You Paid $1k for an iPhone, but Apple Still Controls It
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
So on my iPhone, 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 and the way large tech companies run over the users by installing spyware on their devices, but 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.
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 effort that costs money.
Most consumers can't put a value on SW ownership, unless that SW is a video-game on a disc in their hand. Thanks to Google, Youtube, etc, we've grown to expect that everything digital of value should be free even though it's not. So ads it is.
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.
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.
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.
I'm absolutely still using PCs from over a decade ago and I'm still getting security updates.
On Widows at least, drivers from the Windows Vista days still work just fine on Windows 11 as the ABI hasn't changed that much since then. Good luck with that on Android.
Should some government regulatory body like the EU intervene to force their hand? Maybe.
But do remember that in the "old-days" of dumbphones and featurephones you were getting no SW updates at all ever and replacing your phone every 2-3 years was the norm back then.
It's only now that we're thinking about this as we start to think about phones more as general purpose computers in our pocket and less as phone dialing and messaging devices, like in the old days.
One thing's for sure, it's that the free market will never self regulate itself on this matter, same how it has not self regulated itself in the auto industry were it not for the EPA and EU, we'd still be buying ICE cars that turn our cities into smog if we were to leve emissions to the auto manufacturers.
They are getting there and maybe someday they will be as they start to mature, but today it's just not realistic.
Oh poor thing. They protect themselves and software houses from torrent-esque and crack-esque like solutions which can be easily found for everything that runs on Windows, including Office, not to mention the Windows OS itself and everything Android.
That's also the reason why Apple dominates the US market whereas Android has the majority of devices elsewhere in the world.
Americans will fight between each other with hordes of lawyers at the cost of thousands of dollars for the stupidest things, but won't spend 30 seconds torrenting in order fuck Hollywood,Amazon, Netflix and Microsoft in the ass.
When you ask the reason why, their reply is : 'convenience'
When you ask why they fight for the stupidest things against fellow citizens using hordes of lawyers at the cost of thousands of dollars the reply is: 'To prove a point'
Bizzarre
It's extremely easy to find pirated software for macOS, too. Let's not pretend that Windows is Skid Row and macOS is a pristine gated community.
Huh. How about that. A country of people who don't just think they're entitled to the labor of others.
Holy Stockholm syndrome level of cognitive dissonance batman!
The whitelist approach to security has its merits.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
I'm just echoing how Apple users feel about the product that we buy in large numbers and are also very happy with.
The reality is that we are forced to install apps in modern life. Want to go to a concert then you have to install our app. Want to board a plane then you have to install our app. Want to talk to your friends on whatsapp, then you have to install our app. Why do we have to give all this private information to McDonald's to buy a hamburger? We like having someone put limits on the programs running on our phones, because we often have little choice but to install the programs.
This is my take on the ecosystems. YMMV.
In simplest terms, Apple keeps users away from control. They make decisions for the user and often, it's reasonable. In some cases, Apples control makes useful features no-gos. Tasker is an example. It's either not present or crippled. In summary, iPhones are great choices for people that just want a smartphone. They don't plan on getting fancy with it, they just need a daily driver.
Android is more of a swiss-army knife, imo. It has more flexibility, at the cost of ease-of-use, to get that. The UI overlays, for the most part, are tragedies. AOSP is the gold standard for me, but Pixel hardware has been a shitshow, so good luck with that. Android is a more developed (wide-reaching) OS, being used in numerous IOT and other devices. In summary, its also a daily driver, but mostly for those that like to tinker or have an all-in-one device. The overlays can be a PITA, but you get what you get and some folks like them.
I'm a career SysAdmin. I've done seem edits on flip phones, I've rooted and rommed Androids, I've jailbroke my iPhones in the past. Now? It's just a phone. I use better tools for things I need to do, rather than try to bend 1 device to be everything.
Again, YMMV.
NGO group would like a word with you. /s
I got an Iphone for work. Although i was excited to see how good it is, my excitement died when it said that it can connect to Wifi or data anytime, even when Wifi or data is turned off.
Hard to avoid this with small businesses when they need to make the enough of a margin at those cheaper retail prices.
I'm sure this is fine for a lot of people, but I'm much happier to pay for AppleCare+ and get components that keep the experience that I've paid a grand for.
That being said if I was trying to see it from Apple’s perspective, it does address a lot of problems pretty easily: thieves breaking devices down for parts or coercing users, customers having issues with their devices due to low quality repairs, users buying second hand phones with unofficial parts, various security concerns, etc. Apple do also sell old and refurbished devices also.
