Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Your powered-off iPhone might not actually be off. Thankfully you can always pull the battery, right?   (wired.com) divider line 87
    More: Stupid, iPhone, NSA, power management, hardware engineer, Apple logo, Edward Snowden, paranoid, bugs  
•       •       •

5913 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jun 2014 at 7:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-09 03:15:34 AM  
That doesn't surprise me one bit, considering the rules in place for secured areas. Either no devices at all, or battery removed.
 
2014-06-09 03:20:29 AM  
FTFA: Like any magic trick, the most plausible method of eavesdropping through a switched-off phone starts with an illusion.

Unlike most magicians, they're the farking government and will do whatever the fark they want with the cooperation of anyone who likes being free in their country.  We openly torture people, kill without trial, etc.  I think they can tap your phone.  That part isn't breaking new ground.
 
2014-06-09 03:21:42 AM  
Oh shiat.  I meant the government is killing and torturing.  I'm innocent as a llama with 55,750 upvotes on imgur.
 
2014-06-09 07:22:32 AM  
That's why I use one of these:

www.heathkit.nu

It uses an external battery, so I know when it's off, and if the NSA puts anything in it, I'll know it, because I've got the assembly manual and I've actually been poking around inside it (had to re-align the VFO).

Farthest contact with it so far was to Ukraine.

/Only half-kidding.
//I don't carry a cellphone
 
2014-06-09 07:29:42 AM  
One thing the article didn't mention, until half-jokingly at the end:  Put it in a metal enclosure when you aren't using it.

See, radio waves don't penetrate metal, they are reflected by it.  So if you put the phone in a reasonably tight metal box like a small safe, cash box, a fridge, or even if you just wrap the phone in tinfoil, there is no way the phone can be used to eavesdrop on you.
 
2014-06-09 07:44:32 AM  
I'm not experienced enough to effectively handle all the ways someone who cared to would spy on me.

But I can be incredibly boring, at least.  Take that, you assholes.
 
2014-06-09 07:58:05 AM  
In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.
 
2014-06-09 07:58:08 AM  
Of COURSE it's not off.  You think the power switch actually cuts off all power?
 
2014-06-09 08:02:46 AM  
The method they describe is a lot more of a hassle than just sticking it in the fridge. And if you're that paranoid about the NSA bugging you, you really shouldn't have a cell phone in the first place.
 
2014-06-09 08:10:39 AM  

dittybopper: One thing the article didn't mention, until half-jokingly at the end:  Put it in a metal enclosure when you aren't using it.

See, radio waves don't penetrate metal, they are reflected by it.  So if you put the phone in a reasonably tight metal box like a small safe, cash box, a fridge, or even if you just wrap the phone in tinfoil, there is no way the phone can be used to eavesdrop on you.


Keeping it in a Ziploc bag accomplishes the same thing. Even if they were trying to listen in, the microphone on an iPhone isn't going to work through even a thin layer of plastic. That's what I did for a while after a couple of embarrassing butt-dials... the phone still dialed people from my contacts, but the people I accidentally dialed were no longer able to hear me singing in the car, farking, etc.
 
2014-06-09 08:11:54 AM  

abhorrent1: In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.


Sure they are.  They are collecting your metadata.  The records of your phone calls.  Who you text.  What websites you visit (remember the URL of the website you visit *IS* metadata).

Unless you're somehow connected to something or someone they are concerned about, they probably aren't looking at the content of your communications.  Probably.  But remember that they can go to "3 degrees of separation" in their searches, typically, so while you may not personally know a target, if there is a friend of a friend of a friend that they are interested in, you may well be.

And there is no way for you to know one way or the other.
 
2014-06-09 08:16:57 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: dittybopper: One thing the article didn't mention, until half-jokingly at the end:  Put it in a metal enclosure when you aren't using it.

See, radio waves don't penetrate metal, they are reflected by it.  So if you put the phone in a reasonably tight metal box like a small safe, cash box, a fridge, or even if you just wrap the phone in tinfoil, there is no way the phone can be used to eavesdrop on you.

