sipos

So, that approach is great unless you are unlucky enough to have had to claim more than average. You are faced with a very difficult company that most other people are unwilling to accept is difficult that is treating you like a criminal.

It is the smart thing for companies to do and, what Google should do but, not what is best for consumers IMHO.

The pictures do not support your claim. It looks just like you'd expect a phone to look that has been used for a little while but never dropped with a screen that is coming unglued.

Their support for Google Apps for Work seems passable and, their support for in warranty Nexus devices (which may well be handled by a third party, I don't know) has been decent for the three warranty replacements I've had over the years.

> First google is no apple. Don't expect that level of service. They simply don't care.

Apple has an appalling history of denying problems with their devices when they know about them and making life hard for people who get third party repairs. I think Apple are probably great while your device is in warranty but, out of it, they seem to be actively making it hard for you to keep using it wherever they can get away with it.

I think you are right to expect this - they have a long history of dropping support for things that were huge.

If you have never been impressed by anything they have done though you have pretty high standards. You can be impressed and still not want to use it but, it is hard to imagine someone not finding anything they have done impressive.

Thought out security?

Apple seems to be on some sort of mission to tie everything to your fingerprint, something that people have demonstrated is easy to fake if you have an image of the fingerprint. There was a massive issue about the FBI getting access to that iPhone but, when they tried to do it themselves (instead of getting Apple to give them a really easy way to do it that they could use in future, which was their initial goal) it was easy for them to do.

Apple is not doing a good job with security. They are doing a good job with PR, including convincing people that don't think about it too closely they are doing a good job with security. Look at it more.closely and you can only conclude that they don't actually care about security, just the perception of it.

I think they are produced on wafers with other things so, presumably a third party is collecting together a load of stuff and having it made together.

Seems reasonable to me. The core idea is relevant, even if it is about something much less serious.

How valuable are the designs to most military parts though? If I am a government looking to buy cruise missiles (for example), do I really care if lots of people have the design? What I care about is whether a company will sell to me, how much it will cost to get the number I want made, whether they can continue to support them and, continue to produce them at the rate I want.

Sure, there are some technologies that I want to not be leaked to allies where significant parts of how they work aren't public knowledge (stealth material/coating composition maybe?) but, it is only those that I would actually care about being secret, if I was a government/military buying hardware. If it isn't hard to figure out, I'd rather it was easy to access the knowledge so my engineers/technicians can get access.

BAE Systems are a significant weapons manufacturer. Sorting security 'problems' like the one you are describing isn't that expensive so, if it was bothering their clients, you'd think they would do it. It is more plausible that they just don't care that the this information is so easy to access because it is easier either for them or their clients.

SWIFT is a very widely used (global) system, used by many many institutions. I imagine keeping the details of how it works secret is basically impossible.