Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 12 Camera Repairs Require Apple's Proprietary System Configuration Tool
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So why then pretty much the same 2x/3x cameras on previous models, capable of the same computational & HDR10 / night mode tricks do not require kinda authorization?
You'r intentionally missing the simple fact that previous models with kinda same camera technologies do not require these fantastic cloud(y) calibrations. Those get swapped just fine without any impact on photos quality )))
Me OTOH - I don't replace my phone every year. Have owned various iPhones over the years and some of them I can trace history even after my own usage. My 6 is now with my niece, its had one battery change. My 7 is with my sister, also a single battery change. My original iPhone was used by my dad then my mum for a few years after I moved on to a 3GS. The 3GS sits in a kitchen cabinet, battery is pretty lousy now but still will power on and work. Sold the 4S and 5S. Having owned an iPhone from almost day 1 - got my iPhone original on day 2 lining up for it... battery changes has been the only thing they needed.
All this talk about repairs - these phones are super reliable overall, but the battery will need changing over time. Screens if you drop and break them - so far I'm at 0 broken screens myself. Can't really see how you need a camera replacement in the useful life of a phone, other parts will fail first.
Again, because we now seem to live in a world where thinking things through a bit sends folks off into a fit of pique, I'll start by saying I'm not sure how the calibration works for iPhone 12 or why Apple is further restricting who can service camera, but let me think this through another step.
Apple ships something like 200 million iPhones a year. How many have camera repairs done on them? Is it worth adding the cost of the components to every device that ships just to make it easier for unauthorized 3rd party repair of the much smaller number that need the camera replaced when when you already have plenty of space to store that data right where it's being used on the processor side of the connector?
Every component added is another potential point of failure, so is it worth increasing the overall failure rate just to make it easier for 3rd party repair?
Space is tight inside the phone, and every cubic mm is fought for. What features should be sacrificed to add the storage making it easier for 3rd party repair of the small number of phones that require camera repair?
I don't think the accelerometers and gyros are in the camera module, so even if the camera module itself were factory calibrated, there's another set of extrinsics that may still need to be done for motion tracking.
And then, as the module is installed (which has tolerances to account for) and ages, the calibrations can be expected to shift. So a precalibration may not be sufficient, and may require special equipment that certified techs are known to have but other 3rd parties may not so the software check-in may just be a way of ensuring that the calibration is done at all.
I don't know how or if calibrations are done by repair techs, but my point is just that the camera isn't a battery or a screen, it's part of a remarkable computational photography, motion tracking and augmented reality engine and improvement are increasingly dependent on those sensors working well together.
I'm not sure Apple would choose to give up any small amount of performance in every unit shipped to make it easier to repair whatever small fraction are brought back to unauthorized repair shops specifically for camera repairs. I'm also not sure that the economics work in the customers favor if they did.
Yeah, that's part of what gives me pause. The Pro/nonPro modules are pretty similar though, and the computational photography algorithms have evolved a bit, so it's possible they changed their calibration strategy between last generation and this or just decided to follow the same procedure for the non-Pro that they found they needed for the Pro. Or maybe they discovered that the repairs weren't being handled correctly with the 11 and wanted to ensure fewer user complaints in the 12.
Or maybe calibration has nothing to do with it. I was just thinking about what might lead to special treatment of the camera and that was one thing that came to mind.
Can agree to this, but maybe it should be a separate model, like the “repairable” model where things can’t be fully guaranteed (like security and what not) and the super tight one, because myself as a customer I want the most secure, non tamperable one. The one that most criminals don’t even want to steal because it can’t be sold to pieces.
Similar to how Intel sells the K cpu models that can be overclocked to the user desires up to a fraction of the lifespan or instant burn if he wishes so.
Also, I think the further ahead we go into the future of technology, repairability will become even more of an uphill battle. For example, if I had a Tesla I would want mine to be repaired by a Tesla authorized center by Tesla engineers, the battery replaced by a Tesla battery, the computers, so on and so forth.
If making that model generally repairable happens to compromise either the security or the choice of top of the line tech (because the bleeding edge one would make it more unrepairable by any shop), me as a customer want to have the choice of the most advanced one and pay the price of being more locked on the repair side of things.
Well thorough response, far from the usual “Apple just wants to lock us” reaction.
My main concern with repair-ability is the sacrifices that might mean not only on the Apple side of things cents wise and production yields wise, but also technology wise what they could offer.
Me neither knows what magic is behind this all, but my suggestion I think is maybe introducing yet another model, the more repairable one, the one with a generic one size fits all calibration, more repairable more generic camera, maybe that one won’t be able to do any of the fancier image processing that the array of hardware chips and software would do because it can’t guarantee an specific calibration for how that specific lens turned out curves and optics wise.
Given the choice, I would go with the more locked but Apple “guaranteed” one.
