[HN Gopher] iPhone 7 with dead NAND netbooting unmodified Ubuntu...
___________________________________________________________________
iPhone 7 with dead NAND netbooting unmodified Ubuntu 20.04 via USB
ethernet
Author : paulcarroty
Score : 336 points
Date : 2021-01-11 12:44 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (old.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (old.reddit.com)
| amelius wrote:
| Apple could gain some serious acceptance in developer/hacker
| circles if they would allow their hardware to become open after a
| fuse is blown.
| LockAndLol wrote:
| At this point, they should just be forced to allow the software
| to be replaced without waiting for someone to find an exploit.
| To be clear, I'm not talking about backdoors or something like
| that, just exactly the same as a laptop: if I want to install a
| new OS, I should be able to if I want to.
| bognition wrote:
| Yeah but that would dramatically interfere with their resale
| program
| pmiller2 wrote:
| How so? People who would even think about doing this
| certainly make up an extreme minority of iPhone users.
| bognition wrote:
| it would potentially open up a secondary market for used
| iphones beyond the control of the apple economic empire.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Right, and I'm saying that secondary market would have
| very few participants beyond those who already buy used
| phones today. Apple wouldn't even notice.
| saagarjha wrote:
| On Apple devices, blown fuses actually lock the hardware :/
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It would also decimate their trustworthiness; how would anyone
| trust a secondhand iphone if it can be compromised like that?
| Could it be done in pure software, opening it up for malware?
|
| I mean I get why one would want unrestricted access to
| hardware, custom software, etc, but at the same time I
| understand the resistance to allowing it. In Apple's case,
| security is really high up in their priorities.
| spijdar wrote:
| Hence why GP said "after a fuse is blown". The implication is
| some sort of irreversible, hardware-based mechanism that
| would disable the security measures while making it
| abundantly clear that it had done so, so someone would know
| if the device had been tampered with.
| kevincox wrote:
| The Pixel devices do this well. If it doesn't trust the OS
| the bootloader shows a big scary warning. If the OS is signed
| by Google then it boots up without the warning.
|
| So when you got your second hand device you just need to
| check the bootloader while booting. If it warns then you need
| to flash a stock iamge.
| m45t3r wrote:
| Not just Pixel, but most Android devices (both my previous
| Xiaomi and my current Samsung devices does this). I think
| it is probably part of Android CTS.
|
| It just shows that this is possible, but we are talking
| about Apple here.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Apples old hardware isn't all that closed - most models have
| enough exploits it's very possible to get your own low level
| code running.
|
| The key issue is that hardware drivers aren't there, and that
| requires a _massive_ amount of reverse engineering work.
|
| Apple _could_ release documentation for the hardware, making
| things easier, but from apples point of view that opens them up
| to patent litigation (you can be sure trolls will scour the
| documentation for evidence of violated patents), and most
| internal documentation isn 't of sufficient quality to release
| without at least someone reading it all over and removing
| swearwords...
|
| Collecting the documentation together will be hard - it is
| probably scattered amongst hundreds of git repos, wikis,
| documents, spreadsheets, photos of whiteboards, on some
| engineers laptop, and mixed in with code and secrets.
|
| Even then, without a lot of people putting a _lot_ of effort
| in, you wouldn 't see desktop linux running...
|
| Overall, I can see why Apple doesn't help these guys - the
| disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
| DCKing wrote:
| > Apples old hardware isn't all that closed - most models
| have enough exploits it's very possible to get your own low
| level code running.
|
| This might be semantics, but the fact that unlocking the
| bootloader or running code with the highest level of
| privilege on an iPhone requires exploits in the first place
| is a pretty big sign that these platforms are _pretty
| closed_. Checkra1n is very nice but this is an oversight that
| Apple is unlikely to make again (the only way Checkra1n was
| found in the first place was Apple fixing the underlying
| issue on Apple A12 devices anyway).
|
| Unfortunately I think the existence of Apple's Security
| Researcher Device program squashes any hopes that Apple would
| consider opening up store bought devices any further. The
| only real way I see Apple opening iDevices if some regulation
| to that effect would be enforced, but I don't see that
| happening any time soon either.
| toast0 wrote:
| > The key issue is that hardware drivers aren't there, and
| that requires a massive amount of reverse engineering work.
|
| I know Apple drops open source blobs for iOS. Do the kernels
| not include drivers? Especially as Apple takes over more of
| the BOM through vertical integration, there's less stuff they
| would need to suppress because of contracts (but of course
| that doesn't mean they do include other things).
