[viktorcode]

> interchanging parts on two brand new iphone's and it disabled a lot of things including auto-brightness.

I think one problem is not being discussed enough is iPhones being stolen for parts (since in most cases they can't be reactivated). I strongly suspect inability to simply switch parts without remote authorisation is Apple's way to address the problem.

[smoldesu]

Okay, let's discuss it then. Why do I need Apple's consent to repair the device I paid for? Why is there no way for me to (even temporarily) disable this feature if I actually want to fix my phone?

[cromka]

> Why is there no way for me to (even temporarily) disable this feature if I actually want to fix my phone?

You want to be able to temporarily disable a feature that Apple introduced to prevent from installing potentially stolen parts in your phone?

[smoldesu]

All parts are 'potentially stolen', that's just a scary thing that John Deere and Apple says to justify their first-party stranglehold on repairs. Louis Rossmann and co. use donor parts for repairs all the time. If they own and can unlock the donor Macbook/iPhone, they should be able to attest that the device is being used for parts/repair and disable the protection. I see no potential for abuse here, and it prevents more iPhones from becoming landfill. Win/win, since Apple cares about the environment so much!

If I own my device and can enter the password on it, I should be able to decide which software features are enabled and disabled. That shouldn't be a controversial opinion.

[saiya-jin]

The amount of uncritical comments in any post around apple on HN is usually quite something, I wouldn't get too excited about that. Its mainly US website so that's to be expected.

That being said, there are some good points raised here by folks. If you don't like how Apple does things overall, there are mighty fine competitors that provide even more in some areas and are not Chinese, but they do charge premium for their quality too. Just expect some similar/other limitations there too.

[smoldesu]

The problem is that we should be able to choose, not Apple. Overriding Apple's software choices should not necessitate leaving the ecosystem, period. Especially considering Apple is the largest company in the world, it shouldn't be a problem for them to add a few toggles. We need regulation to hold them accountable for these simple options, but knowing Apple (and how deep in bed they are with the US government) this won't happen.

I agree though, and I've been moving myself away from Apple products since Catalina. The water is now lukewarm, and this little frog doesn't intend to be around when they put the lid on the pot.

[newtritious]

Those few toggles would defeat the security protections. Most people want a security. Indeed most people never even repair a phone.

[Gigachad]

You chose to buy it knowing that's how it works. As a user I find this an extremely compelling feature that my phone is close to worthless to anyone who would try to steal it.

[bogwog]

I'm certain that at least 90% of iPhone buyers have no idea Apple does this. I suspect a lot of them would be pissed if they learned.

[Gigachad]

I suspect if you gave most users the choice between theft proof and aftermarket part swapping, they would pick theft proof. Considering you can buy parts from Apple or take the phone in to a store to have it fixed at a very fair price.

[bogwog]

Theft resistant would be more accurate, as it's certainly not theft proof. An iphone screen can be trivially reprogrammed to bypass that serial number check with a ~$90 device on ebay.

> Considering you can buy parts from Apple or take the phone in to a store to have it fixed at a very fair price.

What is a "fair" price? After market screens can be found online for incredibly cheap. I replaced my XS Max display myself in 10 minutes using a kit I bought for ~$50 on Amazon with free 2 day shipping.

Sure, I don't have "true tone" anymore, and the display is an inferior LCD rather than an IPS, but I don't care. It looks great, works great, and it beats paying Apple $329.

[Gigachad]

Really this just means that the implementation needs more work, not that the idea is wrong. With more secure hardware, you realistically could make stolen parts useless. Combined with the ability to track a turned off phone with the Find My network, theft keeps getting harder while the potential payout does not get any higher.

The main problem with after market parts is there is often not informed choice. These parts very frequently advertise themselves official or equivalent to official. With fake specs, fake labels, and fake brands. And then these phones get resold on to others who have no way of knowing that the reason their experience is compromised is due to fake parts.

Ideally Apple would present some kind of UI to the user which allows them to unregister the parts of their phone and allow them to be used in another phone for genuine swaps of owned devices. And allowing the installation of non genuine parts with some on boot message explaining exactly which parts are not genuine. So on sale the new owner knows what they are getting.

[viktorcode]

As a customer you don't need "Apple's consent". Just drop the phone to a repair shop of your choosing. As a repair servicemen, you need Apple's consent presumably because they don't want you buying stolen iPhones for parts.