Well, that's part of the problem. Right-to-repair bills that don't address serialized components or hardware DRM won't make it better. Apple is backing this bill because it aligns with their definition of "repair" and further reinforces the idea that the first party is the only one allowed to authorize maintenance.
This is less about letting perfect be the enemy of good, and more about struggling to identify the core problem in the first place. If Apple is a required party for me to replace my screen or reinstall a USB connector, then you aren't advocating for a "right" to repair at all. In fact, you're actually coming back around to the 'Repairs-as-a-Service' model that third-parties protested against in the first place.
If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. But I suspect you cannot.
I understand that reasoning for it (although I think that's not the only reason Apple does this).
But personally, that sort of thing is one of the reasons why I wouldn't buy an iPhone. The cost of that kind of "theft protection" is, for me, too high. I prefer not having any theft protection at all over a scheme that removes my ability to repair or modify my devices.
Hardware DRM (at least as it exists) makes really meaningful right-to-repair technically impossible.
Uh... you could just let the user authorize repairs. If your iPhone's root-of-trust is registered with your iCloud account, then users could authorize themselves to make repairs by just putting in the password. Entirely offline, retains Apple's DRM scheme, and even thwarts the Chinese boogeymen that you're so scared of. It just removes the part where Apple has absolute control over the feature instead of the hardware owner.
(If you know what an illegal car “chop shop” is, they operate under the same business model: stolen preowned product as an input, replacement parts sold to repair shops — or used in their own “repair shop” — as an output.)
The exact point of “hardware DRM” is that it allows me to retroactively revoke my consent for the parts of my phone to ever be used again inside some other person’s phone, through the cloud, at the moment I realize my phone has already been stolen.
(Also, FYI, there’s nothing specifically Chinese about this pipeline. It’s not like this is a scam being run by the Triads or anything. Rather, it’s just unchecked capitalism. The gangs that go around stealing phones are small-time local groups of thieves, who have realized they can make a buck by selling and delivering wholesale lots of these phones to amoral “phone chop-shops” who happen to reside in Shenzhen. Those “phone chop-shops” are only in Shenzhen because that’s where all the demand is for the huge number of parts generated by scrapping a phone, and because they can’t sell these parts on without cash-only handshake deals.)
To be clear, the “phone chop-shop” never ask any gangs to steal phones for them, either. They just say they’ll “buy phones in any condition.” (Which is why I say they’re amoral, not immoral.) Everything that happens from then on is the natural consequence of a market optimizing for profitability.
On a related topic, the true point of Apple’s “authorized repair” program, was to penalize any repair shop who knowingly purchased parts from a “phone chop-shop” by disallowing them from ever again purchasing genuine parts; thus creating a disincentive from ever buying these grey-market parts.
You. You are the user.
So, imagine the hardware DRM exactly the way it is now, but with my modifications. The super bad-guys in Shenzhen dismantle my iPhone and try to turn it into a new phone. Oh no! The DRM on the other person's phone says that their parts are paired to my iPhone. Since I never manually un-paired those parts with my iCloud account (or Hardware root-of-trust), they cannot perform the evil deed of scrapping my iPhone for parts. They are thwarted by the exact same system, in the exact same way, except hardware owners hold the keys instead of Apple.
> The exact point of “hardware DRM” is that it allows me to retroactively revoke my consent for the parts of my phone
Minus retroactive control, that's the point of my implementation. The same DRM system that you are describing can be designed so the user can authorize repairs and de-couple parts without Apple's blessing. The only difference is that it would proactively lock all parts to your iPhone and only uncouple them when the user authorizes it. In that way, it's almost more secure than Apple exclusively holding the keys.
