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

121–130 of 235 posts

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

#121

Post by pierat »

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…

Wow, such a ridiculous HN take.

A top notch restaurant does not keep or retain ownership of your stomach, bowels, or shit after eating at their restaurant.

Apple "sells" hardware in a completely fraudulent way, by retaining control as a rental or lease, but advertises it as a sale.

You can play whatever word games and bad analogies, and they're not even wrong.

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

#122

Post by FirmwareBurner »

thfuran wrote: post #116
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.

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

[lifts hand up] Uh-uh, me, pick me: because most consumers have been trained and conditioned by corporations that they only pay for the HW, the thing that they can feel and resell, and that the SW running on it should come for free and always be free despite SW updates being a continuous effort that costs money.

Most consumers can't put a value on SW ownership, unless that SW is a video-game on a disc in their hand. Thanks to Google, Youtube, etc, we've grown to expect that everything digital of value should be free even though it's not. So ads it is.

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

#123

Post by jwells89 »

sigmar wrote: post #50
emmet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't say that! Just that my past experience with 3rd party repair has been poor

Wasn't this partly by Apple's own making? Apple shreds devices to prevent people from salvaging parts for repairs[1], even phones that were usable[2]. and hasn't sold genuine components until very recently. [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphon... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/07/apple-g...

Use of knockoff parts will occur no matter what Apple does because those parts are always going to be cheaper.

That said, I think maybe the solution may be closer to something like allowing fake parts to function when placed in iPhones, with a couple of caveats:

- A prominent top level section in Settings appears listing all non-genuine parts

- When the phone has been factory reset, an alert appears at the bottom of the “welcome” screen and can be tapped to view the same list as above, so any prospective buyers of the device know exactly what they’re buying (and hopefully, can negotiate a better price as a result)

This addresses the cases of both dishonest shops and dishonest sellers trying to pass off the used devices they’re selling as fully genuine.

As for parts in used phones, I think those should remain device-locked until the user has explicitly unlocked them with a process that requires a second confirmation from the user after a week with a code sent by snail mail so thieves can’t coerce victims into part unlocking.

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

#124

Post by billylo »

nikanj wrote: post #92
billylo wrote: post #33

I recently encountered a similar situation for my Macbook Pro. Touch ID sensor is paired specifically to your logic board. You must replace both if either one has a defect. Source: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Early+2020+...

I think this is an unavoidable side effect of Touch ID fully happening inside the module. The logic board has to have full trust of the module, because the module will simply inform the OS that fingerprint X was seen - the OS/logic board have no way to confirm the information

It’s their design choice.

Most Windows laptop or Android phone do not have this hardwired coupling approach.

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

#125

Post by Tade0 »

nokya wrote: post #80
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…

I do not think this is a small business issue, but rather a dishonest small business owner working for disrespectful customers issue. A few months ago, I had to get a screen replacement and straight upfront asked the repair guy how much it would really (emphasized) cost me to get the screen replaced after he gave me a quote indicating that either the screen would cost nothing, or the work hours cost almost nothing. H…

When I called to ask for a quote when the screen on my phone cracked, the repair guy said upfront that it's going to cost more than a used phone of the same model.

To that I replied that this is fine, brought the phone, got a loaner free of charge (probably because the guy saw that I came in with a flip phone as replacement) and the next day it was ready for pickup.

Honest business, five stars.

I think they get rid of a lot of troublesome customers by persuading them to just get a new phone instead.

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

#126

Post by FirmwareBurner »

CivBase wrote: post #120
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.

You're getting updates for PCs over 10 years old because thanks to the way IBM PC clones work, the OS kernel can be independently updated from the drivers of the peripherals, not tied to them as it is in the ARM ecosystem with obscure FW blobs that are tied to the interfaces of a particular Android/Linux version.

On Widows at least, drivers from the Windows Vista days still work just fine on Windows 11 as the ABI hasn't changed that much since then. Good luck with that on Android.

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

#128

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

This control severely limits the utility of stolen iPhones, which is a good thing for me as an iPhone owner. There are other phones that consumers can choose that don’t have this pairing. But this pairing of parts is one of the reasons people choose and iPhone.

Theft is a boogeyman that allows Apple absolute control over their devices. Why is theft Apple's problem rather than law enforcement? Should cars require a password too? Why don't we make all consumer goods require a password so that theft can be a thing of the past!

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

#129

Post by swasheck »

pierat wrote: post #121
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…

Wow, such a ridiculous HN take. A top notch restaurant does not keep or retain ownership of your stomach, bowels, or shit after eating at their restaurant. Apple "sells" hardware in a completely fraudulent way, by retaining control as a rental or lease, but advertises it as a sale. You can play whatever word games and bad analogies, and they're not even wrong.

it’s more appropriate than you’re allowing it to be. your extension of the metaphor loses sight of the topic. the duration of the controlled experience of a meal is definitely shorter than the duration of phone ownership and so if you want to attack the metaphor based on duration and utility of the experience then that would be far more congruent

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

#130

Post by 160Marks »

jbverschoor wrote: post #127

You paid 4M for your home of land, but are still subject to regulations of the country. It’s your home, but you’re not even allowed to run a nuclear reactor in your garden.

But that depends on where you buy the house. It doesn't matter what service you use an iPhone on, Apple still tells you what you can and can't do.

It's not the house builder telling you what you can and can't do; these things are not the same.

Post reply on HN