238
iOS 27 code suggests Apple could restrict leased devices after missed payments (9to5mac.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -27 points 2 months ago (29 children)

Perfectly fair, yet I’m expecting people in here will dislike it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    What do you think happened if you didn’t pay your monthly phone contract payment?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Buying is not any less of an option. They’re just adding other non-ownership options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (16 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    When has that happened?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    If requested by who? That would actually be a fantastic security feature for owners to be able to do if their car is stolen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    If requested by who?

    IIRC by the seller, if you did not pay the montly check for your loan they were able to disable the car and then recollect it

    That would actually be a fantastic security feature for owners to be able to do if their car is stolen.

    Yep, it was a fantastic security feature for the owners but also a way to disable the car if you do not pay the loan.

    In some way yes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    That’s perfectly fair imo. If you aren’t making your payments you are violating your contract and they are well within their rights to disable the car.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Orange man IS bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    And has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •