3 ms·
It doesn't need to send anything to Apple. A tech could read a log or CMOS bit or whatever at time of repair. Not saying they do that but the article seems pr
by jayd16 2y ago
It doesn't need to send anything to Apple. A tech could read a log or CMOS bit or whatever at time of repair. Not saying they do that but the article seems pretty pointless. It's like they wanted to talk about a neat feature and chose the most indigent way possible.
- azundo 2y agoAnd beyond that obvious path the author is only watching for activity while the port is not wet! Obviously it wouldn't phone home every time the port is dry. While I doubt apple is using this to void warranty claims this is about the weakest debunking of that I can imagine.
- raydiak 2y agoI think you meant "indignant". Besides that, I pretty much agree. Got pretty defensive about the only questioning comment on the post when I looked too. Harsh reaction to a fair point, and then contrary when somebody pointed out it was harsh. All the other comments got ordinary civility and thank yous. Checking one process for network traffic says absolutely nothing about the actual proliferation of that data, whether from a repair tech having physical access to read the log, or the data being written elsewhere besides the log, or another process receiving it either directly or via the log and uploading it. If you want to prove everyone wrong, at least actually prove it instead of pretending to and then accusing anyone of FUD who points out the holes in your logic and methodology. I don't even give a darn that it's Apple, not like there'd be any less dubiousness if it were Microsoft or Google. This reads like someone who has an emotional axe to grind, not actual research.
- jayd16 2y ago> I think you meant "indignant" Yes, please excuse the typo.