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

111–120 of 235 posts

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

#111

Post by ghostpepper »

willis936 wrote: post #88
JadeNB wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Companies earn trust by being honest and consistent for long enough. I trusted Apple until recently. They lied to me several times over the phone over several weeks (always in a very courteous and professional way). Such a small thing for them to throw away trust for. I had been slowly moving into their ecosystem and I'm now pulling out. Pixel 6 google edition can be found for ~$200 and can be loaded up with de-googl…

What did they lie about?

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

#113

Post by daft_pink »

The reason I think users don't mind Apple's control of their devices is that the reality is that users don't control devices, programmers do. Also, security requires constant updates and updates cost money, so it's not realistic to use a device for a decade, because you won't have security updates from any company at that point. Apple has better updates over time, which is reflected in it's higher resale values.

So on my iPhone, I feel that Apple protects us from bad programmers for the most part, because if you look at Android and the lower quality of many of their apps and the way large tech companies run over the users by installing spyware on their devices, but Apple to some extent is protecting us from Facebook and Google and keeping us more in control of our devices, by limiting which applications can be run on them.

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

#114

Post by wolfendin »

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #56

Do you want to control your device or are you okay with someone else controlling it? https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM?t=57

After my phone was stolen (it went missing after a move and it was renamed) and I was able to to remote wipe and disable it, I am 100% okay with it.

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

#115

Post by daft_pink »

goosedragons wrote: post #105
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.

But the reality is that no ones going to spend $100 to fix a 10 year old phone, when you can't get the security updates for it. Security updates cost money and programmers and the reality is that Apple is the best at security updates, but no one is really concerned about how to repair an iPhone in 10 years, because an iPhone is only realistically usable until the security updates run out.

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

#116

Post by thfuran »

daft_pink wrote: post #113

The reason I think users don't mind Apple's control of their devices is that the reality is that users don't control devices, programmers do. Also, security requires constant updates and updates cost money, so it's not realistic to use a device for a decade, because you won't have security updates from any company at that point. Apple has better updates over time, which is reflected in it's higher resale values. So o…

>Also, security requires constant updates and updates cost money, so it's not realistic to use a device for a decade, because you won't have security updates from any company at that point

Why can't someone exchange money for a service they find valuable? As I understand it, that has long been a common practice.

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

#117

Post by ghostpepper »

jaas wrote: post #19
chii wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't apple allow the owner to choose to decouple the pairing? It's telling why they dont.

Because thieves know that all iPhones are locked like this and thus don’t steal them. If they knew that some significant percentage were not locked they would be worth stealing again, and if it’s locked they just throw it in a dumpster. The fact that your phone is locked protects everyone else as well.

There have been reports of thieves threatening victims with weapons and demanding they disable icloud. Not saying that negates the benefit necessarily but it's a relevant data point.

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

#118

Post by Loggias »

rpdillon wrote: post #108
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 realis…

[dead]

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

#119

Post by Krasnol »

hotnfresh wrote: post #109
Krasnol wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the fix-it market, you only not overpay.

The rest is the usual price for parts and work. Like every normal service, too.

No reason to deliver crap, as you want to have the customer recommend you and come back again if they have another issue. Since there are enough alternatives, you have to deliver.

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

#120

Post by CivBase »

daft_pink wrote: post #113

The reason I think users don't mind Apple's control of their devices is that the reality is that users don't control devices, programmers do. Also, security requires constant updates and updates cost money, so it's not realistic to use a device for a decade, because you won't have security updates from any company at that point. Apple has better updates over time, which is reflected in it's higher resale values. So o…

> Also, security requires constant updates and updates cost money, so it's not realistic to use a device for a decade, because you won't have security updates from any company at that point. Apple has better updates over time, which is reflected in it's higher resale values.

I'm absolutely still using PCs from over a decade ago and I'm still getting security updates.

Post reply on HN