1. there's probably no evidence of it
2. the workers at the store will deny it
3. the workers at the store likely have no grasp of contract law and will insist on whatever their store policy is
4. hiring a lawyer to return a dishwasher is a waste of time for most anyone knowledgable enough to know that this is a valid legal issue
For Costco it's 90 days for a major appliance, you don't have to justify yourself as to why. Some stores have terrible return policies, some have good enough policies.
I still have a bricked Android phone from nonsense like that. If you:
1. Factory reset the phone while not logged in to the last Google account on the phone
2. Have the Google account invalidated (e.g., using an identity verification app on a temp noogler account, ...)
You'll never be able to access the phone again. The "factory reset" maintains some internal state despite a scary message on the screen promising everything is deleted and asking if that's really what you want, and it'll require the last working password.
Alright ... annoying, buggy (the fact that there are two factory resets and one doesn't reset the device is a problem; either fix or delete the broken one, or make the scary message scarier), but fine in my case.
It checks that password against Google's servers though instead of the local hash, and it doesn't even matter if you know the password; the fact that the account is inactive prevents you from accessing the phone.
Apple is really really difficult about getting these unlocked. The carriers can't do it, you have to show them proof of purchase and have an enterprise support contract. With Google the carriers can just do it usually.
I managed a fleet of mobiles at work for a while, this is how I know. It often happened that colleagues returned a phone without unlocking it.
There are vulnerabilities. Some years ago when this was a new feature I got an android phone to use for development for someone. I just generated a new google account on it and promptly forgot the new email and pass.
Time to return it: surprise, it wanted the previous account to log in after a factory reset. I ended up keeping it and paying for it.
A few months later, after a weekend of googling, I found instructions on how to bypass it by using some vulnerability in the browser invoked in the initial set up, got to a browser window with an address bar, used it to download and install some apk with an older version of some system service, and used that to bypass the lockdown.
Of course, it's probably much harder than that now. But it's doable.
The IMEI is burned into the phone. They should definitely make it hard to change the IMEI; but they do. If the phone is stolen then the IMEI gets reported as stolen and anyone who tries to activate the phone with a wireless carrier gets caught.
Why does Apple or Google need to inconvenience people who forget their passwords or encounter the conglomerate's bugs?
Even if that wasn't the case, as long as there were at least a few decently-sized countries not plugged into the system, that's where the thieves would sell all their devices.
Stolen Apple devices are still usable for parts (which is why parts pairing is not always a bad thing), and you can sometimes phish the Apple ID credentials from the victim, which is why stealing those devices is still profitable enough.
It still limits the market where they can be sold, because even there the customer doesn't actually want a stolen device. What if that country starts blocking them, or they want to travel anywhere that does? They could even get arrested.
It also requires the thieves to have a network to transport them there, vs. individual petty thieves who would otherwise be selling them locally.
> Stolen Apple devices are still usable for parts (which is why parts pairing is not always a bad thing)
Parts pairing is still a scam. They could check the part against a stolen device list without refusing to pair with parts from third party OEMs or first party non-stolen parts from other regional markets.
Yes these often end up in Eastern Europe where the carriers don't really care about that stuff. And most people can't pay full price for top end phones so there's much more market for this stuff.
Even on legit corporations with tens of thousands of iPhones, Apple still gives you a lot of hassle if you want to get one unlocked. Just so this won't be used as a loophole.
Yep, I always see "is this text legit?" posts with clear phishing URLs in iOS help groups on Facebook, posted by people who had their iPhones stolen and think it's Apple Support attempting to get it back.
And if the problem is that each country is using a different IMEI blacklist then that seems like an obvious thing to fix. There are already treaties and agreements which is how the global phone network operates to begin with, or you could have US law enforcement set up a system to submit the IMEI to each of the individual blacklists.
And the calculation for the carrier is different. There's a inherent incentive on unblocking a phone for the carrier, as this means a billable contract. For Apple there's a inherent incentive in being known as having devices hard to unblock and thus, presumably less attractive for thieves.
To my knowledge, Apple has not had any insider compromise of activation lock.
This is why criminals try to phish the credentials from the victim instead.
A phone must be purchased for us (with invoice with serial no) originally, or it must have been enrolled in our corporate MDM before getting locked. And for a while they didn't even accept the latter.
So even if you are at a third party you won't get away with sneaking these through. Which is good, a bit annoying sometimes though when some of our vendors didn't provide serial number invoices. We now require it but during the first years of anti-theft lock it was a bit of an issue and caused a lot of e-waste for us, sadly.
First they would have to get caught.
> This is why criminals try to phish the credentials from the victim instead.
Either method would be effective and not every criminal would have access to an insider, or they would have to pay off the insider for each device and then still prefer to phish the customer if possible to avoid paying the bribe.
In the US I am not worried about people taking my phone even in sketchy areas. I'm sure they'd much rather have my wallet or other valuables.
And to answer the obvious repair question -- yes, parts can be rebound to other motherboards etc., they just need iPhone Activation to pass first.
[1] https://www.loveitcoverit.com/news/changing-world/mobile-pho...
That makes sense if they e.g. have a higher resale value, but only if they have a higher resale value and the thieves are choosing them on purpose as a result.
Even if they get $10 for a $1200 iPhone they are happy. And many components can still be salvaged and be worth more than that.