> the true point of Apple’s “authorized repair” program, was to penalize any repair shop who knowingly purchased parts from a “phone chop-shop” by disallowing them from ever again purchasing genuine parts
Fun fact! Secondhand chop-shop components and genuine Apple-issued replacements are not the only two options. You can buy a lot of Apple components from TI and Foxconn if you browse their piecemeal catalog. On top of that, there are many people who sell hardware as "for parts" to be used as donor hardware by third parties. It almost feels like Apple created this system to punish anyone who competes with their first-party offerings...
A phone being able to be used for parts should be a default-allow condition; otherwise e.g. any phone owned by someone who dies — which is a large percentage of phones that get genuinely recycled these days! — will consider its parts non-reusable.
Now, if that sort of security doesn't matter to you; good! Me neither. My original thesis was that Apple can reconcile their current DRM scheme with users that want to repair their hardware themselves, via third-parties. I still believe that, and I don't think Apple can prove that their solution is entirely necessary to secure iPhones.
No, it does (and works well!) because the parts don't need to know that they're stolen. That's not how lost mode works†; the parts themselves aren't refusing to cooperate with the new phone. Rather, it's the other phone that needs to know that your phone's parts have been stolen. It then refuses to cooperate with the parts, after the parts identify themselves. All the parts need, for this to work, is immutable individualized bus-message signing keys (a.k.a. "serialized parts.")
Remember that we're also assuming here, a phone ecosystem that has a Trusted Computing Base — one where you fundamentally can't get root to modify the phone's firmware from the signed one that the manufacturer puts on there. (Or at least, not in a way that would leave the phone in a condition that a person just submitting a phone to a repair shop would find acceptable. Jailbroken iPhones, when possible, can no longer follow upstream updates, for just one problem. That's not the kind of thing that would be considered a "successful repair" — it's the kind of thing that'd have the phone taken back for a refund on that repair.)
The presence of a Trusted Computing Base on whatever "compute core" the other parts are going to be attached onto, means that you can't get in the way of any Certificate Revocation List that he manufacturer issues for the signing keys that these retroactively-marked-as-lost parts will present to the new phone when they attempt to pair with it upon activation.
---
† "Lost mode" actually triggers three separate things:
1. it sends out a notification to the "compute core" of the lost phone that either immediately — or the next time it comes online, if it hasn't since been rooted [which as I said, is unlikely, for customer-UX reasons] — will lock itself up until someone in possession of it goes through a KYC-like identity verification process with Apple to prove that they are the legitimate owner of the phone — at which point Apple issues a signed packet that tells the "compute core" to un-clench. As long as the "compute core" is locked, it's useless to "chop shops", and just gets discarded as waste in the scrap process.
2. it looks up the certificates used by the various "serialized components" of the phone to sign their bus message traffic (which Apple knows without having to ping the phone, because it recorded those cert IDs when generating them, before burning them into the parts; and knows which phone they went into on the assembly line, because serialized parts) and puts them on an activation-time Certificate Revocation List that all other iOS "compute cores" fetch. (This is what "activation" — in the era of factory-unlocked phones — is: fetching the most up-to-date Certificate Revocation List, and checking whether the signing keys of any of the phone's parts are on it.)
3. it places the "compute core's" associated IMEI number, if any, onto IMEI blocklists; and places the "compute core's" MAC addresses onto government watch-lists. Why bother? Well, sometimes there's no "customer"; instead, some smaller number of these phones are stolen by professional gangs that own the whole pipeline, and their goal isn't parts for repair, but rather to get entire working (nice, modern) smartphones into the hands of "important" people, in countries that Apple's enclosing jurisdiction has decided should not be allowed to "import technology" from them. These groups do this by 1. Faraday-caging the phones, 2. importing them into their country, and 3. delivering them to a jailbreaker who works in a Faraday-caged room. IMEI blocking means that if you successfully did this, your phone might end up working fine on your corrupt country's networks — but the moment you bring it to another country, the baseband modem (which even rooting the phone can't really interfere with) will receive the updated IMEI blocklist from a local network provider, and lock itself up. And then, ideally, the user will try to get online anyway by connecting the phone to some major public wi-fi like an airport — at which point the state actors who monitor MAC address logs of these major public wi-fi APs, will know that there's a Person of Interest in the country.
