France Investigating Apple Over Alleged 'Planned Obsolescence' Arising From Serialized Repair Parts

[MacRumors]

France has been investigating Apple since December after the organization Halte à l'Obsolescence Programmée (HOP) accused the company of "planned obsolescence" over serialized repair parts, according to French news agency AFP.

Apple's self-service repair program requires customers to enter a device's serial number when ordering parts for devices like iPhones and Macs, and any parts ordered need to be paired with the same device after installation. HOP said this policy gives Apple the potential to restrict repairs to approved technicians only, and limit the functionality of devices repaired with uncertified parts. The organization added that Apple's self-service repair program is bad for the environment given that Apple ships large and heavy tools to customers.

Do-it-yourself repair website iFixit also expressed disappointment about the serial number requirement when Apple's program launched last year.

"Integrating a serial number check into their checkout process is a dire omen and could allow Apple the power to block even more repairs in the future," said iFixit's Elizabeth Chamberlain. "Building the technology to provision individual repairs easily sets Apple up as the gateway to approve—or deny—any repairs in the future, with parts from any source."

The Paris Public Prosecutor's office is handling the investigation, and has yet to formally accuse Apple of any wrongdoing in relation to HOP's complaint. The organization previously filed a complaint about Apple throttling the maximum performance of some older iPhone models with aging batteries when necessary in order to prevent the devices from unexpectedly shutting down, leading to a €25 million fine in France.

Article Link: France Investigating Apple Over Alleged 'Planned Obsolescence' Arising From Serialized Repair Parts

 

[vertsix]

Good.

While serialized parts allows a record of the repairs and replacement parts on a device, which is especially nice when buying used and refurbished, the hijacking of functionality is the real crime. Screen replacements, for example, on the iPhone 14 series, even when using genuine Apple parts and without "re-pairing" by a certified technician or through SSR, results in the loss of True Tone, auto-brightness, and other critical functionality.

Here's an (incomplete) list of some of the functionality lost when doing a replacement of said part, even when parts are genuine, off of the top of my head:

1. Battery -> loss of battery health metrics
2. Display -> loss of auto-brightness, True Tone, and Face ID
3. Camera -> loss of portrait mode, buggy Camera app functionality, and loss of optical zoom

There is no technical reason why this should be the case - based on teardowns and hardware analysis even -
other than to make non-genuine parts so crippled to discourage self repair, third party repair or to encourage a device upgrade.

EDIT: Some posts below mention the "theft deterrence" argument, where serialized parts may discourage iPhone thefts by making their parts less valuable by inhibiting functionality. There is no evidence to suggest that this is an effective theft "deterrent". In fact, iPhone thefts are up and parts are still being sent to China in record numbers, even with these "deterrents".

 

[spazzcat]

So you are ok with your phones being stolen and shipped to China to be parted out?

 

[johnsc3]

Good...

I agree. It would be good business to be have the same energy for all other industries and companies domestic and abroad.

 

[PJWilkin]

The serialisation of the parts helps prevent device theft for parts
if any checks are removed, the only real benefits will be to those selling stolen phones for parts

apples solution may not be ideal, but I’d rather live with it than having the hell it was before

 

[deebinem]

So you are ok with your phones being stolen and shipped to China to be parted out?

I only have one phone and it is old enough that I'd feel honored if China wanted to part it out.

 

[TSE]

The EU has had their guns drawn at Apple for too long! Protectionism & nationalism disguised as consumer advocacy. All American companies take note!

 

[raythompsontn]

There is no technical reason why this should be the case

And if that is allowed the next time there is a problem with the device is that problem due to another issue with the device or with the third party part? The new problem then becomes a shoving contest between Apple and the third party supplier. In that case the owner of the device will almost always loose.

Replacing a complicated piece of electronics in a complicated electronic device is not the same a replacing shocks on a 2021 Subaru.

The serialization of the parts also helps to stop the stolen phone racket. If just any part is allowed the profit on stolen devices just went up making the devices more desirable targets. People scream at Apple to reduce the stolen phone market, yet when Apple does so by requiring validated parts, people scream Apple is uncompetitive. It doesn't work both ways.

