While I'm not disagreeing that this should be possible to (easily) factory reset a device, it also shouldn't be possible for just _anyone_ with physical access to completely reset the device either. Easy resets also mean more interesting to steal
Why, though? Physical access to the hardware should prevent you from accessing existing files (encryption at rest) but should not prevent you from resetting/reusing the device.
Does your fridge come with FridgeID? Or a book? Introducing such mechanisms is really hostile to users, especially poorer users of second-hand hardware who have to go through extra (shady) hoops to get a device running just because some rich Silicon Valley start-uppers thought locking hardware down was a feature.
I think the argument that locking down hardware is unfair to thieves is not likely to garner a lot of support. But the larger argument that it's unfair to users should. The majority of whom didn't know they were signing up for a machine that is so theft-proof they can't give it to a grandparent or donate it to a school. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that easily-bricked hardware leads to more sales for Apple (and I hope I don't need to wipe my Mini any time soon...)
> I think the argument that locking down hardware is unfair to thieves
That was not my point. Most times, users of a stolen device are unaware and not complicit in the fact it was stolen in the first place. They usually have acquired it from legitimate second-hand markets.
Who is going to walk a away with my fridge?
How about my car? Many users appreciate having anti-theft protections on their easy to physically-access devices, and very few need to wipe of the owner's account.
It's great that you have a niche use case, but that doesn't make your case the priority over the main use cases.
People would steal your wallet, your jewelry... There's a lot more value to be extracted from a stolen credit card than from a "smart" phone.
> It's great that you have a niche use case, but that doesn't make your case the priority over the main use cases.
You're taking it the other way around. The common use case for first-world software developers is the niche use case for the rest of the world. In the rest of the world (i.e. the vast majority), who can't afford buying new luxury devices, people are more concerned with getting locked out after forgetting their password (or after their kids changed it) or about acquiring a second-hand device, than about "protecting" their device from thieves.
Because this "protection" doesn't protect anything. Once your iPhone is stolen, it's gone. No iCloud lock is going to bring it back, so why prevent other, less-privileged folks from using it when you can't use it? That type of "mine or noone else's" capitalist mentality is actively harming users and destroying the environment
Think of it as a 'fuck you' to the thief and whoever might get the brick.
Maybe you get that, otherwise you can be bitter all you want about the inequality and how stealing will resolve that.
More practically, I want to remove the financial incentive from stealing my phone. I want a thief to see it and think "why bother, I can't get anything for it".
From what i can see, it does not seem to work. Here in western Europe in the big cities many people buy locked phones second hand and the vendor explicitly says you have to get it unlocked, which is a service provided by many phone shops (somewhat under the table).
These locked iPhones sold for 50-200€ are acquired by users who will turn to their tech friends/neighbors to get it unlocked. When these tell them they can't help with that (no package in Debian for that yet), they end up spending 20-50€ in a shop to get it unlocked anyway, financing a very shady market.
Quote from the article that sparked the discussion:
> To do this, they phish the phone’s original owners, or scam employees at Apple Stores, which have the ability to override iCloud locks. Thieves, coders, and hackers participate in an underground industry designed to remove a user’s iCloud account from a phone so that they can then be resold.
At the end of the day, if the thief doesn't get the phone unlocked themselves, they will sell the phone for half (or less) the price they would have sold it unlocked, but they're still making a buck.
You make the argument against locking devices (which I agree with) for reasons related to that not deterring theft - which has a point.
Thieves will not profile a person using a premium locked phone against stealing it because it might not be worth it. They don't care about that. They will take whatever they can if only for practicing their skills.
Locking phones does not deter theft but unlocking them will offset the price of unlocking from the phone-shop to the thief increasing the profitability of theft.
I personally don't care about Apple, their phones, their M1's and their ecosystem. But acting out your premise leads to a place I don't like. And others as well. And if you think you can buy a cheaper premium phone if it is unlocked, ask yourself why thieves would continue to sell you cheaper if they know they give you a usable device?
> Once your iPhone is stolen, it's gone. No iCloud lock is going to bring it back, so why prevent other, less-privileged folks from using it when you can't use it?
Because I would like to inflict damage back. Stealing from me cause damage. I do not believe thieves should get a free pass on causing me damages just because they are less privileged.
Ideally, a small amount of C4 and a "remote explode" taking a few fingers off the thief would be a proper deterrent, as well as a good use of Sharia law.