Apple's new slogan is "just locked down"
- locked down hardware
- locked down software
- locked down app store
- locked down iAP
- locked down protocols
- locked down users
Unless you've seen a statement from Apple about why they're using this process, then everything we're saying is speculation. It's even more speculative to say that my suggestions of per unit calibration are baseless. Speculative and wrong:
New photo of Apple's iPhone repair and calibration machine surfaces online | AppleInsider
An image of the special machine Apple uses to conduct back-of-store iPhone repairs surfaced online on Tuesday, with the photo showing off a few more features than previous leaks including an up-close look at screen calibration controls.
appleinsider.com
Now it's your turn:
How much incremental bottom line profit will Apple gain if the small number of unauthorized 3rd party camera repairs are brought in house?
My guess? Bupkis. But please, share the the basis of this well reasoned assertion and prove me wrong.
I'll leave the theology out of it but basically yes, that's exactly what I think. The two great cameras I was born with follow that exact procedure:
Baby Vision: What You Need to Know About Your Newborn’s Eyes
Learn how baby vision develops during the first year of life, and how to spot eyesight issues in newborns and young children.
Last edited:
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the market has already selected against that. People seem to prefer the sleeker, more feature rich devices. When presented with the tradeoffs, they buy for what they want to use, not in preparation for what might go wrong.
I think the problem here is that people think there isn't a tradeoff. They seem to think Apple could build a device without compromise and are indignant that they won't.
Can I get an iPhone to repair 10 years after I bought it? No because Apple decides that a 5 years of use is sufficient.
Last I heard the iPhone 5s and 6‘s were still getting security updates? Can anyone confirm. if so that’s 6-7 years
Btw show me any competitors smartphones that have gone beyond 5 years and is still viable for today’s workflow
Yeah,.. possible... maybe... blah... blah... blah...
Engineers & generally tech skilled guys all over here are telling you that there's NO technical or security reason for that. Nothing has changed since previous iphone models with similar cameras layout. Computation implies the calculating engine analyze each & every pixel from all of the sensors to first stitch a complex image together and then apply all required effects & the rest of the calculations to produce its final version. That means, it's not important to know the exact sensors position in every particular phone or something.
But you just like (or been paid by them) to advocate this rotten apple company's greed. Period.
That wasn't a guess, but next speculation. So, you wanna to continue
Was it rotten apple who tout you kinda form of discussion..?
A lot of content free vitriol...
I have to say, when it gets to where you're trying to argue a difference between "guessing" and "speculating", you're out of ammunition.
Your description of "computation" above doesn't do much to convince me that you're among the "tech skilled guys". I've shown that Apple does a per-unit calibration. Show me the profit motive.
Bu there is a security reason for it, its been mentioned several times. it devalues a stolen, blocked phone.
so remind the class, how long do Samsung, for example, provide updates and support for their phones?
How is it more speculative for me to say that your suggestions are baseless. It's the truth, you just explained why you are being purely speculative right here. You could be correct, but as you admit that you don't have any idea how or why they've made this choice, any suggestion from you is implicitly baseless. In other words, your opinion.
What I was taking issue with is your criticism of other people for having "opinions" while considering your own an "examination".
What assertion is that? I never made any claims about Apple's motivation here, whether for profit or anything else. The closest I came was implying that Apple is reasonably intelligent in their decisions, whatever they may be.
I was just calling your own assertions/suggestions far-fetched and poorly reasoned.
You should leave the biology out of it too. Following product R&D, the mass production techniques used to actually ship products bear little to no resemblance to the growth of organic tissue. One key difference is that they aim to eliminate any organic variance as much as possible to create uniform results. Another is that any part that still has some undesired variance would be considered a defect, and is more likely to end up in the bin than
Your understanding of "manufacturing", "calibration", and even "computing" doesn't convince me of much either.
As someone who has actually worked in all three areas, I appreciate that you think everything that happens is near magic levels of sophistication barely held together by wishes and spiderwebs, but I can assure you that is not the case.
Apple knows how to make cameras and processors, without tripping over themselves to get them actually working once put together.
As for the profit motive, it's right there in the article you shared:
"Imagine if every car we bought, every time you wanted to change the oil you had to take it to the dealer," he added. "It's just not realistic, and it monopolizes aspects of their business that are rarely good for their consumers."
I have an idea if people want to do that then when they purchase a new iPhone Apple should have a section to where before you can even activate the iPhone that you have to agree to a subset saying removing their liability for cheap replacement parts by making people digitally sign their signature saying they agree to that.
Then when a cheap replacement issue comes up at the Genius Bar are repair depot Apple has this signed on record from the customer and can refer back to this to deny any repair.
I am so glad we do not have biometric implants could you imagine a scenario like this in a world where those would exist?