iOS 27 Code Suggests Apple Could Restrict Leased Devices After Missed Payments (9to5mac.com) 91
Code found in the iOS 27 beta suggests Apple is developing a system that could restrict leased iPhones when customers fall behind on payments. The discovery follows a recent Bloomberg report that Apple may soon launch a new "Apple Upgrade" leasing program, allowing customers to pay for hardware through monthly installments. 9to5Mac reports: The code describes a system called App Managed Features, which allows an authorized financing or provider app to enroll an iPhone and perform ongoing status checks. If the contract is no longer in good standing, Apple's system services can place the iPhone in "Restricted Mode," which blocks access to most apps until the payment or contract issue is resolved, while keeping a small set of apps available. The fixed allowlist currently found in the iOS 27 beta includes: Accessibility Reader, App Store, Health, Magnifier, Phone, Clock, Settings, Wallet, Passwords, and the Restricted Mode interface itself.
Apps that can send critical alerts, such as Messages, Home, and certain medication or safety apps, may also remain accessible. However, the provider appears to have some control over those exceptions. The code does not appear to cancel, suspend, or otherwise modify App Store subscriptions associated with blocked apps. As a result, a subscription could continue billing even while access to its app is restricted.
Additionally, there isn't a fixed number of missed payments that automatically triggers the restrictions. The financing provider's app decides when to lock the device based on its own policies. Finally, the new framework also introduces a new type of activation lock called "Partner Finance Lock," which is meant to prevent users from erasing, reselling, or stripping a restricted device for parts.
Apps that can send critical alerts, such as Messages, Home, and certain medication or safety apps, may also remain accessible. However, the provider appears to have some control over those exceptions. The code does not appear to cancel, suspend, or otherwise modify App Store subscriptions associated with blocked apps. As a result, a subscription could continue billing even while access to its app is restricted.
Additionally, there isn't a fixed number of missed payments that automatically triggers the restrictions. The financing provider's app decides when to lock the device based on its own policies. Finally, the new framework also introduces a new type of activation lock called "Partner Finance Lock," which is meant to prevent users from erasing, reselling, or stripping a restricted device for parts.
That's....insane (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be sprinting away from this as quickly as possible if I was an investor.
The owners (stockholders) of Apple probably see additional sales (which in this case will be the leasing company) as a win.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are building all sorts of locks in, including ones for hassling the user rather than just keeping stuff from falling off a truck a
Re: (Score:3)
It’s for the low credit crowd. Shady car lots install something similar that disables your car if you stop paying.
Re: (Score:2)
Shady car lots install something similar that disables your car if you stop paying.
Yeah, about that... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It’s for the low credit crowd. Shady car lots install something similar that disables your car if you stop paying.
Shady car lots often sell cars that disable themselves even if you do keep paying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is probably cheaper and safer than sending a repo man to take the car back
The amount of money is too small to hire a repo man. Maybe you'll risk injury for a $20,000 car and a $2,000 repo fee. But you won't go through all the difficulty of hunting someone down, confronting them, pulling their phone out of their hand, for a $600 phone and a $60 repo fee. At the individual level these cases are too little money to pursue through the traditional routes, and other than a stern letter, a threaten to send to collections, and a complaint to the police (all of which amounts to bupkis), t
What’s wrong with leasing . (Score:3)
I’ve had companies do this for specialized equipment I need while working on embedded projects. It seemed weird since they could have outright bought the thing for the fees they paid to lease it for a non-trivial period. When I asked about this they told me there were tax benefits to leasing it versus an outright purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
What’s wrong with leasing? Lets say you have a short term need, you lease a Mac for the short time frame. I’ve had companies do this for specialized equipment I need while working on embedded projects. It seemed weird since they could have outright bought the thing for the fees they paid to lease it for a non-trivial period. When I asked about this they told me there were tax benefits to leasing it versus an outright purchase.
Leasing can be deducted as an operational expense this year on your taxes. Purchasing requires using depreciation which (depend on the item) may require deducting a partial expense over many many years.