> For Apple, there is a different set of axioms and some people seem to agree with them.
I don't think this is true for all Apple products though, or at least that was not the case in the past. To my knowledge, setting up a free OS on a second-hand Macbook has never been a problem.
However, you are correct Apple is trying to impose new axioms with the iPhones: unique app market (taking controversial posture, such as forbidding alternative browser engines), iCloud lock, non-interoperable hardware (eg. power socket)...
we used to say there's no security if you have physical access... any measure to protect physical access vulnerabilities is bound to cause annoyances and limit freedom of what you can do with your own devices sooner or later
This was a response to a comment about a potential feature as described:
"Why does the recovery not just have a button called factory reset which unlinks your apple account, deletes the volume and then sets it all up like new."
So yes, it currently does not work like that. But such a feature would allow Macbooks to be easily stolen and reused by others.
Yep, just like it does on iPhones - where Apple has a button for this and it’s really easy. I’m sure a lot more iPhones get stolen than laptops every year, and I doubt the factory reset button behind its password prompt makes that any worse.
The weird thing is that when my partner turned in an old Mac mini to Apple for recycling they wouldn’t do it because her account was still on there and there was a system password.
But we couldn’t figure out what they were talking about, we had reinstalled the OS. It’s embeded in there somewhere deep.
What's wrong with using stolen hardware? I mean we could argue stealing is wrong, in which case we'd have to take a look at why people are stealing and from whom (partitioning of wealth) so we can find solutions.
If we're not looking at the root of the problem, then we're just complicating legitimate use cases. Preventing theft is only the official argument, but it doesn't stand any form of scrutiny: as long as there's inequality (i.e. incentives to expropriate people who have too much, to serve people who have too little) there will be theft.
The truth behind iCloud lock is Apple has been involved in mafia-style dealings with national mobile phone operators (which involved promises/contracts to sell millions of units), inundating the market with operator-sponsored iPhones, and they really don't want a second-hand market at all because they are a luxury brand.
Most victims of crime are also socially disadvantaged, so enough with the Robin Hood crap. Theft is also strongly associated with violence, intimidation and mental stress on the victims. Promoting or justifying crimes in your comments here is reckless and irresponsible.
If someone wants to sell a device second hand it's pretty easy to voluntarily wipe your device. Apple devices have very long lives, receive software updates for much longer than competing devices and keep their second hand value very well and so make excellent and very economical second hand devices. Contrary to your claims of Apple not wanting a second hand market, they support the device wiping process and even have a trade in program that channels refurbished iPhones to 3rd world countries.
If you really do care about the environment and supply chain ethics, you'll also be happy to know Apple get the highest score of any of the big tech companies from Greenpeace. In fact the only tech company at all that beats them is Fairphone, but since they get only 2 years of updates I think Greenpeace doesn't sufficiently take into account device longevity.
> Most victims of crime are also socially disadvantaged
True in most cases, but not when it comes to owning a recent iPhone. Millions of people struggle for eating decently, and most of these folks are certainly not spending >500€ on a phone.
What may not have been clear in my original comment is most users who have a stolen device don't have knowledge of it, and are not complicit in it. So why do they have to be the ones paying the price?
> If someone wants to sell a device second hand it's pretty easy to voluntarily wipe your device.
In my experience, it's not uncommon that neighbors seek support because a relative offered them their old phone willingly but are far away and unable to remember their password over the phone. Sometimes, it's a phone/account they had not used in years. I've encountered this situation at least twice in the past year, and i'm not even working in a computer/phone shop.
> Fairphone, but since they get only 2 years of updates I think Greenpeace doesn't sufficiently take into account device longevity
Fairphone only supports updates for 2 years, but there's a growing ecosystems of distros targeting the Fairphones (LineageOS, /e/, PostmarketOS), while Apple have been condemned for pushing updates that made iPhones slower (to encourage them buying new ones).
> So why do they have to be the ones paying the price?
What price?
The original price of the device? Because we all do.
Or the price of having to buy a different machine than the $200 MacBook from the shady person online which came without the original box, warranty or charger? For the same reason, and also because they're stupid.
The price of having to pay a shady black market of "icloud unlocker" (usually through legit phone stores) to unlock of phone they have already paid for in good faith.
> the $200 MacBook from the shady person online
It's not just an online thing, and the person doesn't have to be shady (they're usually just a middleperson who have little clue). You can find questionable hardware in most open markets and second-hand shops.
