Apple Pencils don’t draw straight on replaced iPad screens(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Apple Pencils don’t draw straight on replaced iPad screens
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/apple-pencils-cant-draw-straight-on-third-party-replacement-ipad-screens/
163 comments
My god, the narrative. "Apple is doing this just to fuck with users, fuck apple" etc over and over despite zero evidence as to their intention here.
One sane person comes up with the more likely explanation:
> That implies to me the calibration is unique to each screen and a proper repair has a calibration setup step?
And someone just dismisses that perfectly logical explanation completely out of hand, declaring 'all the hardware is identical'
> No that is not the case. Its not a calibration that really happens here because the screens and the hardware are identical.
Tell me you don't know anything about mass production without telling me you don't know anything about mass production...
Their reply is further sense:
> If Apple wanted to prevent unauthorised replacements they would have no reason to cause erratic behaviour, they could just disable it.
I am so tired of people who interpret Apple's actions purely as anti-consumer fuckery. Even to this day, people still claim that "apple made people's phones slow down as they got older, so they would have to buy new ones" despite it being widely covered that Apple, like other phone manufacturers, slows down the CPU when they detect the battery's internal resistance rising to prevent brownouts so that the phone is usable for a longer period of time and all you have to do to restore original performance is replace the battery, apple or no.
You point that out and without admitting they were wrong, they shriek "well apple should have TOLD people that's what they were doing." No other manufacturer was telling people, either. Plenty of Android handsets just randomly start crashing as the battery's internal resistance goes up. I had one. A Google Nexus 6. It took me months and multiple re-installs of the OS to figure out what was going on before I read others saying that new batteries fixed their crashing.
You just can't win.
Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging - compared to USB-C, but apparently Apple are "dicks" for not going to a more fragile connector literally designed to break just like every USB connector before it. People even have the nerve to complain about Apple "taxing" cable manufacturers and their burdensome certification, ignoring the whole "random USB-C cables will fry your laptop and phone" problem and the fact that the USB alliance charges a license fee on every single product that bears the USB logo.
One sane person comes up with the more likely explanation:
> That implies to me the calibration is unique to each screen and a proper repair has a calibration setup step?
And someone just dismisses that perfectly logical explanation completely out of hand, declaring 'all the hardware is identical'
> No that is not the case. Its not a calibration that really happens here because the screens and the hardware are identical.
Tell me you don't know anything about mass production without telling me you don't know anything about mass production...
Their reply is further sense:
> If Apple wanted to prevent unauthorised replacements they would have no reason to cause erratic behaviour, they could just disable it.
I am so tired of people who interpret Apple's actions purely as anti-consumer fuckery. Even to this day, people still claim that "apple made people's phones slow down as they got older, so they would have to buy new ones" despite it being widely covered that Apple, like other phone manufacturers, slows down the CPU when they detect the battery's internal resistance rising to prevent brownouts so that the phone is usable for a longer period of time and all you have to do to restore original performance is replace the battery, apple or no.
You point that out and without admitting they were wrong, they shriek "well apple should have TOLD people that's what they were doing." No other manufacturer was telling people, either. Plenty of Android handsets just randomly start crashing as the battery's internal resistance goes up. I had one. A Google Nexus 6. It took me months and multiple re-installs of the OS to figure out what was going on before I read others saying that new batteries fixed their crashing.
You just can't win.
Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging - compared to USB-C, but apparently Apple are "dicks" for not going to a more fragile connector literally designed to break just like every USB connector before it. People even have the nerve to complain about Apple "taxing" cable manufacturers and their burdensome certification, ignoring the whole "random USB-C cables will fry your laptop and phone" problem and the fact that the USB alliance charges a license fee on every single product that bears the USB logo.
> [USB-C is a connector] literally designed to break just like every USB connector before it.
Do you have any evidence USB-C is literally designed to break? That seems like an extraordinary claim to me.
Do you have any evidence USB-C is literally designed to break? That seems like an extraordinary claim to me.
The USB-c male connector is deliberately designed to break so that if you stress a plugged in setup you'll break the cable instead of the connector soldered into your phone, which is harder to repair. Maybe they misinterpreted that?
Micro-USB had the opposite problem: all the wear would go to the female socket - i.e. the part you had to fix with a soldering iron. It's possible that they're just not aware that USB-IF fixed this design flaw.
Notably, Lightning is designed to do the opposite. Whoops, the 1 cent connector broke, time for a new iPhone.
I’ve had lots of USB mini/micro B ports do this on various devices (not C so far). I’ve never even heard of it happening to a Lightning port, and I’ve been through a lot of iDevices over the past decade.
It’s not the connector that physically breaks, it’s the spring-y part that holds the cable tight. In lightning ports, that part is on the female side, while in USB-C it is on the easier to replace male side.
With that said, it’s not a common problem in my personal experience of using previously used iphones daily for another 2 years.
With that said, it’s not a common problem in my personal experience of using previously used iphones daily for another 2 years.
What do you mean? How can the connector in the phone break when it’s just a hole?
According to another comment, there are springs that wear out:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927409
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927409
USB mini/micro B ports can break off the PC board when they’re not anchored solidly.
This was a flaw on the Nokia N900. Or at least, on some of the devices.
I solved the issue by using TOPK magnetic cables. The magnet would remain in the port (microUSB, lightning, or USB-C, not sure about miniUSB but I got like one device which uses that), and all the cables would work with it. I even leave them connected (the LED does not draw much power and I got solar anyway) which allows me to quickly start or stop charging a device. Which, given I got quite a few, is very useful. Another issue is I keep getting leftover microUSB but need more and more USB-C for which the feature isn't very important (the more USB-C I'd have, the easier it'd be to stop using magnetic cables).
The exception is my MBP as it has a MagSafe (v3, my wife's MBP and my old MBP having v2) but I forgive Apple for that; its very useful and probably where TOPK got their inspiration from.
I solved the issue by using TOPK magnetic cables. The magnet would remain in the port (microUSB, lightning, or USB-C, not sure about miniUSB but I got like one device which uses that), and all the cables would work with it. I even leave them connected (the LED does not draw much power and I got solar anyway) which allows me to quickly start or stop charging a device. Which, given I got quite a few, is very useful. Another issue is I keep getting leftover microUSB but need more and more USB-C for which the feature isn't very important (the more USB-C I'd have, the easier it'd be to stop using magnetic cables).
The exception is my MBP as it has a MagSafe (v3, my wife's MBP and my old MBP having v2) but I forgive Apple for that; its very useful and probably where TOPK got their inspiration from.
[deleted]
Interesting, TIL. I guess it's not perfect, I had to replace the USB-C port on a phone after the center post got ripped out.
It seems conspiratorial but consider that the companies making the standards and manufacturing the cables have an incentive to get people to buy as many cables as possible and to do so regularly. It’s the same complaint that people leverage against Apple normally - that Apple designs their Lightning cables to be fragile so that people are forced to replace them. I don’t think there’s actually strong evidence for either argument. I have USB cables that I’ve had for years and then I’ve had cables that I had for a few months that went bad or were poorly made. I’ve mostly had good luck with my Apple cables and never had a problem with chargers or headphones like some.
They don't. But they're "so tired of people ..."
It is very difficult to damage a lightning port by sticking something into it because the contacts are deep inside the port and only the tiniest bit is exposed, enough to mate with the plug, and the male plug has zero moving or bending parts:
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8059819/ve...
