - $899 Surface Type Cover - $129 Surface Pen - $99 Total: $1127
Will even throw a year of O365 Home to Surface configuration ($79), final total: $1206
Now, is the Pixel Slate *REALLY* worth nearly $500 extra?
I notice you didn't put Apple into the mix. Wonder why?
iPad Pro 12.9" with 256 GB Flash (WiFi only) $949 Smart Keyboard $169 (or use the Logitech iPad Pro Keyboard case for $129) https://www.amazon.com/Logitec...
Total: $1083 to $1177, depending on which accessories you choose.
Looks like, for the smart shopper, at $1083, the iPad Pro 12.9" handily beats BOTH the Surface Pro AND the Pixel Slate, and even though the all-Apple solution is priced at $1177 ($50 more than the Surface Pro setup, but still $510 less than the Pixel Slate setup), the iPad Pro comes with 256 GB of storage, DOUBLE that of the Surface Pro and Pixel Slate configs used in your comparison.
Seems like, since OSes, App availability, etc. is NOT considered in your comparison, that the iPad Pro is right in the ballpark, price-wise (but with twice the storage), and, like the Surface Pro, is VASTLY less expensive than the SpyMaster Slate...
FYI, pumping that Surface Pro with i5 up to 256 GB of Storage makes it jump to $1299 (plus keyboard and pen), or $1527 total. And for the Pixel Slate, equipping it with 256 GB of Storage takes it up to $1599 (plus keyboard and pen), for an eye-popping total of $1987!!! Meanwhile, the 256 GB iPad Pro system is looking like a gen-u-wine BARGAIN at $1177!!!
But, you can pump your iPad Pro up to 512 GB Storage (unavailable on the Pixel Slate) for $200 more, $1149). Bringing the total for THAT configuration to $1377 (the Surface Pro 512 GB config (albeit with an i7 and 16 GB RAM (and NO battery life!) would be $2127, for a system that honestly can't function as a mobile device, due to battery-life (or lack thereof) of around 4 hours for the i7-equipped system. At that point, just get a laptop and be done with it. Meanwhile, the 512 GB iPad Pro system is still $750 cheaper than the Surface one.
I emailed Tim Cook about this one when the change was first made. It was an astoundingly poor design decision to differentiate the iPhone and iPad experiences that way.
And no, emailing him obviously had no effect, but I tried it nonetheless.
What do you mean? Obviously, it did have an effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that car makers (possibly excluding Tesla) actually sell replacement parts to end users at reasonable prices. So there's not as much of a 3rd-party/black market for auto parts.
And so where are the torches and pitchforks going after Tesla?
As I said, it is not that uncommon, and the more proprietary the component, the less like.y it will be available outside a controlled group of outside sources.
If Apple sold replacement parts at a reasonable price over the counter, this type of scam/black market wouldn't be needed.
I have both worked as a repair tech for consumer electronic gear and as an embedded developer for, among other employers, one that made industrial controls, and it is my experience that many companies have policies of not selling parts nor service docs to non-authorized service centers, or simply not selling any replacement parts at all for their products.
For example, I can pretty much guarantee if I kill some custom part in my LG TV, I won't be able to buy it from anyone, either.
Sorry to ruin your ideal view of the world; but, Right or wrong, Apple is doing nothing different from what a zillion other companies are doing every day.
If they buy on EBay, who knows the real source? And ultimately, who cares? Shops need to stay in business, and Apple makes it impossible to officially buy parts unless you're blessed, authorized, and branded for life by Apple.
So, simply ripping-off the parts is perfectly ok, then?
Every component looks so high end in an iphone, I cannot imagine any of those reproduced by a third party. Maybe the ribbon cables.
The person accepting the phone never gets to that level of detail. As long as it doesn't change the OUTWARD APPEARANCE of the Phone, it will likely be accepted. The trick that makes this work is that the phones are SUPPOSED to be non-functional when presented by the "mule".
Come-on people, there are two sides to this coin.
Actually, there is only one side to this particular coin,
This is fraud in its most classic form, pure and simple. The comparison with an automobile chop-shop is EXACTLY correct.
The fact that the Haters (not you) think that Apple is somehow to blame for attempting to plug this hole is what is truly sickening.
The margins must be pretty thin on this scheme. You presumably buy the original phone a full retail, then buy a crappy screen (it must cost something), replace it for the OEM screen, then return the phone, sell the replacement at a small loss (I presume), then sell the OEM screen. If the crappy replacement screen cost 50% of a genuine pare, and you get 90% for the returned phone, that can't leave a lot of room for paying all the middle men.
Who says the "screen" is even an actual Display? These "phones" are SUPPOSED to be BROKEN, remember? Unless the Genius Bar took the time to actually pop the glass off the phone before accepting it for replacement (which Apple MAY start doing with it's new in-store robotic repair machine), there is really no way to tell the difference between a gutted phone and completely non-functional one. I assume that, whatever fake parts are put in the phones, the WEIGHT is close-enough to the same to avoid tipping-off a fraudulent phone by that simple metric.