That being said, I do think Apple should be solving this in a way that allows unofficial repairs, even if that involves taking your ID and proof of purchase into an Apple Store to get your device “unlocked” for free so you can do whatever you want with it, knowing it may hurt the resale value and impact the device’s security. More than that, I think it should be legally required under right to repair legislation.
In my experience AppleCare repairs are stellar because they're never actually repairs. I've never once had them repair a phone/laptop/etc. Every single time they're like here's a new/refurb instance of the same phone(not that I'm complaining!). I'm hoping they're eventually refurbing the old one and reselling it, but I suspect they're often just tossed(ahem "recycled").
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphon... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/07/apple-g...
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 the “welcome” screen and can be tapped to view the same list as above, so any prospective buyers of the device know exactly what they’re buying (and hopefully, can negotiate a better price as a result)
This addresses the cases of both dishonest shops and dishonest sellers trying to pass off the used devices they’re selling as fully genuine.
As for parts in used phones, I think those should remain device-locked until the user has explicitly unlocked them with a process that requires a second confirmation from the user after a week with a code sent by snail mail so thieves can’t coerce victims into part unlocking.
From what I understand, getting to this point has been a long fought battle of pushing manufacturers to open up parts availability and basic documentation (which continues to this day with Automotive Right to Repair and whatnot), Magnuson-Moss on the legal front, etc. Apple is at the early stages of its industry, and due to the power of digital restrictions technology has delusions of completely shutting out the third party ecosystem. But in a free society there's only one way for this topic to evolve, and so the authoritarian arguments about the guarantees of centralized control aren't particularly compelling.
At the very least though, I do think that buyers of used phones deserve to know what kind of parts were used in repairs. On cars this can be verified by looking up the car’s service records and taking it to a trusted mechanic prior to purchase but it’s not so simple with phones, which is where I think it could be useful for the OS to indicate use of aftermarket parts.
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.
You probably see smartphones like computers, but I think they're more like game consoles.
I don't complain to Microsoft because I can't install Arch or sideload games on my Xbox.
I'm perfectly fine not being able to install random applications on my phone if in exchange it becomes a harder target for malware and unappealing to thieves.
Snail mail isn't an effective means of communication in 2023.
At this point I'd be more wary of a non Chinese parts for many of the replacements.
Perhaps one would do that to get its name on the map as a newcomer, but soon enough investments need to be repaid and the prices would naturally raise up to match the increase in reputation and pad the margins.
I've seen this happen so many times around these discussions on HN:
There is a valid argument in the source. There is discussion around the argument. There is some proof, there are political discussions. Etc. everything totally normal. But then there is this ONE comment. Usually just one:
Anecdotal evidence to spread FUD. And it's up above all that usually discussion.
Where is this coming from? Is this natural behavior of people who are also afraid of the freedom to be able to buy parts elsewhere? Is this advertising?
My theory --- people have some sort of natural affinity toward cults. Even when it is counter to their own best interests.
And Apple is approaching cult status.
Nah, it's not. The market for Android devices has been there for years and it works.
Sure, you can be screwed over, like in everything in life, but it's not such a common thing that it would make it an equally relevant argument against liberalization.
I agree, though: people who can afford premium won't bother. Neither with alternative ways nor with people who can't afford premium. Maybe it's even intended to keep the brand somehow exclusive and special...sad world.
It’s what I’d expect, because that’s how most markets look to me—pay in time, overpay in money, or probably get crap—but perhaps experiences vary.
The rest is the usual price for parts and work. Like every normal service, too.
No reason to deliver crap, as you want to have the customer recommend you and come back again if they have another issue. Since there are enough alternatives, you have to deliver.
No…I doubt that’s it.
Most of an iPhone is Chinese made
A few months ago, I had to get a screen replacement and straight upfront asked the repair guy how much it would really (emphasized) cost me to get the screen replaced after he gave me a quote indicating that either the screen would cost nothing, or the work hours cost almost nothing.
He smiled and admitted getting the original replacement unit would almost double the quote he had just given me, plus I'd have to wait a week until the unit arrives. I told him that's what I wanted.
Eventually, the repair cost me a bit more than double what he asked first. But I am satisfied, I noticed no defaults at all on my phone since the repair, it feels exactly like the original model. He cleaned it, and installed a screen protector on it (offered).
This is clearly a case of "theory built on one single personal experience", I agree. But honestly, I don't know anyone around me who would agree to pay a bit more just to get better service and I think that's the core issue.
To that I replied that this is fine, brought the phone, got a loaner free of charge (probably because the guy saw that I came in with a flip phone as replacement) and the next day it was ready for pickup.
Honest business, five stars.
I think they get rid of a lot of troublesome customers by persuading them to just get a new phone instead.
The core issue is that Apple has restricted your ability to *choose* to pay less or go elsewhere --- without disclosure or consent.
It's not about margin. It's about parts availability.
Apple stores are few and far between, but Apple products are ubiquitous. Official Apple repairs have them ship the device across the country to repair shops, which takes a lot of time. And they don't do things like component-level repair (i.e. specific chips, resistors, and other board components). They just replace the entire board and charge you for the new one.
An independent repair shop doesn't have to compete on price. They can compete with fast turnaround, minimal travel, and component-level repairs. Or at least they could if they could get the parts.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTpHa70DDX0&t=200
[1] https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2023/10/26/apples-trademark-ex...
This is such a common comment in these kinds of threads: "I'm happy with the choice they've forced on me, therefore the force itself is desirable." Like being happy your prison cell has a nice view.
Doesn't mean Apple aren't -holes with repairs, but in my opinion the above software problem is worse.
And don't even get me started on cars tracking everything you do. In many cases you don't have a choice. I want a smartphone that doesn't lock me into all these ecosystems. I want a car that lets me turn off all tracking, bluetooth sensors to monitor my tire pressure, etc.
The reality is people are stupid. They couldn't manage using a computer safely so the industry gave them a phone and sold them on safety. The fact that something like 80% of people are getting their news on a phone and not a computer should tell people they are trapped in a bubble that controls what they see, know and think. What good is having a choice if you don't know you have a choice? They simply want consumers.
Source: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Early+2020+...
Most Windows laptop or Android phone do not have this hardwired coupling approach.
Look at ads: specs versus "life goals" enablement. This is not a hardware product or parts bin price.
If you pay $1,000 for a meal, you damn sure expect the restaurant to control the experience since the price isn't the cost of ingredients. And if you want to cook, that's great, but you're not getting to bring your own parsley, you hack together your own meal elsewhere.
. . .
Even if food became free, people would pay -- and pay well -- for the curated Michelin star experience.
So how to learn to think more about the diner's experience than the kitchen experience or the "right" to monkey with some other chef's prix fixe menu, to better build that kind of user appreciation for one's own product?
For sure, a Michelin star is hard to achieve.
I don't think too many people want the restaurant to have a say on what side they make to go with their leftovers from the previous day.
Sure, I want the restaurant to control the initial offer, and at this price I expect it to be amazing.
But I guarantee that at this price range, they will let me do what I want with my food.
I can bring my own bottle of ketchup and put it on it. They will look disgusted, but I can.
In fact, as a vegetarian, it's not rare I ask them to adapt their ENTIRE menu just for little me. And they do it.
So the comparison does not hold.
But I get your point, a lot of people do want Apple to tell them how they should use their device.
That's something that is hard to swallow when you like FOSS, but it's a reality.
A top notch restaurant does not keep or retain ownership of your stomach, bowels, or shit after eating at their restaurant.
Apple "sells" hardware in a completely fraudulent way, by retaining control as a rental or lease, but advertises it as a sale.
You can play whatever word games and bad analogies, and they're 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 Apple sycophants defend these egregious behaviors.
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.
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.
PKI specifically is an all-or-nothing scenario. This is all why Intel does the same with the ACM in all their CPUs. And AMD with their AGESA (which went closed a short while ago).
There is only a single scenario I can think of where there might be a 'have it both ways' situation, but it's just worse than we have now: you have to identify yourself as the owner, the company has to keep track of that, and you can only sign public keys for your own components. This, however, creates two problems:
1. A company keeping track of every user (no need to come up with a clever comment about "they are already nothing that")
2. Users can be coerced (has already been done with thefts and activation locks) and this weakens the ecosystem as a whole
At this point it doesn't even matter how intentional or not digitally signing components is, it is an effective security model and it works better than anything else.
Everyone loves complaining about everything they don't like, especially on the internet, but so far the amount of realistic and effective solutions are NONE.
This is BS. A security system where the user is not in control of the secret is not a security system but DRM almost by definition. And trading it out is not only an option, but likely the preferred outcome if you ask the majority of buyers.
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?
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? They don't want to hear about Apple DRMing iPhone repairs, end of story.
PKI is also not the only way to implement this.
> 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.
I’d bet if you ask the majority of buyers they wouldn’t know and wouldn’t care.
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 realistic and effective solutions are NONE.
I'm not sure this is true...I've travelled a fair bit, and my approach to managing theft of my belongings is to limit the value of what I carry. This both limits the incentive for criminals (a $30 Tracphone is much less interesting than a $1000 iPhone) and limits the damage/cost-to-recover in the case of theft.
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.
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 owner is Apple, and that's precisely what the article says.
The "security" here is protecting Apple's bottom line by ensuring you buy a new product for otherwise fixable damages.
Just because it's somehow more secure doesn't mean it's better for the consumer in any way.
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.
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)
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?
Give it a few years...
The Apple car will cost way more than the competition and only they will be allowed to repair it --- and their fans will love it --- because 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.
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.
I'm on your "side" on this in that I dislike closed ecosystems, spyware and not having control over my own devices. But I am not in tech and the vast majority of people I know don't care about this and likely never will, and every year that goes by without Apple remotely bricking their phone with no recourse only strengthens their apathy.
Trust doesn't have to be unqualified. You can accept that Apple's incentives don't align perfectly with yours while being comfortable that they align enough that Apple will provide you with the service you're looking for.
"The user controls the program or the program controls the user" is a false dichotomy to people who spend most of their time in the real world.
It is not a false dichotomy: Apple controls who gets to use iPhones and what they get to do on iPhones.
Can someone use an iPhone without an Apple account? If Apple were to lock or ban a user's Apple account, what could the user do about it?
Can someone run arbitrary software of their choice on an iPhone?
>> You can accept that Apple's incentives don't align perfectly with yours while being comfortable that they align enough that Apple will provide you with the service you're looking for.
Yes, but for how long and under what conditions? How willing are people to change when they are locked-in to the Apple ecosystem?
> Can someone run arbitrary software of their choice on an iPhone?
These are not restrictions that are likely to be relevant to the people I am talking about.
You will ask me how I know. The statement is forward looking so obviously I can't prove it, but I know people who have happily been using iPhones for 15+ years without ever giving a thought to these questions. (I know that because I've had this same conversation with some of them.)
In the meantime, these people can go where they want, do what they want, say what they want, etc etc. They are not, in any real sense, being controlled by the software on their iPhone.
If you live in the first world, pay your bills, are not a criminal and your phone usage is mostly limited to Instagram and WhatsApp, the likelihood of your Apple account being shut down without warning or recourse is very small. So for such people, the risk is too remote to dedicate much thought to.
You probably meant Apple devices in general? The iPhone is not yet 20 years old.
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.
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.
The reality is that most people are choosing to let Apple or Google control their mobile devices.
From what I have read, most free / libre smartphones are not ready for consumer use. Are there are any "good enough for grandma" libre smartphones?
Replace “most” with “all” and you’re closer to the truth.
Huge amounts of copium from anyone who thinks otherwise.
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.
This is just a copout pushed by Apple to justify obviously bad practices, and due to their reality distortion field, you guys eat it up.
Do you have a source? And which exactly competing android devices do you mean? Does the comparison factor in the popularity of the device?
By competing devices of course I am referring to other flagships which are of a similar price and feature set, like flagship Samsung phones etc.
You're so close to getting it.
London sadly has an ongoing problem with phone snatchers and pickpockets, so on two occasions I’ve seen them nick an Android. In the first case, they just chucked it on the floor a few metres further down the road. On the second, the guy loudly shouted “what the fuck is this shit?” as he cycled down the road and threw it into a canal.
(1) It gets shipped straight to Eastern Europe or China and broken down for parts which are resold back to unauthorised repair shops in the West as official Apple parts.
Or more commonly (2) they will try to socially engineer the owner into giving up their Apple credentials so that they can sign out the iPhone and wipe it. If that fails, go to (1).
When my brother’s partner had her iPhone nicked, they extracted her phone number off the SIM then started sending her messages linking to a phishing iCloud sign in page, saying something like “Your stolen device has been located, sign in here to recover it.”.
[1] https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/1...
After all, you could massively reduce burglaries too by allowing home security systems to have automated lethal turrets to shoot burglars, but that's considered way too far in terms of social cost by pretty much every place.
Whether you think the tradeoff is worth it or not is beside the point. I made no claim for or against the tradeoff, so you have nothing to disagree with there.
It's telling why they dont.
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.
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-...
Another easy example:
> In the UK in 2016, there were almost half a million mobile phones stolen [...] _most of them iPhones_
https://www.trustonic.com/opinion/smartphone-crime-turning-t...
> 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...
