I mean it without a doubt is security its just at the cost of freedom. The users are paying apple to handle the security side instead of doing it themselves.
I ain't buying a device I can't get root on. But I don't expect others to do the same especially when we live in such a hostile time. There is malicious software everywhere.
The real answer to your question is that the vast majority of people don’t have the time, inclination or skills to manage it themselves.
The techy answer is that unless you are writing or reviewing every line of the firmware/OS yourself, and also securing them with certificates you’ve self signed with hardware/software that you’ve already reviewed or written yourself, you’re still trusting something to a third party.
Also your statement here is pretty backwards to me:
This is sold as security, but security means nothing if only one party controls the locks.
You may not trust Apple or whomever, but a lock with only one key holder is definitely more secure than a lock with many. Maybe just the wrong metaphor?
Ultimately, I think the real point is that Apple is a commercial entity driven by a profit motive, so will act in its own interest to that end. It never stated that iPhone was a device where you could roll your own secure boot or change firmware or whatever - it sold a mass market product to mass market consumers who largely don’t care about any of this stuff. In this regard at least, Apple’s secure boot is more secure than nothing.
I do, however, agree that you can’t necessarily trust this particular gatekeeper, so buyer beware.
this just a business as is always be, the main goal of IOS api to force user to obtain latest phone to have all "just working" and they just trying to calm ECO fanatics or they are same) use android google pixel, fairphone they are long supported and self repairing is welcome
It worth mentioning the environment benefits of the Opencore project that allows this. It keeps older Intel Macs secure, extending their useful life as well as do it yourself hackentoshes. Obviously Apple would prefer you buy new models every few years but for high end Intel Macs it's a good tradeoff till Linux supports them better.
Hell, Chinese retailers would send me a notification about this $17 iPad to refund me $0.30 because the price dropped. They need to get with the times. Nobody even uses pads other than Twitter addicts, babies, and old people.
You're correct, but only in certain circumstances. This has changed recently.
From the article, it isn't Apple that is asking for the money. It's the retailer. You just won't be able to shop at their store anymore.
And I'm not aware of any laws related to preventing a company to refuse service for any reason (other than protected classes in America.) (And yes, I know this is outside of the US, so please correct me if you know of a specific one in the EU.)
That would be incredibly illegal.
There was a legitimate sale, without any breach of ToS. And while it is up to Apple to decide who can and can't use their ecosystem (although given their size, I strongly believe that regulations need to be made to avoid replatforming people), rendering not just a device but potentially multiple devices of a number of users over a few hundred dollars mistake would open Apple up to a lawsuit that would be in the thousands for most partakers - as most people only buy iPads as a late addition to their Apple ecosystem, meaning Apple just locked them out of their legitimate phones, laptops, watches, TVs, etc.
Not to mention that this was a third party retailer, who can't just willy-nilly block Apple accounts...
They could close those accounts and bar people from using their system in an attempt to strong arm them.
Honestly, not a strong penalty for a $17 iPad. But there are no real legal consequences.
I'm fairly certain that that only applies to standard pricing, not discounts and promotions that run for a limited time.
That's an ill-thought out law. Bigger companies can run at cost or reduced profit and still out compete smaller companies due to economies of scale and diversified income streams.
What does a grocery store do with food that’s got to go and isn’t selling? I like the idea of dismantling the megacorp strategy, but I can’t help thinking it would lead to a lot of unnecessary waste as companies just throw things out instead of trying to recoup a small fraction of their investment.
In Belgium the sale would be invalid because a company is not allowed to sell at loss. This is an anti-competitive measure to protect amall business from corpos
Same in the EU and most non-EU European countries.
If a sale is valid and the transaction is complete (aka both payment has been made in a non-reversible manner AND the product has been handed over), then the store cannot compel the buyer to return the product or pay more for it.
They can, however, ask for it, legally speaking. There's no law preventing the request itself, but the request has no legal standing meaning you don't have to comply with it. It's about as enforceable as someone randomly knocking on your door and asking for money.
In the us i believe there is well established law that once you complete a buy-sell transaction then it is permanent, unless there was something illegal about the sale such as if the item sold had previously been stolen
In this economy?
No.
Mistakes were made.
The company should eat the loss.
It is great PR, shows that they stand behind their advertised prices, and builds excitement future marketing campaigns.
plz :(
-Mediaworld
Export all iCloud data, generate local backups for all of your iOS devices, cancel iCloud subscription, and most importantly, tell Apple why you canceled via their public social media channels.
Meh. Nothing stopping us from printing zines like we did in the 90s. It would actually be a lot easier nowadays.
Consider that you only had access in the first place due to these products and whether we're any worse off than we were prior to 2005