Apple is said to have discovered a highly sophisticated fraud scheme in which organized thieves would buy or steal iPhones, remove valuable components like the processor or logic board, swap in fake components, and return the "broken" iPhones to receive replacements they could resell.
How about simply selling the bought/stolen iphones instead? I don't understand the scam, unless they are removing enough parts over time to occasionally construct a whole iphone. And even then I don't understand.
Is this just propaganda pushing a narrative to justify Apple locking out third-party repair services?
You aren't comprehending the scope of this.
The fraudsters are taking out anything that doesn't show without a disassembly, then returning the phones for an EXCHANGE. Apple then has to pretty much SCRAP what is left.
How does that NOT damage Apple?
They're fighting this battle because they've made a very lucrative market by refusing to sell spare parts at any price.
That's further inflated because Apple charge huge amounts for simple repairs.
Prove it.
That makes no sense. Just randomly swapping components could break the phone regardless of any Apple security features. And non-working phones would be replaced anyway, so...
There is no good reason for Apple's tight-fisted control over repairs other than greed. They can push people toward purchasing entire replacement units rather than cheap repairs.
I am here to tell you that factory-repairs, and ESPECIALLY Warranty Repairs, are NEVER a profit center for ANY company. At best, they may generate a LITTLE profit; but certainly not enough to design elaborate schemes to protect.
So for a long time I kinda didn't like how Apple would disable iPhones because they were not repaired by authorized dealers or by Apple itself. I thought Apple was trying to monopolize the repair works to itself... Now that I read this article, I see what kind of battle they've been trying to fight.
If you are referring to the infamous "Error 53" when an aftermarket replacement was done on the iPhone's Fingerprint Sensor, that was found to be the result of some debug code left in the Production build of the OS, and was corrected by an OS update.
But yes, Apple, more than ANY other company on the planet, has to deal with this sort of fraud for years, and especially for their iOS-based products.
I was wondering if they might actually be the source of parts for independent repair shops.
For some unscrupulous repair shops, yes.
I say "unscrupulous" because these repair shop have GOT to know that they are purchasing black-market parts, period.
That is pretty awful nonsense to have to deal with, I wonder where all the parts they are ripping out of the insides end up?
As replacement parts used by third-party repair companies.
More just working, the extra care and attention apple put in really is worth the premium, right, right....right?
Sure!
Wake me when Android has zero bugs...
Idiot Haters.
Wake me when apple stuff 'just works' and doesn't have its cheapest model with a 1080 screen over a grand.
IMHO, the "It Just Works" catchphrase was a mistake, from a marketing standpoint. Why? Because it opens Apple up to EXACTLY your kind of snarky comment, whenever even the most inconsequential issue comes up. However, it is important to point out that it was not Apple that came up with that oft-quoted phrase: It was some writer in the tech press. Apple actually avoided using the phrase for quite some time, and still except for one slide in one Keynote (which showed the phrase as a quote from a REVIEW) doesn't use it in any marketing materials or advertisements.
In fact, this Reddit thread (yeah, I know...) seems to posit that same position, that the phrase did not originate from Apple (see last post) :
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOf...
So kindly stop that meme, because the phrase was NOT coined by Apple to describe THEMSELVES; but rather from OTHERS describing the difference between the majority of things Apple does, vs., primarily, Windows (but it CERTAINLY would stand in contrast to the typical LINUX experience as well!).
And what makes you think that Apple DOESN'T know how to test?
I can't believe you can ask that with a straight face. Ok maybe its not that they don't know how maybe it's just they don't bother properly.
I ask that, rather rhetorically, because even if APPLE didn't thoroughly test internally (which of COURSE they do), that the many months of Developer Previews and Public Betas serve to get a sense of any serious problems only seen in the wild.
But, the real answer is, there is NO software with ZERO issues, period.
Oh, and BTW, testing all the HARDWARE variants doesn't come even CLOSE to testing ALL the possible variations of App Loads. And I submit, THAT is where nearly all of the "Surprise!" post-release issues come from.
Isn't that why the app store is so tightly controlled though, and aren't those apps basically independent of each other and the OS?
No.
The App Store is "so tightly controlled" for these reasons:
1. Security/Privacy/Malware considerations.
2. Acceptable Content. (This "line" can be argued until the Sun goes out).
3. Application is not in some way fraudulent. (Doesn't do what it says).
4. Other App Store guidelines are followed. (No private APIs, etc.) Again, this "line" can be endlessly debated.
But none of that makes the testing of the OS any less complicated.
Put down the koolaid.
Put aside the Hate.
Then why did they fire their QA team?
Did they STAY "fired", or were they just replaced with a different Team?
Spoiler Alert: See below for the answer...