* 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
You don't really own it in any meaningful way. (wish I could find out what my apps are doing - what network connections they make, how often they start up and under what conditions)
And for the consumer choice, I don't see Apple making any advertising about how anti repair they are, strange. I doubt most phone owners know about the pairing issues.
There are other phones that consumers can choose that don’t have this pairing. But this pairing of parts is *not* one of the reasons people chose an iPhone because most buyers were oblivious to it since Apple never told them.
I find that difficult to believe.
You can definitely re-use or sell iPhone parts. Most of replacement parts shops have access to are not sold directly by Apple.
As mentioned in the article, some parts won't work and others will show warnings. And sometimes you can reprogram chips with small devices easily available from China, which essentially defeats Apple's hardware pairing.
I know four people it’s happened to in two years, all four of them women.
London has a non-zero problem with this too - someone tried to grab mine earlier this year but they missed (and apologised as they rode off!) (and I had it on a strap anyway.)
Only friend that got a phone or computer stolen that I know of.
> I've never had one stolen
> Have I just been very lucky?
No you’re not lucky. Your items aren’t worth stealing. Rarely does anyone steal android devices, or windows laptops the resale value isn’t there. Which should be obvious to the most casual observer.
I'm not sure if they're that picky.
I'd expect the HN crowd to be a bit smarter than Apple store looters though.
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.
That’s a perfect term for this. I would absolutely believe that Apple approached this from that exact anti-theft perspective but it sure is easy to see how such a feature might benefit their bottom line. It’s a matter of looking around and wondering where the inexpensive parts are.
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.
Maybe now I benefit from these Apple restrictions and annoyances, but I've been using expensive phones since before Apple started doing this and yet my phone was never stolen. I've cracked a few displays and killed a few batteries though.
What seems to help me is having some awareness of my surroundings. I live in a big city and every day I see people standing by the road waiting for a bus. Phones out, noise cancelling headphones, bikes passing right in from of them... I mean, it's not that hard for a snatcher to take their phone.
I’m happy that Apple isn’t just saying “meh, not our problem”, and it’s one reason I buy their stuff.
It’s your home, but you’re not even allowed to run a nuclear reactor in your garden.
It's not the house builder telling you what you can and can't do; these things are not the same.
The house builder is the app developer The gov/municipality is Apple
The gov/municipality tells you what you can and can't do. The builder would do it, if you take all the risks and acknowledge that your new building in your garden is not allowed by the gov/municipality.
There really is no difference
How did you ever get to this point? Did Apple infect you with some sort of mind virus?
An incredibly poor analogy for the subject of the article, at least that comment didn't take it to the level of "nuclear reactor"
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.
> Parts don't work as expected when swapped with the same working part from an identical, new iPhone
> The rate at which parts can cause breakdowns has been rising about 20 percent a year since 2016, when only one repair caused a problem
(seems like most commenters just read the headline)
The battery is simple to replace even on the newest phones. Sure there’s a warning about non apple part that will show up but eventually subside. And that is only if you don’t swap the BMS module from the original to the new one. Any reputable shop should know to do this and have the skills required to desolder and resolder 2 connections…
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.
I paid for the repair & learned to be more careful. Nobody died.
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...
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.
Apple advertised implicitly by consistently fulfilling the promise that if anything bad happens to your iPhone, in most cases an Apple Store can fix it.
Control is a part of this implicit model. This is not a model I myself like (I prefer the more freewheeling Android ecosystem); but I can appreciate why people respond well to it. To your average person who doesn't give a shit about unlocked bootloaders and just wants a way to regularly be in touch with their family and friends, the Apple model probably works better.
And control is money. Apple obviously makes more money by controlling and limiting the consumer's ability to repair the device.
Same for a single, apple-controlled store, the inability to actually install apps without a store, even deciding what browser engine should everyone use.
I want my phone to be locked down and curated. This isn't post-purchase rationalization. I have actively chosen the iPhone over and over and over since its introduction, because the alternative is so obviously inferior from a security, privacy, and application selection POV.
Obviously, I am making different choices than you are, but it's a weak argument to dismiss them as "rationalization" in a transparent effort to crown your preferred platform king.
Restricting repairs to your iPhone only affects you and Apple's profits --- and there was no disclosure or consent --- i.e. buyer's weren't told in advance.
Though since even "literally" nowadays often means "figuratively" instead, you might as well say this is what the word means now.
Nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone, billions do fine with the alternatives.
Apple does not have a dominant market position, an oligopoly or a monopoly and certainly is not illegally abusing any monopoly power.