A scheme where individuals can repair phones, but where every user who wants to order non-device-bound replacement parts must first be vetted to not themselves be a chop shop, or someone working with chop-shops; where non-device-bound replacement parts may only be shipped to such vetted individuals; and where such replacement parts must be end-to-end inventory managed (via e.g. phone activation time pairing of the replacement part with the phone) to ensure that parts are not being "leaked" out of this process via "overstock" or "shrinkage" into the grey-market pipeline. And where previously device-bound parts may become non-device-bound replacement parts, but only through the phone first being sent to Apple (or in theory some other "authorized recycler") to extract and de-pair the parts, so that those parts can't leak into the grey-market pipeline, either.
That is wrong. The Shenzhen boogeyman can be dealt with in ways that don't give Apple the de-facto iron fist over repairs. This is an obvious, bald-faced power grab no different than using terrorism to explain why encryption is a bad technology. Any reasonable jury would conclude that the value of monopolizing your second-hand supply chain far exceeds any profit recouped from snuffing out chop-shop iPhones.
Yes, but as I was attempting to emphasize, the problem is that these same repairs represent "supply chain leaks."
If the operation available to users was to "release their device and all the parts inside it from tracking, such that these parts can then be used to repair any other device" — then these parts would disappear off the face of the earth from a supply-chain perspective, where they could then be stolen from the recycler, from the repair shop, or any number of other intermediaries, before finally making their way into a new device.
(The exception to this "leak" being the one kind of "recycling" that's already permitted: the one where you're releasing the parts from tracking because you're sending them back to the first-party OEM integrator, who can then keep internal supply-chain security for where the parts go from there. I.e., the Apple recycling program.)
The obvious way to prevent the "supply chain leak" would be to change the operation being permitted: rather than "de-identifying" parts so that they're owned by nobody indefinitely until put in a new device; instead, only permit instantaneous transfers, authorized by the current owner at point of transfer, from one device directly into another, such that at all points in time, every part that's left the factory has a legal owner.
I'm a decentralized-systems nerd, so I do realize that you can do something like this without there being one central party who keeps the current supply-chain state of all parts in their own proprietary database. You can use a federated "supply chain transparency" blockchain; design the system so that the validators of this system can elect third-party companies as delegated oracles to then enforce KYC-like identity verification upon signers before they're allowed to perform transactions; etc.
But decentralization in this direction is pointless toward your stated goals, because either it's not decentralized enough to permit individuals as participants (so you inevitably have to lean on some professional, "authorized" repair shop, meaning there is still no actual "right to repair" for individuals); or it's so decentralized that it allows individuals not motivated to repair entry into the system — at which point those individuals have a valuable good (their identity-stake in the system) that they can sell to malicious actors who want to use their identities as "burner identities" (see also: Amazon + eBay sellers buying "aged" and "brushed" accounts to use to perpetrate fraud; people who sell their own email/Discord/etc accounts on carding forums for about a dollar each; etc.) Note how none of the companies talking about "supply chain transparency" are proposing it for the secondary market — only for the primary factory-to-OEM-to-consumer logistical pipeline. For the primary market, it works, because there are a set of known actors who are supposed to be participants in the system, and anyone else is supposed to be kept out. But for the secondary market, this paradigm falls apart.
There you go! I'm glad we can mutually acknowledge that this is more of an Apple problem than it is an end-user one.
> either it's not decentralized enough to permit individuals as participants (so you inevitably have to lean on some professional, "authorized" repair shop, meaning there is still no actual "right to repair" for individuals); or it's so decentralized that it allows individuals not motivated to repair entry into the system
If that's your core conceit, then I just plain disagree. The end-user is a perfectly acceptable party to authorize repair if you don't obsess over your supply chain. As the owner of that hardware, it should be their express right to choose any replacement part they desire for their screen or volume rocker. In this case, Apple has gone out of their way to break third-party options and documented repair methods. It's not about functionality or security, their current implementation (as you've identified) wholly revolves around supply chain control.
