| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 7 days ago |
| Negative take: Vendor lock-in Positive take: discourage theft; not only is the device locked down / encrypted and you can't just wipe / reinstall it, you can't even break it down for parts. When the iphones etc first came out, they were a very attractive target for theft. Come to think of it, that's one reason why I was hesitant to get an iphone back then. |
|
| ▲ | dwood_dev 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I used to have an extremely negative view on all this serial number pairing that Apple does, then I found out why. Within mainland China, Apple was facing fraud of having their devices purchased, stripped for genuine parts, and then rebuilt with knockoffs and sold as new to unsuspecting victims within China or returned. This whole thing that we hate in the west was in response to that fraud. I don't like it at all, but it's not all Apple being assholes. |
| |
| ▲ | josephcsible 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That would be a good argument for Apple showing a warning every time it's powered on or something, but not for it refusing to work altogether. | | |
| ▲ | leoh 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, but then you could just flash with a different ROM or something and prevent that warning from being displayed? | | |
| ▲ | areoform 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Then what stops this "counter-measure" from "working?" Could they not just "flash with a different ROM or something" to allow the part to work normally? I genuinely doubt that the level of theft ever rose to a large enough margin, if it did, Apple would have pulled out of China. For reference, Apple employs ex-NSA, CIA, TLA professionals to solve this exact problem with a near endless budget and 0 oversight and accountability. Most notably, one of the organisational leaders was caught bribing the sheriff's office for concealed carry permits, https://www.ft.com/content/e73676d7-c6bc-4b07-b9bf-9bd702f1f... / https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/29/apples_chief_security... | | |
| ▲ | jackvalentine 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > I genuinely doubt that the level of theft ever rose to a large enough margin, if it did, Apple would have pulled out of China. There was a point where the black market in China was making more on Apple products than Apple itself. They initially tried to have stricter warranty conditions in China as a fix, but state media decided this was an affront to the country: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2271627/apple-clarifies-wa... Hence, the technical fix. Why pull out when you can apply a technical fix and retain both access to the biggest consumer electronics market in the world and maintain the good graces of the country that manufactures almost all your products? |
| |
| ▲ | shakna 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you could do that, you could just flash a new ROM to ignore serial errors, too. The checks are not entirely in software, and would not be in showing the error, either. | | |
| |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The situation has changed recently for iphones. Parts are icloud locked now. While the part serial is registered to an icloud locked iphone. Any phone with those parts will refuse to work entirely until the part is either removed or the part is unlinked from the owners account. | | |
| ▲ | gorbypark 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This would be the way to go if on the flip side any part that was not iCloud locked could be paired without hassles. Phone stolen/lost/etc? Parts unusable. Phone iCloud unlocked? Parts free for use. Of course this depends on mitigating various ways thieves can iCloud unlock stolen phones..I think the current method is snatching the phone while it's in use and iCloud unlocking it? However that doesn't make much sense since I assume you need some sort of password to do so even if the phone is physically unlocked? | | |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The current way is forcing the owner to icloud unlock it at knifepoint. But I'm pretty sure Apple made a change recently where you have to wait a few hours and pass faceid before the unlock finishees. |
| |
| ▲ | privacyking 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Source? What message does iOS show? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | GuB-42 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The reason for that scam is that Apple doesn't make it easy to get genuine parts, so they have to be harvested from existing devices. I am sure that if the parts were available to anyone from Apple at a reasonable price (like Fairphone or Framework), these scammers would be out of business soon enough. Who would insist on genuine parts and yet choose a shady supplier if it was easy to buy from the manufacturer directly? | | |
| ▲ | kube-system 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Fairphone and Framework don't have this issue because they're low volume and not really profitable targets for secondhand market shenanigans. A lot of popular android phones have been plagued by secondhand market garbage. People will take broken phones slap some new crappy parts on them that don't even meet original specs, and try to pass them off as something other than what they really are: repaired used phones. Doesn't matter if you can get original parts for them. If you can pass off a phone with crappy parts, you can make more money. | | |