In fact, it's remarkably easy to clean a Lightning port and the common advice is "just stick a toothpick in." There's almost no risk of damaging the pins inside. It's also very easy to inspect for debris.
Meanwhile with USB-C, you have a very, very thin piece of plastic in the center with contacts on either side, coming out very close to the face of the connector, so you end up with shit like this happening:
https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/hadimg_usbc_...
Further, the retention mechanism for Lightning is incredibly simple and durable. A large clip that snaps, either side, into large detents on either side:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/6wSwQD...
On USB-C they do something kinda sorta similar, but instead of being around the outside of the connector and thus nice and beefy (and protected - there's no way to bend or deform the ends), it's tiny little prongs inside the connector, completely unsupported mechanically and exposed to being bent by debris in either connector, or something being jammed inside.
Further: look at the plugs and connectors. The male lightning connector? Really it just needs to be the right thickness and the pads need to be in the right places. The female connector is similarly very simple. The retention mechanism is also very obviously low-tolerance.
Look at the design of the USB-C connector and imagine the long list of tolerances needed to get it to work right because you have the entire working guts of the device-side connector in the center of said connector going into the plug.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8059819/ve...
In fact, it's remarkably easy to clean a Lightning port and the common advice is "just stick a toothpick in." There's almost no risk of damaging the pins inside. It's also very easy to inspect for debris.
Meanwhile with USB-C, you have a very, very thin piece of plastic in the center with contacts on either side, coming out very close to the face of the connector, so you end up with shit like this happening:
https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/hadimg_usbc_...
Further, the retention mechanism for Lightning is incredibly simple and durable. A large clip that snaps, either side, into large detents on either side:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/6wSwQD...
On USB-C they do something kinda sorta similar, but instead of being around the outside of the connector and thus nice and beefy (and protected - there's no way to bend or deform the ends), it's tiny little prongs inside the connector, completely unsupported mechanically and exposed to being bent by debris in either connector, or something being jammed inside.
Further: look at the plugs and connectors. The male lightning connector? Really it just needs to be the right thickness and the pads need to be in the right places. The female connector is similarly very simple. The retention mechanism is also very obviously low-tolerance.
Look at the design of the USB-C connector and imagine the long list of tolerances needed to get it to work right because you have the entire working guts of the device-side connector in the center of said connector going into the plug.
The lightning connector has one major flaw: the springs are in the phone side.
Over time these wear out which is why its much better to have the phone side have simple static contact surfaces and the spring loaded contacts on the cable side which is much cheaper to replace.
USB until C also did this wrong and C fixed that mistake.
Over time these wear out which is why its much better to have the phone side have simple static contact surfaces and the spring loaded contacts on the cable side which is much cheaper to replace.
USB until C also did this wrong and C fixed that mistake.
Yep, here's a picture describing the issue [1]
[1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-often-do-the-lightn...
[1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-often-do-the-lightn...
I have had at least a dozen Lightning devices and I have never had the springs wear out. I’ve never even heard of this happening.
In fact, if those springs are steel and properly designed to prevent unexpected loads, they physically can’t ever wear out.
In fact, if those springs are steel and properly designed to prevent unexpected loads, they physically can’t ever wear out.
Springs will always wear out. Every connector has a number of rated insertions. Some are as low as tens of cycles only (like the 12HVPWR connector on GPUs), USB-A has 1500, USB-C 10,000 precisely because of this inversion.
For Lightning it's not known because it's a proprietary standard but it will have a number of mating cycles.
For Lightning it's not known because it's a proprietary standard but it will have a number of mating cycles.
Anecdotal, but I've had to resort to charge my MacBook Pro and my iPad with my Switch's USB-C cable because the other 2 broke/stopped working.
> you just can’t win
This is correct. On the internet you really can’t win because it’s not a debate, or even a conversation with another individual. You’re talking to an anonymous mob of unknown size and composition.
This is correct. On the internet you really can’t win because it’s not a debate, or even a conversation with another individual. You’re talking to an anonymous mob of unknown size and composition.
[deleted]
I've replaced 2 iPhones and and an iPad for no other reason than that the lightning socket came loose and unreliable after a few years (even though the devices were otherwise fine). I've never had a single issue with USB-C
I've had a MacBook Pro USB-C cable, it lasted around 2 years. An iPad USB-C cable, lasted for less than a year.
I don't even move them around much, but now I'm forced to use my Switch's USB-C cable to charge both. At least there are a lot of USB-C cables now that many things use them. Hopefully I don't end up using my headphone USB-C cable to charge everything.
I don't even move them around much, but now I'm forced to use my Switch's USB-C cable to charge both. At least there are a lot of USB-C cables now that many things use them. Hopefully I don't end up using my headphone USB-C cable to charge everything.
There's some irony introduced at the end of your post. You became that which you deride.
You didn't even do your homework. The replacement screens are original Apple and 'can' be fixed by moving a microchip from the old screen to the new.
If anything that proves it’s a calibration issue.
The controller on the replacement screen has no calibration whereas the controller from the old screen has been calibrated to the old screen, apparently sufficiently close enough to the necessary calibration of the new screen to not show noticeable issues to most people.
The real test would be grabbing two screens with calibrated controllers and switch the controllers out, then compare accuracy after the swap with accuracy before the swap.
This similar to color calibration on your TV. Replace the panel of your TV and reset all settings and a good chunk of people is going to notice that the colors are off. Plugin the color settings used when calibrating the original panel and most people won’t notice it’s off by a little, only trained eyes might notice that it needs further calibrating to perfect the color output.
Another analogy would be new uninflated tires. Put them on your new car and everyone sees there’s something wrong.
Grab inflated tires from your old car and put them on your new car however and most people don’t notice that they need more/less air appropriate for this different make/model/weighted car.
The controller on the replacement screen has no calibration whereas the controller from the old screen has been calibrated to the old screen, apparently sufficiently close enough to the necessary calibration of the new screen to not show noticeable issues to most people.
The real test would be grabbing two screens with calibrated controllers and switch the controllers out, then compare accuracy after the swap with accuracy before the swap.
This similar to color calibration on your TV. Replace the panel of your TV and reset all settings and a good chunk of people is going to notice that the colors are off. Plugin the color settings used when calibrating the original panel and most people won’t notice it’s off by a little, only trained eyes might notice that it needs further calibrating to perfect the color output.
Another analogy would be new uninflated tires. Put them on your new car and everyone sees there’s something wrong.
Grab inflated tires from your old car and put them on your new car however and most people don’t notice that they need more/less air appropriate for this different make/model/weighted car.
If it really was about calibration, wouldn't you think Apple would've calibrated the screen at the factory and programmed the controller with the calibration data?
The real test would be grabbing two screens with calibrated controllers and switch the controllers out, then compare accuracy after the swap with accuracy before the swap.
That's what they showed in the video. The replacement screen was from a different iPad; it wasn't an entirely new one.
If the cal data is stored in the controller, it's likely that using the old controller with a different screen means the calibration is off a little, but if that's better than using the new screen and controller (presumably with cal data for the new screen) together, there's something going on beyond that.
The real test would be grabbing two screens with calibrated controllers and switch the controllers out, then compare accuracy after the swap with accuracy before the swap.
That's what they showed in the video. The replacement screen was from a different iPad; it wasn't an entirely new one.