Considering the fact that Apple does their own Mechanical Product Testing, I would be VERY surprised if they didn't have an internal (human) Software QA Team, too.
In fact, these recent Job Postings make it pretty clear that Apple most CERTAINLY has an internal Software QA Team:
https://jobs.apple.com/us/sear...
https://www.indeed.com/q-QA-En...
Checkmate.
BTW, found those in one 5 second Google search.
I have tried it. It's my job sometimes. Much of it could be automated. I'd have a room with 20 WiFi APs and an app to test connecting to them all, for example. Also employees running nightly builds.
Yeah, MS thought they could do automated testing, too.
Problem is, Automatd testing mostly only catches EXPECTED errors.
And what makes you think that Apple DOESN'T know how to test?
That's not a lot of models. Maybe multiply by 3 to account for all hardware variations. Should be no problem for one of the richest companies in the world to organise testing that lot fully with every release cycle.
Of course. Predictable response.
I could have cited ANY number, and you would have claimed it to be "inconsequential".
Howabout YOU try it some time?
Oh, and BTW, testing all the HARDWARE variants doesn't come even CLOSE to testing ALL the possible variations of App Loads. And I submit, THAT is where nearly all of the "Surprise!" post-release issues come from.
The point is that no one actually does it.
Translation: *I* don't do it; so nobody else does, either.
Thanks for playing, Hater.
Where are you getting your numbers?
i5 with 8/128 is 999
keyboard is 199
pen is 99
for a grand total of 1297
I'm geting my $US from here:
https://store.google.com/produ...
So what? Still significantly more than an iPad Pro system with DOUBLE the Flash Storage.
Ok, so let's do a quick price comparison.
Picked the same configuration for both - i5, 8GB RAM, 128GB storage
All prices are in US$, taken directly from Google's and Microsof't web stores, no discounts applied.
Pixel Slate - $1299
Slate Keyboard: $259
Pixel Pen: $129
Total: $1687
Surface Pro 6 - $899
Surface Type Cover - $129
Surface Pen - $99
Total: $1127
Will even throw a year of O365 Home to Surface configuration ($79), final total: $1206
Now, is the Pixel Slate *REALLY* worth nearly $500 extra?
I notice you didn't put Apple into the mix. Wonder why?
iPad Pro 12.9" with 256 GB Flash (WiFi only) $949
Smart Keyboard $169 (or use the Logitech iPad Pro Keyboard case for $129) https://www.amazon.com/Logitec...
(or use any BT Keyboard, like this $35 one) https://www.amazon.com/iClever...
Apple Pencil $99
Total: $1083 to $1177, depending on which accessories you choose.
Looks like, for the smart shopper, at $1083, the iPad Pro 12.9" handily beats BOTH the Surface Pro AND the Pixel Slate, and even though the all-Apple solution is priced at $1177 ($50 more than the Surface Pro setup, but still $510 less than the Pixel Slate setup), the iPad Pro comes with 256 GB of storage, DOUBLE that of the Surface Pro and Pixel Slate configs used in your comparison.
Seems like, since OSes, App availability, etc. is NOT considered in your comparison, that the iPad Pro is right in the ballpark, price-wise (but with twice the storage), and, like the Surface Pro, is VASTLY less expensive than the SpyMaster Slate...
FYI, pumping that Surface Pro with i5 up to 256 GB of Storage makes it jump to $1299 (plus keyboard and pen), or $1527 total. And for the Pixel Slate, equipping it with 256 GB of Storage takes it up to $1599 (plus keyboard and pen), for an eye-popping total of $1987!!! Meanwhile, the 256 GB iPad Pro system is looking like a gen-u-wine BARGAIN at $1177!!!
But, you can pump your iPad Pro up to 512 GB Storage (unavailable on the Pixel Slate) for $200 more, $1149). Bringing the total for THAT configuration to $1377 (the Surface Pro 512 GB config (albeit with an i7 and 16 GB RAM (and NO battery life!) would be $2127, for a system that honestly can't function as a mobile device, due to battery-life (or lack thereof) of around 4 hours for the i7-equipped system. At that point, just get a laptop and be done with it. Meanwhile, the 512 GB iPad Pro system is still $750 cheaper than the Surface one.
One could also make the argument that Google's video is realistic while Apple's is delusional.
Not so much.
Here is a non-Apple review showing silky-smooth EDITING of 4K video on the LOWEST of the current iPad line, the 2017 iPad 9.7:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I updated both my Ipad and my Iphone. Both have now been unable to see my 5g connection. Only the 2g is available.
Try a clean install:
https://wccftech.com/clean-ins...
I emailed Tim Cook about this one when the change was first made. It was an astoundingly poor design decision to differentiate the iPhone and iPad experiences that way.
And no, emailing him obviously had no effect, but I tried it nonetheless.
What do you mean? Obviously, it did have an effect.