Keeping it in a Ziploc bag accomplishes the same thing. Even if they were trying to listen in, the microphone on an iPhone isn't going to work through even a thin layer of plastic. That's what I did for a while after a couple of embarrassing butt-dials... the phone still dialed people from my contacts, but the people I accidentally dialed were no longer able to hear me singing in the car, farking, etc.


Wrong.

It doesn't stop the radio signals, though, it just *MUFFLES* the audio.  And that's something that could probably be fixed on the other end with advanced audio signal processing, at least to a degree.  Certainly, I wouldn't depend on it as a security measure.

It won't stop your phone from periodically pinging the local cell towers, essentially beaconing your approximate location to the system.  That's not sinister, btw:  The system needs to know what tower to route your calls to in order for you to use your phone.  But those records are very useful to the NSA and to the local police if you are ever to come under suspicion.
 
2014-06-09 08:21:07 AM  
You know, this is the kind of thing I expect the NSA to be able to do. It's a legitimate part of their mission.

Now if we could just trust them to only use it against actual national security targets, that'd be just farkin dandy. Actually, no, we shouldn't have to "trust" them - there should be effective oversight to prevent abuse.

But we can't and there isn't.
 
2014-06-09 08:26:12 AM  

dittybopper: abhorrent1: In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.

Sure they are.  They are collecting your metadata.  The records of your phone calls.  Who you text.  What websites you visit (remember the URL of the website you visit *IS* metadata).

Unless you're somehow connected to something or someone they are concerned about, they probably aren't looking at the content of your communications.  Probably.  But remember that they can go to "3 degrees of separation" in their searches, typically, so while you may not personally know a target, if there is a friend of a friend of a friend that they are interested in, you may well be.

And there is no way for you to know one way or the other.


Or within two degrees of your favorite Dominos pizza

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/12/the-dominos-hyp o thetical-judge-leon-vs-the-nsa.html
 
2014-06-09 08:26:42 AM  
FTFA:

That intermediate step of holding the power button and the home button together, McDonald says, sends a "hardware reset" to the phone's power management unit that overrides any running software, including any malware designed to fake a shutdown. "It's a feature burned into the hardware," says David Wang, another iPhone hacker and member of the Evad3rs. "As far as I know, there's nothing that can stop that hard power-off."

In the same way, as far as anyone knew, there was no way to turn on the webcam on a MacBook without activating the little green indicator light next to it -- until a security research demonstrated exactly that. Almost everything is under software control today, even if it's software running on a little auxiliary microcontroller. Designers seem to have a religious aversion to actual hard-wired switching.

I was looking at printers over the weekend, and I came across these specs:

Power Consumption: 425 watts (Active), 15.2 watts (Ready), 4.0 watts (Sleep), 0.5 watts (Off)

I guess I'm showing my age, but to me, if the power consumption isn't 0.0 watts, it's not "off". "Off" should be indistinguishable from "physically disconnected from its power source".
 
2014-06-09 08:27:10 AM  
tl;dr: if your phone gets bugged while it's running, the software that turns the phone off can be corrupted to turn shutdown into a glorified sleep mode that leaves enough functionality on to selectively enable and disable certain features amenable to spying. No duh.

abhorrent1: In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.


Of course, that's not the point and you should know that. I don't think the NSA is spying on me NOW because I say means things about politicians on Fark. What I don't want is for them to be able to in the FUTURE if somebody later on decides they aren't going to sit idly by while I call President George F. Twinkleshiats bad names because I don't like what he's doing.

We've already adjudicated this sort of issue. It's not a theoretical worry, it's been done. The FBI and the CIA have spied on people for purely political reasons, they have collected dossiers on them and they have used the information in them to coerce them or try to destroy their credibility and livelihoods.

Time exists outside the immediate now. The decisions you make today - or don't, as it may be - will have effects in the future. It's not about whether or not it's being abused right now, it's about whether or not it CAN be abused and, if so, weighing the benefits to security against the public's ability to identify abuse should it occur.
 
2014-06-09 08:29:40 AM  
What about airplane mode--does this mean the airplane restriction on wireless activity is bullshiat, or that the NSA is willing to risk planes crashing?
 
