151–160 of 590 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This exactly. To have a more secure device this is one of the trade offs. Can you imagine the articles if you could swap out faceID systems to unlock an encrypted iphone?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You are at liberty to buy other products and leave these to those who are happy about the security considerations.
It's good to see Apple behaving and recognising the momentum the Rights to Repair movement has got globally in the last few years (especially in the large market of EU, and now picking up in Asia). But I think iFixit has been too generous in giving the iPhone 14 a repairability score of 7 out of 10 when Apple still places additional unwanted hurdles and control through software: > We are hearing reports that Apple is…
Well I mean it also cuts down on their repair costs quite substantially. Repairing anything but the front screen has been a nightmare since the iPhone 8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That "unlimited" thing only impacts a very small number of devices. It is a better headline than reality. Previously you could have two accidental damage incidents PER YEAR, which means four for a standard Applecare+ 24 months plan. How many people, realistically, had over four accidental damage incidents in a two-year period wherein they benefit from this "unlimited" change? As I said, it is good marketing, a very n…
I don't even have a case on my phone (and never have on any phone in the past) and have never had an incident. I know at least 5 people that have broken their phones more than 4 times per year and they all use cases. Some people just do not treat their electronics like the expensive devices they are.
I’m not sure I care much about repairability. For me, makers should have the freedom to design products as they wish. I don’t think that phones and laptops would be as light and portable as iPhones and Macs are if Apple was inhibited by the Right to Repair movement from arranging internal components in such a jampacked way. I also think that makers should have the freedom to design computers whose software tightly in…
Third parties are perfectly capable of making replacement parts that match the OEM parts in functionality and quality. This has no effect on integration. The other parts of the phone don't care who manufactured the part, unless they were programmed to, as long as they are functionally equivalent. The user certainly doesn't care who manufactured the part as it does not effect the user experience.
Just look at screen repairs. Apple checks in software to verify the integrity of some of the hardware in screens and, in the past, it led to people being locked out of their devices when they were repaired with screens that had dummy FaceID/TouchID sensors.
It's good to see Apple behaving and recognising the momentum the Rights to Repair movement has got globally in the last few years (especially in the large market of EU, and now picking up in Asia). But I think iFixit has been too generous in giving the iPhone 14 a repairability score of 7 out of 10 when Apple still places additional unwanted hurdles and control through software: > We are hearing reports that Apple is…
If Apple allows super easy salvage of another device for parts, I wonder if phones will start to be stolen again. Easy salvage might create an unacceptably wide-spread life-safety risk to ALL smartphone owners. Tradeoffs, unintended consequences.
Sometimes I feel like people enjoy piling on because they are the big dog.
Again, please don’t mistake this comment for a blindness to some of its operations. But it’s nice to see them get credit for the good stuff.
> Forget satellite SOS and the larger camera, the headline is this: Apple has completely redesigned the internals of the iPhone 14 to make it easier to repair. HN:
This doesn't make any sense to me, considering it's being commented upon literally as you wrote that comment within days of the phones release.
>Apple has completely redesigned the internals of the iPhone 14 to make it easier to repair HN: Easier for who? Quote from the video: "We're hearing reports of Apple continuing on the hostile path of pairing parts to the phone, requiring activation of the back glass after installation. Why in the world would you need permission to install a sheet of glass?! Using software to prevent the replacement of components with…
Apple’s Activation Lock lead to a substantial drop in smartphone theft worldwide. That’s something worthy of consideration. Apple must not re-incentivize phone theft to harvest parts. https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-lea...
To date, no HN discussion of this crypto-pairing of the phone to its parts has revealed an alternative solution that would be effective at Apple’s scale for preventing phones from being hacked by a parts swap while also allowing any part to be swapped in — not to mention while providing the anti-theft benefits described upthread. I’d love to see a viable alternative solution described, if anyone has one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other thing is that Apple is trying to make things harder for people with large amounts of resources (think nation states) to exfiltrate data by using pwned components. Like when you take it into a repair shop, how do you know that the replacement part isn't compromised? If I was replacing the front facing FaceID complex I sure as hell would want verifiable Apple gear and it to be paired to the phone. Why would I…
This exactly. To have a more secure device this is one of the trade offs. Can you imagine the articles if you could swap out faceID systems to unlock an encrypted iphone?