[thundermuffin]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I'm reading it as saying if I can show I bought it at one point in time, then nothing else should matter, and they should unlock it for me. But I believe I must be missing something, because that proof of purchase doesn't necessarily prove it's my laptop after it's been locked by someone else's iCloud account.

For instance, I've given family my old laptops, and they setup their accounts after they take ownership of the device. The way I interpret your comment with regards to my scenario is that Apple should disregard the fact it is locked to their iCloud account and unlock it for me, because I can prove I was the original purchaser - even if they accidentally left it at my home or I steal it from their home.

Is that what you meant, that if I can give Apple a receipt then I am the de facto owner no matter what? Or am I just way off base?

[swagempire]

Just don't buy Apple and avoid this nonsense

[oneeyedpigeon]

Because of this one extreme case that will almost certainly never affect you, that you can easily work around, you should abandon all the other benefits of 'buying Apple'?

[swagempire]

He can't work around it -- that seems to be the problem.

[oneeyedpigeon]

This specific person can't, after the event, no. But you're advising people reading this thread to avoid Apple in future.

[swagempire]

I suppose if I was a big influencer like John Dvorak -- you'd have a point. But I have 38 points on Hacker News. You might be the only person listening to me :p

[oneeyedpigeon]

Well, I already bought and gave up on my Macbook, so I'm a lost cause ;)

[cobertos]

But doesn't Apple explicitly disavow secondary sales?

No way would they unlock a device like this for your relative. It's odd that they won't unlock it even for the original owner. In what cases do they even plan to unlock these devices?

[exitb]

> But doesn't Apple explicitly disavow secondary sales?

On the contrary, they even have a page explaining how to prepare the device for ownership transfer: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201065

[kaba0]

> But doesn't Apple explicitly disavow secondary sales?

How would or could they? Apple devices have the biggest second-hand market.

[cobertos]

They can't prevent it, but they can certainly disavow it. By explicitly saying they don't support it or by making it harder to sell to the next person like region-locked or console-locked media.

I guess I'm surprised they don't! As the other commenter points out they have a page dedicated to this. I conflated their stance on secondary sales with their hardware and software self-service hostility.

[ddingus]

Doing that is illegal in the US.

Right of first sale applies here.

[ddingus]

They can't really do that in the US at least. Right of first sale doctrine applies.

[RulerOf]

> Is that what you meant, that if I can give Apple a receipt then I am the de facto owner no matter what? Or am I just way off base?

That's currently how it works. Except for OP of course.

I personally think that a better tactic would be to create a separate device that is paired to the machine, comes in the box, and can bypass activation lock. This would layer nicely on top of the existing system without forcing rigorous document management and an appeal to an opaque system of power to exercise true ownership over your own computer.

[makeitdouble]

In short, yes, that's probably the right approach, unless another person comes to Apple to prove they legally are the new owners (I'd imagine Apple contacting the registered adress, and requiring proof if there is a response)

For more background on this, the fact that you actually have the laptop in your possession is the key point:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of...

[thundermuffin]

In my unqualified opinion, I would think having an iCloud account tied to the device that the person in possession of said device doesn't own shows "clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary [of them being the rightful/current owner]". Although, I can see how others might argue it proves nothing; in the end, neither side is probably 100% correct in all of the scenarios, and it's all up to interpretation.

All I know for sure is I can say I'm glad I'm not a lawyer!

[makeitdouble]

I'm also fully unqualified, but short of the person that authentified the device coming up and detailing how they're the current owner, I still think a person with physical and proof of purchase should be prioritized.

If for instance the device had been sold to a different owner, that owner should have the receipt and be contactable (they have the email address and probably other info). And if the owner declared theft, we're out of Apple's field and it should be an official claim.

I see the passing down to a family member situation in the same light: if it was an informal transaction, the official owner is a still the same, and getting back the device unbricked and wiped out shouldn't be an ethical connundrum.

The thing that gives me the most pause is that Apple keeping a hard line on refusing to unbrick the device means they get an additional purchase from someone who's already heavily invested in the ecosystem. From their POV, bricking more devices has no counter incentives.

[starbugs]

My problem with this is that Apple somehow got into the position of being the deciding entity of what is mine and what is not.

If you sell your devices, create a receipt. This way the legitimate owner can prove that they own the device now.

It's that simple.