[ryandrake]

The line should be drawn by the owner of the device.

As the user and owner of the product, I should be the sole decider about my own security posture, not some company who doesn’t know my use case or needs.

It’s crazy how we’ve managed to normalize the manufacturer making these kinds of blanket decisions on our behalf.

[clickety_clack]

Yes it’s wild. Imagine if we decided that people can’t be relied on to install good locks for their doors, so we gave the government responsibility for locking and unlocking your door every time you wanted to leave your house.

A lid sensor is just so peripheral. Where do the vendor lock-ins end?

[kube-system]

Apple is a vendor, not a government.

A more accurate analogy, is like a lock installed on your door by a locksmith that uses proprietary parts available only through locksmiths. Which is exactly how a lot of locks work.

Proprietary technology exists in a lot of places, Apple didn't invent this.

[autoexec]

> Apple is a vendor, not a government.

Apple is worse than a government. They have more money and reach than many governments and unlike many government officials, the public doesn't have the power to vote the heads of apple out of office or vote for who they want as a replacement.

Apple didn't invent proprietary technology, but they leverage the shit out of it in consumer hostile ways just to take even more money from people.

[kube-system]

Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and they exercise it to compel their citizens to do things whether or not they want to. For example, I have to pay taxes, and if I don't, they will use force against me.

Your relationship with Apple is very different. If you don't like Apple, you can just simply not buy or use their products. You have a choice and they have no way of compelling you otherwise.

[ryandrake]

The inability to use force doesn't make corporate power any less powerful--it only makes it a different kind of power. Yes, BigTech cannot arrest me or throw me in jail, but that doesn't mean that they don't wield other kinds of enormous power over my day-to-day life.

And unlike my (technically democratically elected government), corporations do not have to answer to the people they exert their power over.

[kube-system]

I'm not trying to say that big tech doesn't have any sort of power at all that significant, of course they do. They certainly have a lot of control over information and how it shared. But I think that is unequivocally a lesser power than being able to imprison someone or put them to death. The fact that some small number of government officials are elected might be a rationale for that power, but it doesn't decrease it in any way.

[ryandrake]

Yea, that's a much better analogy. We don't want the lock vendor to decide how and when we lock our doors and how we fix them when they break. We don't want our stove vendor to decide what food we're allowed to cook, how many burners can be running at once, and what parts we use to repair it. We don't want our car manufacturer to decide where we can drive our car and who repairs it.

Yet, somehow, when it comes to technology products, we accept the manufacturer butting in to tell us how not to use them, and how not to repair them.

[kube-system]

My stove, my car, and my locks are all opinionated in their design and use proprietary parts. None of them were designed to my personal requirements. Many of the products that I buy do in fact, not work exactly how I want them to, nor do they facilitate my desire to change them.

I can't name a single product in my house that uses any sort of open hardware design, except for the things, I've 3D printed or built myself.

[clickety_clack]

A better analogue then would be that the developer who built your house insists on a specific type of lock.

There’s a whole repairability movement going on to maintain access to third party replacement parts for cars and appliances. This is a recent design choice that is being enforced by manufacturers. Historically, people have been able to repair everything they owned. Locking everything down is bad for consumers.

[kube-system]

Developers normally do pick the parts that come on a house when they build it.

I understand arguments for repairability, and in most cases, I agree with them. But these things aren't boolean situations where things are either repairable or they are not. There's a lot of nuance in how things are designed and how repairable they are as an inherent part of that design. Ultimately, I agree that artificial lock-in for no reason other than that lock-in is a bad thing for consumers. But not everything is really that simple.

> Historically, people have been able to repair everything they owned.

It all depends on how you define "able". Most people lack technical ability to repair most things for thousands of years. And most things that you own today you are permitted to repair to the best of your ability.

[Configure0251]

I quite like this analogy, I hope I can remember it for the appropriate moment.

[floatrock]

I dislike Apple's lock-in tactics, but I dislike gross fear-mongering exaggerations even more.

How'd we get to tyrannical government oversight from shitty corporate control? Sorry, I think I slipped on that slippery slope.

