- berty@feddit.orgEnglish3 days
So technically they could restrict every device then even if you bought it.
3 daysYeah, but of course they are not going to do that on MY device, so its obviously ok.
Interesting they are saying this outloud…its almost like they are trying a strategy of determinism.
They can go F themselves, they need to be reminded of what happens to when authority tries conformity
They produced it…offering their product as a solution to the conformity being imposed. They are now. who they warned us against
- 4am@lemmy.zipEnglish2 days
“Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain” really aught to apply to corporations more than people.
With the leadership at the helm, new ideals, new financial goals - it’s inevitable.
- jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish2 days
If you want to be a non-conformist, you need to dress just like us, and talk just like us, and listen to the same music we listen to…
- dreamkeeper@literature.cafeEnglish2 days
What happens is that consumers roll over and take it. Especially considering if apple is doing it, it’s only a matter of time before Android does as well and that eliminates all viable choices for non-techie people
- 3 days
Uuuh yeah just like with any proprietary device or software in the world with a network connection and an auto update feature. That shouldnt be news to anyone.
Its the shift of tone that bothers me, for years it was ‘we would never infringe’ we all suspected they may. Suddenly they are not only saying they will do it, they are even telling us its a service we should pay for. The amount of people on board with this scares me.
- ryper@lemmy.caEnglish2 days
The article is a week old. Apple has since announced a leasing program and told The Verge this isn’t for that. They didn’t say what it is for though.
- T156@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
This seems like it would be a sizable target for ransomware. Why include an encryption program if you can have the OS do it?
All the ransomware needs to do is make iOS think it’s a payment provider managing the device.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish2 days
I’m assuming American carriers demanded feature parity with Android where they install system apps that do exactly this.
Doubt it would fly in the US.
They are probably expecting a recession and people to mess up their credit but keep the phone.
- anon_8675309@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
They expect it to be a big enough issue to assign development resources to it.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
Perfectly fair, yet I’m expecting people in here will dislike it.
I think the discrepancy here is if leasing devices at which I is agree fair.
What I take umbridge with is the way ownership is being removed, for something that we know can be produced plentifully. And the push to give everything as a service or lease.
As a sociaty We are allowing tiered privileges.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
Ownership isn’t being removed though, because you don’t own it when you’re leasing it. You can still just buy one if you want to, but leasing can be a good option.
I think you will find that systems of ownership and being reduced or removed and systems of leasing or renting are being pushed. So its becoming less of an option…surprising to the benefit of the rich…not the user paying
Faff around with the language and message all you like, but rent/lease/asa a service etc are all being touted against a ‘option’ at a time where we are seeing destruction of ownership. This is not good for the average person and I am always surprised by the amount of people who are happy to take this or bootlick on the matter.
- PurpleFanatic@quokk.auEnglish3 days
Plus we’ve had contract phones for decades without the manufacturer putting yet more dead switches in our devices… Do we really want more of this shit?
The irony is no one even calls me anymore. I miss when it was a nokia and only used to speak to someone on the go.
- jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish2 days
Now I just use my phone to look at cat pics on Lemmy.
I used to get laid regularly when I talked on a Nokia.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
What do you think happened if you didn’t pay your monthly phone contract payment?
I paid for the line…not the phone. I always buy second hand handsets.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Read the comment I replied to mate. Specifically talking about contracts that include phone repayments.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
Buying is not any less of an option. They’re just adding other non-ownership options.
- 3 days
Agreed, but I don’t see anything to suggest that the leased phones are getting a special edition of iOS 27 that has the locks. I think what they’re saying is that every iPhone running iOS 27 will have the locks, and they will be able to be triggered by third parties. That is worrying.
If you own the device outright, it should not have kill switches. I absolutely understand the point of them on the leased phone. They should not be on the phone that is paid for outright.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
I would assume they will have added a new set of settings or an app for lease providers that gives them the ability to perform these actions on registered phones.
There’s no reason to assume that just any old third party will be able to brick your phone that you bought outright, any more than there already was - which there wasn’t.
It’s just straight up fear mongering. It’s like saying that a work issued and managed laptop being able to be wiped remotely if lost means everyone should be scared that their personally bought laptops can be remotely wiped by anyone at any time.
- anon_8675309@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
We’ve seen how big tech bends the knee to Trump. What if he told Apple to disable every iPhone due to some made up bullshit state of emergency. This affects everyone’s iPhone not just the leased ones.
- gian @lemmy.grys.itEnglish2 days
Which is something they already can do, just push an update and they are done. And after they simply go out of the market: nobody will buy their phone anymore.
But this is something different, here we are talking about something that is not different than reposessing a car if you don’t pay the loan you used to buy it.
- anon_8675309@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
I don’t want my car manufacturer sending an update to disable my push to start either. My car is paid off it’s mine, I should not have that on my car.
- gian @lemmy.grys.itEnglish2 days
Here we are talking about things not completely paid off. If you use a loan to buy something (a car, a phone, a house, whatever) until you paid off all the loan the thing is not yours.
If you don’t pay your car loan, they can reposses it, if you don’t pay your phone loan they block it, if you don’t pay your data plan they close it. I don’t see anything strange here.
- anon_8675309@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Every phone is going to get the code that does this - paid off or not.
- gian @lemmy.grys.itEnglish2 days
I think to remember to have read something about the possibility for a car manufacturer to remotely disable the car if requested or defaulted, something like once you park the car and turn off the engine it will not start again so no security problem, but I cannot pinpoing when/where i read it or if it ever went beyond the stage of an idea.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish23 hours
If requested by who? That would actually be a fantastic security feature for owners to be able to do if their car is stolen.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Ah so it’s just “orange man bad” in a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with trump 🙄
Seems like you don’t realize that workplaces already have the ability to remotely lock/wipe their employees phones and devices. This is just a way for lease providers to do so as well.
- anon_8675309@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
The potential for misuse is absolutely on topic. I merely gave one example. There are many.
- AeronMelon@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
The difference is, this is a boot built into every single vehicle, leased or sold, that can be remotely activated at any time and we have to trust the mega corp not to abuse the power.
- ndondo@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish2 days
I’m usually very pro consumer but I’m less bothered by this one because apple has 0 incentive to abuse that power. People would riot. Although thinking about it a government demanding its use could be a concern too…
- jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish2 days
A government could use it.
It could be very targeted (not enough to cause a riot but enough to silence the right people.)
It’s also a nice exploit for the bad guys, like ransomware gangs, Israeli “security” companies, etc.
- 2 days
They don’t need to do it. It’s the possibility of doing it what is already wrong. What happens if pedohitler decides that he needs to shutdown the phones for some bullshit reason before the midterms? You think apple won’t bow and do as daddy trump says?
This is a major concern because it’s written in the OS directly. It’s not just something they install in your phone if it’s a lease meaning that even if your phone is not leased, they can do it.
