41–50 of 137 posts
I don't mean to be the devil's advocate, but I'm pretty sure that disabling Face ID when replacing the camera with a generic one is primarily a measure to thwart potential hardware-based attacks...
If I am not mistaken, they also disable Face ID when you replace the camera with a genuine Apple camera from a donor phone.
My girlfriend's phone is stollen and last location is in China. I'm sure they are selling the parts and the motherboard is useless. If those parts wouldn't work with other phones this theft would be less incentivized. Serial lock is a good thing if the owner had the option to unlock their phone's parts on Apple's website to be usable for repairs etc.
Locking a device to serial is adding insult to injury when companies like Apple decide to campaign against Right to Repair. It must be said that Apple made strides towards making repairing phones easier, but as long as counterfeit or stolen parts remain economically viable, this kind of market will exist.
I don't mean to be the devil's advocate, but I'm pretty sure that disabling Face ID when replacing the camera with a generic one is primarily a measure to thwart potential hardware-based attacks...
Such considerations must incorporate public safety/crime considerations as well. Smartphones are often the most expensive thing we have on our person and became a huge target for thieves. Locking/bricking went a long way towards reducing this, and then limiting the value of resale parts did again.
Art, food, electronics, materials, clothing, malware, root kits, ad nauseam.
I've been reading about counterfeit, black market, and gray market goods for decades. Do not want.
If I pay $1,000 for a Gucci handbag, I want an authentic $1,000 Gucci handbag. (I have zero issue with knockoffs clearly labeled as knockoffs.)
Anti-consumer, anti-labor, anti-customer, anti-fairuse and pro-monopoly bullshit regiments like DRM, DMCA, inability to repair, and price gouging are orthogonal issues. We can have provenance without these shackles if we choose to reign in corporate power.
As for Apple in particular, they're not the worst, and have been getting better. Their phones and laptops are the most reliable and are becoming easier to repair (design and logistics). The terms of their Apple Care have gotten more generous (forgiving).
Spitballing, I'd say Apple is ~1/3rd of the way towards a healthy cradle-to-grave product lifecycle. They can and should do much better with 3rd party repairs. Like making authentic parts available at cost. Certifying repairs shops. Certifying technicians. Etc.
Source: I was a tech at an Apple Dealer as a kid. Our leads were trained and certified. Our parts were all authentic. My notions are based on experience, not some utopian fantasy.
Such considerations must incorporate public safety/crime considerations as well. Smartphones are often the most expensive thing we have on our person and became a huge target for thieves. Locking/bricking went a long way towards reducing this, and then limiting the value of resale parts did again.
Not only that but ensuring genuine parts also goes a long way against hardware-based attacks.
I don't mean to be the devil's advocate, but I'm pretty sure that disabling Face ID when replacing the camera with a generic one is primarily a measure to thwart potential hardware-based attacks...
Nobody is sneaking into my house and replacing the faceid middle of the night. This is happening to nobody you know, and nobody they know either.
The rest of us just want our $800 paper weight to work again.
Such considerations must incorporate public safety/crime considerations as well. Smartphones are often the most expensive thing we have on our person and became a huge target for thieves. Locking/bricking went a long way towards reducing this, and then limiting the value of resale parts did again.
Not only that but ensuring genuine parts also goes a long way against hardware-based attacks.
What a shitty company. Time and time again they shaft consumers yet people buy into the ecosystem. Marketing works unfortunately.
Perhaps, but their policies and support for old hardware far exceeds anything you see in the Android world. But you point out THIS "shitty company" while not throwing your gaze towards all the other "shitty companies" like Samsung, or Google, or Sony, or Microsoft. Could it be that your disdain for the type of people that buy Apple products just rings through? The tried and true "them" vs "me" attitude. Personally, I…
Interestingly Microsoft actually seems to be supporting right to repair but it could be some kind of PR stunt, still though that’s a good step forward
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would the camera be of consequence, though? Insisting on approved camera avoids making it easier for bad actors to stealthily capture's a victim's biometrics and then use a third party "camera" to replay that information and unlock the victim's phone without them being present.
Couldn't an attacker just swap the sensor? This seems like something that higher law enforcement likely already did. Also couldn't you avoid this problem entirely be just making the dot projector use an unique pattern for each unlock attempt?