"these 10 fun tricks helped us get sued" apple.com
iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
51–60 of 363 posts
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#52It's totally dumb that a functioning phone is bricked by an update because of repairs done in the past. Imagine the same thing happening to your car. "Sorry sir, the software update done to your car has now disabled the vehicle because in the past someone not related to x (insert name of car company here) has repaired it, your car is now junk (you can't even resell it) and you'll have to buy a new one". It's just pet…
Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model? [0] Apple is in the business of selling (overpriced/overengineered) hardware. Their tactics make that very clear. The only problem with that is that there is no real competition in mobile phones anymore, it's just a giant duopoly. Sure, you can switch to Google/Android, which as th…
Do you have a source for that? Curious to read it.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you suggest instead and why?
Call it what it actually is: short sighted, greedy, foolish, etc. Don't use a word that puts down people with disabilities.
> Call it what it actually is: short sighted, greedy, foolish, etc. Don't use a word that puts down people with disabilities.
No. Language is a liging thing and the meaning of a word can change overtime.
"Greedy" is not the word that applies in this case. Nor is "short sighted". This is a retarted and dangerous behavior, and you should not be afraid to call it for what it is.
See above example with the car and try to imaging is the following happened: you have to drive immediately to a hospital and your car doesn't start because your tire was changed by a non-authorized service.
"Greedy" and "short sighted" are not the words that come in mind. It's a trully retarted and dangerous decision, initially driven by greed (because let's make computers like black boxes, no-one can open it, no-one can mess with it).
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you just say short sighted? Not everybody has perfect eyesight, you know, but that doesn't make us stupid. You hater, you.
Are people with myopia discriminated against in society?
> Are people with myopia discriminated against in society?
Yes. I am offended by the small letters in ads.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call it what it actually is: short sighted, greedy, foolish, etc. Don't use a word that puts down people with disabilities.
I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend anybody but my reading of the word is that it has two meanings, one of which is 'stupid or dumb'. I'll update the comment.
It's certainly isn't as bad as an ethnic slur, but I feel strongly that it shouldn't be used in polite conversation. It's a matter of being considerate to your audience.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does fire retardant put down people with disabilities? He used a normal word in a right context. He did not write "retards".
But that's not the same definition as the word he used. Fire/flame retardant basically means "fire delayer" Run that through the original sentence and it becomes nonsensical: "It's totally 'delayed' that a functioning phone is bricked by an update".
In my dictionary it coild also be It's toally backwards that.... Does it make sense now?
Fire retardant example was to show you that the same word can be used in many context and not all of them have anything to do with offendong handicapped people. oh wait that word is now also politically incorrect.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#57It's totally dumb that a functioning phone is bricked by an update because of repairs done in the past. Imagine the same thing happening to your car. "Sorry sir, the software update done to your car has now disabled the vehicle because in the past someone not related to x (insert name of car company here) has repaired it, your car is now junk (you can't even resell it) and you'll have to buy a new one". It's just pet…
Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model? [0] Apple is in the business of selling (overpriced/overengineered) hardware. Their tactics make that very clear. The only problem with that is that there is no real competition in mobile phones anymore, it's just a giant duopoly. Sure, you can switch to Google/Android, which as th…
"Remember the guy who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model?"
No, I don't, but I'd like to read more about it. Got a source?
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#58It's totally dumb that a functioning phone is bricked by an update because of repairs done in the past. Imagine the same thing happening to your car. "Sorry sir, the software update done to your car has now disabled the vehicle because in the past someone not related to x (insert name of car company here) has repaired it, your car is now junk (you can't even resell it) and you'll have to buy a new one". It's just pet…
Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model? [0] Apple is in the business of selling (overpriced/overengineered) hardware. Their tactics make that very clear. The only problem with that is that there is no real competition in mobile phones anymore, it's just a giant duopoly. Sure, you can switch to Google/Android, which as th…
Well, regarding hardware and UI styles you actually have a lot of choices on the Android side.
And it is really hard to argue that Google intentionally slows down old Android phones.
The source is available for everyone to study and you can root most devices and install Android versions that don't even use any Google software.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound like one of those white guys that say "Why can't I say the n-word if I feel like it!!"
Saying n-word is exactly the same as saying nigger. F that (see). Why can black people say the nigger word ? Or do you censor them too ?
Why can some people say it and not others? How aware are you of the history of race relations in the USA (i.e. where should I start my explanation)?
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems more like short sightedness than "petty revenge." The new home button hardware can't be securely validated, and a future OS update fails on the unexpected condition of invalid Touch ID hardware. I can imagine that this wasn't a prioritised testing scenario, likely not even considered by Apple when developing iOS. It's a lousy way to fail — the phone should just disable Touch ID and Apple Pay, and anything that…
The scenario they're protecting against appears (to me) to be a bad actor changing the hardware. If the Touch ID sensor is bad, and you propose falling back to a PIN, who's to say the digitizer isn't compromised too and is recording touches? Sounds a bit like a downgrade attack if they didn't fail fast and hard at the earliest opportunity.
If I understand this correctly (not an iphone person), the touch ID sensor is just a fingerprint scanner?
As a standalone measure, biometrics make a shitty password substitute because you can't change a finger print if it's compromised, so shouldn't the iphone be secured on the premise that the finger print scanner is already compromised, hence losing it should not qualify as a downgrade attack?