2014-06-09 08:33:17 AM  

dittybopper: One thing the article didn't mention, until half-jokingly at the end:  Put it in a metal enclosure when you aren't using it.

See, radio waves don't penetrate metal, they are reflected by it.  So if you put the phone in a reasonably tight metal box like a small safe, cash box, a fridge, or even if you just wrap the phone in tinfoil, there is no way the phone can be used to eavesdrop on you.


www.tacomaworld.com
 
2014-06-09 08:34:28 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: dittybopper: One thing the article didn't mention, until half-jokingly at the end:  Put it in a metal enclosure when you aren't using it.

See, radio waves don't penetrate metal, they are reflected by it.  So if you put the phone in a reasonably tight metal box like a small safe, cash box, a fridge, or even if you just wrap the phone in tinfoil, there is no way the phone can be used to eavesdrop on you.

Keeping it in a Ziploc bag accomplishes the same thing. Even if they were trying to listen in, the microphone on an iPhone isn't going to work through even a thin layer of plastic. That's what I did for a while after a couple of embarrassing butt-dials... the phone still dialed people from my contacts, but the people I accidentally dialed were no longer able to hear me singing in the car, farking, etc.


What if you balled up some paper and tossed it in the bag.  That way along with muffling external sounds, the paper would add some additional foreground noise to make conversations more difficult to hear.
 
2014-06-09 08:43:01 AM  

jfarkinB: I guess I'm showing my age, but to me, if the power consumption isn't 0.0 watts, it's not "off". "Off" should be indistinguishable from "physically disconnected from its power source".


I'm with you.

Anything else reminds me of Dilbert-level stupidity.
 
2014-06-09 08:47:47 AM  

dittybopper: jfarkinB: I guess I'm showing my age, but to me, if the power consumption isn't 0.0 watts, it's not "off". "Off" should be indistinguishable from "physically disconnected from its power source".

I'm with you.

Anything else reminds me of Dilbert-level stupidity.


So, mauve doesn't have the most ram?
 
2014-06-09 08:50:42 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: dittybopper: One thing the article didn't mention, until half-jokingly at the end:  Put it in a metal enclosure when you aren't using it.

See, radio waves don't penetrate metal, they are reflected by it.  So if you put the phone in a reasonably tight metal box like a small safe, cash box, a fridge, or even if you just wrap the phone in tinfoil, there is no way the phone can be used to eavesdrop on you.

[www.tacomaworld.com image 400x300]


Same principle, except in that case the ham radio operator in question was likely making a joke (see the ladies in the back laughing?) about the radio waves he was transmitting getting into his brain and causing cancer.

He was probably joking because some hams actually believe that shiat.  Wayne Green, W2NSD (SK), publisher of 73 Magazine, was big on that theory during the 1990's.
 
2014-06-09 08:55:40 AM  
Article describes a theoretical exploit where no practical proof-of-concept has been demonstrated.

Your iPhone is unsafe in the same way that every Turing machine is unsafe.
 
2014-06-09 08:57:27 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Keeping it in a Ziploc bag accomplishes the same thing. Even if they were trying to listen in, the microphone on an iPhone isn't going to work through even a thin layer of plastic. That's what I did for a while after a couple of embarrassing butt-dials... the phone still dialed people from my contacts, but the people I accidentally dialed were no longer able to hear me singing in the car, farking, etc.


Wow, you managed to buttdial whilst farking...

Sir, i take my hat off to you. I hope it was your wife you buttdialed
 
2014-06-09 09:02:13 AM  
Are these the same hackers that take almost a year to hack an IOS right before the next one comes out? As nice it is to believe the US government is super tech savvy, I have a hard time believing that they are able to hack an update faster than those who want free apps.
 
2014-06-09 09:11:34 AM  
This is why people with iPhones should smash them with a heavy rock after each use.
 
2014-06-09 09:13:13 AM  

stpauler: Are these the same hackers that take almost a year to hack an IOS right before the next one comes out? As nice it is to believe the US government is super tech savvy, I have a hard time believing that they are able to hack an update faster than those who want free apps.


You know I never thought about it that way. But damned if it doesn't make sense.
 
