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

221–230 of 235 posts

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

#221

Post by oneplane »

ponorin wrote: post #218
oneplane wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> if anyone can do whatever they want with my device, then nobody is deterred from stealing it. 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 ver…

> did I say

Not with so many words, but that is what your security model implies. You also haven't reported your other means with which you can ensure platform integrity so I think you don't actually know enough about this topic.

> iphone is a device made by human, iphone is already hackable

Let's assume your statement is valid, doesn't that mean you have nothing to complain about? If you already have what you want, then why are you here?

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

#222

Post by NemoNobody »

jwells89 wrote: post #123
sigmar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I haven't mailed a letter as an adult - I opened summons for jury duty 6 months after I was supposed to report.

Snail mail isn't an effective means of communication in 2023.

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

#223

Post by NemoNobody »

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 is protecting their users data from Facebook and Google to use for their own means. User data is like their IP

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

#224

Post by daft_pink »

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.

Phones aren't PCs. They just don't have the lifespan a PC has and they aren't standardized the way PCs are.

They are getting there and maybe someday they will be as they start to mature, but today it's just not realistic.

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

#225

Post by daft_pink »

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.

If the market were there for it, it might happen, but the reality is that someone using a 10 year old phone is extremely cost conscious and not likely to shell out the engineering money required for updates.

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

#226

Post by CivBase »

daft_pink wrote: post #224
CivBase wrote: post #120

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. 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.

Phones aren't PCs. They just don't have the lifespan a PC has and they aren't standardized the way PCs are. They are getting there and maybe someday they will be as they start to mature, but today it's just not realistic.

Why should they be treated any different?

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

#227

Post by rantingdemon »

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…

You could always just get an Android phone...

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

#229

Post by more_corn »

badpun wrote: post #191
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…

> security requires constant updates and updates cost money Security doesn't require constant updates if the software they shipped didn't have bugs in the first place. These updates are just fixing faults in software that I've already paid for. Similarly, if I buy a car that made have the airbags explode for no reason, the car is recalled and the airbags are replaced for free.

Sorry but security updates are required. They just don’t have to be expensive.

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

#230

Post by twelve40 »

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…

> 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

been using Android for over a decade now, not once did I feel a particular need to be extra-protected by the Big Brother. I'm all for competition, enjoy your devices, Android is far from perfect, but I will not let Jobs or anyone else living or dead dictate what I can or can't install on my expensive-ass phone. I know, data point of one, but so is this "i feel" comment.

Post reply on HN