331–340 of 363 posts
There is a strong bias, and the amazing thing is that its very difficult for the people who have this bias to realize it. As far as they can tell it is fact, and this is in large part because they live in a filter bubble where they only see things that confirm their bias. For example: Articles bashing Steve Jobs get upvoted a lot more than ones praising him. Exactly the opposite for bill Gates. Now if you look at Sla…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second, Apple can provide an option to replace the fingerprint chip and charge, $150-$200 or whatever it costs for it. At the end of the article, it said that affected customers should contact Apple Support. Are you sure they are not offering a hardware fix at that point? It doesn't sound to me like they're just letting people hang.
From a different article: >When Olmos, who says he has spent thousands of pounds on Apple products over the years, took it to an Apple store in London, staff told him there was nothing they could do, and that his phone was now junk. He had to pay £270 for a replacement and is furious.
I posted this earlier today, but the current article (from bbc.co.uk) does a poor job covering the issue. In summary, Apple iOS uses a validation system to ensure Touch ID sensor is not maliciously replaced or modified. The Touch ID sensor has access to the iPhone Security Enclave, where fingerprint data is kept. A malicious sensor could, hypothetically, steal fingerprints from an iPhone user unknowingly. This could…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's always more to learn. What am I missing?
Occam's Razor says that you should select the hyposthesis with the fewest assumptions. Saying Apple is a "rent seeking asshole" assumes that Apple did this maliciously, which is a huge ball of assumptions when they've literally put out a security paper[1] on how Touch ID and Security Enclave works. [1]: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
No?
Well, then it makes sense to look elsewhere for that motivation. Additional data appears to be needed. Lacking such data, assumptions are all we have.
What really surprised me, and what most people don't seem to know, is that repairs at an Apple store are way cheaper than third party repairs.
I got a Macbook Pro repaired recently and the Genius guy took me aside and said I got a great deal because they have a per-model, per-service visit price cap on replacement parts charges for repairs. Meaning that in one visit, you can get your Macbook repaired and replace the screen, the motherboard, the hard drive, the power board, the battery, the keyboard, pretty much the whole thing, and the price (for parts) is capped at around $280 for my particular model. The labor price is not capped but they are good at what they do, so the labor is super fast and ends up being cheap.
I had a similar experience with an iPhone repair, where my camera had dust in it. Apparently the best way to do this is a back cover replacement, and the back cover comes with the camera built in. I was pretty scared until I heard the price, which was I think at the time $30, way less than third party vendors charge for this.
Again the downvotes, for providing useful information, are really baffling here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to be either or. Apple could provide a better fail over behavior for the home key, including a way for a consumer to validate the changed hardware. For instance: "IOS has detected a change in your Secure Home Key. Please contact apple secure support to confirm that your device is still secure!" add a 1-800 number and some security questions. Or automate it by requiring a login to your Apple account, e…
The bad guy can then walk the user through that security verification process, and the user is screwed. Think it through.
If a motherboard displayed an error when a piece of hardware from a different manufacturer was inserted and failed to operate, we'd cry bloody fucking murder. Instead, we expect users to take responsibility and if they compromise their own machine / want to take a risk then that's their business.
Just because it's an Apple phone shouldn't reallign our morals concerning user control and responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model? No, because that never was a fucking thing. Seriously, this is supposed to be a community of reasonably well-informed tech-oriented people. Step back for a second, take a deep breath, and think before you spread nonsense like this. Jesus.
But please don't comment like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11047606 on HN. That just makes the threads worse. Instead, please stay civil even when some people are being silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this the top comment? We can see that it is clearly nothing to do with 'revenge' or 'retaliation'. The evidence clearly contradicts that. Apple makes strong promises around security and Touch ID in particular. This is clearly designed to maintain the integrity of that system. It's certainly a terrible failure mode - the error message should explain what the problem is. But imputing these bizarre motives just r…
> The alternative would be at some point a headline like "compromised Touch ID sends fingerprints to bad actor". There would be no such headline. Before update to iOS 9, the affected phones functioned normally, but with disabled Touch ID. And if you have to know why people come up with theories like that - either Apple didn't think what happens to users who already had this hardware replaced or they thought about tha…
This is irrelevant. The problem is that those affected phones could still have had compromised fingerprint sensors.
Apple did the right thing in protecting people from this, but did communicate about it poorly.
The only malice in this situation is on the part of the people accusing apple of being motivated by 'revenge'.
I posted this earlier today, but the current article (from bbc.co.uk) does a poor job covering the issue. In summary, Apple iOS uses a validation system to ensure Touch ID sensor is not maliciously replaced or modified. The Touch ID sensor has access to the iPhone Security Enclave, where fingerprint data is kept. A malicious sensor could, hypothetically, steal fingerprints from an iPhone user unknowingly. This could…
Is enclave a standard security term? Does apple publish technical details on what sort of security the touch id uses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model? No, because that never was a fucking thing. Seriously, this is supposed to be a community of reasonably well-informed tech-oriented people. Step back for a second, take a deep breath, and think before you spread nonsense like this. Jesus.
That does sound ridiculous. But please don't comment like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11047606 on HN. That just makes the threads worse. Instead, please stay civil even when some people are being silly.