 

[dannyyankou]

The organization added that Apple's self-service repair program is bad for the environment given that Apple ships large and heavy tools to customers.

I'm not happy about the serial number requirement, but this part is crazy. Apple has been criticized for years for not giving customers the ability to repair their own phones, but now they're being criticized for giving customers the tools they need to repair them? They can't win.

 

[CWallace]

The issue at hand is not "planned obsolescence ", which is defined as the practice of designing products to break quickly or become obsolete in the short to mid-term. Considering how long most Apple products last and are supported, the company arguably does the exact opposite.

 

[vertsix]

The serialisation of the parts helps prevent device theft for parts
if any checks are removed, the only real benefits will be to those selling stolen phones for parts

apples solution may not be ideal, but I’d rather live with it than having the hell it was before

Do you have a source for "[the] serialisation of the parts helps prevent device theft for parts"?

Particularly, statistics. Please share them.

 

[dk001]

The serialisation of the parts helps prevent device theft for parts
if any checks are removed, the only real benefits will be to those selling stolen phones for parts

apples solution may not be ideal, but I’d rather live with it than having the hell it was before

Not really.
They are being stolen in record numbers and shipped to China.

 

[vegetassj4]

I mean, by the time you find the instructions in the self repair manual, 5 new devices have been released anyway:

 

[dk001]

And if that is allowed the next time there is a problem with the device is that problem due to another issue with the device or with the third party part? The new problem then becomes a shoving contest between Apple and the third party supplier. In that case the owner of the device will almost always loose.

Replacing a complicated piece of electronics in a complicated electronic device is not the same a replacing shocks on a 2021 Subaru.

The serialization of the parts also helps to stop the stolen phone racket. If just any part is allowed the profit on stolen devices just went up making the devices more desirable targets. People scream at Apple to reduce the stolen phone market, yet when Apple does so by requiring validated parts, people scream Apple is uncompetitive. It doesn't work both ways.

Serializing is great for tracking or recall issues. It doesn't deter theft by much - these are being stolen in record numbers and shipped to Shenzhen. Penalizing the user and the repair party (3rd party repair) is uncompetitive.

 

[robbietop]

"Okay, guys! I, an uneducated common person with no technical expertise will now somehow understand the highly complex functioning of SoC custom motherboards."

I get this makes it a dirty business practice with Authorized Apple Service, but how is Joe or Sally Blow down the street somehow going to understand how to solder? I barely got my dad to learn MS Teams with a step by step video, how does the common consumer being allowed to repair their Mac or Phone somehow lessen the highly complex nature of the device?

The target audience for iFixIt is not my dad. My dad is Apple's target demographic. iFixIt is for technical nerds and geeks, not 345 N Market St, Middle America, NE

 

[CWallace]

(iPhones) are being stolen in record numbers and shipped to China.

I would presume that the majority of the parts reclamation would be for extracting metals (precious and otherwise) and components that are not-serialized and could be re-used?

 

[vertsix]

And if that is allowed the next time there is a problem with the device is that problem due to another issue with the device or with the third party part? The new problem then becomes a shoving contest between Apple and the third party supplier. In that case the owner of the device will almost always loose.

Replacing a complicated piece of electronics in a complicated electronic device is not the same a replacing shocks on a 2021 Subaru.

The serialization of the parts also helps to stop the stolen phone racket. If just any part is allowed the profit on stolen devices just went up making the devices more desirable targets. People scream at Apple to reduce the stolen phone market, yet when Apple does so by requiring validated parts, people scream Apple is uncompetitive. It doesn't work both ways.

>The serialization of the parts also helps to stop the stolen phone racket.

Do you have a source for this?

>Replacing a complicated piece of electronics in a complicated electronic device is not the same a replacing shocks on a 2021 Subaru.

Correct, but why not give the consumer the choice and ability to if they so wish? In my case, I wouldn't microsolder a new NAND IC chip for my iPhone when it fails, I'd have a knowledgeable technician do it, but I would love to have the option to learn and do it myself

 

[raythompsontn]

Do you have a source for "[the] serialisation of the parts helps prevent device theft for parts"?