| londons_explore wrote:
| The kernel source is here[1]. I don't see any hardware
| drivers there.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu
| vbezhenar wrote:
| May be it would be possible to rip kernel with drivers from
| iOS image and run custom user software over it. It should be
| very close to UNIX anyway. People want to run userspace
| software, not just Linux kernel.
| shawnz wrote:
| Why can't we have it so that users can run code of their
| choosing without permanently disabling security features?
| usrusr wrote:
| Just yesterday I have been wondering what it would take to
| run inside iOS userspace the API (and vm) environment AOSP is
| providing to apps. Isn't Microsoft working on something
| similar for Windows as a host? Clearly it would be the
| biggest violation of the "no language interpreters in iOS!"
| rule ever, but given the incredible decline of non-phablet
| Android the i12 mini is just so very attractive... and I'd
| rather bet on a userspace API container on top of the vendor
| OS than replicate the customary experienced of Android custom
| ROMs on devices with even less hardware support/documentation
| than usual.
| saagarjha wrote:
| People have done it with Linux; exposing the rest of
| Android is not out of the question. (The main issue here
| will be performance, since there isn't much support for
| anything but interpretation.)
| usrusr wrote:
| Oh, right, a JIT (or a client-side AOT) would require
| permissions for writing to self in an executable way that
| aren't available to native (but third-party) iOS apps,
| right? Not even if you compile the runtime with your own
| xcode for your own device. Easy to forget about that when
| you are used to a garden with marginally lower walls (I'm
| not pretending that stock android is the complete
| opposite, just marginally less locked)
| coldtea wrote:
| Because some security features depend on not run arbitrary
| code?
| robocat wrote:
| You can run as much of your own JavaScript as you want,
| within a secure sandbox that won't compromise other apps.
| shawnz wrote:
| In some cases that can't give sufficient performance or
| functionality. Sideloading of native apps within a secure
| sandbox as on Android would be an improvement.
| rootsudo wrote:
| You mean, hackers/developers don't already have Apple Hardware?
|
| And here I thought the cliche was Macbook in IT == SDE.
|
| Or maybe it's just me.
| wayneftw wrote:
| That's a silicon valley bubble POV.
|
| By all available stats, Macs are only used by about 25% of
| programmers. Windows is 50% and Linux is 25%.
|
| This developer has purchased a (used) Macbook Pro but only
| touches it to build into iOS-land. The rest of my time is
| spent on Linux where _I 'm in charge_ and where I can get
| proper basic facilities like sane window and file management
| without the hassle.
| [deleted]
| Jonnax wrote:
| Very cool!
|
| So it looks like they built upon this project that tries to
| install Android on iPhones. https://projectsandcastle.org/status
|
| They mention:
|
| " Apparently they struggled to get Android to run because A10
| mandates 16k page sizes"
|
| Is that swap space? I assumed these devices didn't use swap.
| [deleted]
| pantalaimon wrote:
| > Is that swap space? I assumed these devices didn't use swap.
|
| That would have surprised me, and indeed they write [0]
|
| > After a cheerful pre-boot 'Hello, world!' hand-coded in
| start-up code assembly, we ran into the first one: it turned
| out that the processor cores don't merely support 16kB pages,
| but they actually require them. The Linux kernel, however, took
| this in stride, and as soon as we switched the page size
| configuration option, it was happy to run.
|
| [0] https://projectsandcastle.org/history
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| That quotation doesn't mention swap (AKA the page file), only
| pages in general. Virtual memory is always divided into
| pages. Each of those individual pages can be backed by
| physical memory, the page file, or indeed other files (e.g.
| for memory-mapped I/O).
| auscompgeek wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_(computer_memory)
| Jonnax wrote:
| Thanks! So I'm guessing the issue might be that Android
| mandates 4kb page sizes whilst the A10 CPU has a minimum of
| 16kb. Whilst Ubuntu and other standard distros don't care?
| spijdar wrote:
| A lot of software breaks when you're not running 4kb pages.
| I run a POWER9 desktop, and the default page size is 64kb.
| A lot of ... interesting problems manifest.
|
| Some filesystems like Btrfs and XFS (iirc) have elements
| that are page size dependent, and can only be opened on
| systems with the same page size as the one that made them.
|
| Some stuff like Wine (and windows in general AFAIK) assumes
| 4k "alignment" and doesn't like it when it differs)
|
| Of course, on P9 you can just change the page size to 4k
| and be done with it. Apple appears to have only implemented
| 16KB pages and nothing else, presumably to minimize silicon
| cost/maximize performance (?)
| gpderetta wrote:
| > Apple appears to have only implemented 16KB pages and
| nothing else, presumably to minimize silicon
| cost/maximize performance
|
| I think it is because, due to quirks of the interaction
| of virtual address resolutions with cache addressing, it
| allows Apple to use a larger L1 cache.
| spijdar wrote:
| Oh that's super interesting, I've never thought of that!
| I'd never really thought about what it'd take to bump the
| L1I/D caches over 32KB.
| my123 wrote:
| Apple A14 onwards reintroduce support for 4KB pages, with
| 128KB L1D/192KB L1I.
| gtirloni wrote:
| That's interesting. Would mind sharing what machine is
| that (p9)?
| lmz wrote:
| One of these maybe?
| https://www.raptorcs.com/content/base/products.html
| spijdar wrote:
| Indeed, I've got a Blackbird board in a micro-ATX tower
| as my main bedroom computer. Got it a couple years back
| to replace the bulky secondhand rackmounts I'd been using
| as build hosts/hypervisors/fileservers etc.
|
| I appreciate the open platform and documentation behind
| it -- the OpenPOWER people publish a lot of detailed
| technical docs, and all the source code is available,
| with everything down to the FPGAs controlling power-up
| easily modifiable, without having to reverse-engineer all
| the bits like _cough_ other platforms.
|
| It's just a shame it started off expensive and has gotten
| even more so the past couple of years. I suppose it's
| just what happens when you're producing such complex
| boards at such a tiny scale, and for such a niche
| audience.
| volta87 wrote:
| > A lot of software breaks when you're not running 4kb
| pages.
|
| The page size on windows is 64kb as well so portable
| software already needs to deal with supporting 4kB and
| 64kB pages.
| hrydgard wrote:
| No the page size on Windows is 4kb, however some things
| like file mapping do require 64kb alignment, due to
| ancient compatibility concerns with DEC Alpha.
| my123 wrote:
| Depends on the architecture. Windows on Itanium runs with
| 8KB pages for example, but that's the exception that
| confirms the rule.
| tyingq wrote:
| _" Android mandates 4kb page sizes"_
|
| I think the language they used is misleading. It's more
| likely Android has introduced some bugs from assuming page
| sizes are always 4kb.
|
| _" Whilst Ubuntu and other standard distros don't care?"_
|
| Many of the various different architectures Linux runs on
| have page sizes that aren't 4kb. It's typically defined in
| a constant called "PAGE_SHIFT" in the
| arch/<ARCH>/include/asm/page.h file for the architecture.
|
| For example, PAGE_SHIFT is 13 for OpenRisc: https://github.
| com/torvalds/linux/blob/fcadab740480e0e0e9fa9...
|
| A quick way to convert that to the page size:
| $ echo "2^13" | bc 8192
| newscracker wrote:
| Sounds cool. This could be a way to put older devices to use for
| some of the things (certainly not all) that a Raspberry Pi is
| used for. The lack of any physical ports for expansion is a big
| drawback, but the processors are a lot more capable than typical
| SBCs (single board computers).
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Older phones definitely beat Raspberry Pis on both price and
| features. For barely the same price as a Pi + a decent SD card
| you get the equivalent of a Pi + a touchscreen, internal NAND,
| mobile networking, GPS, sound (speaker & mic), a battery backup
| with built-in charging circuitry and accelerometer/gyroscope
| sensors.
| solarkraft wrote:
| In theory this is true, but the dire software situation
| pretty much kills the idea in my mind.
|
| Best case you'll be able to run PostmarketOS, but more likely
| you'll be constrained to a years old Android with an ancient
| kernel and a non-standard libc - that is after you mange to
| get the thing rooted in a convoluted process. You can also be
| pretty sure that thing is going to be running malware.
| ta988 wrote:
| You don't get the GPIO, external display, many usbs,
| Ethernet, now pcie if you solder a bit etc... Not really
| equivalent
| Jermaine_Jabi wrote:
| Would this have full access to the iPhone hardware? Or is it more
| like alternative OSes on consoles where some cores are not
| available?
|
| Also very cool!