If the cal data is stored in the controller, it's likely that using the old controller with a different screen means the calibration is off a little, but if that's better than using the new screen and controller (presumably with cal data for the new screen) together, there's something going on beyond that.
> If it really was about calibration, wouldn't you think Apple would've calibrated the screen at the factory and programmed the controller with the calibration data?
That sounds like a process thing that could go either way. I can imagine a system where they wait until the ipad is assembled and then use the hardware on the ipad to run the color calibration against the screen being simpler/more sensible to integrate into production than a system where panels need to be plugged into a separate thing earlier on.
That sounds like a process thing that could go either way. I can imagine a system where they wait until the ipad is assembled and then use the hardware on the ipad to run the color calibration against the screen being simpler/more sensible to integrate into production than a system where panels need to be plugged into a separate thing earlier on.
They've always split calibration between the factory and the Apple Store when it came to replacement parts.
Some of the calibration offsets are device specific, so for a full calibration the unit as a hole needs to be calibrated.
Early on they did calibration in store with machines like these[0], but it caused too many issue.
In part because geniuses, like the one in question, like to draw conclusions based on incomplete data and as a consequence get overconfident in their ability repair and asses.
Where this confidence comes from is beyond me, because most of their work has been relegated to a paint by numbers process using tools that abstract as much as possible away, limiting critical thinking. Ironically, the fuckups caused by this confidence, causes more to be abstracted away limiting the experience and knowledge they build up, and the more this is limited the more confident they get and so this Dunning–Kruger cycle goes on and on.
In any case, in part because of too many issues with these machines Apple has worked to move as much as the calibration process away to the factory, limiting the actions that are necessary in the Apple Store to using a special app nowadays[1].
Whatever the case, both the machines used back in the day and the app currently in use combine local data with remote data.
Information about factory calibration is looked up in a cloud database based on screen ID number, that calibration data is downloaded and combined with calibration data that is collected locally by running a special firmware to run some local calibration tests.
Everything is verified before being finalized and the part is married to the device via serial numbers, storing the relevant calibration data in the relevant sides of the equation (i.e. screen controller and device).
If at any point in the future there's a mismatch, the offsets (i.e. calibration data) is ignored entirely and no offsets are applied at all.
This serves a couple of purposes, but the important ones being the prevention of damage and a way to remind the person observing it (i.e. presumed to be the worker repairing it) that calibration is still necessary and/or has not been completed successfully.
0: https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/3D_Touch_Calibration_Procedure 1: https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/RepairCal
Some of the calibration offsets are device specific, so for a full calibration the unit as a hole needs to be calibrated.
Early on they did calibration in store with machines like these[0], but it caused too many issue.
In part because geniuses, like the one in question, like to draw conclusions based on incomplete data and as a consequence get overconfident in their ability repair and asses.
Where this confidence comes from is beyond me, because most of their work has been relegated to a paint by numbers process using tools that abstract as much as possible away, limiting critical thinking. Ironically, the fuckups caused by this confidence, causes more to be abstracted away limiting the experience and knowledge they build up, and the more this is limited the more confident they get and so this Dunning–Kruger cycle goes on and on.
In any case, in part because of too many issues with these machines Apple has worked to move as much as the calibration process away to the factory, limiting the actions that are necessary in the Apple Store to using a special app nowadays[1].
Whatever the case, both the machines used back in the day and the app currently in use combine local data with remote data.
Information about factory calibration is looked up in a cloud database based on screen ID number, that calibration data is downloaded and combined with calibration data that is collected locally by running a special firmware to run some local calibration tests.
Everything is verified before being finalized and the part is married to the device via serial numbers, storing the relevant calibration data in the relevant sides of the equation (i.e. screen controller and device).
If at any point in the future there's a mismatch, the offsets (i.e. calibration data) is ignored entirely and no offsets are applied at all.
This serves a couple of purposes, but the important ones being the prevention of damage and a way to remind the person observing it (i.e. presumed to be the worker repairing it) that calibration is still necessary and/or has not been completed successfully.
0: https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/3D_Touch_Calibration_Procedure 1: https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/RepairCal
A colorimeter could be used to calibrate a screen's colors, including a TV. I'm not aware of such a device for touchscreens though. The touchscreens I replaced via iFixit were each good enough replacements. But to be fair: I never did drawing on them.
Regarding the issue, I find it pretty simple to address: I believe Apple should allow third party repair shops to achieve such, and if they're unwilling or unable to, they should by law be forced to do it themselves for free, with S&H on them, too.
Regarding the issue, I find it pretty simple to address: I believe Apple should allow third party repair shops to achieve such, and if they're unwilling or unable to, they should by law be forced to do it themselves for free, with S&H on them, too.
This sure as hell isn't about "calibration". Using the old controller with the new screen causes it to start working correctly. If anything that would be more likely to be using the wrong calibration constants (the ones for the old screen).
> I am so tired of people who interpret Apple's actions purely as anti-consumer fuckery.
But it is because they don't care about it working after a third party repair. They're trying to profit twice: once from sale, once from hardware repair support which is very expensive (lol, 600 EUR to replace a MBP 2014 screen ..) inflates the price and warrants the higher price of a new device.
> Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging
Depends on the device. You can charge a smartphone wirelessly, too, and you might want to use wired for transferring data. Yes, I know, it is a cloud world but that isn't my choice. And if you want to transfer data via lightning... prepare for the fun experience of 480 mbit/sec called USB2.
> People even have the nerve to complain about Apple "taxing" cable manufacturers and their burdensome certification, ignoring the whole "random USB-C cables will fry your laptop and phone" problem and the fact that the USB alliance charges a license fee on every single product that bears the USB logo.
Indeed, I do, because Apple wants to earn large margins on everything. I also recommend against using random cables, see e.g. O.MG cable.
But it is because they don't care about it working after a third party repair. They're trying to profit twice: once from sale, once from hardware repair support which is very expensive (lol, 600 EUR to replace a MBP 2014 screen ..) inflates the price and warrants the higher price of a new device.
> Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging
Depends on the device. You can charge a smartphone wirelessly, too, and you might want to use wired for transferring data. Yes, I know, it is a cloud world but that isn't my choice. And if you want to transfer data via lightning... prepare for the fun experience of 480 mbit/sec called USB2.
> People even have the nerve to complain about Apple "taxing" cable manufacturers and their burdensome certification, ignoring the whole "random USB-C cables will fry your laptop and phone" problem and the fact that the USB alliance charges a license fee on every single product that bears the USB logo.
Indeed, I do, because Apple wants to earn large margins on everything. I also recommend against using random cables, see e.g. O.MG cable.
The problem is that with Apple, when anything needs calibration, that's used as an excuse to serialize the part. Apple doesn't release calibration tools to the public, nor can you program it yourself because there's public key crypto cancer everywhere.
In a world where Apple wasn't trying to dynamite the repair industry, they'd have a website with all their calibration tools and low level format documentation on it. Things that actually need to be paired for security reasons (e.g. fingerprint sensors, TrueDepth cameras, the angle sensor, etc) would have a click-through notification saying "hey, if you didn't get this part fixed someone might be spying on you" and simple tests to verify that the new part works, instead of just permanently disabling the associated features (Touch ID, Face ID, the ability to put your MacBook to sleep).
