[hilux]

> If you send your computer/phone to Apple for repair you may get back different physical hardware.

I happen to be in the midst of a repair with Apple right now. And for me, the idea that they might replace my aging phone with a newer unit, is a big plus. As I think it would be for almost everyone. Aside from the occasional sticker, I don't have any custom hardware mods to my phone or laptop, and nor do 99.99% of people.

Can Apple please every single tech nerd 100% of the time? No. Those people should stick to Linux, so that they can have a terrible usability experience ALL the time, but feel more "in control," or something.

[linguae]

Why not both? Why can’t we have a good usability experience AND control? In fact, we used to have that via the Mac hardware and software of the 1990s and 2000s, as well as NeXT’s software and hardware.

There was a time when Apple’s hardware was user-serviceable; I fondly remember my 2006 MacBook, with easily-upgradable RAM and storage. I also remember a time when Mac OS X didn’t have notarization and when the App Store didn’t exist. I would gladly use a patched version of Snow Leopard or even Tiger running on my Framework 13 if this were an option and if a modern web browser were available.

[nextos]

NeXT was great and Mac OS X was also nice and had a lovely indie and boutique app ecosystem during the mid-to-late 2000s. Sadly, iOS stole the focus. However, the OP argues Linux usability is bad, which I think is an outdated POV. It really depends on your setup and usecases. For many development usecases, Linux is superior to macOS.

I run NixOS on a plain X11 environment with a browser, an editor and a terminal. It's really boring. For my favorite development stacks, everything works. Flakes make workflow easy to reproduce, and it's also easy to make dramatic setup changes at OS level thanks to declarativeness and immutability.

[hilux]

If you're interacting with other humans, or with the consumer internet, you'll run into thousands of situations where my default setup (macOS, Chrome) "just works," and your setup will require some extra effort.

You may be smart enough to figure it out, but most people (even many smart tech people) get tired of these constant battles.

Here's an example from earlier this evening: I was buying a plane ticket from Japan Air Lines. Chrome automagically translates their website from Japanese to English. Other browsers, e.g. Firefox, and even Safari, do not - I checked. Is there a workaround or a fix? I'm sure you could find one, given time and effort. But who wants to constantly deal with these hassles?

Another very common example is communication apps. Or any time you're exchanging data in some proprietary format. Would it be great if no one used proprietary formats? Yes! Is that the world we live in? No. Can I force the rest of the world to adopt open standards, by refusing to communicate with them? No.

[tap-snap-or-nap]

The world has moved on from desktop environments to multi-device integration like Watch, Phone, AirTags, Speakers, TV and in that way Linux usability is certainly worse than MacOS.

[ddingus]

Oh sort of. That is for sure a thing, but not THE thing.

I would argue people are being tugged in that direction more than it being simply better.

You can bet when people start to get to work building things --all sorts of things, not just software, they find out pretty quickly just how important a simple desktop running on a general purpose computer really is!

[makeitdouble]

It could help to compare to other makers for a minute: if you need to repair your Surface Pro, you can easily remove the SSD from the tray, send your machine and stick it back when it comes repaired (new or not)

And most laptops at this point have removable/exchangeable storage. Except for Apple.

[traceroute66]

> remove the SSD from the tray, send your machine and stick it back when it comes repaired

Apple has full-disk encryption backed by the secure enclave so its not by-passable.

Sure their standard question-set asks you for your password when you submit it for repair.

But you don't have to give it to them. They will happily repair your machine without it because they can boot their hardware-test suite off an external device.

[makeitdouble]

I get your point, but we can also agree "send us your data, we can't access it anyway, right ?" is a completely different proposition from physically removing the data.

In particular if a flaw was to be revealed on the secure enclave or encryption, it would be too late to act on it after the machines have been sent in for years.

To be clear, I'm reacting on the "Apple is privacy focused" part. I wouldn't care if they snoop my bank statements on disk, but as a system I see them as behind what other players are doing in the market.

[traceroute66]

> if a flaw was ...

I hear the point you're making and I respect the angle, its fair-enough, but ...

The trouble with venturing into what-if territory is the same applies to you...

What if the disk you took out was subjected to an evil-maid attack ?

What if the crypto implementation used on the disk you took out was poor ?

What if someone had infiltrated your OS already and been quietly exfiltrating your data over the years ?

The trouble with IT security is you have you trust someone and something because even with open-source, you're never going to sit and read the code (of the program AND its dependency tree), and even with open-hardware you still need to trust all those parts you bought that were made in China unless you're planning to open your own chip-fab and motherboard plant ?

Its the same with Let's Encrypt certs, every man and his dog are happy to use them these days. But there's still a lot of underlying trust going on there, no ?

So all things considered, if you did a risk-assessment, being able to trust Apple ? Most people would say that's a reasonable assumption ?

[nkmskdmfodf]

> even with open-source, you're never going to sit and read the code (of the program AND its dependency tree)

You don't have to. The fact that it's possible for you to do so, and the fact that there are many other people in the open source community able to do so and share their findings, already makes it much more trust-worthy than any closed apple product.

[ddingus]

THIS!

Back when I was new to all of this, the idea of people evaluating their computing environment seemed crazy!

Who does that?

Almost nobody by percentage, but making sure any of us CAN is where the real value is.

[stephenr]

Jia Tan has entered the chat.

[talldayo]

> What if the disk you took out was subjected to an evil-maid attack ?

Well, have fun with my encrypted data. Then I get my laptop back, and it's either a) running the unmodified, signed and encrypted system I set before or b) obviously tampered with to a comical degree.

> What if the crypto implementation used on the disk you took out was poor ?

I feel like that is 100x more likely to be a concern when you can't control disc cryptography in any meaningful way. The same question applies to literally all encryption schemes ever made, and if feds blow a zero day to crack my laptop that's a victory through attrition in anyone's book.

