Every people talking about theft security and counterfeit prevention is simply getting the point wrong.
If "counterfeit prevention" system is complaining about a genuine part that literally came off of another genuine product, that's not its actual job.
If "anti-theft" system is trying to wrestle with the legitimate owner trying to fix their own product, that's not anti-theft, or rather, the owner is not you. The owner is Apple, and that's precisely what the article says.
The "security" here is protecting Apple's bottom line by ensuring you buy a new product for otherwise fixable damages.
Just because it's somehow more secure doesn't mean it's better for the consumer in any way.
Counterfeit prevention is not just some sort of 'this part is real but this other part is not', it is about system integrity. How do we in the world of technology prove integrity? With cryptography. It's the only thing we have.
Same with your anti-theft proposition: if anyone can do whatever they want with my device, then nobody is deterred from stealing it.
Same with security in the sense of interdiction, injection or extraction.
None of these items, not a single one, can work without public-key cryptography. And until you (or someone else) comes up with a system where that does work, none of this matters and the status-quo remains as-is.
And yes, all of this is better for the consumer, even if the 10 people who want to fiddle with their phone can't do that without losing features. If you want a hackable device, get something else.
I, for one, do not want just a device where practically anyone can manipulate it, even if that means I cannot manipulate myself it either.
If you cannot come up with an argument that preserves integrity you don't really have a point.
> if anyone can do whatever they want with my device, then nobody is deterred from stealing it.
did i say "anyone" should be able to change components? i didnt say anybody should be able to change components.
> If you want a hackable device, get something else.
iphone is a device made by human, iphone is already hackable (case in point, iphone usb-c mod or headphone jack mod). it's just that apple's lawyers would very much not have that.
you just throw words like public key cryptography like it's an axiom but the tool serves its purpose as much as it's useful to us. you not caring about repairability doesn't matter, you're not apple anyway. people who got told their iphone cannot be recovered by apple but did get their data back thru 3rd party, does. (spoiler: it's because this means apple lied about their product)
Not with so many words, but that is what your security model implies. You also haven't reported your other means with which you can ensure platform integrity so I think you don't actually know enough about this topic.
> iphone is a device made by human, iphone is already hackable
Let's assume your statement is valid, doesn't that mean you have nothing to complain about? If you already have what you want, then why are you here?
If "counterfeit prevention" system is complaining about a genuine part that literally came off of another genuine product, that's not its actual job.
If "anti-theft" system is trying to wrestle with the legitimate owner trying to fix their own product, that's not anti-theft, or rather, the owner is not you. The owner is Apple, and that's precisely what the article says.
The "security" here is protecting Apple's bottom line by ensuring you buy a new product for otherwise fixable damages.
Just because it's somehow more secure doesn't mean it's better for the consumer in any way.