Hacker News Reader

Comment by aeturnum | Hacker News Reader

It would be simple for apple to extend the system by allowing recyclers to ask apple to send a message to the previous owner of the device. This would be extremely pro-consumer, because it would allow lost devices to be returned via an official channel. It would also allow users to release their claims on hardware they meant to give away.

The "solution" of just expecting the previous owner to never make a mistake is unreliable and totally unnecessary. Apple can act as the common contact for the system they created.

View on HN

> It would be simple for apple to extend the system by allowing recyclers to ask apple to send a message to the previous owner of the device. This would be extremely pro-consumer, because it would allow lost devices to be returned via an official channel. It would also allow users to release their claims on hardware they meant to give away.

It would also make recovery of stolen devices easier. Refurbisher has Apple contact the owner, owner says it was stolen, person gets their equipment back.

I don't see the downside here, literally everyone gets what they want - people can sell or dispose of their old devices as they see fit, refurbishers and third-party repair shops can get parts and devices they need to run their business, Apple gets to continue touting the security of the platform, and victims of theft have a better chance of recovering their often expensive gadgets.

This really can't work. They'd get unscrupulous people taking phones they sold back, or a couple who broke up where it's not clear who "owns" the phone. Nobody wants to put himself in the middle of these things.

> They'd get unscrupulous people taking phones they sold back

Money doesn't get paid until activation lock is verified as disabled. T-Mobile does this every time I trade in a phone, it's nothing new.

> or a couple who broke up where it's not clear who "owns" the phone.

There's no good way to ever handle this, ever - even without activation locks. Not worth worrying about, send the device to the registered owner and let the courts deal with it if people want to get bitchy with their former partner.

I mean, people can currently sell phones and make them useless for the new owner (on purpose or on accident) and the new owner has new recourse. Surely allowing communication about it would be better.

I do not agree.

Apple could play the go-between. They could alert the previous owner that the device has been found, and provide a grace period where a user could request return, for a fee, including Apple's S&H, and a finders' fee for the reporting agent.

At the expiration of the grace period, Apple could provide a device reset code.

Why is Apple required to act as law enforcement? Moreso, even if they could, why as consumers and technicians should we want them to?

HNers go on and on about big brother Cupertino all the time, but ooh some (well intentioned but misguided) refurb/recycling shop writes an article and all of a sudden critical thinking goes out the window.

Apple is inserting itself as law enforcement. That's what the OP is about. So they should do it right.

Also, please refrain from snide remarks, per HN commenting guidelines. Let your arguments stand on their merits.

Apple is not inserting itself as law enforcement, nor does your comment provide any justification as for why you think that'd be the case here.

Now, I could point out that absent any rationale, your comment fails to make the conversation "more thoughtful and substantive", as requested per HN commenting guidelines. However, I'd also remind everyone that HN isn't moderated by replying to comments you feel break the guidelines. Quite the opposite: "don't feed egregious comments by replying," if you really believe a comment is that bad then flag it.

However, said guidelines also remind us that critical comments are teaching moments and can be inherently good. Wit is frequently a valuable component in criticism, and there's a different between wit and mean-spirited snark. Thus, we're left with maybe the most important guideline: Assume good faith. I genuinely believe the article OP is well-intentioned, and was hoping the comment parent would provide some additional justification or perhaps reflection based on the distinction between good ideas and BigTech overreach. Instead, meta-commentary.

Regardless, have a good day.

I fail to see why Apple would do this. Is this going to bring them more money?

If they did it, it would probably need to be accounted for as a form of goodwill.

> I don't see the downside here

You are an honest person.

>I don't see the downside here

The downside for Apple is that they want people to be forced to buy new phones from them, not one on the secondhand market from someone else.

And while this is a nice thought, it will never happen. Apple hates 3rd parties that touch their hardware. They're constantly at war with those trying to repair their devices and the right-to-repair movement.

I agree with you assessment of how likely this is.

I also think this system would be even better than Apple's current approach to ensuring that owners retain control of their data and hardware. Preventing misuse and allowing responsible transfer are two sides of the same coin. Though, again, I don't think Apple would see it that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com