> without the original box, warranty or charger?
Most second-hand hardware i purchase from legit sources comes with at least two of those missing (when not three) out of three.
> also because they're stupid.
I agree it's stupid to purchase a device you have no idea how to access/use/unlock. But i strongly disagree that good-faith people, who genuinely paid for an Apple device (after being advertised into thinking they need one), should suffer because of a lack of judgement on their part.
There’s no way to slice out crime against owners of a ‘recent iPhone’ as being acceptable, crime doesn’t work like that. There’s no way you can know when buying a stolen phone who it was taken from but disproportionately they come form people who can least afford to lose them.
There are over a billion iOS devices active right now, are all of those people rich exploiters who deserve to have their phones stolen? What your saying isn’t anti-capitalist, it’s advocating disproportionate oppression of the most vulnerable in society and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
How dare you come here, advocate crime and criticise owners of devices with the highest recyclability, lowest ecological impact and longest device lifetimes in the industry on moral grounds.
I’m sure your perfectly aware of what the purpose of those software updates were, to extend device lifetimes when batteries start to fail, but you’re perfectly prepared to betray your ecological ideals which should be in favour of this in order to score points. It’s absolutely disgraceful. These arguments might work against people unaware of the facts, but you’re not going to get away with this disingenuous claptrap here.
Why downvote? Please argue with facts. Although i understand defending vendor lock-in, ecological damage, and forced sales is a hard sell... All the more when trying to protect from criticism a corporation making billions on the backs of exploited children in mines & factories.
> The truth behind iCloud lock is Apple has been involved in mafia-style dealings with national mobile phone operators (which involved promises/contracts to sell millions of units), inundating the market with operator-sponsored iPhones, and they really don't want a second-hand market at all because they are a luxury brand.
- forcing the operator to buy a minimum amount of devices over 3 years
- preventing the operator from defining target prices
- forcing the operator to give funds to a marketing agency affiliated to Apple
- forcing the operator to finance the marketing of iPhones in store, mandating a minimal marketing budget
- enabling Apple to use the trademarks of the operator, but not the other way around
- imposes strict conditions for device orders, but lifts any responsibility on Apple's side
- forces the operator to financially support device repairs
- gives Apple the right to break said contract, without respecting legal delays
- enables Apple to use patents from the operator
Some of this was covered on public television by "Cash Investigation", so that was quite a public outcry. But this is only for France, and i'm assuming such mafia-like practices are common in other countries, as they are common in different branches of industry (not just IT, where well-known example include Microsoft and Intel).
About the consequences for the environment and (lack of) recycling of electronic waste:
About Apple not wanting a second hand market, i obviously meant a second hand market they do not control. They do have certified programs for second hard hardware. Sorry if that was not clear.
I hope i've provided enough evidence of the facts i was presenting. Please let me know if that's not the case.
See, you keep saying "second-hand market" when you're really referring to stolen devices.
For legitimate second-hand sales, Apple even has a page on their website to explain how to check for activation lock before buying a phone, and how to disable it before it's sold or given away: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201365
So just stop with your crap. You believe you're some kind of Robinhood or whatever, and want to be able to steal shit without consequence. Guess what, the vast majority of people don't want their shit stolen and are happy that Apple makes your "job" harder.
> See, you keep saying "second-hand market" when you're really referring to stolen devices.
No, i'm refering to the actual second-hand market, eg. second-hand stores and open markets, where a lot of less-privileged folks do their shopping anyway. In there, stolen hardware represents a tiny minority of the tons of devices, but it's still a reality.
Even hardware donated in good faith is sometimes locked. Sometimes, it's possible to find the original owner and have them unlock their device. Sometimes, this person who gave away an old phone to a local association, a "ressourcerie" or sold it for a very low price to a second-hand shop cannot be found again.
Sometimes, you find them but they have forgotten the code to a device they haven't used in years. When it's not an iPhone (think laptop), we just setup a new OS and the device is good to go for another few years. When it's an iPhone, we're left with a brick.
> So just stop with your crap. (...) Apple makes your "job" harder.
This kind of personal attack is not okay. You are assuming things that are entirely untrue based on my political opinions ("property is theft"). I do not sell anything, and i certainly do not steal iPhones, whether for money or for fun. i am a free-software person and i have avoided apple for years because of the reasons we are discussing in this thread. No economic incentives in it for me, i'm just criticizing Apple for being user-hostile, in a way that particularly affect the poorest people who rely on second-hand devices because they can't afford brand new ones.