The better analogy would be "door lock vendor requires you to buy their door frame to make their door lock work with the security guarantees you chose to buy into."

Government should stay out of our private lives, but this kind of jumpy fear-mongering is what makes people lose focus, and when people are run by fear that's when the real psychopaths start taking advantage. Your fear mongering is creating the very government tyranny you're mongering about.

[jbs789]

You mean like a prison?

[tpmoney]

> As the user and owner of the product, I should be the sole decider about my own security posture, not some company who doesn’t know my use case or needs.

It's not so cut and dry though. The "user" and the "owner" of a product are not always the same person, but hardware security impacts the "user" more than the "owner".

[vlovich123]

How does Apple know the owner of the product has authorized the HW change?

There’s a secondary argument you could make here whereby because the replacements must be valid Apple parts that have uniform behavior and tolerances, the strength of the secondary market is stronger and Apple products have a stronger resale value as a result, because you’re not going to encounter a MacBook with an arbitrary part replaced that you as the second-hand buyer know nothing about (this is why the secondary market for cars doesn’t work without the ability to lookup the car history by VIN).

[userbinator]

Apple doesn't need to know. Once it's sold Apple is no longer the owner.

[kube-system]

And when Apple designed their products, they get to decide how to design it.

You can do whatever you want with your computer. But nobody has to design it the way you like it.

[aurareturn]

What happens when you indirectly cause the machine to fail by installing some shout 3rd party part? Are you still going to claim warranty? Walk into an Apple Store to ask for help?

[userbinator]

We have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty... to rely on.

[aurareturn]

Huh? Explain more.

[rcxdude]

Generally speaking companies are not liable for failures due to the customer's own modifications to the product.

[fastball]

What about a work computer? You're not the owner, but presumably you appreciate when can feel that your work computer is still secure.

[userbinator]

If it's owned by the company then I don't care what they do since that's no longer my responsibility.

[doubled112]

That car comparison doesn't work here. You can't be sure about the true history of a car, only what was reported.

When I replace a wheel bearing assembly in my driveway, you still can't see that by looking up my VIN. Nobody knows except myself and the person I bought the parts from.

Was it a dealer part? An OEM part? A poor quality replacement? Can't tell without looking.

This might actually support Apple's side of the argument, although I do not. I don't think we need some Carfax equivalent for MacBooks.

[chongli]

This might actually support Apple's side of the argument, although I do not. I don't think we need some Carfax equivalent for MacBooks.

In some ways, Apple's scheme is better than Carfax. In other ways, it's worse.

It's worse because you can't get access to the repair history of a device.

It's better because you can actually have a reasonable degree of confidence that no "driveway repairs" have taken place since Apple's scheme is not known to be broken.

[ryandrake]

I think we should stop using "driveway repairs" as a derogative term. There's nothing wrong with a car owner repairing their own car. Years ago, that was a very usual, normal thing to do. I replaced my own wheel bearings in my garage, and have been driving on them for 5 years. It's not that difficult, and doing it yourself doesn't make your car unsafe or defective.

Kind of scary how "repairing your own things yourself" has fallen so far out of fashion. We should be applauding and encouraging people to build these kind of skills, not insulting them.

[doubled112]

I would have thought most people here are doing much more complicated work all day.

All four bearings are part of an assembly that bolts in. 8 or 12 bolts depending on position. I'm lucky that I don't even need a press.

The wheel comes off (5 bolts), the brakes come off (2 bolts), the axle/hub bolt comes out (1 bolt), and then on the front there are four bolts holding the assembly to the car. On the rear, nothing holds it on except that hub bolt.

Use a torque wrench to get them to spec. The kits came with new bolts. The axle bolts go on tight tight.

[buzzerbetrayed]

This is my biggest complaint with the strict "my device, my rules" people.

I want Apple to lock down my device to customization, repairs, etc..

I know I am never going to install an app through means other than the app store, even if I could. I know I'm never going to repair my device through anyone other than Apple, even if I could. I want to know that my device will be a $1,000 paperweight to anyone who steals it.

I want to pay Apple to ensure there are no "driveway repairs".

