3 ms·

I guess the question is: do these measures actually reduce phones getting stolen in a significant manner? If the answer is yes, then, are phones getting stolen

I guess the question is: do these measures actually reduce phones getting stolen in a significant manner? If the answer is yes, then, are phones getting stolen more of a problem than phones breaking? We know for sure that phones definitely get broken, that their batteries stop working after a while and need to be replaced and that newer software makes them slow. These are all extremely common issues that, in a world that's fighting against rabid consumerism that is leading to climate change... we need to address. It's not as though theft protection is good, but imo, it's not good if it means getting in the way of more sustainable ownership.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Right... I agree. I think Apple could do a better job - but I think the pro-repair side is way, way too ready to just say "evil corporation bad and greedy" instead of asking what legitimate reasons might be behind an action, even if one doesn't agree with the action. For example, the Face ID lockout: Imagine if one could just pipe an AI-generated map of your face, straight into the Face ID port, to unlock your phone using a fake sensor - or, have a fake modified sensor record your facial data for later use. Lockout? I don't necessarily agree, but I get it, whereas nobody on the "right to repair" even tries to figure out reasoning like this. It's easy to strawman "evil corporation," but addressing the real reasons why Apple would do something like this, and finding a reasonable compromise, is much harder. Unfortunately, as long as they keep ignoring Apple's actual argument and reasons, I doubt they will make any headroom legislatively and they will actually be partly to blame for that. Radicals, most of the time, don't win. If they came up with a compromise that kept anti-theft while improving repairability, that may win. Edit: For example, this sentence: "Steve Jobs didn’t want people to be able to get inside his devices saying that they’ll just “screw things up”. When viewed from this lens, it’s easy to see how Apple might justify serialization and restrictions on repair. It’s all done in order to bring us, the ignorant and incompetent masses, the perfect smartphone-cum-fashion statement." No. It's not, at least not nearly to the degree as that. Stop doing that - or accept that any failure to gain legislative wins is partially self-inflicted.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  > For example, the Face ID lockout: Imagine if one could just pipe an AI-generated map of your face, straight into the Face ID port, to unlock your phone using a fake sensor - or, have a fake modified sensor record your facial data for later use. It doesn't even have to be intentionally malicious. Imagine a fake Touch ID sensor, for example, which outputs the same data every time any finger touches it. This would be much easier and less expensive to implement than an actual fingerprint sensor; it'd be a promising way for a savvy counterfeiter to save money producing replacement parts. Along similar lines, some counterfeit screens for iPhones used a touchscreen controller from a much older model of iPhone than the replacement screen was made for. This worked -- more or less -- until an iOS update removed the drivers for that TSC, under the assumption that the phones receiving that update were all too new to contain that part...
tpmoney 4y ago
>I guess the question is: do these measures actually reduce phones getting stolen in a significant manner? We can probably guess with good confidence that the answer to this is yes. Otherwise we'd expect to still be seeing news stories and bombastic "pressure" from attorney generals on Apple like we did ~2013 when iphone thefts were big headlines, like this one: [1]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/apple-picking-stolen-iphones_n_2818488 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/apple-picking-stolen-iphones_...

gjsman-1000 4y ago

Right... I agree. I think Apple could do a better job - but I think the pro-repair side is way, way too ready to just say "evil corporation bad and greedy" instead of asking what legitimate reasons might be behind an action, even if one doesn't agree with the action. For example, the Face ID lockout: Imagine if one could just pipe an AI-generated map of your face, straight into the Face ID port, to unlock your phone using a fake sensor - or, have a fake modified sensor record your facial data for later use. Lockout? I don't necessarily agree, but I get it, whereas nobody on the "right to repair" even tries to figure out reasoning like this. It's easy to strawman "evil corporation," but addressing the real reasons why Apple would do something like this, and finding a reasonable compromise, is much harder. Unfortunately, as long as they keep ignoring Apple's actual argument and reasons, I doubt they will make any headroom legislatively and they will actually be partly to blame for that. Radicals, most of the time, don't win. If they came up with a compromise that kept anti-theft while improving repairability, that may win. Edit: For example, this sentence: "Steve Jobs didn’t want people to be able to get inside his devices saying that they’ll just “screw things up”. When viewed from this lens, it’s easy to see how Apple might justify serialization and restrictions on repair. It’s all done in order to bring us, the ignorant and incompetent masses, the perfect smartphone-cum-fashion statement." No. It's not, at least not nearly to the degree as that. Stop doing that - or accept that any failure to gain legislative wins is partially self-inflicted.

duskwuff 4y ago
> For example, the Face ID lockout: Imagine if one could just pipe an AI-generated map of your face, straight into the Face ID port, to unlock your phone using a fake sensor - or, have a fake modified sensor record your facial data for later use. It doesn't even have to be intentionally malicious. Imagine a fake Touch ID sensor, for example, which outputs the same data every time any finger touches it. This would be much easier and less expensive to implement than an actual fingerprint sensor; it'd be a promising way for a savvy counterfeiter to save money producing replacement parts. Along similar lines, some counterfeit screens for iPhones used a touchscreen controller from a much older model of iPhone than the replacement screen was made for. This worked -- more or less -- until an iOS update removed the drivers for that TSC, under the assumption that the phones receiving that update were all too new to contain that part...

tpmoney 4y ago

>I guess the question is: do these measures actually reduce phones getting stolen in a significant manner? We can probably guess with good confidence that the answer to this is yes. Otherwise we'd expect to still be seeing news stories and bombastic "pressure" from attorney generals on Apple like we did ~2013 when iphone thefts were big headlines, like this one: [1]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/apple-picking-stolen-iphones_n_2818488 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/apple-picking-stolen-iphones_...