It is one of the (many) absurdities of our tax code that results in "interesting" choices by corporations to save money today to spend more tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Building some sort of MDM system that allows you to lock people out of certain apps in order to encourage them to pay up something this week is a differe
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Apple has successfully pivoted from being a technology company to a media company these days, so there's no reason to flee. Their clientele are people already comfortable w/ their walled gardens and their brand is like Gucci or Prada. They're not competing w/ the Dells or the Acers, much less the Lenovos or the Asusteks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a whole bunch of shows, particularly from the 90s, that one can't find anywhere else - not on Netflix, not on Amazon Prime, not on Peacock... If one wants them, one can only get them on Apple TV
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As an investor, though - Let's be serious. This is an extension of the "buy here pay here" model loved by used car scammers everywhere to prey on those who can't really afford it but need one anyway. And those are stupidly profitable, because what are people going to do, just not have a car / phone?
It's morally repugnant but fiscally a slam-dunk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a situation where the burden of proof is on the lender and the disruption to the customer's life severe, we should absolutely not be allowing ScumCo Lending to pull that trigger absent a court order.
To be clear, I'm not claiming there's no precedent for this (and when we'r
Re: (Score:2)
If the MFA app is a TOTP app like Google Authenticator or whatever, you can export the secrets and use another device. I wrote an app for Linux that I use when I couldn't be bothered to get my phone while I'm on my PC. It's not that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
So an improvement? (Score:1, Insightful)
As opposed to Appleâ(TM)s prior policy of restricting fully paid for devices after customers disobediently failed to upgrade when Apple wanted them to?
Re: So an improvement? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, they will keep slowing down old devices with new features users didn't ask for in order to induce additional sales
Re: (Score:2)
Can't win. People moan that Pixel phones are supported for 8 years, but don't get new features that they think the phone could run. If they did get the new features, people would complain that performance has degraded.
It will be interesting to see what they do with the Pixel 11 this year, because it has less RAM than last year. 12GB instead of 16GB. Used to be that some apps like the camera lived in RAM for instant access, to keep the phone feeling snappy.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple would let people turn off what they're not using, it wouldn't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if I am most people, but I couldn't care less about feature updates. I would be very happy to opt out of those.
I am just concerned with getting the security updates and an 8 year term is a good length of time for a phone.
Re: (Score:1)
Appleâ(TM)s
-posted from my iPhone
Eww (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You already barely own your hardware today and the right to use it is already at the whim of companies.
iPhone/Android both - activation requires a check-in server and authorization. If that server is down (or denies you) you basically own a useless brick.
Just because something-aaS is free doesn't mean it's already out of your ownership.
1000% hate.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just iOS/Android devices, online product activation has made its way into all sorts of things.
Awhile back Bird decided to discontinue their connected services for some of the retail e-scooters they'd sold. If you didn't have your scooter charged up when the command was sent to leave it in a permanently unlocked state, you now own a brick.
Re: (Score:2)
iPhone/Android both - activation requires a check-in server and authorization
Macs also require activation. Reformat the drive and you can't even install the OS without the computer phoning the mothership. This is tied into the fact that Apple offers a business service that semi-permanently links a machine to your company's MDM. Reformat it and it automatically reinstalls the company's management profile. This link is burned in at purchase time (and cannot be set up post-purchase) - it's really a database entry back at Apple that says "oi, this serial number isn't for general consume
Aren’t we already doing hardware subscriptio (Score:2)
Why do I feel like at some point all the hardware will go to subscription only rather than as an option.
Given how common it is for people to upgrade their phone as soon as they payoff the old one, how are we not already there? :-)
Similar to car repo devices (Score:3)
When those first came out, some of them allowed the car to drive, but would honk the horn to shame the driver, but now I think they all just disable the engine. Imagining the Apple version of that is entertaining... it could chose your emoji for you, blast Nickelback when it detects you're in church, or start sending your photos to random contacts until you pay up.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds a lot like remote-disable devices for cars, so the repo man has an easier job.
When those first came out, some of them allowed the car to drive, but would honk the horn to shame the driver, but now I think they all just disable the engine.
The so called "payment assurance devices" have generally moved to disabling the starter, and the GPS transmitter tells the repo man where to collect the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Ownership and the Next Check. (Score:4, Interesting)
..to enroll an iPhone and perform ongoing status checks. If the contract is no longer in good standing..
I'm more concerned about how it behaves when there is no need for a contract at all.