2014-06-09 09:16:42 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: What about airplane mode--does this mean the airplane restriction on wireless activity is bullshiat, or that the NSA is willing to risk planes crashing?


Big difference between one or two phones transmitting one-way voice and three hundred phones in full on jibberjabber.
 
2014-06-09 09:26:40 AM  
I live on Fort Meade, surrounded by the NSA's "best and brightest".  You people have nowhere near as much to worry about as you think you do.
 
2014-06-09 09:29:14 AM  

Ishidan: Yankees Team Gynecologist: What about airplane mode--does this mean the airplane restriction on wireless activity is bullshiat, or that the NSA is willing to risk planes crashing?

Big difference between one or two phones transmitting one-way voice and three hundred phones in full on jibberjabber.


Pilots and people who don't have their head up their own ass, will tell you there has never, once, been a concern about electronics 'crashing' a plane.

The concern is the static in the airwaves from 300-1000 little electronic devices firing off pings and data and calls and texts while the pilots and the tower are trying to land a giant metal tube full of people hurtling through the sky by lighting one end on fire, and navigating by those same airwaves that the 300-1000 little electronic devices are going to be polluting.

Imagine in a busy airport, each person is going to have 1-3 things, on average, trying to mesh out somehow.  So, an average large flight of a few hundred people, plus an average of 2-5 planes in the air at any given time (not counting taxiing flights?)....that's a farking shiatload of noise pollution, for the planes and the towers to cut through.
 
2014-06-09 09:53:07 AM  

devildog123: I live on Fort Meade, surrounded by the NSA's "best and brightest".  You people have nowhere near as much to worry about as you think you do.


It's not the people.  It's the machines.  You don't think a person looks at every call record, do you?
 
2014-06-09 09:54:11 AM  

SpdrJay: This is why people with iPhones should smash them with a heavy rock after each use.


Before each use is better.  Keeps the proprietary pieces moving fluidly before first use.
 
2014-06-09 09:57:40 AM  
Snowden didn't offer any details on this seemingly magical feat.

Maybe this is the part that we need to be focusing on... Is he really coming up with legitimate, useful data, or is he just trying to extend his 15 minutes as much as possible? I mean, some kind of details might be nice, or he might as well say that they're bugging your shiatter, too, for all of the good his claim actually makes.
 
2014-06-09 10:07:41 AM  

poot_rootbeer: Article describes a theoretical exploit where no practical proof-of-concept has been demonstrated.

Your iPhone is unsafe in the same way that every Turing machine is unsafe.


The article actually claims that a very sophisticated government agency, one that is known to have intercepted shipments of hardware to modify it before it reaches its intended destination, has the capability of making your smartphone pretend to be off when it's not.

Then it's explained how it could be theoretically done with base hardware requiring no physical modification of a particular device.

As for proof of concepts, I'm pretty sure I've seen modified boot loaders for iPhones.
 
2014-06-09 10:12:16 AM  

abhorrent1: In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.


You know how I know that you're working for the NSA?

Because everyone cares about selfies and pictures of food.
 
2014-06-09 10:13:57 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: What about airplane mode--does this mean the airplane restriction on wireless activity is bullshiat, or that the NSA is willing to risk planes crashing?

It may not be BS but I also don't believe that no one has ever forgotten to put their phone in airplane mode, and planes aren't falling from the sky.

That said, when the person in the seat next to me continues to use IM or texts while we taxi "because it's BS" I want to punch them in the throat. Unless you're the head of the FAA, or Marconi himself, you don't get to say what's safe.
 
2014-06-09 10:28:50 AM  

dittybopper: Wrong. It doesn't stop the radio signals, though, it just *MUFFLES* the audio. And that's something that could probably be fixed on the other end with advanced audio signal processing, at least to a degree. Certainly, I wouldn't depend on it as a security measure. It won't stop your phone from periodically pinging the local cell towers, essentially beaconing your approximate location to the system.


Depends on how much "security" you require. For my needs, it was sufficient: phone in a Ziploc, then the Ziploc'd bag into the glove compartment. Of course, I wasn't worried about the NSA unscrambling muffled audio or being tracked by cell tower pings, I was worried about randomly inviting anyone on my contacts list to listen in on my day when I thought I was alone.
 