| ▲ | GuB-42 6 days ago | parent [-] | | But then, why not just sell straight out fakes? Why bother with all the business of acquiring genuine parts and harvesting them. Just make it all fake and don't bother with harvesting. Harvesting is only worth it if genuine parts are difficult to obtain legitimately. Also realize that we are not just talking about an iPhone refusing to work with fake parts. We are talking about genuine parts from iPhone A not working with iPhone B of the exact same model. | | |
| ▲ | kube-system 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > But then, why not just sell straight out fakes? Because the price, availability, demand, and expertise required to source and/or manufacturer the different components of a phone are different, depending on the part. Third-party refurbishers derive their margin from exploiting these differences. That's why this market exists. For example, manufacturing the mainboard for a phone is quite expensive and requires components that only a few companies in the world can manufacture. A third-party refurbisher can source mainboards for phones much more cheaply and easily by buying phones that people have dropped and broken. It's the same reason junkyards exist for cars. The capital require required to manufacture an engine or transmission is quite high. However, removing one from a discarded vehicle is extremely easy and cheap. > Harvesting is only worth it if genuine parts are difficult to obtain legitimately. That doesn't make any sense. New and genuine parts are the most expensive components that can be used to repair phones. Third-party and used parts are almost universally cheaper than new original parts. If a refurbisher uses these parts, they can make more money, which is why they do it. > Also realize that we are not just talking about an iPhone refusing to work with fake parts. We are talking about genuine parts from iPhone A not working with iPhone B of the exact same model. Yeah, that's the second problem. Even cheaper than low quality third-party parts, are used genuine parts from stolen phones. That market has problems for two group groups. The people buying the phones are still getting Frankenstein phones consisting of used parts, and the people who bought the actual new phones from the manufacturer are now targeted by thieves. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | specialist 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes and: Requiring genuine parts reduces risk of silent hardware pwnage. Which is a no-negotiable requirement these days. That said... I demand that Apple makes genuine parts available to end users and 3rd repair shops. And being 100% pro Right to Repair, I support repairs with non-genuine parts. For peace of mind, have your gear repaired by Apple. For the cost sensitive and tinkerers, you have options. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Problem with doing repairs by apple is that they always go with "let's replace the motherboard" | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because the time spent on diagnosing the specific problem and replacing just the faulty component would cost more. | | |
| ▲ | serf 6 days ago | parent [-] | | that's charitable. I would presume that the world's third largest company by market cap would be attracted to that option because it's the most profitable thing to do. Yes -- there is a nuance between 'most profitable' and 'most thrifty'. | | |
| ▲ | astrange 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You don't get to be an extremely profitable company by doing things that cynical people online assume are the most profitable thing to do, since they always pick the most evil option assuming it's most profitable. | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How does AppleCare factor into your presumption? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | kube-system 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no viable solution to do component level repairs on high density PCBs at scale. | |
| ▲ | sieabahlpark 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | zdw 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of "new" products in the "bargain" category can have remanufactured parts, even without telling the end users. For example, in this DankPods video he pulls apart two cube speakers, and while they look mostly the same on the outside, one has a Nokia-sized lithium battery that is directly soldered to, and the other has a swollen pouch pack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfnabYBtJ2I&t=325s Unfortunately end users can't tell whether they got a "race to the bottom" item, so as much as I'd like cheap repairs, it seems like those also come with a huge amount of buyer beware that they may not know about. | |
| ▲ | AuthAuth 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sounds like more of an excuse than a reason. | | | |
| ▲ | jijijijij 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Within mainland China, Apple was facing fraud of having their devices purchased, stripped for genuine parts, and then rebuilt with knockoffs and sold as new to unsuspecting victims within China or returned. This doesn't make any sense. If Apple wasn't making genuine parts extremely valuable by locking down the hardware, making this proposed scam economically attractive, there would be no such scam. Circular logic. | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is certainly the argument that is made. I don't believe it, however. I don't for one second think that Apple did that for the benefit of users and not as a way to turn an extra buck. |
|
|
