- Last Active
ericthehalfbee said: we now have people fabricating stories how this will make it hard for people to buy "safe" iPhones.
More than one current Apple user has wondered aloud why a useful tool was removed and they're not all "haters", but it doesn't make buying used iPhones all that much harder if you know what the current proper procedure should be. So yeah, I totally agree with that part. My post to the OP was meant as a reminder that it wasn't just buyers who might be inconvenienced, not to invite a personal vendetta. If my assumption that the Activation Lock status tool was known and used by many is off-base then no big deal. Opinions are very often wrong. And very often right.
My guess is either Apple will comment on why or offer a different solution in short order. It's removal got noticed right away so it's obviously used (or was).
My haters comment is directed at the general response to this on multiple forums, not just here or to specific individuals. It's a tool that was MARGINALLY useful, yet the removal of it is making people act like it's the only way people can check an iOS device. The most common comments I've seen everywhere are: "Apple just trying to force people to buy only new iPhones to line their pockets" or "Now how am I supposed to see if a device is safe to buy" or "The resale value of used iPhones just plummeted since we can no longer check them". All lies. This will have next to no impact.
- People who buy & sell in person (a large number do this) will continue to rely on existing methods to keep them safe (bill of sale, turning off Find My iPhone, meeting in public place or police station, actual physical inspection of the device, swapping drivers licenses/ID).
- People who buy & sell online from reputable companies (like Gazelle) aren't affected by this. You won't buy a device that's locked or blacklisted and if you send in one locked to try and sell they'll refuse it).
- People who buy & sell online from individuals or unknown companies have no protection regardless if this tool is available or not. It does nothing to help them avoid being scammed.
About the only use I can see for this is to check an IMEI of a phone before you meet someone in person to make sure you don't waste your time going to look at a locked iPhone. And what benefit would there be to a seller to trick you into a fake meeting to sell something that didn't match what they said?
Johan.G said:rogifan_new said:Johan.G said:This move makes sense, since you can no longer wipe an iDevice without logging out of Find My iPhone first.
New credo is "if it's not wiped, don't buy it".
Hold the device, confirm it's wiped, try to activate it … either you can or you'll see the activation lock.
I can't really think of a way to get duped when buying in person (as opposed to online).
No it's not common knowledge. Complete and utter BS. I've literally bought and sold dozens of iPhones and iPads. And I never knew this tool existed until today. The typical scenario goes like this:
- Arrange to meet the person in a public place (THIS is common knowledge).
- Examine the phone for proper operation (insert SIM and make calls and check if data access works).
- Examine phone for scratches and condition.
- Check if Find My iPhone is off, or better yet have seller turn it off proving they know the password.
- Check the bill of sale the seller should have. Or proof that they've paid out their carrier contract and the phone is clear.
- Reset/erase phone once you've both agreed on final price.
The reason I know this is common is not just from my own experience but from looking at others ads to see what going prices are and what their terms are. People always add the same "notes" to their ads. Things like: "will not ship iPhone, only local buyers in person" or "have original packaging and receipt".
Heres 3 random ads I clicked on Craigslist in my area:
iPhone 7 Rose Gold 128 GB
Locked to Rogers/Fido/Chatr
ID can be shown so buy in Confidence.
Factory Unlocked Matte Black iPhone 7 128gb
Can provide proof of purchase
Iphone 6splus plus
Rose gold colour
Factory Unlocked to all carriers worldwide.
Very good condition. Please see pictures.
Have original bill.
No shipping or PayPal. Only cash.
Only an idiot would buy an iPhone online sight unseen. How do you even know if the IMEI they give you is real? It could be for a "good" phone, but they ship you a different phone. Further, there's a popular scam where a person gets a free phone on contract, sells it and never makes payments. Carrier blocks the IMEI after a few months of missed payments and you're stuck with a brick.
IMEI checks are useless since they don't protect you against any of the common scams. You need a bill of sale to prove the seller is the owner of the phone and you need them to turn off Find My iPhone. That's the only way to be sure the phone is safe to buy.
MplsP said:One of the reasons I tend to stay away from Google is because of privacy/data collection concerns; If Apple can improve Siri while maintaining privacy it would be great
Apple does have stronger user-facing privacy protections compared to Google, no question. Still neither one is bad when viewed alongside other data aggregators, and both companies are aggressively protective of any user data they've been entrusted with.
Google uses it in RAPPOR. Which makes sense. If I live in a certain city and start typing a search term in Google, then Google offers suggestions applicable to my city. But this is a fraction of Googles data collection.
I haven't been able to find anything about Google using differential privacy anywhere else. And I don't think their primary business activity (targeted advertising) would even be compatible with differential privacy. The whole point of targeted advertising is that Google knows who you are so it can match ads specifically to you. Differential privacy is the opposite of this.
People have been doing studies on differential privacy and targeted advertising, and it appears possible, but not at a level of granularity Google would like. So I doubt we'll see them using it anywhere else.
saltyzip said:MnMark said:A secure version of Android. That's funny!
Read this to educate ones self:
We are educated. Which is why we know Android is a joke for security. You linking an article without context doesn't change that.
First off, those aren't "Android phones" that a normal person might buy, like an LG or Samsung. They run highly modified versions of Android but are stripped of much of what normal users associate with Android or any smartphone. They then install their own custom software to replicate functionality that we get from "stock" Apps. They are completely and 100% locked down. The only reason they use Android is because it's a free OS with the source code provided for you to allow you to customize it how you like.
Calling these phones Android phones would be like calling the Presidents limo a "Chevy" just because the base platform happens to be a Cadillac.
Android that the general public gets with the phones they buy are a joke compared to iOS, and will never match the security of iOS.
ericthehalfbee said:williamh said:boltsfan17 said:cali said:If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:
hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
If Apple is developing a similar product to be used on the street and in public I think that's the PR problem that needs to be solved.
Because Apple isn't an advertising company. Google is.
Snap Spectacles are now being worn by a lot of people and I don't see them getting any derogatory nicknames or people threatening violence against them. Why do you think Google Glass was derided and Snap Spectacles aren't?
Google makes its living on advertising. This requires them to suck up huge amounts of data on people and their habits in order to support their advertising business (basically their entire business). Google has been in the news numerous times for shady practices regarding collection of data.
Apple makes its money on hardware, not on your data. And they are staunch supporters of user privacy and security and have been involved in high profile cases where they stood their ground (like the San Bernadino case). Apple has been promoting themselves as a company that values user privacy for many years, often taking swipes at Google in the process.
Apple won't have nearly the same issues Google had if they introduce something like Glass. They will announce it with an emphasis on privacy and they'll have their company history on their side to back up the talk.