2014-06-09 10:39:33 AM  

jfarkinB: I guess I'm showing my age, but to me, if the power consumption isn't 0.0 watts, it's not "off". "Off" should be indistinguishable from "physically disconnected from its power source".

There's actually a benign reason for this.

This is an example of a simple DC/DC power supply:
www.maximintegrated.com
Don't worry too much about how it works; that's an essay by itself.  Just think of electricity flowing top to bottom, along the lines (least resistance).  Power comes in from the "+" on the upper left, most gets transferred to the right side (that's the idea), while excess charge gets dumped to "-" on the lower left.  Turning this into an AC/DC supply is absurdly easy -- put a rectifier/capacitor combo in front of it.  Anyway, a short circuit from +Vin to -Vin is prevented by a capacitor (Cin) and a transistor (Q1), but this isn't perfect.  Also, modern power supplies are more sophisticated -- more components connected between +Vin and -Vin, such as inrush current protection and PFC.  The point is, the flow of electricity is never completely stopped.  As long as there's a voltage source, some current is going to trickle through, and the components on the left side are going to create some residual heat.  The ONLY way to reduce power consumption to zero is to cut the AC power completely.  Easiest method is to just use a power strip.
This is not the NSA spying on you.  This is just how things are done.  Actually it's pretty involved getting a power supply above 100W or so (IIRC, it's been a while) to use less than half a watt while idling.  Back in the day they used physical switches but there are downsides to that -- they're noisy, they can wear out, cause arcing and (given there's an upper limit to safe, direct control by switch) relay chatter in bigger equipment.  Frankly it's not very good for the power supply, and consumer electronics use the bottom of China's dirtiest barrel when it comes to powering your devices.
If you think the NSA has bugged your printer then hey maybe so, but messing with standby power would be the stupidest way to do it because it's frankly hard to keep standby power consumption down.  What do you think they can do with half a watt?  Just initializing your NIC would use way more than that.  I'd find it more likely they'd muck with those damn initialization and shutdown sequences that always take 10-15 minutes.  The damn thing could fax your entire pr0n collection of your mom in the time it takes to "start up".

(BTW no, leaving your printer plugged isn't depleting fossil fuels.  If you want to save the world, install better insulation because nothing wastes energy like inefficient climate control.)
 
2014-06-09 10:56:33 AM  

abhorrent1: In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.


But, but, I'm important.

Also, no matter how much Subby wishes and prays otherwise, this issue applies to all smart phones, not just iPhones.
 
2014-06-09 11:00:22 AM  

digistil: abhorrent1: In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.

But, but, I'm important.

Also, no matter how much Subby wishes and prays otherwise, this issue applies to all smart phones, not just iPhones.


True, but with many phones you could (if you felt so inclined...or that paranoid) you could remove the battery, which would truly turn it off.
 
2014-06-09 11:12:39 AM  

mjbok: digistil: abhorrent1: In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.

But, but, I'm important.

Also, no matter how much Subby wishes and prays otherwise, this issue applies to all smart phones, not just iPhones.

True, but with many phones you could (if you felt so inclined...or that paranoid) you could remove the battery, which would truly turn it off.


You do realize you can remove the battery from an iPhone, albeit it takes a minute rather than five seconds, right?
 
2014-06-09 11:18:37 AM  

mjbok: digistil: abhorrent1: In other news: The NSA isn't tracking you. They don't give a fark about your stupid selfies and pictures of food.

But, but, I'm important.

Also, no matter how much Subby wishes and prays otherwise, this issue applies to all smart phones, not just iPhones.

True, but with many phones you could (if you felt so inclined...or that paranoid) you could remove the battery, which would truly turn it off.


So leave your phone at home or in the other room? You really just want a "hack" to get around NSA rights violations? Is Apple really the problem here?
 
2014-06-09 11:20:24 AM  

digistil: You do realize you can remove the battery from an iPhone, albeit it takes a minute rather than five seconds, right?