| ▲ | arcane23 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >discourage theft Does it though? Are there statistics that clearly show devices aren't being stolen anymore because they cannot monetize them anymore? The way I see it the only thing this does is make you feel better the thief cannot monetize it, or use it, but it does nothing to prevent the theft which is really a moot point in the grand scheme of things. We end up paying in this way, of not having the freedom to easily and cheaply replace parts, while being comforted that even though they still are getting stolen from us, whoever steals them cannot use/monetize them. Which is quite primitive in a sense, and I do not think it's worth it. But that's just me. |
| |
| ▲ | jajuuka 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | According to the GSMA last year phone theft (which arguably has much more part serialization and anti-theft measures implemented) has been a steady 1% of smart phone users worldwide. It does not seem these attempts to lock down systems are successful in reducing theft. https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/industry-services/... However I wonder if they have had an impact on data and financial theft. Which things like part serialization wouldn't affect but system security measures would. | | |
| ▲ | tpmoney 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In the early days, iPhones being both extremely popular and expensive made them pretty big theft targets and Apple was getting pressure from the various state governments to "do something" about the increases in phone theft. At least according to NY and CA, the activation lock alone in iOS7 caused double digit drops in the iPhone theft rates: https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/20/police-say-ios-7-... | |
| ▲ | mr_toad 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Alternatively, without these measures phone theft might be a lot more than 1% of users. People get killed for less than a smartphone costs. | |
| ▲ | shuckles 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s a dynamic system. The number staying the same doesn’t tell you anything about causality or the counterfactual. | |
| ▲ | userbinator 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I suspect the majority of phone thieves don't care about the previous owner's data, they just want it wiped so it can be sold to someone else. |
| |
| ▲ | phoronixrly 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, imagine a world where people who are forced to steal are competent enough not only to know which phones they can sell, but to be able to guess the make and model in the middle of a mugging | | |
| ▲ | reaperducer 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | imagine a world where people who are forced to steal are competent enough not only to know which phones they can sell, but to be able to guess the make and model in the middle of a mugging No need to imagine. This actually happens with watches. In Hong Kong (and likely other cities), you can pick a watch from a "catalog" that is a binder of photos of watches on people's wrists in public, and the middleman will have the watch custom-stolen for you. | | |
| ▲ | aspenmayer 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Part of me believes this is true. The other part suspects this is a fancy way to sell custom fakes with no refunds. |
| |
| ▲ | seventhtiger 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They actually do though. First thing to learn when swiping is what's worth swiping, and if no one will buy an iphone paper weight then it's not worth the risk. | | |
| ▲ | arcane23 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That might account for a small set of scenarios, most times they just go for whatever sticks to their hand, in pockets/purses, without knowing what they'll get. As long as there's devices that can be monetized they will attempt to steal them if they cannot make sure it's not worth it. And this would account for pros, let alone newbs in stealing, or just irrational behavior, or people who just enjoy creating harm with no gain.
I think this is a case where the justification is weak and in reality it's more about greed and control on Apple's side rather than some potential benefit that is actually seriously diluted by a lot of other not mentioned factors. | | |
| ▲ | seventhtiger 6 days ago | parent [-] | | For example in the UK the police did a sting simply by wearing expensive watches, and caught 31 robbers in a 12 month period. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-68003783 I agree that all the random factors you mentioned exist, and the proportion to random vs targeted theft would be an interesting debate, but there's solid evidence for significant targeted theft. The fencers tell the thieves what to look for. |
| |
| ▲ | jajuuka 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah it's like saying "home invaders don't know if there is anything good inside they just choose houses at random." The point of the theft is to get something out of it. | | |
| ▲ | nwallin 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I've thankfully never had my house robbed, or a cell phone or laptop stolen. I have had my car broken into. The thieves chucked a paving stone through the window, grabbed a backpack sitting on the passenger's seat, and ran off with it. Left the paving stone in the driver's seat. The backpack had my gym clothes in it. A T-shirt I was rather fond of, a pair of shorts, a few extra pairs of socks, and a shitty pair of sneakers, all were well worn. Replacing the backpack and gym clothes was probably $100, market value was maybe $10, and it was $507 to fix the window. (my deductible was $500.) | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I thought you were going to say "but they ignored the $100 textbook on the dashboard" or something. The anecdote doesn't demonstrate anything. How much of an inconvenience the theft was for you is not a factor for the thief. They got $10 by chucking a rock through a window, and they only lost the opportunity cost of choosing a different victim. | | |