The phrase "undue burden" is probably going through your head. The problem is that Apple wants you to think it's an undue burden for them to make their devices more repairable. Their process for locking out repair shops is to find a plausibly deniable reason to do so - i.e. security - and then half-ass everything associated with that. So the actual security rationale gets implemented but all the 'ecosystem stuff' Apple is normally very good at just... isn't there.
Releasing calibration tools for this sort of thing would be a rounding error in Apple's accounting. And it would improve people's perceptions of their products, too. The thing is, I already knew about this problem despite not knowing there was a calibration step involved. /r/ipad would regularly get posts once a week about people whose iPads just couldn't draw lines straight, and I just assumed I'd gotten lucky with my iPad Pro M1. Turns out, they all had gotten their screens replaced at one point or another, and there's ZERO indication that doing so will fuck up your Pencil digitizer.
People assume Apple's actions are anti-consumer because Apple - and, as you pointed out, the entire industry - has eroded their own trust by gaslighting users. No buddy, it's for your safety and security that we fuck up your pencil and break Face ID if you get a screen swap.
The users might as well gaslight Apple back.
> Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging
USB-C as an ecosystem is hilariously poorly thought out but charging is the one thing I can reliably do with it. The only problem I've had is getting USB-C cables that will carry video or charge at high voltage. That last one miiight sound like a point in Lightning's favor except for the fact that it's only a problem at laptop charger levels. Apple switched their entire laptop range to USB-C back in 2016 and the only iPad that still charges with Lightning is the last-gen model. If Lightning was superior for charging Apple would have used that on their laptops instead.
You can get dodgy Lightning cables from the same people selling dodgy USB-C. Both will be uncertified knock-off garbage made by people who probably aren't paying royalties to anyone - neither Apple nor USB-IF.
In a world where Apple wasn't trying to dynamite the repair industry, they'd have a website with all their calibration tools and low level format documentation on it. Things that actually need to be paired for security reasons (e.g. fingerprint sensors, TrueDepth cameras, the angle sensor, etc) would have a click-through notification saying "hey, if you didn't get this part fixed someone might be spying on you" and simple tests to verify that the new part works, instead of just permanently disabling the associated features (Touch ID, Face ID, the ability to put your MacBook to sleep).
The phrase "undue burden" is probably going through your head. The problem is that Apple wants you to think it's an undue burden for them to make their devices more repairable. Their process for locking out repair shops is to find a plausibly deniable reason to do so - i.e. security - and then half-ass everything associated with that. So the actual security rationale gets implemented but all the 'ecosystem stuff' Apple is normally very good at just... isn't there.
Releasing calibration tools for this sort of thing would be a rounding error in Apple's accounting. And it would improve people's perceptions of their products, too. The thing is, I already knew about this problem despite not knowing there was a calibration step involved. /r/ipad would regularly get posts once a week about people whose iPads just couldn't draw lines straight, and I just assumed I'd gotten lucky with my iPad Pro M1. Turns out, they all had gotten their screens replaced at one point or another, and there's ZERO indication that doing so will fuck up your Pencil digitizer.
People assume Apple's actions are anti-consumer because Apple - and, as you pointed out, the entire industry - has eroded their own trust by gaslighting users. No buddy, it's for your safety and security that we fuck up your pencil and break Face ID if you get a screen swap.
The users might as well gaslight Apple back.
> Don't get me started on how superior the lightning connector is for daily use - predominantly charging
USB-C as an ecosystem is hilariously poorly thought out but charging is the one thing I can reliably do with it. The only problem I've had is getting USB-C cables that will carry video or charge at high voltage. That last one miiight sound like a point in Lightning's favor except for the fact that it's only a problem at laptop charger levels. Apple switched their entire laptop range to USB-C back in 2016 and the only iPad that still charges with Lightning is the last-gen model. If Lightning was superior for charging Apple would have used that on their laptops instead.
You can get dodgy Lightning cables from the same people selling dodgy USB-C. Both will be uncertified knock-off garbage made by people who probably aren't paying royalties to anyone - neither Apple nor USB-IF.
I don't think USB-C is as bad as its reputation. Yes, it's tough to find a cable that will carry data and video signals and high voltage charging. But how does that compare with the alternatives? You can't do it with Lightning, period. You can't do it with any other cable standard, period. Sure it could be improved, but the fact is I can get a cable with all those features after (minimal) research, and before it just wasn't possible.
Not to mention any connection device should be designed to break first. I know I would rather snap a $20 cable than damage the device itself. Much like the complaints about camera lens attachments breaking when mishandled: much better that than the damage if it did stay attached.
"all you have to do to restore original performance is replace the battery,"
hahaha like that's so easy! At least the EU seems to be heading towards fixing this specific issue - easy battery replacement will be mandatory.
hahaha like that's so easy! At least the EU seems to be heading towards fixing this specific issue - easy battery replacement will be mandatory.
It’s like $70 after 5 years of usage. That’s quite a good price-value ratio, over having to replace your perfectly fine phone 2 years down the line because it has no more software updates..
I feel like you’ve very succinctly identified the exact problems I have with every tech site when it comes to Apple news.
> I am so tired of people who interpret Apple's actions purely as anti-consumer fuckery. Even to this day, people still claim that "apple made people's phones slow down as they got older, so they would have to buy new ones" despite it being widely covered that Apple, like other phone manufacturers, slows down the CPU when they detect the battery's internal resistance rising to prevent brownouts so that the phone is usable for a longer period of time and all you have to do to restore original performance is replace the battery, apple or no.
What they did was chase thinness and so they didn't include an adequate power source for the processor they were using.
What they did was chase thinness and so they didn't include an adequate power source for the processor they were using.
>> *Plenty of Android handsets just randomly start crashing as the battery's internal resistance goes up.* I had one. A Google Nexus 6.
> What they did was chase thinness and so they didn't include an adequate power source for the processor they were using.
Your comment might apply to Apple, but an iPhone was hardly the only handset that crashed as the battery stopped being able to keep up under load.
> What they did was chase thinness and so they didn't include an adequate power source for the processor they were using.
Your comment might apply to Apple, but an iPhone was hardly the only handset that crashed as the battery stopped being able to keep up under load.
I still have several android phones from that era (LG G2 for one example) that are used for various purposes and theyre fine even today.
I had an LG G3 and after 2 years it would die when the battery got to ~30%. Thankfully the battery was user replaceable. But LG is not immune to this.
I'm surprised an LG G2 would even run for 10 minutes today unless it's had the original battery replaced.
I'm surprised an LG G2 would even run for 10 minutes today unless it's had the original battery replaced.
Runs all night as a music box for the kids.
Same battery.
Same battery.
Do you leave it plugged into the charger when it's running all night?
It was a more than adequate power source. Just not after 6 years of daily usage.
But if you have a better battery design, feel free to patent it and get insanely rich.
But if you have a better battery design, feel free to patent it and get insanely rich.
Stop being disingenuous. A LOT of people had issues after only a year, thats how the controversy blew up so quickly.
Tangential rant.
Has tablet computer really improved since the last Google Nexus 7 tablet, which was released in 2013?
Seriously, I was in the market for an affordable tablet, and quite bizarrely the tablet computers today have significantly underwhelming spec compared to a phone of the same price point.
There is no budget tab from known manufacturers. Even at IPad level prices, the android counterpart is quite underwhelming. I don't how it happened by it seems like IPad is the only tablet computer to get. For people on a budget there is no other viable option then to get a used IPad and news like this makes me kinda mad.