Really?  That's an argument you're going to make?  Yes, you can remove the battery from an iPhone.  Of course it requires screwdrivers, other tools, requires you to disassemble your phone and invalidates your warranty.  But yes, you can remove the battery from an iPhone, but it's not really a practical thing to do with any kind of frequency.
 
2014-06-09 11:27:12 AM  

mjbok: digistil: You do realize you can remove the battery from an iPhone, albeit it takes a minute rather than five seconds, right?

Really?  That's an argument you're going to make?  Yes, you can remove the battery from an iPhone.  Of course it requires screwdrivers, other tools, requires you to disassemble your phone and invalidates your warranty.  But yes, you can remove the battery from an iPhone, but it's not really a practical thing to do with any kind of frequency.


If you're honestly concerned over the NSA spying on you, taking 60 seconds to unscrew the battery and voiding the warranty are pretty low on your concerns list.
 
2014-06-09 11:29:03 AM  
Out of curiosity, what are the advantages to producing a phone without a removable battery?
 
2014-06-09 11:32:07 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Out of curiosity, what are the advantages to producing a phone without a removable battery?


Secondary parts sales.  Ability to produce and "extended" battery.  Ability to add inductive charging.
 
2014-06-09 11:35:15 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Out of curiosity, what are the advantages to producing a phone without a removable battery?


Other than forcing the consumer to replace the phone when the battery dies?

Having a removable battery means there has to be an access door somewhere and that means the phone won't be as sexy smooth as it could be.

Not having the battery in a removable form may mean it can be a little smaller than it would be.
 
2014-06-09 11:40:19 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Out of curiosity, what are the advantages to producing a phone without a removable battery?


In addition to what mjbok said, devices designed with a fully internal battery will have fewer points of failure  than those for which the battery pack is a detachable exterior component.
 
2014-06-09 11:41:01 AM  

dragonchild: There's actually a benign reason for this.


That's a matter of opinion.

Let me clarify my position a bit. I'm not concerned about my printers ratting me out to the NSA while pretending to be off. I've also designed both analog and switched power supplies -- only in an amateur capacity, and it's been a long time, but they did work.

The only thing I'm consumed about the printer doing with that half-watt power drain is shortening the life of the (bottom-of-the-barrel) components that contribute to it -- by cycling things that last for a large but finite number of cycles, by powering things that have a large but finite MTBF, and by staying exposed to power-line transients. Sure, a physical switch is a cost and a point of failure -- but it's robust, and trustable, and not that expensive.

What really bugs me is when the designers dictate that it's critical to have a clean, flat, featureless touch control for power, instead of a push-button (or, better yet, a slider switch). I suppose they want the "user experience" to revolve around sensual, zero-force stroking, instead of the crass and vulgar "click" of a physical mechanism.

Yeah, I remember Clarke's dictum from The City and the Stars: No machine may contain any moving parts. It was a cool idea at the time, but the implementations we're seeing today (in this awkward time when not every embedded device can read our thoughts) commit a whole string of ergonomics and usability atrocities. Not to mention making things more prone to failure and more expensive (if not impossible) to repair. And, yeah, making it easier for malware to spoof a "power-off" state while it continues to do its thing -- but even if there were no malware, I'd still be annoyed.
 
2014-06-09 11:55:22 AM  

poot_rootbeer: Relatively Obscure: Out of curiosity, what are the advantages to producing a phone without a removable battery?

In addition to what mjbok said, devices designed with a fully internal battery will have fewer points of failure  than those for which the battery pack is a detachable exterior component.


Which explains why my phones that had removable batteries have never failed, were able to get new batteries when the old one was worn down, or simply switched to a charged one while in a situation that recharging it wasn't possible, as opposed to the numerous other phones that friends and family have had with the non-removable batteries, which failed and needed to be replaces (the phone).

... the only advantage I've seen is that it can reduce the device's thickness by a 1mm or less due to not requiring a design to accommodate the door and locking capacity.

and you know what... I'd go with the extra thickness any day to have battery access.

But seriously... it's about $$ to make it non-replaceable.. so that most will seek technical assistance to get the battery changed, etc. (or have to buy a new device)
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report