It's not illegal, but it should be. The status-quo is morally wrong and makes anti-consumer compromises to ensure the profitability of Apple's secondary market. Anti-theft technology is not inherently amoral, but hardware DRM is, when you use it like this.
> Note how none of the companies talking about "supply chain transparency" are proposing it for the secondary market
Of course they aren't.
...because the economics of it don't work out in favor of actually effectively tracing parts through the secondary-market supply chain, rendering the stated goal of "supply chain transparency" unreachable, and so the system-as-designed pointless to participate in. Are you implying something different?
> There you go! I'm glad we can mutually acknowledge that this is more of an Apple problem than it is an end-user one.
There are more participants in this ecosystem than "the end-user" and "Apple."
Specifically, the actor being harmed here is legitimate third-party repair shops. These small businesses suddenly have a problem... in that these same organized criminal gangs that were previously stealing whole phones, would suddenly have a large incentive to instead break into their repair shops to steal their stocks of "unlocked" parts! And, unlike Apple, who can just post armed guards around their factories and shipping trucks, independent repair shops are small and usually low-margin businesses — so there's very little they can afford to do about that kind of high-grade theft!
For an analogy: narcotic drugs. Drug thieves have a choice: they can try to steal drugs from a pharmaceutical supplier (far out of the way, and well-guarded + built like a fortress with barbed-wire fences and so forth) or a hospital pharmacy (deep within hospitals, also well-guarded, and likely open 24 hours) Or they can try to steal drugs from a small neighbourhood drug store (not well guarded, empty at night.) Which do you think they choose?
But ignoring that, this "releasing of parts" still harms the end-user — because it gives the grey-market buyers of repair parts — the same ones buying from chop-shops — a channel by which to acquire a stock of the critical missing parts (logic boards!) required to build full new phones out of mostly-otherwise-stolen parts.
Previously, these grey-market buyers could only operate as repair shops, repairing existing phones (i.e. building a phone up around a customer's working logic board.) But now, by buying 90% chop-shop parts and 10% legitimate released-to-secondary-market logic boards, they can construct full phones for sale, that are cheaper than the cheapest legitimate secondary-market phones! And guess what direction this takes the demand for chop-shop parts, and therefore the demand for stolen phones?
Alright, you had me doubled over in laughter for a second there. I hope to see John Deere argue the same when their anti-repair reckoning comes, the testimony would be legendary.
> But ignoring that, this "releasing of parts" still harms the end-user — because it gives the grey-market buyers of repair parts — the same ones buying from chop-shops — a channel by which to acquire a stock of the critical missing parts (logic boards!) required to build full new phones out of mostly-otherwise-stolen parts.
Two refutations:
- If this was Apple's end-goal, then they wouldn't stop users from replacing piecemeal components themselves and only use the DRM to prevent complete "ship of Theseus" situations as you are presenting. Even in that scenario, those iPhones are technically refurbished (like it or not) because their processors are OEM.
- By characterizing the secondhand market as gray, you are both acknowledging it has legitimate demand and is a market. If Apple is using their power as an original manufacturer to stop people beyond "minting" new iPhones, it should be stopped. I'm not saying this as a whistleblower, I'm saying this as a genuine regulatory and legislative suggestion.
> But now, by buying 90% chop-shop parts and 10% legitimate released-to-secondary-market logic boards
Then, as I said, force the end-user to authorize the release of the components. Make it some absolutely stupid security theater stuff, to really give people like you something to yap about. Make it a 48 hour process that involves 2 Genius Bar assistants and a remote expert who ensure that you aren't being held at gunpoint by using your Apple Watch to track your blood pressure. Then you both fix the market, give people a nice customer story to help them sleep at night, and let people repair their phones. I'm not asking for the world, it's a trillion-dollar business. Of course I'm going to expect the base-level benevolent conduct from them when regulators don't babysit their every move.
Alternatively, Apple could acknowledge that this is "not their problem" and trying to pretend otherwise is a good way of getting their anticompetitive clock cleaned.
I think that's unlikely. Phones are disguised by cases. Most tech folks can't even tell them apart when they are sitting side by side on a desk in front of them. Not without the screen coming on, anyway. Let alone in someone's pocket or at a bar. If anything Androids might be stolen more often due to socioeconomic pressure. Can't afford an iPhone, can't afford a nice neighborhood. Or vice versa, an Android gets stolen because it looks like an iPhone, a higher price target. And those would only be relevant IF the statistics agreed with your assertion here, but I don't see that they do, based on some quick searching.
Regardless, phone location was a feature of Android long before iOS. I had it on Windows CE phones before the iPhone even existed. Laptops had LoJack before smart phones existed. Theft was not deterred. Rates of recovery maybe increased, but I'm not sure we have statistics on the latest Apple tech to be able to opine about it, and I wouldn't expect that they would say anything about theft, only about recovery when the criminal is stupid enough to not use some cheap shielding they could get off of Amazon for $5.
You're right, in a literal sense; people pickpocket a phone before knowing what it is.
It's what happens right after the actual theft that makes a difference. These more-organized thieves know that these chop-shop buyers aren't (nearly as) interested in iPhones, often to the point that they aren't worth the cost of the added shipping weight. So when they manage to nab a phone, they do a quick examination, to figure out what kind of phone it is. If it's an iPhone, they drop it in a nearby trash can; or sometimes they try to con some local who doesn't know anything about phones (think: drug dealer who wants a second phone) into buying it on the street.
That's where you find the majority of "stolen iPhones": in the trash near where it was lost, or in the hands of some local who was dumb enough to buy it not realizing it will be marked "lost" in short order and become useless to them. Both of these are "recoverable" losses — which, from both the phone owner's and Apple's perspective, is a win!
Meanwhile, the Android devices go in a box, and the box goes on a boat.
> Regardless, phone location was a feature of Android long before iOS. I had it on Windows CE phones before the iPhone even existed. Laptops had LoJack before smart phones existed. Theft was not deterred.
Yeah, because as I said, this isn't — and never was — about refurbishing the device. It's about scrapping the device for parts. Location tracking does not prevent a device being scrapped for parts, because chop shops actually throw away the location-tracking bit — the "compute core" — and just keep all the other expensive parts.
Plenty of people with stolen phones see their phone mysteriously show up reporting itself to now be in Shenzhen. Then the location tracking turns off and never comes back, because the phone was chopped up and the compute-core bit thrown away.
It just doesn't happen nearly as often, per capita, to iPhone owners as it does to Android owners, because a large number of the iPhones are "rejected from the funnel."
When an IMEI is reported stolen carriers blacklist it. Either way you have to swap the IMEI, so I'm not seeing a difference.
Anyway, my estimation is that while some might, most stolen phones don't end up in China anyway. They end up on Craigslist in a city 4 miles away from the crime.
The difference in ratios between the Android and iOS ecosystems, of phones stolen-and-resold-locally and therefore "recoverable", to phones stolen-and-then-"trafficked" and so unrecoverable, comes down to a deterrent effect from how completely iOS's lost mode stops part reuse. By having the 20%-or-so of phones that are marked as lost/stolen, become effectively entirely dead weight with no reusable parts, the margin for the whole logistics pipeline (steal, ship, take apart) for this type of phone drops negative.
You can argue it's questionable from many perspectives – I can be a lot more unfiltered about this – but it tells you how specific of a context large American publicly traded companies work in. If that makes the idea of the large American publicly traded company problematic, that's a reasonable conclusion.
If we're going to draw an equivalency between the two, then we should also take care to recognize that corporations are sociopaths.