[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.

[bogwog]

> With more secure hardware, you realistically could make stolen parts useless.

I really doubt that. People always find a way around these types of things, especially for something as popular as an iPhone. It's all effectively DRM, which has never been fool-proof in any implementation as far as I know, whether it be hardware or software. It's not like Apple has some magic super secure supply chain. Internal manuals get leaked and parts stolen off assembly lines all the time.

> 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.

The same could be said about literally everything. Counterfeits are not a new phenomenon, it's just a fact of life (especially on the internet, and particularly on Amazon)

> ...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.

> ... 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.

The argument you're making here is that Apple should inflict major harms on consumers in order to marginally improve their business. By preventing independent repairs via serial number locking, Apple is able to ensure that second-hand iPhones are higher quality, and the people who buy them are more likely to be impressed and will want to buy a brand new iPhone in the future. That minor benefit to Apple's business/brand should be more important than the damage to consumers' wallets, rights, and the planet.

Everyone has their own view of the world and value systems. This reasoning just seems bonkers to me, but I understand that we're probably completely different people with polar opposite viewpoints on this, and you probably think my views are insane. I can respect that. I'm not going to change your mind about it, and you're not going to change mine. So I think the conclusion here is to end this discussion on mutual disagreement.