Your claim is just as not trivially obvious. So, source?

In reality, nobody knows why Apple is doing it except the people who made the decisions nor would it really be possible to trace the parts, but it’s far more likely that it comes from the many devices that can be salvaged for parts than it coming from some black market operation coming from the factory.

My claim of what?

If you meant my previous comment, I clearly phrased it as my own person opinion?

In no way shape or form is that phrased as your own personal opinion. You asked the parent commenter for a source and then parroted an alternative theory as what actually happened.

Considering you were so adamant on asking a source for the other person’s theory, and were so sure of your own, that you must have proof of it, right?

To be frank, your opinion of another HN user's comments doesn't outweigh anyone else's opinion. If your unsure about this point, perhaps review the HN rules?

If it was indeed as you say, and that the large majority of passing readers indeed perceived it as such, then the previous comment would have been downvoted into 'dead' status a while ago.

Since it hasn't, then that's proof enough.

Look in the mirror; your entire comment applies to you. After all, you literally did the same thing. Sorry not sorry that I called you out on it.

And downvoting here doesn’t happen nearly as often or for the reasons you think they do. This isn’t Reddit. Things don’t just get downvoted because people disagree with your opinion.

Okay so you agree that both our opinions in this comment chain aren't likely to be confused with statements of fact?

Then there's nothing in dispute?

That’s not what I said at all but is certainly a much easier goalpost to defend.

You still haven’t provided a source for that claim of yours. If you consider the other comment as fact to the point where you corrected it, then yours is just as much.

Also, next time, maybe keep track of the people you are replying to.

What are you confused about now?

Maybe you should take a look at those guidelines yourself, bud.

I have? Your also free to opine that I don't know the HN 'guidelines', but it's unlikely that will lead to anything productive.

If by "source" you want proof that the componenets with Apple branding are genuine parts salvaged from broken Apple products, I obviously can't do that.

Here's what the article says:

> The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold:

> “The parts I buy have an original flex on it because that’s what’s best for my consumers,” [repair shop owner Jessa Jones] said. “It’s difficult and pointless to erase the existing Apple logo that’s printed on a tiny piece of flex. There’s no customer-facing Apple logo, no logo anywhere on the glass. It’s smaller than a grain of rice. We have never said online, in person, or anywhere else that these are Apple-certified screens.”

That aligns with claims I've heard from Louis Rossmann about the parts he uses.

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/clgnmh/comment/evx65...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47-LNbb2vR8

I can't prove that any of these claims are true by Jessa, Louis, or the author of this article. But it shouldn't matter. People are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

The default assumption of innocence is for the default case, i.e. where nothing notable happens at all.

Beyond that, there cannot be such a presumption, enforcement action in many scenarios need to be taken well before the timeframe necessary for a formal court judgement to be delivered.

e.g. Airport baggage screening, where even if you mistakenly pick up someone else’s lookalike bag full of prohibited substances, you could still suffer quite severe consequences