| ▲ | seabass-labrax 6 days ago | parent [-] | | They had to take the cumulative risk of getting caught though - one well-targeted burglary to take a designer handbag or diamond necklace would earn that thief as much as the indiscriminate 'stealing nwallin's gym clothes' thief would make in a year, as long as they had the network to sell the contraband on without incriminating themselves. | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That risk is there regardless of what they steal. The kind of thieves who break into cars are low-effort-random-reward. They have neither the patience nor the skill nor the resources for the kind of planning you're referring to. Yes, the bag didn't contain much valuable. A different bag might have. Had the thief known that for a fact beforehand they probably wouldn't have bothered. Outside nwallin's car: no valuables Inside nwallin's car: maybe valuables? | |
| ▲ | mensetmanusman 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is no risk in may states like California: |
|
| |
| ▲ | int_19h 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I had my apartment broken in at one point many years ago, and the thief basically only bothered to take my MacBook Air. Nothing else was missing. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | niklassheth 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The majority of phones in the US are iPhones, especially in big cities where phone theft is most common. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | londons_explore 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Anti-theft isn't the reason. Apple could easily have a dialogue that pops up saying: "The XYZ sensor in this device is still registered to a device attached to robert8 @icloud.com. Please log into that account now to authorize the component swap". Whilst the swap isn't authorised, firmware would power the system off after 10 mins, making any stolen laptop parts useless. |
| |
|
| ▲ | koiueo 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > discourage theft Thieves once broke into my car. They stole everything, but then have thrown away things they don't need: which was everything except iPad Pro M1. They have even thrown away an e-ink device which was as expensive. Many signs suggest that the thieves were in an organized group regularly operating in the area, and I'm certain they knew what they were doing. My iPad has never appeared online after the theft according to my iCloud. This was in 2024. I'm confident this iPad didn't just become a paperweight for the organized group of thieves.
But it would become a paperweight for me if, say, the infrared camera went off due to a water damage and I wasn't willing to pay Apple a hefty price for the motherboard replacement. |
|
| ▲ | 2OEH8eoCRo0 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are still a target for theft https://www.economist.com/interactive/britain/2025/08/17/the... > More recently London has become known as the “phone-snatching capital of Europe”. If the victims manage to track their devices, the goods are most likely to turn up in China. > Globalisation created the supply chain that allows each iPhone—assembled from nearly 3,000 components—to reach the hands of a consumer. The same forces inverted see that phone yanked out of it, re-exported and broken apart again. |
| |
| ▲ | seabass-labrax 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I wouldn't personally trust the Economist with this kind of thing, at least not compared to publications by technically-minded experts that have been shared elsewhere on this thread, such as the Register. The phone-snatching is real, but the effectiveness of this theft in creating usable spare parts, or of the efficacy Apple's software in reducing said theft, is much harder to determine. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | deepsun 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Theft of what, sorry not clear. Thieves keep stealing macbooks no prob. |
|
| ▲ | commandersaki 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I read somewhere the angle sensor also has a privacy feature of cutting off microphone at hardware level. This is probably the main reason for parts pairing. |
| |
| ▲ | serf 6 days ago | parent [-] | | ... and this can't done with the myriad of other ways a lid can know it's closed.. why? Presumably MacBooks still have a big un-shuttered camera on the screen? Presumably there is still a light sensor? I get the idea of parts pairing as a theft/parts-out deterrent -- I don't get it as a method of cutting features on existing machines. "We need the lid angle sensor to be valuable, so let's cut out our eyes and seal our ears." | | |
|
|
| ▲ | KurSix 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| iPhones were like gold on the black market |
|
| ▲ | debesyla 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| As the saying goes, is it even theft if you don't own the device? (If you can't do whatever you wish.) |
| |
| ▲ | BoorishBears 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, Apple rents me some very powerful hardware that allows me to make a living. Someone depriving me of it is theft. | |
| ▲ | mr_toad 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If we want to split hairs, technically it’s robbery, which is more serious than theft. In the UK for example, the maximum sentence for robbery is life imprisonment. | |
| ▲ | jen20 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is a particularly idiotic saying. |
|
