[ifixit] We Are Retroactively Dropping the iPhone’s Repairability Score::We need to have a serious chat about iPhone repairability. We judged the phones of yesteryear by how easy they were to take apart—screws, glues, how hard it was…

  • erranto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Almost everything apple does nowadays is a marketing front, repairability, privacy, not including chargers, accessories and removing the headphone jack for the sake of the environment, and more to come.

    • sploosh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Apple isn’t alone in not providing chargers. My S23 Ultra didn’t have one in the box.

      • Imotali@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        But your S23 Ultra also uses the most common cable type for a charger. That isn’t proprietary. That you likely already have a good several of.

        • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago
          1. If by “charger” you mean the brick that plugs into the wall, which I hope you do because it’s the only thing that Apple omits from the box, then Apple also uses that same cable type (USB type C). It’s only the other end of the cable that is proprietary. And the cable itself is included with the phone.

          2. All of this is moot for the iPhone 15 pro and non-pro which are fully USB type C.

          • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Wait… Wait, what? The new apple type-c cable has a proprietary end to it?

            What the actual fuck? It’s not just the standard USB-A? WHY?

    • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think it’s a bit dishonest to imply this is the only reason they do things.

      Privacy? I’d like to think that’s more than a marketing front considering how much data is actually worth.

      Otherwise I totally agree with you

      • r_se_random@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Actually, the whole Privacy part is one of the biggest gimmicks Apple has ever pulled.

        Sure, it doesn’t allow Meta and Google to not allow data collection, but research indicates Apple continues to collect the same amount of data. In the long run, I’m sure that Apple would also use this data to serve ads in their own way, just that they’ll call it “iAds”, and fanboys would cream their pants

        • kaba0@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Bullshit - what “research”? Apple is in no way comparable to goddamn Google and Facebook here. Their ad sector is pretty much “display my app in the AppStore search if they search for similar things” and things like that, that only uses the actual search term, and very basic stuff about the user. They can make relatively much money on that, because they artificially own the whole “Apple market”, so they don’t have any competition there. They don’t fingerprint you across the whole internet, that’s for sure.

      • erranto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s why I used “Almost”

        Privacy wise, Apple marketed its move as preventing apps from tracking you, when in reality what it did was make the Unique advertising id they have Made themselves Available to Apps Null if you opt out of tracking. It is like removing the harm they put in place by themselves .

        (+) it doesn’t prevent app tracking as it can be done using other means and unique identifiers. They have lied about the scope and potency of this measure. while average Joe doesn’t care to verify their claims.

        • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m gonna need some source for that last point, but I concede on what you’re saying for the first bit. When you say Privacy instead of “the advertising id debacle” it’s a bit confusing as privacy is a very large category and covers many other topics which they did not create but do protect against if we’re going to be fair and unbiased in our criticism.

        • kaba0@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s as much a “harm they put in place themselves” as website cookies are - these are technical artifacts that were maliciously used. It is just not arguing in good faith to claim they made it for tracking purposes - it’s like basic software development practice to create some unique IDs, and it has plenty useful roles.