Like iPhones, new Macs are linked to an account and you can’t activate a new installation without access to the account. This is a pretty strong theft deterrent.
Of course this only works if you need access to the account to break this link.
I strongly disagree with your opinion. For economic reason, i'm using (and supporting many users from my neighborhood of) second-hand hardware. Some systems like Apple's make our life incredibly difficult and most times people will just have to pay a shady phone store to have the device they purchased unlocked, adding 20-30€ to the bill.
It's important to note that most people are incredibly gullible when it comes to technology, and they won't hesitate to buy a second-hand iPhone (whether stolen or not) for a few bucks assuming they'll be able to use it, because that's what a phone does, only to find themselves trapped in iCloud lock.
Locking devices does not protect users (contrary to encrypting the local storage), and does not deter anyone from stealing. It simply adds one layer of mafia to deal with (iCloud unlock shady companies) when you're just trying to find a second-hand phone.
"Similar to New York City, San Francisco also provides evidence that mobile device theft prevention technologies work. In 2009, Apple smartphones constituted the vast majority (69%) of smartphones stolen in San Francisco robberies; in the six months after Apple made Activation Lock available, iPhone robberies in San Francisco declined 38%."
This statement appears to be false, which I guess is the entire point.
People absolutely should be able to sell a device second hand, so perhaps re-authentication should be easier and more obvious, but making stolen equipment harder to sell is a net win.
You are not making any sense by saying it does not deter anyone from stealing. Sooner or later everyone will know that buying stolen Apple hardware is meaningless, and without a market to sell into, thiefs will be less interested in stealing it.
Anecdotally in a certain Chrome version somewhere in the past years I've noticed something like this. The first 2 characters in my omnibox caused a terrible slowdown. So likely the history used for autocomplete kept growing or there was no sane index on the data.
Clearing my history fixed it to be _instantly_ again (even with history of a few days) and it took a few weeks to be very slow again.
So yes, I'd say its very likely that some of our assumptions might be false around such matters :)
luckily this was fixed sometime, but unfortunately this seems to coincide with autocomplete of Chrome not showing literally anything anymore.
All browsers seem to slow down with an old profile.
I suspect it's because all the unit and regression tests are run with fresh profiles, and nobody tests performance with a crufty 10 year old profile thats been through a lot of file format migrations, with highly fragmented indexes etc.
Yeah this is likely. Not sure about other browsers but I haven't noticed any of such issues myself anymore. And hey, if it ain't broke...
It would be a nice for browsermakers to implement such a testsuite tho, but until then its just too easy to just clear data. Average user has all data synced to their respective cloud accounts anyway or don't care enough.
I got quite upset when three years of browser history were wiped out by an update. A Firefox update, of all things! I still can't find the setting to restore the old behaviour.
I just checked (in Firefox) my history panel, sorted by date...
Today, Yesterday, Last 7 days, This Month, a named month for the prior 5, and Older than 6 months.
And some of the randomly sampled stuff in that giant last category is quite old.
If the slowdown is sufficiently bad and it's happening on Windows then you can always record an ETW trace (https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9025467) and share it with me. My DMs are open: https://twitter.com/brucedawson0xb
I've resolved a few Chrome performance issues due to strangers on the internet sharing ETW traces with me, and analyzing those traces is actually my day job.
Sorry for the late response. This was on Windows yes but it must've been fixed by now as I very rarely reset profiles and haven't experienced this since.
I'll keep your offer in the back of my head tho, thanks!
A couple of years ago I used to run a qemu Linux-host/Windows-guest with PCI pass-through for GPU/SSD/etc.
I could either boot the Windows install directly from the SSD, or I could boot Linux and then run the same install in qemu, without issue.
I think there used to be more problems if you changed the hardware too much from the original install. Like, if you changed your motherboard (which the above would do of course), then you couldn't run the same install. But I don't think that's as much of a problem anymore?
This was of course not an external SSD, so I don't know how that changes things, if at all.
Cool! I used to run a similar setup, when I started out I passed through the hardware. But when things were running smoothly I never booted back into windows natively (Wasn't planning on this use-case).
Nice to hear that it is possible. I feel like MS essentially gave everyone the wrong idea about OSes dealing with hardware changes.
