• Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There’s exactly two positives to this system:

    1- theft risk/reward is crushed. It’s simply no longer feasible for stolen iPhones to be parted out if the valuable bits don’t simply work. Sure, dumb and non networked components like frames and glass can probably be salvaged, but when even batteries are involved in the handshake process, you lose out on the ability to sell anything of value.

    2- positive supply-chain validation. Not important for the majority of people, but for those who require a little more security, they can be a little more sure that their device isn’t compromised from illegitimate parts. I imagine this to be a fringe benefit for executives and the like. I know at one point government officials had access to some “special” variants of iPhones which were more locked down, but specifics are difficult to come by.

    For everybody else, this plain sucks. We move farther and farther into not even owning the physical things in our possession.

      • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s odd. That’s really dumb for those third-party technicians to take that, as (aside from the damage to their reputation and simply not being a good person), it would probably be a degraded battery anyway. Being constantly plugged in is very bad for a battery.

      • JustARegularNerd@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know how old your Mac was, but I think system info does record battery details. If not a serial, it definitely reads the cycle count, so it may have been possible to cross reference that if you knew the cycle count previously, but of course, I don’t blame you for not making backups of all that information and cross referencing it, you should never need to do that in the first place.