I think the discrepancy here is if leasing devices at which I is agree fair.
What I take umbridge with is the way ownership is being removed, for something that we know can be produced plentifully. And the push to give everything as a service or lease.
Ownership isn’t being removed though, because you don’t own it when you’re leasing it. You can still just buy one if you want to, but leasing can be a good option.
I think you will find that systems of ownership and being reduced or removed and systems of leasing or renting are being pushed. So its becoming less of an option…surprising to the benefit of the rich…not the user paying
Faff around with the language and message all you like, but rent/lease/asa a service etc are all being touted against a ‘option’ at a time where we are seeing destruction of ownership. This is not good for the average person and I am always surprised by the amount of people who are happy to take this or bootlick on the matter.
Plus we’ve had contract phones for decades without the manufacturer putting yet more dead switches in our devices… Do we really want more of this shit?
Agreed, but I don’t see anything to suggest that the leased phones are getting a special edition of iOS 27 that has the locks. I think what they’re saying is that every iPhone running iOS 27 will have the locks, and they will be able to be triggered by third parties. That is worrying.
If you own the device outright, it should not have kill switches. I absolutely understand the point of them on the leased phone. They should not be on the phone that is paid for outright.
I would assume they will have added a new set of settings or an app for lease providers that gives them the ability to perform these actions on registered phones.
There’s no reason to assume that just any old third party will be able to brick your phone that you bought outright, any more than there already was - which there wasn’t.
It’s just straight up fear mongering. It’s like saying that a work issued and managed laptop being able to be wiped remotely if lost means everyone should be scared that their personally bought laptops can be remotely wiped by anyone at any time.
We’ve seen how big tech bends the knee to Trump. What if he told Apple to disable every iPhone due to some made up bullshit state of emergency. This affects everyone’s iPhone not just the leased ones.
Which is something they already can do, just push an update and they are done. And after they simply go out of the market: nobody will buy their phone anymore.
But this is something different, here we are talking about something that is not different than reposessing a car if you don’t pay the loan you used to buy it.
Here we are talking about things not completely paid off. If you use a loan to buy something (a car, a phone, a house, whatever) until you paid off all the loan the thing is not yours.
If you don’t pay your car loan, they can reposses it, if you don’t pay your phone loan they block it, if you don’t pay your data plan they close it. I don’t see anything strange here.
I think to remember to have read something about the possibility for a car manufacturer to remotely disable the car if requested or defaulted, something like once you park the car and turn off the engine it will not start again so no security problem, but I cannot pinpoing when/where i read it or if it ever went beyond the stage of an idea.
Ah so it’s just “orange man bad” in a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with trump 🙄
Seems like you don’t realize that workplaces already have the ability to remotely lock/wipe their employees phones and devices. This is just a way for lease providers to do so as well.
Perfectly fair, yet I’m expecting people in here will dislike it.
I think the discrepancy here is if leasing devices at which I is agree fair.
What I take umbridge with is the way ownership is being removed, for something that we know can be produced plentifully. And the push to give everything as a service or lease.
As a sociaty We are allowing tiered privileges.
Ownership isn’t being removed though, because you don’t own it when you’re leasing it. You can still just buy one if you want to, but leasing can be a good option.
I think you will find that systems of ownership and being reduced or removed and systems of leasing or renting are being pushed. So its becoming less of an option…surprising to the benefit of the rich…not the user paying
Faff around with the language and message all you like, but rent/lease/asa a service etc are all being touted against a ‘option’ at a time where we are seeing destruction of ownership. This is not good for the average person and I am always surprised by the amount of people who are happy to take this or bootlick on the matter.
Plus we’ve had contract phones for decades without the manufacturer putting yet more dead switches in our devices… Do we really want more of this shit?
The irony is no one even calls me anymore. I miss when it was a nokia and only used to speak to someone on the go.
Now I just use my phone to look at cat pics on Lemmy.
I used to get laid regularly when I talked on a Nokia.
What do you think happened if you didn’t pay your monthly phone contract payment?
I paid for the line…not the phone. I always buy second hand handsets.
Read the comment I replied to mate. Specifically talking about contracts that include phone repayments.
Buying is not any less of an option. They’re just adding other non-ownership options.
Agreed, but I don’t see anything to suggest that the leased phones are getting a special edition of iOS 27 that has the locks. I think what they’re saying is that every iPhone running iOS 27 will have the locks, and they will be able to be triggered by third parties. That is worrying.
If you own the device outright, it should not have kill switches. I absolutely understand the point of them on the leased phone. They should not be on the phone that is paid for outright.
I would assume they will have added a new set of settings or an app for lease providers that gives them the ability to perform these actions on registered phones.
There’s no reason to assume that just any old third party will be able to brick your phone that you bought outright, any more than there already was - which there wasn’t.
It’s just straight up fear mongering. It’s like saying that a work issued and managed laptop being able to be wiped remotely if lost means everyone should be scared that their personally bought laptops can be remotely wiped by anyone at any time.
We’ve seen how big tech bends the knee to Trump. What if he told Apple to disable every iPhone due to some made up bullshit state of emergency. This affects everyone’s iPhone not just the leased ones.
Which is something they already can do, just push an update and they are done. And after they simply go out of the market: nobody will buy their phone anymore.
But this is something different, here we are talking about something that is not different than reposessing a car if you don’t pay the loan you used to buy it.
I don’t want my car manufacturer sending an update to disable my push to start either. My car is paid off it’s mine, I should not have that on my car.
Here we are talking about things not completely paid off. If you use a loan to buy something (a car, a phone, a house, whatever) until you paid off all the loan the thing is not yours.
If you don’t pay your car loan, they can reposses it, if you don’t pay your phone loan they block it, if you don’t pay your data plan they close it. I don’t see anything strange here.
Every phone is going to get the code that does this - paid off or not.
When has that happened?
I think to remember to have read something about the possibility for a car manufacturer to remotely disable the car if requested or defaulted, something like once you park the car and turn off the engine it will not start again so no security problem, but I cannot pinpoing when/where i read it or if it ever went beyond the stage of an idea.
If requested by who? That would actually be a fantastic security feature for owners to be able to do if their car is stolen.
Ah so it’s just “orange man bad” in a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with trump 🙄
Seems like you don’t realize that workplaces already have the ability to remotely lock/wipe their employees phones and devices. This is just a way for lease providers to do so as well.
Orange man IS bad.
And has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The potential for misuse is absolutely on topic. I merely gave one example. There are many.
You gave a hypothetical that has never happened, and the ability to do things like this has existed on hundreds of millions of devices for decades.