A number of years ago I accidentally ended up with a second hand iPhone with a shitty "fake" screen repair. I had no way of knowing it wasn't an Apple screen. But it fucked me over as soon as it started failing a couple months after I bought it.

I get tired of the people demanding that a company, with willing, paying customers, isn't allowed to protect their customers because they want something the company doesn't offer. Fuck right off with that shit and buy from a company that does offer that.

[bluescrn]

Apple aren’t aiming to protect buyers of pre-owned devices.

If they could get away with it, they’d likely prevent resale entirely.

[bzzzt]

Why would they? Lots of people sell their old phone to pay for the latest model. Killing the resale value will decrease new sales.

[worthless-trash]

I feel your'e just mad because your expectations of buying a second hand phone were not met.

[vlovich123]

I had a similar experience myself paying for screen repair in SF and getting back a phone with a butchered display. Why wouldn’t you get mad for spending money and not having your expectations met?

[N19PEDL2]

It wouldn't be difficult for Apple to add a page in the device settings that shows whether the device contains any non-genuine components.

[amrocha]

Does your grandma decide her own “security posture”? Does she even know what that means?

[smaudet]

Your grandma is not the target of state level spy rings...

The noise made about security is absolutely ridiculous.

[swiftcoder]

She is however the target of pretty much every financial scam on the planet, many of which rely on convincing folks to hand over the keys to their (digital) castle...

[eviks]

Which financial scams involve such attacks, so is there a single scam that this measure would prevent?

[swiftcoder]

I'm not aware of any that this particular sensor would mitigate. I think the idea that security is only for people targeted by nation-states is not a realistic view of the modern world (and, moreover, if we decide that normal people don't need enhanced security measures, it becomes trivial to identify dissidents by the fact that they implement security measures).

[amrocha]

State hacking tech leaks to average hackers and scammers over time. Scammers today are using nation state tech from a decade ago.

[lupusreal]

My dude, an Indian is going to call your Apple-using grandmother and tell her that he works for "the Microsoft" and he needs her to give him all her banking details, or go to a bitcoin ATM, or buy a stack of $500 gift cards, and she's going to do it.

The sensor in her macbook lid does not matter! Get real.

[amrocha]

Who are you to decide what matters and what doesn’t?

If you were a journalist reporting on russia or the UAE it would certainly matter.

Not to mention that it’s not that hard to imagine an AI tool being paired with 24/7 surveillance that reports back private information it hears.

It’s also not hard to imagine your average hackers getting their hands on a tool like that after a couple years of governments deploying it.

[lupusreal]

You're wack. Do you think a locked down laptop lid sensor will stop them from spiking your tea with polonium, or shooting you with a ricin BB, or breaking into your home when you're asleep and jabbing a needle into your neck while holding a pillow over your face, or kidnapping you and breaking your bones with a sledge hammer until they've gotten their rocks off?

This laptop lid threat is fantasy. Get fucking real.

[deadfoxygrandpa]

both my grandmothers are dead

[amrocha]

What’s the point of this comment?

[defrost]

It answers the question you asked.

Another answer, mine, is that one grandmother flew bombers, jets, spitfires, etc. in WWII and ran a post war international logistics company after that. The other did "stuff" with math.

ie. Both capable of understanding a security posture.

How about your grannies?

You might want to ask well formed questions in future, on a site such as HN the set of all grandmothers is hardly homogeneous.

[jbs789]

You do get to decide (buy another product with a different value proposition).

[isaacremuant]

It's not that crazy when people seem to cheer for a nanny state at every turn. Specially if said nanny state bombards them with propaganda about all the dangers they'll face if they just don't "comply".

1984 references may have seen farfetched but after the suppression of rights using covid as an excuse people have little to no recourse to claim control back. Apple was always famous for their walled garden and tight control, but we have Google becoming like apple (can't install things in your device unless you go to them with your private details), ID to track your movements because "protect the children" (effectively blocking news even), chat control (very similar to installing a camera in your home and recording all your conversations).

Corps and governments are relying on each other to strengthen their control and it's not a surprise.