What the heck is even going on? Like in 2012-15 era there was bunch of variations of tablet computer of different price points. These days everyone from toddlers with their padded covers and graphics designers with an apple pencil is using an IPad.
Has tablet computer really improved since the last Google Nexus 7 tablet, which was released in 2013?
Seriously, I was in the market for an affordable tablet, and quite bizarrely the tablet computers today have significantly underwhelming spec compared to a phone of the same price point.
There is no budget tab from known manufacturers. Even at IPad level prices, the android counterpart is quite underwhelming. I don't how it happened by it seems like IPad is the only tablet computer to get. For people on a budget there is no other viable option then to get a used IPad and news like this makes me kinda mad.
What the heck is even going on? Like in 2012-15 era there was bunch of variations of tablet computer of different price points. These days everyone from toddlers with their padded covers and graphics designers with an apple pencil is using an IPad.
The pencil is the differentiator. I would not get an iPad today if I could not use it for art. And it is amazing for art.
I did have a Nexus 7 and it was great. I used it to hold my cached maps on motorcycle adventures. But these days you can get a "phone" that's practically as large as a Nexus 7 was, has way more storage, better battery life, and better performance. A Pixel 7 Pro has a display 80% as large as the Nexus 7, but in 40% of the volume.
I did have a Nexus 7 and it was great. I used it to hold my cached maps on motorcycle adventures. But these days you can get a "phone" that's practically as large as a Nexus 7 was, has way more storage, better battery life, and better performance. A Pixel 7 Pro has a display 80% as large as the Nexus 7, but in 40% of the volume.
This is my assessment as well. iPad with Apple Pencil, mirrored screen for photoshop, and you have a seriously good and portable wacom centiq. Just, smaller, and can play games.
How is the pressure sensitivity compared with a "real" drawing tablet?
It's as good in an app that lets you adjust the curve to fit your hand (like Procreate, which is an industry standard at this point.) A Cintiq's curve is a little better out of the box, in my opinion.
I’m not a pro artist but I do it as a hobby and own a Wacom and iPad. I can’t tell the difference in sensitivity. The iPad is a much more convenient and cheap package though.
Identical. Bluetooth introduces a little bit of lag 2-5ms but it’s only noticeable if you are working on really large canvases of 40MP or more.
77.8% as large, if you include the curved edges. But considering the format of content, the useful area difference is larger. If you're watching a 16:9 youtube video, the Pixel 7 Pro only has 64% the screen area of the Nexus 7, and that's with treating the couple millimeters wrapped around the edges as valid surface.
I was not impressed by the pencil. Apple can't make a battery-less stylus? Even Huions don't have batteries anymore.
I’ve been using the Apple Pencil for years and never encountered the thing getting anywhere near flat. The thing lasts 12 hours on one charge and regains 30 minutes use in 15 seconds charging.
If the UI didn’t tell me it had a battery I might not even know.
If the UI didn’t tell me it had a battery I might not even know.
Not exactly a budget tab, but I've found the S8 Ultra (and the S7 FE before that) to be pretty great. The S8U managing to make having a laptop entirely unnecessary (since I'd only need a laptop away from home and I mainly WFH).
With Android there has been a long period of stagnation with only Samsung doing custom stuff like DeX, multi-tasking stuff and striking deals with various productivity apps for Android ports to make Android viable for tablets, otherwise they're only very recently starting to come out of it with Google working on a Pixel Tab.
With Android there has been a long period of stagnation with only Samsung doing custom stuff like DeX, multi-tasking stuff and striking deals with various productivity apps for Android ports to make Android viable for tablets, otherwise they're only very recently starting to come out of it with Google working on a Pixel Tab.
It's pretty great but it also costs a lot more than than a basic laptop :)
Oh yeah, for sure. I got the S7FE for the S pen and battery life and upgraded to the S8U when it launched a few months later due to a pretty good trade-in deal. So it cost me a lot less than retail.
I hadn't intended for it to be much more than a portable drawing, reading and note taking device when I bought it, it just sort of fell into the laptop replacement role.
I hadn't intended for it to be much more than a portable drawing, reading and note taking device when I bought it, it just sort of fell into the laptop replacement role.
It has a much better screen than basic laptop.
[deleted]
> only Samsung doing custom stuff like DeX,
Motorola has phones that do the same and without a proprietary dock.
Motorola has phones that do the same and without a proprietary dock.
You don't need a dock, proprietary or not for DeX on the tab at least, it's just a button there, and I've been able to just use a regular old random dock for external display, external keyboard etc.
Haven't tried with phone though.
Haven't tried with phone though.
But you need a computer to receive Miracast for you. Motorola just has a DP video output to a dumb screen.
Samsung's works with DP over USB-C video output too. A computer to receive is just an additional option.
No? I have an older s7+ and it has a standard usb c port and you can just connect any screen. Nothing proprietary or complicated.
You can do this on completely stock Android, Android already supports multi-window completely natively if you enable it in the debugging options and use a launcher such as Sentio Desktop.
Though I used to use this on phones with a dedicated micro-HDMI port so I'm not sure if just any phone can be hooked up to an external display (maybe most of the ones with USB-C?) but it's definitely not OEM-specific.
Though I used to use this on phones with a dedicated micro-HDMI port so I'm not sure if just any phone can be hooked up to an external display (maybe most of the ones with USB-C?) but it's definitely not OEM-specific.
No dock required. With Samsung DeX you just need a cheap USB-C to HDMI cable. Plug the phone into the monitor and you can switch to desktop mode.
It only works on Samsung models that have USB-C video though. My mid-range Samsung phone doesn't have either feature.
It only works on Samsung models that have USB-C video though. My mid-range Samsung phone doesn't have either feature.
Huawei too! Just plug your phone into your TV. But behind the scenes it’s built on AOSP code (assuming DeX and Motorola are the same)
We have a stack of non iPad tablets for playing music to patients. I think there are 4 or 5 there now.
They are so unresponsive that each has been abandoned, then Siemens buy us a new, higher spec one. They all behave the same. Laggy, unresponsive and actual junk.
They are so unresponsive that each has been abandoned, then Siemens buy us a new, higher spec one. They all behave the same. Laggy, unresponsive and actual junk.
It's because Google dropped the ball on Android smartphone app sizing for phones vs tablets.
This IS changing now that Google has a pixel foldable smartphone.
This IS changing now that Google has a pixel foldable smartphone.
Couldn't you say the same thing for iOS/iPadOS though? It's up to the developers to manually support iPads. To date, very well known and popular apps like Instagram still run as iPhone-sized. Which is especially perplexing because there are seriously good photographers on Instagram whose work should be enjoyed on a bigger screen.
Google picks up and drops tablets semi frequently. It wouldn’t surprise me if the manager who came up with the idea of doing tablets again gets promoted and then the idea gets abandoned shortly after.
One good development is that if you buy a Microsoft Surface Go 2/3, you can easily install Linux with Gnome, it works great and you can get rid of both Windows/iOS dependencies at the same time. It's also easy to glue a metal Linux sticker over the Windows logo so you won't even notice MS underneath. PineTab2 is impossible to use due to a missing WiFi driver (!?)
> it works great
How is performance? Mind recording a video of average browser/application speed?
