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

201–210 of 235 posts

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

#201

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

pierat wrote: post #65

That's exactly what I've been saying. This "cloud controlled shit" is a rental with no terms and unlimited claw-back. These aren't sales. If I had a computer, installed remote controlling malware on it, sold it, and then started exerting remote control over it, I'd be arrested and likely sentenced to fraud or hacking. This is fraud for Apple etm to call this a "sale", and should be prosecuted as such.

Why hasn't someone done this? Say it's for their protection via security/virus scanning and hide it in the EULA.

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

#202

Post by lovelyviking »

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…

>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.

Right, Including protecting me from me unless I find extra pleasure in ‘calling big fruit boss every few days’ for running my own soft on my (supposedly) own phone.

To avoid this ‘pleasure’ I have to pay developer fee yearly. If someone is looking for definition of ‘idiocy’ one should look no further.

Yet there is always someone trying to justify even that. ‘It is more secure ‘ - they usually say forgetting to mention that security starts with control and ends without it.

The obvious question to ask usually would be:

So who would protect you from Apple itself?

More entertaining question could be: Who is going to protect you from you?

But then we recall about AI and we can guess the answer which spoils the whole entertaining aspect of the question.

So the only question left is: What people would not justify when some big company does it?

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

#204

Post by foogazi »

lovelyviking wrote: post #202
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…

>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. Right, Including protecting me from me unless I find extra pleasure in ‘calling big fruit boss every few days’ for running my own soft on my (supposedly) own phone. To avoid this ‘pleasure’ I have to pay developer fee yearly. If someone is looking for defini…

> So who would protect you from Apple itself?

Pick your poison, right ?

Someone is in control of the machine and it’s not me since I didn’t make it

I don’t know who you are so I don’t trust you

Thus I pay to live inside the walled garden

Is it total freedom ? No, but it’s reasonable enough for me and my family

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

#205

Post by WWLink »

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #186
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

The problem with this is that you need to make those updates something people want to buy. And at some point, you have a game of diminishing returns. Even the hardware is starting to feel that way.

Yet, security updates aren't "free". I'd guess that keeping an OS secure is probably more expensive than developing new features. That part gets tricky.

Also, supporting 5+ year old hardware gets harder since that hardware stops getting made and the new stuff gets more and more different.

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

#206

Post by lovelyviking »

foogazi wrote: post #204
lovelyviking wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Right, Including protecting me from me unless I find extra pleasure in ‘calling big fruit boss every few days’ for running my own soft on my (supposedly) own phone. To avoid this ‘pleasure’ I have to pay developer fee yearly. If someone is looking for defini…

> So who would protect you from Apple itself? Pick your poison, right ? Someone is in control of the machine and it’s not me since I didn’t make it I don’t know who you are so I don’t trust you Thus I pay to live inside the walled garden Is it total freedom ? No, but it’s reasonable enough for me and my family

Pick your poison, right ?

Right as long as you know what poison you choose. At least control someone who controls your machine, including the building process.

>Thus I pay to live inside the walled garden

At the moment it’s more like you pay for garden with imaginable walls while in reality there are no walls and frankly it doesn’t look like garden at all.

The only real wall you face is when you are trying avoid living in this fantasy. There is more precise definition for such ‘garden’ - starts with prison. Is it total freedom ? no, but it seems it’s reasonable for …. I barely see something reasonable about it. It’s more like a luck of wish to stand for own dignity thinking that such stand is possible to avoid.

When people (some people) thought sharing some data is not a big deal in current conditions. Did they think about another situation when current form of AI is around? Did you think about changes of the environment when you wrote ‘ it’s reasonable enough’? You didn’t even add ‘for now’ suggesting of course you know everything that ‘now’ is happening. And you even ready to expand this vision to whole family? I wish to be that sure about the future.

I am not trying to attack you personally, I think it is very common ‘logic’ these days except I cannot see it as logic at all.

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

#207

Post by oneplane »

ponorin wrote: post #193
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…

Every people talking about theft security and counterfeit prevention is simply getting the point wrong. If "counterfeit prevention" system is complaining about a genuine part that literally came off of another genuine product, that's not its actual job. If "anti-theft" system is trying to wrestle with the legitimate owner trying to fix their own product, that's not anti-theft, or rather, the owner is not you. The own…

None of your points stand.

Counterfeit prevention is not just some sort of 'this part is real but this other part is not', it is about system integrity. How do we in the world of technology prove integrity? With cryptography. It's the only thing we have.

Same with your anti-theft proposition: if anyone can do whatever they want with my device, then nobody is deterred from stealing it.

Same with security in the sense of interdiction, injection or extraction.

None of these items, not a single one, can work without public-key cryptography. And until you (or someone else) comes up with a system where that does work, none of this matters and the status-quo remains as-is.

And yes, all of this is better for the consumer, even if the 10 people who want to fiddle with their phone can't do that without losing features. If you want a hackable device, get something else.

I, for one, do not want just a device where practically anyone can manipulate it, even if that means I cannot manipulate myself it either.

If you cannot come up with an argument that preserves integrity you don't really have a point.

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

#208

Post by missingrib »

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!

It's true though. Not us in particular, but 99% of smartphone users

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

#209

Post by JadeNB »

paulcole wrote: post #154
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.

Why not? I’ve been using their products and services with essentially no issues for 20+ years.

> Why not? I’ve been using their products and services with essentially no issues for 20+ years.

That's exactly my problem—for a small company that is responsive to individual users, I could build on that trust and have some confidence that it might continue. For Apple, they don't care about my trust at all; so, if there is something that they want to do that will harm me personally, then they have no reason not to do it as long as it will not negatively affect their standing with most of their customer base. It doesn't matter how many years their interests have aligned with mine; if our interests diverge tomorrow, then, not only will they go with theirs, they won't even consider mine.

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

#210

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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, the people mostly burnt by this are thieves who can only sell stolen iPhones for spare parts. To people who actually by their phones, this is a feature, not a bug.
Post reply on HN