Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 235 posts

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#101

Post by NoboruWataya »

JadeNB wrote: post #75
paulcole wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My iPhone works really well and I generally trust Apple. So I’m 100% fine with someone else controlling it.

> I generally trust Apple. Why? I can't imagine any kind of real trust relationship except with individual developers or small shops who can be responsive to individual customers. I certainly trust Apple more than Microsoft, but I can't imagine any situation in which I'd say I trusted them (or any other megacorp) in an unqualified sense.

Flipping the question around, what exactly are you worried they will do?

I'm on your "side" on this in that I dislike closed ecosystems, spyware and not having control over my own devices. But I am not in tech and the vast majority of people I know don't care about this and likely never will, and every year that goes by without Apple remotely bricking their phone with no recourse only strengthens their apathy.

Trust doesn't have to be unqualified. You can accept that Apple's incentives don't align perfectly with yours while being comfortable that they align enough that Apple will provide you with the service you're looking for.

"The user controls the program or the program controls the user" is a false dichotomy to people who spend most of their time in the real world.

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#102

Post by humphly »

Terretta wrote: post #98

Headline is wrong. Market paid $1K for the iPhone experience . Look at ads: specs versus "life goals" enablement. This is not a hardware product or parts bin price. If you pay $1,000 for a meal, you damn sure expect the restaurant to control the experience since the price isn't the cost of ingredients. And if you want to cook, that's great, but you're not getting to bring your own parsley, you hack together your own…

[flagged]

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#103

Post by humphly »

oneplane wrote: post #72

At yet here we are with nobody having a better plan. The issue is still the same as it has been for the past 20 years: making a (PKI-based) security feature means you can never share the secret parts or make it optional, otherwise it is immediately defeated. You can't have selective security where it works sometimes but not all the times. And trading out that security system is not an option. PKI specifically is an a…

[flagged]

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#104

Post by humphly »

emmet wrote: post #7

Anecdotal, but back in those "good old days" when you could get a screen replaced in 5 mins like this article said, on the three occasions I did this I ended up with the worst cheap Chinese knock off screens I have ever seen, the last time I ended up spending even more to get a genuine one. Hard to avoid this with small businesses when they need to make the enough of a margin at those cheaper retail prices. I'm sure…

[flagged]

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#105

Post by goosedragons »

Terretta wrote: post #98

Headline is wrong. Market paid $1K for the iPhone experience . Look at ads: specs versus "life goals" enablement. This is not a hardware product or parts bin price. If you pay $1,000 for a meal, you damn sure expect the restaurant to control the experience since the price isn't the cost of ingredients. And if you want to cook, that's great, but you're not getting to bring your own parsley, you hack together your own…

The article is less about Apple's grotesque restrictions on what you can do with your hardware via software (e.g., no emulators, etc.) and instead about Apple's grotesque restrictions regarding the parts you can use to fix your phone.

I don't think too many people want the restaurant to have a say on what side they make to go with their leftovers from the previous day.

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#106

Post by ghostpepper »

nstart wrote: post #95

I wish someone could ask Apple about the middle ground. You want to protect consumers? Fine. Alert customers to the use of non official parts but don’t brick any functionality then. I want Apple to tell me when that shop that promises original parts is actually giving me an original which I can track. I don’t want them stopping me from using it unless it’s genuinely incompatible at a firmware level.

I think what would happen is people would get their phone repaired by the sketchy corner store guy, ignore the warning (which would presumably only pop up after they'd gotten the non-approved part installed) and then some time later when their photos/emails/bank balance was accessed they'd go back to Apple to demand an explanation.

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#107

Post by BiteCode_dev »

Terretta wrote: post #98

Headline is wrong. Market paid $1K for the iPhone experience . Look at ads: specs versus "life goals" enablement. This is not a hardware product or parts bin price. If you pay $1,000 for a meal, you damn sure expect the restaurant to control the experience since the price isn't the cost of ingredients. And if you want to cook, that's great, but you're not getting to bring your own parsley, you hack together your own…

I go to high end restaurants, the Michelin being the only north star I rely on in the day and age of fake reviews and terrible average consumer taste.

Sure, I want the restaurant to control the initial offer, and at this price I expect it to be amazing.

But I guarantee that at this price range, they will let me do what I want with my food.

I can bring my own bottle of ketchup and put it on it. They will look disgusted, but I can.

In fact, as a vegetarian, it's not rare I ask them to adapt their ENTIRE menu just for little me. And they do it.

So the comparison does not hold.

But I get your point, a lot of people do want Apple to tell them how they should use their device.

That's something that is hard to swallow when you like FOSS, but it's a reality.

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#108

Post by rpdillon »

oneplane wrote: post #72

At yet here we are with nobody having a better plan. The issue is still the same as it has been for the past 20 years: making a (PKI-based) security feature means you can never share the secret parts or make it optional, otherwise it is immediately defeated. You can't have selective security where it works sometimes but not all the times. And trading out that security system is not an option. PKI specifically is an a…

> And trading out that security system is not an option.

Why not? iPhones are premium tech-fashion items that attract criminals due to their value. Apple is trying to negate the value of the stolen item through DRM, but it seems perfectly reasonable for someone to say "the solution is worse than the problem", and opt to buy devices that don't implement hardware DRM on e.g. their screens.

> so far the amount of realistic and effective solutions are NONE.

I'm not sure this is true...I've travelled a fair bit, and my approach to managing theft of my belongings is to limit the value of what I carry. This both limits the incentive for criminals (a $30 Tracphone is much less interesting than a $1000 iPhone) and limits the damage/cost-to-recover in the case of theft.

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#109

Post by hotnfresh »

Krasnol wrote: post #97
hotnfresh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it’s the kind of experiences you expect in a low-regulation market. You either pay a premium—beyond what would be justified if “defector” manufacturers and vendors weren’t a factor, i.e. if effectively-enforced regulations were mandating a higher quality floor—to a vendor with a good reputation you expect them to want to maintain, or you pay in expertise and time-cost. If you don’t pay in one of those two ways,…

> Nah, it’s the kind of experiences you expect in a low-regulation market. Nah, it's not. The market for Android devices has been there for years and it works. Sure, you can be screwed over, like in everything in life, but it's not such a common thing that it would make it an equally relevant argument against liberalization. I agree, though: people who can afford premium won't bother. Neither with alternative ways no…

> Nah, it's not.

It’s what I’d expect, because that’s how most markets look to me—pay in time, overpay in money, or probably get crap—but perhaps experiences vary.

Re: You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It

#110

Post by wolfendin »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #76
oneplane wrote: post #72

At yet here we are with nobody having a better plan. The issue is still the same as it has been for the past 20 years: making a (PKI-based) security feature means you can never share the secret parts or make it optional, otherwise it is immediately defeated. You can't have selective security where it works sometimes but not all the times. And trading out that security system is not an option. PKI specifically is an a…

> At yet here we are with nobody having a better plan. The issue is still the same as it has been for the past 20 years: making a (PKI-based) security feature means you can never share the secret parts or make it optional, otherwise it is immediately defeated. You can't have selective security where it works sometimes but not all the times. And trading out that security system is not an option. This is BS. A security…

> And trading it out is not only an option, but likely the preferred outcome if you ask the majority of buyers.

I’d bet if you ask the majority of buyers they wouldn’t know and wouldn’t care.

Post reply on HN