How is performance? Mind recording a video of average browser/application speed?
It's pretty snappy for a media consumption device (I use it mainly to watch videos from my NAS), don't expect great coding experience though. Here is a video about Surface Pro 7 but it's similar with Go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Jj0jWXyWo
I have a Samsung an android tablet with their pencil. Using Krita for drawing I think it’s pretty amazing. The UI is kinda desktop but the brushes are amazing.
Samsung Galaxy Tabs have OLED screens and fresh Snapdragons. While I don't have a tablet (yet? let's see the S9) both my laptop and phone have OLED screens and I am never going back.
So yeah, budget tablets are not great but there's certainly some improvement on the higher end.
So yeah, budget tablets are not great but there's certainly some improvement on the higher end.
> Has tablet computer really improved since the last Google Nexus 7 tablet, which was released in 2013?
I wouldn't know, I'm still using my second N7 with Lineage OS.
I wouldn't know, I'm still using my second N7 with Lineage OS.
Chromebooks seem to have replaced Android tablets, eg the Lenovo Duet.
I mostly blame the CPU manufacturers. There just aren't great, competitive options at price points that support good low end tablets.
At the higher end, things like the Pixel tablet and Galaxy Tab are pretty good, but IMO they are hard to justify vs the ipad at the same price point.
At the higher end, things like the Pixel tablet and Galaxy Tab are pretty good, but IMO they are hard to justify vs the ipad at the same price point.
The tablet market is indeed very disappointing. I have somewhat high hopes for the PineTab 2 being good (eventually, as drivers improve). I don't see much appeal for Android or iOS tablets. I see the form factor as being a bit like a laptop without the crummy keyboard/mouse attached, but it gets treated more like a giant low quality smartphone in practice.
Biggest issue for me and why I stick with ipads is the 4:3(ish) aspect ratio. 16:10/16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for tablets IMO.
16:9 is a terrible ratio for a computer, but a good one for a movie tablet.
While I understand for many people that may be a positive, I spend very little time watching shows on such a small screen. Thats what my TV is for! A 16:10/16:9 ratio on a tablet makes the balance in the hands quiet bad in portrait mode.
The budget tab from a known manufacturer is the Amazon Fire 7 for $59.
A used iPad is a really good deal. I bought an iPad Air 2 years ago for $200AUD. The thing is from 2014 and works flawlessly while still receiving security updates.
[deleted]
I've been very happy with my Nokia T10
Seems to me like it might be a calibration issue, and third parties aren’t able to perform the calibration.
Apparently it is not. The reddit thread has an ex Apple employee who runs repair shops in Germany. He says if you just change the serial number of a iPad screen(using specialised hardware) in existing iPad this issue will appear. This seems to indicate that it’s intentionally done by Apple.
Other option is that Apple bakes in calibration details of all possible serial numbers in every iPad sold which doesn’t sound like a plausible scenario.
Other option is that Apple bakes in calibration details of all possible serial numbers in every iPad sold which doesn’t sound like a plausible scenario.
Could it be something like this:
At software level iOS registers some calibration data (after some factory calibration) tied to that specific serial number (as calibration makes sense only for that specific instance of the panel anyway) so when serial number changes iOS can't find calibration data on device and continues uncalibrated instead of trying to use calibrations for another-serial screen (from the OS perspective).
It makes sense, if there actually is some sort of calibration going on in the first place of course.
At software level iOS registers some calibration data (after some factory calibration) tied to that specific serial number (as calibration makes sense only for that specific instance of the panel anyway) so when serial number changes iOS can't find calibration data on device and continues uncalibrated instead of trying to use calibrations for another-serial screen (from the OS perspective).
It makes sense, if there actually is some sort of calibration going on in the first place of course.
Yeah I think this is most likely. Then when you change the serial you're using the calibration data for the wrong screen, but most of the time you're lucky and the two screens behave close enough that an average user doesn't notice.
Probably for touch the effects are negligible as the accuracy needed for touch is much more coarse compared to accuracy needed for Apple Pencil drawing. So if calibration is perfecting things at Apple Pencil-level accuracy, it should already be below the threshold of touch-based highest acceptable margin of error anyway.
Touch and pen would generally require completely different calibrations because touch is detected by the capacitive touch screen whereas the pen position is tracked inductively.
However, I wonder why the pen calibration data is not stored on an controller on the display panel? That would absolutely make sense.
However, I wonder why the pen calibration data is not stored on an controller on the display panel? That would absolutely make sense.
Can it be like:
Pencil also has a small calibration table and when paired with a new iPad it checks and downloads that immediately.
If not, it might also be (more likely) sending whatever it senses to iPad and iPad processes that raw input with the calibration data to determine the final output.
Pencil also has a small calibration table and when paired with a new iPad it checks and downloads that immediately.
If not, it might also be (more likely) sending whatever it senses to iPad and iPad processes that raw input with the calibration data to determine the final output.
It only makes sense from the perspective of screwing third-party repair and then trying to come up with something with plausible deniability. Are people swapping screens frequently enough to justify the extra complexity of keeping calibration data segregated by serial number?
Printer manufacturers have been pulling the same trick with storing (approximations of) ink levels in chips in the cartridge, claiming that it makes it easy for users to swap cartridges and continue to have accurate quantities and in that case there's a little bit more truth to the argument, but not this one.
Printer manufacturers have been pulling the same trick with storing (approximations of) ink levels in chips in the cartridge, claiming that it makes it easy for users to swap cartridges and continue to have accurate quantities and in that case there's a little bit more truth to the argument, but not this one.
I'm just speculating but the accuracy needed for Pencil to work properly is, by nature of the application, much higher than estimating ink in cartgridges.
I mean, if cartgridges' calibration drift a bit it might also be more acceptable for many, but if Pencil starts drawing incorrectly many artists would be extremely frustrated and move away from the ecosystem.
I mean, if cartgridges' calibration drift a bit it might also be more acceptable for many, but if Pencil starts drawing incorrectly many artists would be extremely frustrated and move away from the ecosystem.
The fact that they showed how using the controller chip from the existing screen causes it to start working correctly shows definitively that this is not about calibration at all.
Unless the calibration data is stored on the controller chip.
But the physical screen is a different screen so any such data is totally wrong.
Why would the calibration details need to account for all iPads sold?
Just bake the one that the device is bonded with, using the display serial number as a lookup key.
Then, if you change the serial number of the display, the lookup would fail, and fall back to whatever "default" values are.
Just bake the one that the device is bonded with, using the display serial number as a lookup key.
Then, if you change the serial number of the display, the lookup would fail, and fall back to whatever "default" values are.
and just be shear coincident two screens, the broken one and replacement, match calibration data completely?
Actually not that unlikely, imagine the allowed range of calibration is 0-100, the factory is likely to produce parts with small variance, but having same constant offset, resulting in output of screens between 70-80. While default in software might be set exactly in the middle at 50. Knowing how a large organization works, the default set in sw is probably not even close to what comes out of production lines, it's just an assumption some dev made that happened to work good enough on his desk 4 years ago.
Even if the screens would cover the whole spectrum, there is still a high chance this coincidence could happen, and more data would be needed to validate either theory. Is there any statistics showing that this happens all the time or just some times.
Even if the screens would cover the whole spectrum, there is still a high chance this coincidence could happen, and more data would be needed to validate either theory. Is there any statistics showing that this happens all the time or just some times.
