You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by oneplane » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 7:22 PM UTC

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #143

oneplane wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you have no clue what you are talking about. A PKI where the CA private key is not secret is not really a PKI now is it? As for asking buyers: I doubt 0.001% of buyers in any market segments has a clue about PKI or public key cryptography at all. This is E2EE "lets have a government back-door" all over again: IT DOES NOT WORK. The Clipper chip was not that log ago, now was it?

> A PKI where the CA private key is not secret is not really a PKI now is it? At the end of the day, _you_ are the one in control of the list of CAs that you trust. If you are, it is (maybe) security. If you aren't, it is DRM. This is a simple rule with surprisingly little grey areas. See eIDAS... > I doubt 0.001% of buyers in any market segments has a clue about PKI Does it really matter how is the DRM implemented?…

You are confusing browser TLS and the trusted CA list with general CA in terms of PKI. So no, you are not in control and there is no list.

> Does it really matter how is the DRM implemented?

If you want to argue semantics instead of facts and merit: yes.

> PKI is also not the only way to implement this.

Yes it is. Unless you have some novel method you are about to disclose to the world, in which case, please do, because you'd have the equivalent of a cryptographic holy grail.

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

#182

Post by brandensilva » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #122

thfuran wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 effo…

Yup the software side has been built into the pricing of the hardware. They weren't the first to do this either since this business model has been around for quite awhile since we got away from buying software as a box.

It's also more convenient for the consumer to have a one and done payment.

The only thing I wish is if there was a monthly maintenance package when my devices get older so I can keep getting updates that keep my device running fast, secure, and can maintain some form compatibility with most apps.

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

#183

Post by oneplane » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

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…

I don't think I've touched on on theft as much as everyone else here seems to do, but in either case I'd still put that under the 'trustworthy to a degree' umbrella. I want to trust that a device in a known state behaves in a known way. Or as some other people might perceive it: the thing should work and adversaries should not be able to make it un-work with great ease.

This is something you could split up into multiple fractions:

- Making theft less lucrative to the thief (by reducing the use to non-owners)

- Making theft less impactful to the owner (by making non-owners not have access to the data)

- Making interdiction and malware an expensive endeavour (by making it very expensive to modify the device without the owner knowing about it)

Considering people may not want a $30 trackphone, but they just want their iPhone, the option of changing their behaviour is much less likely to be something Apple will invest in, and thus they invest in other things instead, like platform security. So if you assume that a consumer buys an iPhone because they want to, and assuming they want Apple to take care of making them not an easy target, we get into the current situation.

You can also tack on the 'haha apple expensive repairs they hate everyone' but there are much cheaper ways (for apple) to achieve that as a stand alone proposition. I'm sure they don't mind the fat profits they get, even if it were just a side-effect, but I'm personally and professionally more concerned with the three points I listed earlier than anything else.

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

#184

Post by brandensilva » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 7:36 PM UTC

gigel82 wrote: post #177

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…

> but Apple is ... keeping us more in control of our devices, by limiting which applications can be run on them Holy Stockholm syndrome level of cognitive dissonance batman!

Lol major distopian vibes. "The government keeps me safe by preventing me from doing anything against the law (that they decide at their own free will). I love my brain chip."

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

#185

Post by mindslight » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

theshrike79 wrote: post #160

mindslight wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The auto repair industry has been getting along just fine with aftermarket parts in the mix. As a customer you have a choice, and need to be aware that the choice exists to competently engage with the market. Being slightly informed about the high level aspects of an industry you're interacting with is just part of being an adult. If you don't want to have a frank conversation with a repair shop about which aftermark…

The scale of operation you need to steal and sell cars for parts or sell stolen cars is in a different order of magnitude in difficulty than doing the same for phones. We are at a stage where the only ones stealing Apple devices are the ones too stupid to know they’re next to impossible to resell and the ones that are really good and know exactly what they’re doing.

Discouraging theft by getting rid of individual ownership seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

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

#186

Post by WirelessGigabit » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 8:11 PM UTC

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #122

thfuran wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 effo…

Which is kinda weird. We used to have to pay for a new version of Windows or Mac OS (or however it was capitalized back then).

Then it became free.

When you got a computer with Windows 8 you would get 8.1 and 10 for free. 11 if you have the right TPM / chip (doubtful). Same with Windows 10 to Windows 11, provided you meet the specs. Same with Mac OS (not versed enough to list the versions).

I believe Apple started this yearly iOS update (and with that a more rapid deprecation).

I don't think people would want to spend $1,200 on a phone knowing they have to pay each year for a software upgrade. They also would not spend $1,200 on a phone knowing that next year you have to BUY a new one to get the latest software.

And in Apples mind all of this is fine. iOS has the highest adoption of the last iOS version. So in terms of non-security bugfixes they can focus on the last version. Only security fixes might warrant an update for an n-1 version of iOS.

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

#187

Post by Detrytus » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 8:20 PM UTC

cantSpellSober wrote: post #141

jaas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> thieves know that all iPhones are locked like this and thus don’t steal them Do you even believe this? I haven't seen any examples of thieves saying "stick em up! Oh, iPhone? Have a nice day" Easy counterexample: > an entire wall of iPhones (approximately 436) were gone https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/07/apple-...

But those were brand new iPhones, not activated, and therefore not locked...

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

#188

Post by jstarfish » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 8:21 PM UTC

gigel82 wrote: post #177

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…

> but Apple is ... keeping us more in control of our devices, by limiting which applications can be run on them Holy Stockholm syndrome level of cognitive dissonance batman!

Haha. It's worded very poorly ("safe from" != "in control of") but they are not wrong.

The whitelist approach to security has its merits.

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

#189

Post by ponorin » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 8:41 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #176

ponorin wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

google pixel does, but they did the unimaginable and released the tool where users can actually recalibrate the sensor.

Google is not a good comparison, because Google engineering is inferior.

They suck at privacy, and they are indeed relatively new to hardware game, but I'd say they are better at security than you think, on par or even better than Apple. Like Apple SoC, it has a dedicated security chip. The new Pixel 8 even implements Memory Tagging Extension, which iPhone doesn't yet have. And they do all this while allowing you to install third party rom. It's how projects like GrapheneOS can exist.

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

#190

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 8:48 PM UTC

"The breakdowns are an outgrowth of Apple's practice of writing software that gives it control over iPhones even after someone has bought one."

Perhaps we can write software that gives us control over our currency after it has been paid to Apple.

We can innovate and give Apple options and choices.