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Running graphical desktop environments also appears to be
| possible: https://blog.project-insanity.org/2020/04/22/linux-
| with-wayl...
| userbinator wrote:
| Once you have a framebuffer, GUIs will follow naturally.
|
| Getting graphical acceleration, on the other hand, is much more
| difficult work.
| ohduran wrote:
| Does this work with a 7Plus as well? Asking for a friend.
| LockAndLol wrote:
| You could try it, if you ain't using the phone for anything.
| raldi wrote:
| The submission never explains what "dead NAND" refers to.
| emeraldd wrote:
| My first thought would be flash storage. So I would read that
| as no or failing local storage on the phone.
| masklinn wrote:
| What could it refer to but the flash storage of the phone?
| Hence the NetBoot: the phone has no working non-volatile
| storage.
| raldi wrote:
| The logic gate was my only familiarity with the term.
| remram wrote:
| Flash memory comes in multiple flavor, named after the
| logic gates that the organization of their transistors
| resemble. So there is NAND Flash, NOR Flash, and Vertical
| NAND Flash memory.
|
| I agree that referring to "NAND Flash Memory" as "NAND" is
| rather confusing. Similar to referring to "crypto-currency"
| as "crypto".
| infinita740 wrote:
| From the end of the post:
|
| > This iPhone would never be able to boot iOS again, as its
| nvme nand is completely dead.
| raldi wrote:
| That just raises further questions.
| chmod775 wrote:
| I suppose Apple "fixed" whatever made this possible in later
| phones?
| mcc1ane wrote:
| It should be "checkm8" - works on A5 to A11 (iPhone 4S to
| iPhone X).
| [deleted]
| ezconnect wrote:
| They would probably open up their old hardware if they could get
| carbon credit for it for being recycled to a usable device, but
| the economics is just too small as an incentives for that to
| happen.
| 0x0 wrote:
| Seems to require a custom kernel instead of an "unmodified
| Ubuntu" kernel, still pretty neat!
| pedrocr wrote:
| It would be a potentially smart move by Apple to allow installing
| other OSs in iOS hardware. The market share grab part of this
| segment is mostly gone so they probably wouldn't lose much and it
| would help with their arguments about the App Store and other iOS
| restrictions. They could say that in iOS those are the rules but
| if you want to do something else with the device you own you can
| install something else. It might even win them some customers.
| They would win my business if I could install an open-source OS
| under my control on a phone like I do on my laptop. LineageOS is
| not even close unfortunately because of poor hardware support.
| nijave wrote:
| I think Apple would have to publish "proprietary" hardware
| information to make this possible. Currently, people spend
| significant amounts of time reverse engineering the hardware to
| get software working with it.
|
| On top of that, there's a cost of open sourcing besides
| revealing proprietary information--you generally need to audit
| and cleanup your code base (cleanup commit messages, code
| comments, etc) that could be, at best, embarrassing, or, at
| worse, reveal product flaws/bugs
|
| Edit, looks like I was beaten to the punch
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25728930
| gmemstr wrote:
| That doesn't really match up with the ethos of Apple or why
| people buy their products though, so it doesn't make any sense
| for Apple to allow or endorse this.
| mindslight wrote:
| Commoditize your complement. That's what Google is doing with
| Android itself - flooding the market with a gaggle of
| surveillance-ready web browsers. But Apple could push back at
| an even deeper level by supporting user-loaded OS's, taking
| the Free community's focus away from the Android ecosystem.
|
| The limited hardware combinations alone would be a boon to
| the Free community. Right now, I see Android as the Freer
| option, even though I've gone significantly out of my way to
| get there (Samsung Exynos + microG + fdroid). If I could do a
| similar amount of work on mainstream Apple hardware and end
| up with an OS that had no Google remnants, I can see my
| perspective changing quite readily.
|
| Perhaps we'll see such a development when there emerges a
| Free OS that's a viable/cult-popular daily driver.
| Technically wrote:
| I don't think anyone except consumers themselves can speak to
| why they buy their products. The prevailing dogma that users
| want Apple to think for them is trivially false.
| MereInterest wrote:
| Correct, it doesn't make a profit for Apple to sell devices,
| rather than just renting them. That's why it shouldn't be up
| to Apple to decide whether a device sold belongs to the
| buyer, or still belongs to Apple. If I buy it, it is mine,
| and I have the moral right to put whatever OS I what to on
| it, regardless of Apple's ethos.
| coldtea wrote:
| "Correct, it doesn't make a profit for Apple to sell
| devices, rather than just renting them."
|
| I've seen this argument again, but this is a redefinition
| of sell vs rent.
|
| Apple sells the device with specific capabilities. You
| might want it to have others, but that's not the same as
| renting. If you don't like it, buy something else.