Serial numbers encode production-specific parameters. We don’t yet know how to produce uniform displays batch to batch. Running Toyota engine code on a Subaru will produce glitches without requiring any conspiracy.
But realistically this would mean I couldn't use an iPad with it's pen without connecting it to the internet first. I mean how would Apple bake every calibration for every display into all devices, even ones it hasn't even produced yet?
I have no way to verify this, but this Redditor claims it's due to the serial number being different, not calibration (also see the grandparent comment that they posted): https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/15cxwaa/apple_penc...
That said, I see a generous explanation that I can't rule out based on what they're describing. It seems like the only test this Redditor mentioned was that you can modify the serial number and cause it to go from correct behavior to misbehavior. But I would think the reverse direction is the real test, since otherwise this could just imply that the device is looking up some embedded calibration information for that serial number and not finding it, and therefore falling back to some default behavior?
That said, I see a generous explanation that I can't rule out based on what they're describing. It seems like the only test this Redditor mentioned was that you can modify the serial number and cause it to go from correct behavior to misbehavior. But I would think the reverse direction is the real test, since otherwise this could just imply that the device is looking up some embedded calibration information for that serial number and not finding it, and therefore falling back to some default behavior?
That redditor says it's just serial number matching, complains at length about how this issue is destroying their business while in the same breath saying that reprogramming the screen's serial number on a working unit will bring up the same problem.
So, if it's just a matching serial numbers problem, why aren't they programming the new screens with the serial number of the old screen, and thus the problem goes away?
So, if it's just a matching serial numbers problem, why aren't they programming the new screens with the serial number of the old screen, and thus the problem goes away?
It's a reasonable question; I don't know the answer. It might require damaging the device too much to return it to the consumer at that point? Or maybe they can't due to contractual reasons? It might be worth asking them on Reddit.
That's exactly what their "calibration" procedure on iPhone does, it just changes the serial number pairing, nothing else, you don't even have to touch on the screen.
They have no clue what they’re talking about.
They were a genius grunt and their penchant for drawing conclusions on incomplete information is exactly why they aren’t trusted to perform manual calibration that hinges on their manual interaction with the screen.
If you read their other comments then you see that they believe that all components used are identical and thus wouldn’t need calibration.
Never mind the fact that different vendors are used to supply screens depending on the model in question, even between “identical” screens there’s plenty of subtle variation.
The controller holds calibration information in the form of offsets for touch and color amongst other things. The controller is married via serial numbers and if there’s a mismatch it’ll default to no offset.
This also serves as a clear indicator, with other indicators, that calibration is needed in an effort to prevent the calibration from being forgotten.
Despite not every screen being identical, the accepted tolerance makes it so that offsets for one screen are often “good enough” for another screen to the point most people won’t notice it’s not perfect, provided they’re from the same vendor.
There’s no other super secret mystery to it.
They were a genius grunt and their penchant for drawing conclusions on incomplete information is exactly why they aren’t trusted to perform manual calibration that hinges on their manual interaction with the screen.
If you read their other comments then you see that they believe that all components used are identical and thus wouldn’t need calibration.
Never mind the fact that different vendors are used to supply screens depending on the model in question, even between “identical” screens there’s plenty of subtle variation.
The controller holds calibration information in the form of offsets for touch and color amongst other things. The controller is married via serial numbers and if there’s a mismatch it’ll default to no offset.
This also serves as a clear indicator, with other indicators, that calibration is needed in an effort to prevent the calibration from being forgotten.
Despite not every screen being identical, the accepted tolerance makes it so that offsets for one screen are often “good enough” for another screen to the point most people won’t notice it’s not perfect, provided they’re from the same vendor.
There’s no other super secret mystery to it.
> third parties aren’t able to perform the calibration.
Which is an even bigger issue caused entirely by apples anti-competitive anti-user practices.
Which is an even bigger issue caused entirely by apples anti-competitive anti-user practices.
Avoidant as I am of Apple's ecosystem, I can only imagine the "security" justification for serializing a display panel. Covert exfiltration of sensitive information from password managers and such?
At any rate, I continue to be unamused by how difficult it is for normal people to service their own Apple devices.
At any rate, I continue to be unamused by how difficult it is for normal people to service their own Apple devices.
> Avoidant as I am of Apple's ecosystem, I can only imagine the "security" justification for serializing a display panel. Covert exfiltration of sensitive information from password managers and such?
They're a more valuable target for theft the more parts that can be "cleanly" sold.
They're a more valuable target for theft the more parts that can be "cleanly" sold.
Are ipad thieving gangs really breaking down and on selling stolen components?
Yes. I have a friend who works at Geek Squad and had to service someone who got their iPhone chop-shopped. Someone had stolen the phone, swapped out everything with knock-off parts, and then left the phone behind. The victim flagged the phone as lost on Find My so they at least got a free warranty replacement.
The fact that chop-shopping is a thing with phones now does not excuse Apple's parts serialization shenanigans.
The fact that chop-shopping is a thing with phones now does not excuse Apple's parts serialization shenanigans.
I am not doubting you, it just is really weird that they would bother to replace the parts at all. my guess would be to try and sell the chopped unit as a real iphone? but why leave it behind?
If you make Apple devices totally worthless to thieves, you discourage theft. Make them bricks which can't even be harvested for parts.
That's the goal apparently, and it makes sense.
That's the goal apparently, and it makes sense.
This.
As a user I'm okay with using only authorized components if it makes theft virtually impractical as there wouldn't be much to use even if the device is stolen.
It will give me more peace of mind as no one will have the incentive to steal an iPad anymore.
As a user I'm okay with using only authorized components if it makes theft virtually impractical as there wouldn't be much to use even if the device is stolen.
It will give me more peace of mind as no one will have the incentive to steal an iPad anymore.
Does anybody really think that one company removing users freedom at the software level, will make thieves not steal hardware worth $1000+?
This is some silicon valley tech bubble mentality.
This is some silicon valley tech bubble mentality.
It makes sense from Apple's image that want to create: being associated with trust and stability, even if means less freedom at some extent.
If I ("I" as the potential customer) can buy an iPad where I can trust Apple because they are taking many measures to make my iPad non-stealable (by practically removing many incentives to steal) it would create a trustworthy image and I'd feel safer, and Apple would have reached its goal of that image.
If I ("I" as the potential customer) can buy an iPad where I can trust Apple because they are taking many measures to make my iPad non-stealable (by practically removing many incentives to steal) it would create a trustworthy image and I'd feel safer, and Apple would have reached its goal of that image.
It makes sense from Apples perspective yes, I mean, after all third party repairs was seen as a huge threat to revenue.
As a user though, lol.
As a user though, lol.
Well as a user who never broke an iPad screen I'd prefer this way too.
Less reason to steal, especially being in a country where Apple device prices are skyrocketing and theft common, I'd even pay more for this to happen as an insurance.
Less reason to steal, especially being in a country where Apple device prices are skyrocketing and theft common, I'd even pay more for this to happen as an insurance.
I sure hope you don't have a bag/case for it and leave it clearly visible so that any passing thieves knows it's an apple-device they should leave be.
That people encourage being stripped of rights is just wild. Can't wait to see where this will take us...
That people encourage being stripped of rights is just wild. Can't wait to see where this will take us...
Well I don't have a case and I work a lot outsides.