At first I used to tell them (the way you would when someone goes around with their backpack wide open) but people were usually like 'mind your own business' so yeah. Better to let them find out the hard way then.
- Don't enable that kind of reset functionality if that kind of antitheft is enabled
- Warn the user about the potential bricked device, and require an additional confirmation
- Don't require a ping to Google servers when you can verify account ownership just via a matched password hash
Antitheft is fine and dandy, but the implementation is bad.
But yes, factory reset on Android phones only wipes the user data partition. Your phone has other things that don't necessarily get reset under a factory reset too, for instance: eSIMs (which is useful that it doesn't, in my experience)
If that phone is based on a Mediatek SoC, I believe a true reset is possible - look up SPFlashTool and read about this useful exploit:
https://tinyhack.com/2021/01/31/dissecting-a-mediatek-bootro...
A lot of buyers of used iPhones and Macbooks find that out the hard way, often because the owners don't even know about that. And actual thieves don't need to care about it as long as they find a buyer who doesn't know about it either.
It's a European model ("SMV4HAX48E", I'm in EMEA) so it might differ by markets.
1. _require_ dishwashers to have an Eco mode, not locked behind anything, but also
2. _require_ Eco mode to be the default. If you buy a dishwasher in the EU and turn it on, and press "start", it'll be on Eco mode, the mode that uses the least water/power.
If you don't care about the dishwasher other than to turn it on, and it works for you, then everybody wins. If it doesn't wash as much as you'd like, or takes longer thank you'd like, you can still have all the other dishwasher modes (express, intensive, etc.).
The whole point of the regulation is to make the default mode the most energy efficient. I find it absolutely crazy that a German company, when given free rein in the USA, would actually paywall Eco mode. It's just mind-boggling.
Similar with my AEG washer - a 40 degree cotton wash uses marginally more water than a 40 degree eco wash, but less power - and is 25% quicker.
Honestly, it’s not clear what the economy is supposed to be. Intensity of demand? Except on each appliance the heater runs at the same rated wattage when it’s heating - just different patterns of usage on eco mode, more off and on.
https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/...
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:...
You can also see there that they're tracking the effects of their regulations and measuring how much less electricity and water is used. The regulations also set minimum standards for cleaning, drying and energy usage so you can't sell products that look efficient but require everything washed twice, nor can you even include a resource hog mod.
And it mandates the availability of spare parts for a certain number of years, and access to repair information, so you don't just junk the whole object.
I can only imagine "Eco" mode being worse than other modes in some place where there's not good market regulation.
I just checked my own dishwasher, and its Eco mode uses 9L of water and 0.83kWh per cycle. Other washing modes use 9-17L water and 0.9-1.5kWh per cycle... so it does conform to the regulations.
The opposite, actually. Productive. Millions of litres of water and terawatts of power saved per year. End users collectively saving €1.3 billion on water and electricity costs in 2020 (in comparison to them having standard dishwashers from 1990 before any eco targets were set)
https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/...
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:...
It's almost as if they already thought this through when making the regulation.
> I find it absolutely crazy that a German company, when given free rein in the USA, would actually paywall Eco mode. It's just mind-boggling.
... they didn't do that. There is no paywall.
All the functionality should be in the device itself, and require no sign-up or ongoing relationship with the company to use it.
> All the functionality should be in the device itself, and require no sign-up or ongoing relationship with the company to use it.
For a dishwasher yes, but I don't agree with that as a blanket statement. There are cloud connected devices that I really like. e.g. I like to run my Roomba on-demand after I leave my house, and I think that's an entirely reasonable use case.
Many other devices are useful away from home as well, which would all require internet connectivity. e.g. security systems, cameras, etc.
Security cameras are the classic example of widespread self hosted but internet-accessible.
Even the ones that have proprietary apps are often just alternative frontends to a web server running on the home network.
The typical MJPEG/ONVIF camera doesn't even remotely compete for the same customers as Ring/Nest/Blink.
You pay with your data
When you register at HN you know that they need some data to manage your user account, for the same reason cookie banners aren't needed if all of a site's cookies are required for it to function. A dishwasher doesn't need a wifi connection or data to clean dishes, and if it's not clearly advertised before purchase that's effectively a hidden cost.
Perhaps nobody uses the word like that so far, but if enough people did it probably would turn out better for the consumer.
Where I live internet access isn’t provided for free.
Y’all are doing acrobatics to twist the definition of a very common and clear word.
I guess maybe both are bad. Yesterday I tried to configure a friend’s wifi router after the speed was suspiciously slow. It forced me to ask them for their Spectrum login info (the same info they use to pay the bills, not the wifi info) which nobody remembered and I gave up. Apparently this is required according to https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/s/3sLnHuWgEF
So if we’re badmouthing companies that lock physical functionality behind a cloud, add Spectrum. Not that you’ll have much choice if they’re the only provider, but still.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. What if you have someone house sitting? You really need to download the Bosch app to their phone just to use the same dishwashing routine that you usually do? Blah.
Any alternatives to Bosch that don’t do this?
The reason they do all of this is exactly because of the scenario you ran into: people are always forgetting their logins -- and back when modems/routers didn't have remote provisioning, they spent a lot of time and money sending technicians out to physically reset people's equipment.
I can’t think of a better way to offer the functionality in a way that works for so many customer segments.