> What if someone had infiltrated your OS already and been quietly exfiltrating your data over the years ?

What if aliens did it?

Openness is a response to a desire for accountability, not perfect security (because that's foolish to assume from anyone, Apple or otherwise). People promote Linux and BSD-like models not because they cherry-pick every exploit like Microsoft and Apple does but because deliberate backdoors must accept that they are being submit to a hostile environment. Small patches will be scrutinized line-by-line - large patches will be delayed until they are tested and verified by maintainers. Maybe my trust is misplaced in the maintainers, but no serious exploit developer is foolish enough to assume they'll never be found. They are publishing themselves to the world, irrevocably.

[mixmastamyk]

What if the disk could be removed, put inside a thunderbolt enclosure, and worked on another machine while waiting for the other? That's what I did with my Framework.

Framework has demonstrated in more than one way that Apple's soldered/glued-in hardware strategy is not necessary.

[nkmskdmfodf]

> Apple has full-disk encryption backed by the secure enclave so its not by-passable.

Any claims about security of apple hardware or software are meaningless. If you actually need a secure device, apple is not an option.

[brailsafe]

> Any claims about security of apple hardware or software are meaningless. If you actually need a secure device, apple is not an option.

I don't think this is precise, but the constraints seem a bit vague to me. What do you consider to be in the list of secure devices?

[worthless-trash]

I'm not even here to troll, if you can give details on the list and why that'd be awesome

[ddingus]

Seconded

[m4rtink]

Using fully open hardware and software I guess ?

[okasaki]

So why the hell do they ask for it then.

[traceroute66]

> So why the hell do they ask for it then.

I suppose so they can do a boot test post-repair or something like that. I have only used their repair process like twice in my life and both times I've just automatically said "no" and didn't bother asking the question. :)

With Apple FDE, you get nowhere without the password. The boot process doesn't pass go. Which catches people out when they reboot a headless Mac, the password comes before, not after boot even if the GUI experience makes you feel otherwise.

[gorgoiler]

The counterpoint is wiping the device and restoring from local backups when it is returned.

[makeitdouble]

You need to trust the erasure system, which is software. This also requires you to have write access to the disk whatever the issues are, otherwise your trust is left in the encryption and nobody having the key.

That's good enough for most consumers, but a lot more sensitive for enterprises IMHO. It usually gets a pass by having the contractual relation with the repair shop cover the risks, but I know some roles that don't get macbooks for that reason alone.

[serf]

>And for me, the idea that they might replace my aging phone with a newer unit, is a big plus. As I think it would be for almost everyone.

except that isn't generally how factory repairs are handled.

I don't know about Apple specifically, but other groups (Samsung, Microsoft, Lenovo) will happily swap your unit with a factory refurbished or warranty-repaired unit as long as it was sufficiently qualified before hand -- so the 'replaced with a newer unit' concept might be fantasy.

[onepointsixC]

What makes you think it would be a new one as opposed to a refurbished used one.

[Cthulhu_]

If the parts show no signs of wear and tear, what is the difference? Theseus' iPhone.

[schmidtleonard]

I've seen a few Rossman streams with officially "refurbished" macbooks that were absolutely foul inside. Boards that looked like they had been left on a preheater over lunch, rubber wedges to "cure" a cracked joint, all sorts of awful shit. The leaked stories from the sweatshop that did the work were 100% consistent with the awful quality.

Admittedly this was a few years ago. Has apple mended their ways or are they still on the "used car salesman" grindset?

[sgerenser]

Are these Apple refurbished, or bought from a third party like Best Buy or Amazon? I’ve bought plenty of Apple refurbished products (directly from Apple) over the years and they always look like new (including 100% battery health).

Third parties and resellers though I’m convinced just call their returns/open box units that appear to be in decent condition “refurbished.”

[michaelt]

The problem is no-fault-found returns.

You have a phone with a real, but subtle fault. Something not caught by the normal set of tests. You return it for repair, get sent a new one, they replace the battery in your old one and put into stock as 'reconditioned'.

My phone is perfect, save for a worn out battery. I send it in for battery replacement, they send me yours. Now I've swapped my perfect phone for your faulty phone - and paid $70 to do so.

[umbra07]

It makes me uncomfortable. No particular rational reason, I just don't like it.

[ddingus]

Thanks. That is fair. Your truth, and I respect that.

[hilux]

> What makes you think it would be a new one

Did I say it would be a "new one"?

[serf]

Yes, unless this was edited later on.

> 'might replace my aging phone with a newer unit, '

unless you just want to argue about the semantics and differences between 'aging', 'newer' , and 'new'.

[hilux]

You think the difference between "newer than ... aging phone" and "NEW" is "semantics"???

HN really has turned into reddit.

[robotresearcher]

Reddit-style pedantry time!

Semantics is literally the meaning of things. So, yes the difference between those phrases is semantics.

But your use of 'semantics' meant something subtly different. Ain't language weird?

[reaperducer]

What makes you think it would be a new one as opposed to a refurbished used one.

Because Apple got sued for doing that once, and people including myself are in line to get checks from it.

[bimguy]

It would depend on a countries consumer laws. I used to work for AASP's in Australia and they definitely used refurished phones for replacements and refurished parts for the Mac repairs. Not everyone who uses this site lives in America...

[TheNorthman]

It's also the rule in the EU.

[nkmskdmfodf]

> And for me, the idea that they might replace my aging phone with a newer unit, is a big plus.

It's called a warranty and not at all exclusive to apple whatsoever?

> Those people should stick to Linux, so that they can have a terrible usability experience ALL the time, but feel more "in control," or something.

Maybe you should stick to reading and not commenting, if this is the best you can do.