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.