Why do you think that VIN numbers are stamped on engines, transmissions, differentials and other critical parts of vehicles? It prevents, or helps reduce thefts. Catalytic converters are not serialized and the theft of those parts is rampant. Cars are routinely stolen for parts, with serialize parts more difficult to sell.

I personally would have no issue with a transmission, or any other part of a vehicle that has intelligence, to report it's VIN number back to the control unit and the control unit disabling the vehicle from being started if the VIN numbers do not match.

Rather than reduce functionality on mismatched serial numbers on unauthorized parts, Apple should just refuse to let the part function. Or better yet, brick the phone entirely until it can be resolved and restored by Apple.

If anyone can just grab my phone and use it's parts to repair other phones, by shady operatives, my phone just became much more valuable. My phone may be worth $500.00 to some thief in just the parts.

 

[kemal]

I see the serial number as a tool for getting the right part. But Apple goes too far with locking down functionality. Anyone else do this?

 

[vertsix]

"Okay, guys! I, an uneducated common person with no technical expertise will now somehow understand the highly complex functioning of SoC custom motherboards."

I get this makes it a dirty business practice with Authorized Apple Service, but how is Joe or Sally Blow down the street somehow going to understand how to solder? I barely got my dad to learn MS Teams with a step by step video, how does the common consumer being allowed to repair their Mac or Phone somehow lessen the highly complex nature of the device?

The target audience for iFixIt is not my dad. My dad is Apple's target demographic. iFixIt is for technical nerds and geeks, not 345 N Market St, Middle America, NE

It's all about the option to do as you wish. You don't have to repair it yourself, but you could be empowered to do it yourself.

 

[dk001]

I would presume that the majority of the parts reclamation would be for extracting metals (precious and otherwise) and components that are not-serialized and could be re-used?

Good question to which I don't have an answer.
Parts, recycle, maybe they have a way of unlocking, a ....

 

[vertsix]

Why do you think that VIN numbers are stamped on engines, transmissions, differentials and other critical parts of vehicles? It prevents, or helps reduce thefts. Catalytic converters are not serialized and the theft of those parts is rampant. Cars are routinely stolen for parts, with serialize parts more difficult to sell.

I personally would have no issue with a transmission, or any other part of a vehicle that has intelligence, to report it's VIN number back to the control unit and the control unit disabling the vehicle from being started if the VIN numbers do not match.

Rather than reduce functionality on mismatched serial numbers on unauthorized parts, Apple should just refuse to let the part function. Or better yet, brick the phone entirely until it can be resolved and restored by Apple.

If anyone can just grab my phone and use it's parts to repair other phones, by shady operatives, my phone just became much more valuable. My phone may be worth $500.00 to some thief in just the parts.

Okay, and do you have statistics to share that the serialization for parts discourages thefts for iPhones in this case?

Remember, with a car, you can stick a new catalytic converter if yours is stolen, and it would work, for example. With iPhones, you stick a new part in, and it doesn't completely work unless a certified technician or Apple itself allows it to be. Imagine if this scenario was for your car.

 

[sirdir]

Apple? If the device would be under warranty, nobody would buy a fake part anyways. If the device is not under arranty, why would someone suddenly go to Apple AFTER a repair with a fake part? It's what people do that can't affort Apple's ridiculous repair prices in the first place.

 

[raythompsontn]

Penalizing the user and the repair party (3rd party repair) is uncompetitive.

Apple does not penalize the third party repair facility if the facility uses authorized parts. If the facility is using unauthorized parts the facility needs to be shut down.

The only time that unauthorized parts should be allowed is when the device has processed into the Apple antique phase. That phase when Apple no longer supplies parts and such parts may not be easily available.

 

[dk001]

Apple does not penalize the third party repair facility if the facility uses authorized parts. If the facility is using unauthorized parts the facility needs to be shut down.

The only time that unauthorized parts should be allowed is when the device has processed into the Apple antique phase. That phase when Apple no longer supplies parts and such parts may not be easily available.

So you are okay locking the repair into "Apple only" supplied new parts.

Apple's definition of "unauthorized".