If someone walks in the door with an MSRP-amount of cash in their hands ready to buy outright a device that is normally sold to a loan-licker who loves a new fashionable lease, how exactly is said device re-configured to ensure an owner is NOT treated like a debt-owing pseudo-suspect?
Now let's clarify the definition of ownership again. Because the next Orwellian "check" they will make when financial fuckery isn't enough to censor and control you, is your social credit score..
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree that your example is somewhat applicable, but a more mundane example we all face is actual "credit scores" which are becoming more and more closely akin to China's "social credit" system. If your credit score is bad, it affects your ability to get transportation and housing, and even employment. Credit scores shouldn't actually exist, they don't do what they say they do, because you can have no ability to pay anything whatsoever and your credit score can be huge based on your prior activity
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about how it behaves when there is no need for a contract at all.
You don't have to guess - it is a remote kill switch that will be abused by governments everywhere to silence dissent.
You're being dramatic. There's already code in iOS to remotely lock a device when it's reported stolen. When can I expect the government to start shutting down my phone for saying mean things about them?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about how it behaves when there is no need for a contract at all.
You don't have to guess - it is a remote kill switch that will be abused by governments everywhere to silence dissent.
You're being dramatic. There's already code in iOS to remotely lock a device when it's reported stolen. When can I expect the government to start shutting down my phone for saying mean things about them?
When did British citizens expect to start getting tossed in jail for comments they made on social media?
When did Australian citizens expect to be disarmed by their own government?
I can tell you when these citizens never expected that shit. Within a mere fraction of my lifetime.
("Dramatic", would be how an investor describes the growth of the privacy-destroying Flock surveillance network. Just a nod as to how America is faring regarding what's left of the Bill of Rights-turned-Wrong.)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that means what you say. If you buy through an approved financing outfit, they can add an app and enroll the phone. If you don't, there is nobody who installs anything or enrolls the device in anything. It is no more of a "kill switch" than any other MDM enrollment, so what you're saying is that any MDM is a government kill switch, and this is clearly not the case.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And obviously a lease isn't ownership. That's why they call it leasing instead of buying.
Party like it's 1961 (Score:2)
Make IBM Great Again: go back to .. leasing computers?!
Re: (Score:2)
Make IBM Great Again: go back to .. leasing computers?!
Recent tax reforms removed the incentive for that, at least for moderately priced computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Make IBM Great Again: go back to .. leasing computers?!
Recent tax reforms removed the incentive for that, at least for moderately priced computers.
This is principally because it was recognized that computers are no longer ten-year purchases (typical service life for a mainframe), they are commodity items that rapidly become obsolete. You don't depreciate pencils; personal computers aren't that far removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like they used to sell X terminals back in the day, maybe now create a new type of computer that runs only one application - the web browser (be it Chrome or Edge or Safari or Brave - maybe different companies can create computers to run each different browser). Then sell that to people, who will then log into their Google or Outlook or iCloud or whatever other account, and just run things there
No owning real computers anymore, just these "appliance" devices
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that basically what a Chromebook is?
Re: (Score:2)
On Chromebooks, you can access other Android apps as well. I was thinking about something even more limited - where you only have a web browser and nothing else. So the only storage it will have is whatever is needed for the OS & browser, but no local or offline files
Apple Fan No More (Score:3)
Apple sold out, man (Score:5, Interesting)
That isn't just semantics. Your interests change - you become more (small-c) conservative, defensive measures become much more important, etc. because the next incremental customer is worth much less than keeping what you have. And the risk is real - everyone wants to be king.
In Apple's case, there's also that it is now a fully post-Jobs company, and Jobs was uniquely responsible for what Apple was. His remaining influence is in the heads of the graybeards who worked with him and is otherwise ceremonial. And Jobs was "counterculture", to some extent. It was more than PR - it was his personality. It is why for istance they yielded the enterprise market to Windows - he not only didn't give a shit about device management or directory service permissions or stuff like that, he considered that somewhere between distracting from and hostile to making "insanely great" devices. That was all tempered through business demands, but he really did refuse to do a lot of "normal" things that are considered table stakes today. Jobs was a strange CEO.
Cook is not. Cook is very good at his job, but he's not the type to "leave money on the table" by refusing to build something he doesn't personally care about. And at their size, it is harder for them to resist losing focus, especially without Job's unique mix of arrogance, talent, poker face, assholishness, focus and charisma.
I don't think it is possible to have a $trillion+ company that isn't exploitive. As they get bigger, they take the shape and characteristics of the system in which they're embedded.
You want non-shitty companies, grow them somewhere that doesn't reward them for doing shitty things.
Re: (Score:2)
It is why for istance they yielded the enterprise market to Windows - he not only didn't give a shit about device management or directory service permissions or stuff like that, he considered that somewhere between distracting from and hostile to making "insanely great" devices.
He was wrong, and NeXTStep is an admission that he was wrong, especially since it became Mac OS X. And if you believe he was right, which you clearly do because you gave this as an example of what he did right, then you're wrong too.
Re: (Score:2)
NEXTSTEP was more of a custom project built for a unique opportunity, and then improvised. Later, when NEXT cubes turned out to be unaffordable by the market for what they offered, OpenStep was spawned out of them, while NEXTSTEP itself was ported to PA-RISC and Sparc. It's a pity that HP and Sun didn't run w/ those, at least for their workstations: they'd probably have done a lot better than the NEXT cubes
Re: (Score:3)
I used to like Apple as the scrappy underdog giving people tools and free software other companies charged for.
They never did so. The cost of that software was embedded in the price of the computer. That’s partly why Macs are historically more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
They never did so. The cost of that software was embedded in the price of the computer. Thatâ(TM)s partly why Macs are historically more expensive.
No, it isn't. We know that's not the explanation because historically, Apple did NOT give you tools and free software other companies charged for. That was not true until Mac OS X, when they finally gave away a development environment. Prior to that you had to buy a compiler from a third party, as Apple didn't even offer one.
Apple did give you hypercard for a while with classic MacOS versions, but they failed to execute on that and it eventually died. It might have been popular, but all the extensions you n
Re: (Score:2)
They never did so. The cost of that software was embedded in the price of the computer. Thatâ(TM)s partly why Macs are historically more expensive.
No, it isn't. We know that's not the explanation because historically, Apple did NOT give you tools and free software other companies charged for.
Every Apple computer shipped with an operating system. PC could be bought with various operating systems, or none at all. Microsoft offering some PC vendors with highly discounted Windows does not change this.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft offering some PC vendors with highly discounted Windows does not change this.
I think that it does, because most people in history bought a PC from an OEM, and the rest of us could get an OEM copy if we wanted to. Having been a Mac user up into the 040 days, and then slightly again after that, I did always appreciate the fact that Apple wouldn't even in theory hassle you about making your own copies of the System disks. But: Apple wasn't giving you anything that it didn't make sense for them to give you, and they for most of history they've charged a substantial price premium and pro
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft offering some PC vendors with highly discounted Windows does not change this.
I think that it does, because most people in history bought a PC from an OEM,
That was their choice, a convenience, and also had no downside for them since they were going to buy it anyway. So that is a bit different than the Apple case where buyers had no choice, where the hardware and OS were inseparable.
and the rest of us could get an OEM copy
Again, a choice, and further evidence of the separability of the computer and the OS. Unlike the Mac buyers case.
and they for most of history they've charged a substantial price premium and provided inferior performance.
Not really. Most Mac users judged superiority in terms of the user experience, not some synthetic CPU benchmark. They made a concious choice, Mac vs PC, and picked the s
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Most Mac users judged superiority in terms of the user experience
That doesn't disagree with what I said at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That Apple died in the 2000s, when System 9.2 was retired, and the new OS-X based systems were no longer modular, where one could easily swap cards and do all sorts of upgrades and sidegrades. Now, it's almost a one-size-fits-all from Apple, where they own an entire ecosystem - computers, phones, tablets, watches,...
I happen to have one of each - a Mac M1, an iPhone SE3, an iPad Mini 4, an Apple Watch 3 and an iPod Nano (w/ a screen). I may buy a newer iPad at some point, but not planning to buy any of
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't get people being fans of corporations. None of them truly have your (the little guy) best interest at heart.
In the digital world, this means you have to take the choice of free and open source software wherever possible.
Whenever that's not an option, go for the second or third biggest, to put your consumer money on the right side of the balance.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to like Apple as the scrappy underdog giving people tools and free software other companies charged for.
So from 2001-2014 I guess? 2001 is when Mac OS X came out and 2014 is when a non-crippled free Visual Studio came out.
