Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not sure we have proof it's that effective. Recently 400+ phones were stolen from a store in a well prepared way, so I assume there's plenty of ways to work around or get value from the stolen phones despite whatever Apple is doing:

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/06/washington-apple-store-...



I wouldn’t be surprised if activation lock causes _more_ theft. If stolen devices are worth less due to activation lock, thieves need to steal more phones to make up the lost profits.

Also, the data on a phone is almost always far more valuable than the phone itself. If a thief steals my phone, it’s much better for me if they erase it. But they can’t do that, so my stolen phone with all my data just sits there one exploit away from being exposed.

Activation lock only serves to benefit the manufacturer as they get to sell more phones. It doesn’t benefit the consumer at all.


> thieves need to steal more phones to make up the lost profits.

Unless these thieves were rolling in money previously, I would imagine they maximize theft as much as they possibly can — why would they leave money on the table? I don’t think they’re stealing to meet some monthly quota like hired hands on a farm; they should just be acting on a risk/reward function.

And as such, I think the more likely scenario as phones decrease in value per theft, other objects are made relatively more valuable (per risk/reward), and theft would transition elsewhere.


Why would activation lock prevent stealing a new phone? Definitionally a phone that has not been sold doesn't have an account tied to it.


Apple can still lock those phones. They track what is in stock and what has been sold


Doesn't need an account. It just needs to not be able to be activated anymore, because the serial number is "marked" as stolen.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: