211–220 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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."
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.
Lest anyone forget, these features were legally mandated over the objections of hardware vendors, and they do have a pretty strong effect on theft rates, theft rates dropped by as much as 38% almost immediately after passing.
https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/events/Lookout-phone-theft-in...
https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/1...
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.
if this was their only intention they would let third party repair shops access to genuine parts or software tools. the reality is that third party "apple certified" repair shops are contractually less capable than uncertified ones, so much so that calling their service repair feels too generous. apple do this to sell you phones instead of phone parts. if any of what you're saying was true it's simply a happy acciden…
Apple needs to know what hardware is going into a particular phone to implement the killswitches, which means it can’t be handled as bulk inventory. They will sell you hardware that has been paired to a specific phone, but they’re not going to not have pairing (which is legally mandated for anti theft, over the objections of hardware vendors at the time) and they’re not going to hand out the ability to bypass the anti theft by signing your own keys.
Could they come up with some license-based model where the cpu wants to see apple attestation that the part is not stolen etc, perhaps, but, it’s not a trivial problem either.
> apple do this to sell you phones instead of phone parts. if any of what you're saying was true it's simply a happy accident.
Apple literally will sell you the parts though. How does that fit into your supposed “plot to force you to buy whole phones instead of parts”?
People are silly. About apple and nvidia and a couple of other companies in particular - there is a real thing with negative parasocial attachment to these brands, people love to hate them.
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-...
> In New York City, robberies (which typically involve a threat of violence) of Apple products dropped 19 percent and grand larcenies of Apple products dropped 29 percent in the first five months of 2014, compared with the same time period from 2013, according to a report from the New York attorney general’s office, which included data from the New York City Police Department. By comparison, thefts of Samsung products increased 51 percent in the first five months of 2014, compared with the same period a year ago, the report said.
https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
No, again some garbage analogy is not even wrong. I buy hardware and pay money for a purchase. This purchase has remote control software that obeys the company, and not me, the owner. I cannot remove this remote control garbage. This makes the device a rental on the approval of Apple, and not myself, the legal owner. If I were to do this, I would be charged with felony hacking under CFAA and similar statutes.... But…
argument discarded for incivility
why is this so absolutely normalized? every single android user seems to have this dripping hatred for half of the population, and only waits for the perceived “proper company” to let the mask drop. Why is that so utterly normalized for android users?
Obviously the fact that it’s normalized is self-reinforcing, people do it because they see other people doing it and it’s routinely allowed and tolerated. I will probably get my knuckles rapped more for saying this than you are for open bigotry.
Over, I remind you, a fucking cellphone. You’re a bigot because other people chose a different cellular telephone. What a silly thing.
Every single phone discussion has to have someone doing the “brainless apple sheep” or “people just buy for blue bubbles!” or “mindless apple sycophants!” routines. Every one. Even on hacker news of all places, where absolutely everyone has a very technical interest in this stuff, and good reasons for picking the things they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 d…
If you think the small companies are any different, you’re delusional. Everybody’s in it for themselves.
But, that’s fine with me. I just think the odds of that are low based on Apple’s track record of 20+ years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
When they did finally issue a refund it was for only half the order. I requested a chargeback from my bank and at this point they are siding with Apple. Not really sure why I keep money in a bank or use credit cards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
did i say "anyone" should be able to change components? i didnt say anybody should be able to change components.
> If you want a hackable device, get something else.
iphone is a device made by human, iphone is already hackable (case in point, iphone usb-c mod or headphone jack mod). it's just that apple's lawyers would very much not have that.
you just throw words like public key cryptography like it's an axiom but the tool serves its purpose as much as it's useful to us. you not caring about repairability doesn't matter, you're not apple anyway. people who got told their iphone cannot be recovered by apple but did get their data back thru 3rd party, does. (spoiler: it's because this means apple lied about their product)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, again some garbage analogy is not even wrong. I buy hardware and pay money for a purchase. This purchase has remote control software that obeys the company, and not me, the owner. I cannot remove this remote control garbage. This makes the device a rental on the approval of Apple, and not myself, the legal owner. If I were to do this, I would be charged with felony hacking under CFAA and similar statutes.... But…
> sycophants argument discarded for incivility why is this so absolutely normalized? every single android user seems to have this dripping hatred for half of the population, and only waits for the perceived “proper company” to let the mask drop. Why is that so utterly normalized for android users? Obviously the fact that it’s normalized is self-reinforcing, people do it because they see other people doing it and it’s…
This is about companies permanently tying hardware they "sell" into a permanent-loan with undefined terms, or otherwise change the terms of a sale long after the sale completed.
Apple is only one such company. All IoT companies do this. Tesla does this. Most car companies are starting this. John Deere does this.
And it's all about adding in uncontrollable computers to make a sale into a permanent rental, all without proper rental agreements.
But hey, lets get off topic and turn it into a simple Apple vs Android debacle, like you did. Again, you're at best short sighted and feeding into the arbitrary binary trope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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-...
> Comparing data in the six months before and after Apple released its anti-theft feature, police said iPhone robberies in San Francisco dropped 38 percent. In London, they fell 24 percent. > In New York City, robberies (which typically involve a threat of violence) of Apple products dropped 19 percent and grand larcenies of Apple products dropped 29 percent in the first five months of 2014, compared with the same ti…
* iPhones are very commonly stolen
* Android devices introduced a similar kill switch in 2014
> Samsung introduced to kill switch for its Galaxy S5 in April, so it will be sometime until its effects can be evaluated