Apple used to be morally anchored under Steve Jobs
The RDF really did a number on you, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Tough to feel sorry for fools. (Score:2)
If you can't afford a phone for cash that's a hint to improve your financial management including not buying phones you can't afford.
Re:Tough to feel sorry for fools. (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple advice that people who need it don't want to hear: for years now it's been possible to get a really, really usable phone for $30 (used to be $20). I'm not talking about a flip phone, I mean somehting running a reasinable enough android version with reasonable enough specs to run whatever bullshit apps you think you need and be a functional part of society with for as much as a phone with internet access and a camera to read QR codes seems to be increasingly required.
There is zero reason to spend more without 1.) the means to do so and 2.) a good reason why that basic phone won't do what you need it to. If 1.) is big enough you get to just buy shit you don't need because you want to. That's how this has always worked. But increasingly it's people without enough money buying much too expensive phones that have capabilities they will never use and financing them to boot.
Fashion faux pas (Score:2)
Its like the K-mart athletic shoes with 4 stripes on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
If one is buying an Android, a 64GB storage phone is adequate, since one anyway gets only 15GB of free Google storage. On the storage front, just get that, and then check whether it has the other features one needs, be it NFC, camera resolutions, WiFi version,.... what else is there?
If one is buying an iPhone, it's harder to justify, since it comes only w/ 5GB, which is probably just the backup of your iPhone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the more eye-opening events we can hope enlightens Gen Alpha at some point, is the crushing depression that can come with turning narcissism into social currency. Social media forces people to find out that NO amount of look-at-me effort is ever enough to "win" the attention game they feel obligated to play. At every age. Including the age when kids used to enjoy being a child instead of stressing out about their social status like some struggling actor drunk and high on Hollywood sauce.
Narcissism
Re: (Score:1)
Including the age when kids used to enjoy being a child instead of stressing out about their social status
Crushing peer pressure and stressing about social status has always been part of being a child. I think a lot of adults forget that, they'd rather listen to the sound of children playing from a distance, without listening too carefully to what they're actually saying. As a Gen X'er, I can say there was always peer pressure and stressing about social status. Sure, before the internet and smart devices took a hold, it was limited to other children in your local area, and you took your aspirational social cue
Carriers already do something similar (Score:2)
If you have carrier-financed phone and don't pay your wireless bill, they can blacklist your IMEI.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me again (Score:3)
Tell me again how Apple is so much better than other tech vampire companies. Oh that's right, Apple sets the standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me again how Apple is so much better than other...
You get a better product. Its how they survived for nearly 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The Kool-Aid is strong with this one.
Re: (Score:3)
The Kool-Aid is strong with this one.
Nope. Apple II developer since 1982. Commodore 64 developer since 1983. Unix developer since 1983. Mac developer since 1984. Embedded developer since 1987. Windows developer since 1990. Linux developer since 1993.
Different tools for different jobs.
Samsung also has this (Score:1)
Stalking made Easier (Score:2)
When conspiracy theories turn out to be true (Score:1)
Repo Man: The Sequel (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But nevertheless, the alternative to this is having Emilio show up to wrestle the phone away from the delinquent customer, and that's what I've been seeing in my head. It's kinda funny, but he's getting torn up by long fingernails in the process (shoulda paid the phone bill instead of the nail place). Don't worry, he holds his own and sends the deadbeat flying with a solid kick to the chest.
As amused by that as I am, in real life a lot of people would be hurt.
Bigger problem (Score:2)
Who the fuck leases a PHONE.
I think that's the question we should be asking. Just buy the thing. If you can't afford to buy the thing, then get a loan/card to buy the thing.
And a phone just shouldn't be that expensive or difficult to maintain or break so often that you can't do either.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem: our education system is allowing more and more to graduate without any understanding of personal finance.
Just no. (Score:2)
Under Apple's old "iPhone Upgrade Program," it made more sense to use the program than to buy a phone outright, especially if you were likely to upgrade annually. There was no interest, you basically got a discount on AppleCare, and you could still get 3% back on the payments through an Apple Card. And there wasn't any Lojack on the phone. After a year, you could buy a new phone and they'd take the old one back as payoff value on the loan. Sure, you could do better with buying outright and selling the used