Ownership isn’t being removed though, because you don’t own it when you’re leasing it. You can still just buy one if you want to, but leasing can be a good option.
I think you will find that systems of ownership and being reduced or removed and systems of leasing or renting are being pushed. So its becoming less of an option…surprising to the benefit of the rich…not the user paying
Faff around with the language and message all you like, but rent/lease/asa a service etc are all being touted against a ‘option’ at a time where we are seeing destruction of ownership. This is not good for the average person and I am always surprised by the amount of people who are happy to take this or bootlick on the matter.
Plus we’ve had contract phones for decades without the manufacturer putting yet more dead switches in our devices… Do we really want more of this shit?
Agreed, but I don’t see anything to suggest that the leased phones are getting a special edition of iOS 27 that has the locks. I think what they’re saying is that every iPhone running iOS 27 will have the locks, and they will be able to be triggered by third parties. That is worrying.
If you own the device outright, it should not have kill switches. I absolutely understand the point of them on the leased phone. They should not be on the phone that is paid for outright.
I would assume they will have added a new set of settings or an app for lease providers that gives them the ability to perform these actions on registered phones.
There’s no reason to assume that just any old third party will be able to brick your phone that you bought outright, any more than there already was - which there wasn’t.
It’s just straight up fear mongering. It’s like saying that a work issued and managed laptop being able to be wiped remotely if lost means everyone should be scared that their personally bought laptops can be remotely wiped by anyone at any time.
Ownership isn’t being removed though, because you don’t own it when you’re leasing it. You can still just buy one if you want to, but leasing can be a good option.
I think you will find that systems of ownership and being reduced or removed and systems of leasing or renting are being pushed. So its becoming less of an option…surprising to the benefit of the rich…not the user paying
Faff around with the language and message all you like, but rent/lease/asa a service etc are all being touted against a ‘option’ at a time where we are seeing destruction of ownership. This is not good for the average person and I am always surprised by the amount of people who are happy to take this or bootlick on the matter.
Plus we’ve had contract phones for decades without the manufacturer putting yet more dead switches in our devices… Do we really want more of this shit?
The irony is no one even calls me anymore. I miss when it was a nokia and only used to speak to someone on the go.
Now I just use my phone to look at cat pics on Lemmy.
I used to get laid regularly when I talked on a Nokia.
What do you think happened if you didn’t pay your monthly phone contract payment?
I paid for the line…not the phone. I always buy second hand handsets.
Read the comment I replied to mate. Specifically talking about contracts that include phone repayments.
Buying is not any less of an option. They’re just adding other non-ownership options.
Agreed, but I don’t see anything to suggest that the leased phones are getting a special edition of iOS 27 that has the locks. I think what they’re saying is that every iPhone running iOS 27 will have the locks, and they will be able to be triggered by third parties. That is worrying.
If you own the device outright, it should not have kill switches. I absolutely understand the point of them on the leased phone. They should not be on the phone that is paid for outright.
I would assume they will have added a new set of settings or an app for lease providers that gives them the ability to perform these actions on registered phones.
There’s no reason to assume that just any old third party will be able to brick your phone that you bought outright, any more than there already was - which there wasn’t.
It’s just straight up fear mongering. It’s like saying that a work issued and managed laptop being able to be wiped remotely if lost means everyone should be scared that their personally bought laptops can be remotely wiped by anyone at any time.