What if someone runs away with it when I'm at the restroom?
Just because you don't need it doesn't mean that there aren't anyone who needs it.
What if someone runs away with it when I'm at the restroom?
Just because you don't need it doesn't mean that there aren't anyone who needs it.
"needs it"
What is "it"?
A completely false sense of security based in technological religion?
No, nobody needs that.
What is "it"?
A completely false sense of security based in technological religion?
No, nobody needs that.
I'm not. It's only creating more e-waste, and thieves will find a way around it sooner or later anyway.
Does it? Apple products have an absolutely blooming 2nd, 3rd hand markets, they easily serve 4-6 years I might even say on average.
Yes, it does, and there is no way it doesn't. If you want to argue otherwise, you'll have to logically explain how not being able to replace parts of a device leads to longer lifetimes. Because we're not talking about selling your iPad that fully works, we're talking about selling one with a broken display.
Your argument fails because you can replace parts of the device.
The goal is to make stolen components useless, not prevent repair.
The goal is to make stolen components useless, not prevent repair.
You can let the parts be replaced by authorized repair shops. You can't do it yourself, you have to pay a hefty markup. This makes the replacement uneconomic for many older devices, thus creating e-waste.
3rd party repair shops don’t charge a heavy markup, which you can see by actually looking up prices. They need to compete with both Apple and people just buying a new device.
Well there are many other alternatives then.
It's good to have at least one company to go this way for people who want to be (relatively) safe from theft.
It's good to have at least one company to go this way for people who want to be (relatively) safe from theft.
"ipad thieving gangs" makes it sound like a joke, but yes, there are people who steal iphones and ipads, and they know who to talk to to sell them, which in turn disassemble them and know who to talk to to sell the components, etc.
If you go to aliexpress you will find tons of used, original Apple components. Where do you think they came from?
If you go to aliexpress you will find tons of used, original Apple components. Where do you think they came from?
Yes, in Shenzhen.
Discouraging chop shops for phones seems silly, but 3rd party repair shops have major incentive to find cheaper components. Compare the history of car stereos vs catalytic converter thefts.
I support the right to repair, but there are real issues that should be addressed. Steps like stamping catalytic converters with the cars VIN really can help.
I support the right to repair, but there are real issues that should be addressed. Steps like stamping catalytic converters with the cars VIN really can help.
For displays I imagine the reason is more reputation and experience - normally just about every apple product has a factory calibrated display, but that promise can be broken (intentionally or not) on the used market. It’s nice to have a means of checking whether a display is legit other than eyeballing it
That being said, I can’t think of a reason for blocking correct pencil functionality. It doesn’t seem like something that would need individual calibration
That being said, I can’t think of a reason for blocking correct pencil functionality. It doesn’t seem like something that would need individual calibration
The Apple Pencil is designed for extremely low latency and high accuracy to make it feel as close to writing on paper as possible. The API offered to developers presents predicted digitizer points and retroactively updates them in subsequent frames because even the latency introduced by a standard 60/120Hz draw loop introduces cognitive dissonance - your brain can tell something is off if you wait for the next frame update.
People are making a lot of bold claims with absolute certainty without so much as a test rig... how they can determine that such precision doesn't require any calibration or that using the old controller with a new screen is "accurate" is a very interesting question. I'm not sure drawing a few lines in one app is sufficient to draw such strong conclusions.
People are making a lot of bold claims with absolute certainty without so much as a test rig... how they can determine that such precision doesn't require any calibration or that using the old controller with a new screen is "accurate" is a very interesting question. I'm not sure drawing a few lines in one app is sufficient to draw such strong conclusions.
It might actually need calibration.
And if it does it would damage the reputation of Apple's products (iPad and Pencil) as they won't work accurately and will glitch, creating a subpar experience which Apple would obviously not want to be associated with their products.
And if it does it would damage the reputation of Apple's products (iPad and Pencil) as they won't work accurately and will glitch, creating a subpar experience which Apple would obviously not want to be associated with their products.
Calibration is like wheel alignment. What is happening here is :
Changing tires for same brand and model car came from the dealer. Car no longer drives in a straight line, steering wheel feels wobbly at certain steering angles.
You saying its a wheel alignment issue.
Replacing TPMS sensors with ones from the old wheel set. Car magically starts driving straight and no more weird wobbles.
Changing tires for same brand and model car came from the dealer. Car no longer drives in a straight line, steering wheel feels wobbly at certain steering angles.
You saying its a wheel alignment issue.
Replacing TPMS sensors with ones from the old wheel set. Car magically starts driving straight and no more weird wobbles.
> At any rate, I continue to be unamused by how difficult it is for normal people to service their own Apple devices.
I am also a proponent of being able to self-repair (but can sort of see what risks Apple are minimizing by how they're doing it now). However, I would say most "normal" people are fine or would prefer to just go to Apple service centers. It is only with the more technologically-oriented communities where I see that preference. Of course this varies across communities across countries.
I am also a proponent of being able to self-repair (but can sort of see what risks Apple are minimizing by how they're doing it now). However, I would say most "normal" people are fine or would prefer to just go to Apple service centers. It is only with the more technologically-oriented communities where I see that preference. Of course this varies across communities across countries.
> their own Apple devices.
thats a slightly different interpretation of the situation than what the mighty apple has :) and I suspect thats where most of the "confusion" is :)
thats a slightly different interpretation of the situation than what the mighty apple has :) and I suspect thats where most of the "confusion" is :)
A while ago there was an issue that when replacing a camera on an iphone 12 it would cause the camera to become unresponsive. The problem was later solved with a software update without much fanfare; Backing up the fact that it was a glitch, the problem never occurred on the 12 pro. but yea i definitely hate the serialization, especially considering it looks like their hardware design is becoming more repairable with the 14's back glass becoming removable, it makes their software lockdowns make even less sense.
A modern version of what Oliver Stiller did in Amica Paint for the C64. https://www.pagetable.com/?p=860
[dupe]
Discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36903865
Discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36903865
Not all replaced iPad screens. Only non-OEM (third party) replacements.
Wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0sWmBNj6Eok
A genuine screen from another iPad will cause this issue until you swap the chip from the old screen to the new screen.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0sWmBNj6Eok
A genuine screen from another iPad will cause this issue until you swap the chip from the old screen to the new screen.
Ah, thanks for the link. The story this post is linked to said only aftermarket screens had this issue.
I don’t have any inside knowledge but I suspect authorized Apple repair centers have access to a tool they can use to recalibrate the screen after replacement that the mom-and-pop shop doesn’t have.
I don’t have any inside knowledge but I suspect authorized Apple repair centers have access to a tool they can use to recalibrate the screen after replacement that the mom-and-pop shop doesn’t have.
Apologies for coming off rude. Apple's anti-repair stance is a sensitive topic for me.
That looks like deliberate sabotage, and not merely a "the screen wasn't calibrated correctly" which I suspect Apple is going to try to spin this as, especially if using the existing controller with the new screen as the video claims causes this to be fixed. Watch the video - it's very short.
More disturbing is the realisation that there are people working at Apple to implement stuff like this.
More disturbing is the realisation that there are people working at Apple to implement stuff like this.
No counterarguments, just downvotes?
"Truth is found in the weeds" ;-)
"Truth is found in the weeds" ;-)
More reading: https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/15cxwaa/apple_penc...