|
| You do get to do "whatever you want" with the device AS
| provided. You can stomp on it, melt in in a fire, or
| whatever, and Apple wont ask you for the device back.
| That's a sale.
|
| "I wanted another version of the device, one that is
| unlocked, and Apple doesn't sell me one" doesn't mean Apple
| doesn't sell you what it says on the tin.
|
| They're selling iPhones, locks and all, not generic devices
| to have different OSes loaded.
| wayneftw wrote:
| Yep and people buying Office and Windows in the 90s were
| absolutely fine with what Microsoft was doing back then.
| Most OEMs selling computers with Windows on it were also
| fine with agreeing to not also sell Linux PCs.
|
| Everything was going well for Microsoft until it wasn't.
|
| Apple's iPhone has a 90% market share among youths in the
| US and a 50% market share of active devices in the
| general market. Their general market share in the US
| isn't going to be shrinking anytime soon. As they get
| more and more popular, the rules will change for them.
| johncolanduoni wrote:
| Out of curiosity, where are you getting the 90% from? I
| hadn't heard that statistic before.
| [deleted]
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| I think it's more akin to selling a coffeemaker that only
| works with manufacturer authorized coffee beans. It's a
| coffeemaker and it may not produce the same quality
| coffee with other beans but it's perfectly capable of
| producing coffee from any beans you feed it.
|
| That said, Apple has no incentive to work towards
| enabling this. Both Apple's profit and customer's
| expectation are in the vertical integration that Apple
| provides.
|
| (I'm not in anyway saying iOS is not restrictive or that
| they shouldn't do it. It's just that there's no pressing
| reason for them to work towards achieving it.)
| buran77 wrote:
| What's more, they have a pressing reason to _not_ do it.
| The entire iOS devices ecosystem brings clients
| exclusively to the AppStore and its apps. They also have
| a network effect for purchasing more simply for device
| /OS interoperability (think iPhone + Watch). By allowing
| the installation of a general purpose OS they are giving
| up a chunk of the profit from those apps and they cut
| down their own user base, thus making the ecosystem
| slightly less valuable as a whole.
|
| One option would be to allow the installation of an
| alternative OS only after the device is out of support at
| least for an image win but this might not justify the
| effort.
|
| I hope this gets regulated in the future so manufacturers
| are forced to remove any locks preventing the
| installation of 3rd party software (even make resources
| available for developers) the moment they stop providing
| "adequate" support.
| realusername wrote:
| > I hope this gets regulated in the future so
| manufacturers are forced to remove any locks preventing
| the installation of 3rd party software (even make
| resources available for developers) the moment they stop
| providing "adequate" support.
|
| I would personally prefer one step further and force to
| remove all locks if the customer asks it, it's their
| device, they are free to do whatever they want with it,
| it's both the right approach morally but also for
| environmental issues.
| buran77 wrote:
| > I would personally prefer one step further and force to
| remove all locks if the customer asks it
|
| They could but it would cost more than most users
| bargained for. Most likely a manufacturer would offer you
| the open device for the price of the device plus the
| expected loss of value from connected services (maybe
| something on top just for good measure), or a locked
| "subsidized" version that can or has to run only as we
| see today, and that will cost as much as one does now.
| And they could easily make a case for this even in court.
|
| But once the support ends it's more or less implicit that
| the manufacturer abandoned the device and no longer
| expects profit (or expenses) related to it and keeping it
| locked is a harder case to make.
|
| And I get a manufacturer's desire to profit from their
| own devices. But once they abandon them I see no other
| reasonable legal or moral claim a manufacturer can make.
| They should issue a final update that removes any
| protections, and make all relevant drivers and
| documentation freely available (or even for a modest one
| time fee) even if this means some binary blobs and a
| bunch of docs for how to interface with them.
| spijdar wrote:
| I'm not sure if the reference was intentional, but there
| _are_ (or, were?) coffeemakers that only work with
| manufacturer authorized coffee beans. Keurig infamously
| added a protection mechanism that required "special"
| coffee-pods to function.
|
| This was, however, seen as outrageous, unlike the current
| state of smartphones, for better or for worse.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| It is. At work some of us got a reusable pod to reduce
| waste. We were closely following it. It was also much
| easier to explain why that's bad to my non-engineer
| coworkers than explaining why iOS's complete lockdown is
| bad or even get them to care.
| Spivak wrote:
| It is outrageous in a very literal sense. The whole
| reason people are mad is because they know that Keurig is
| allowed to do it and have basically zero power to make
| them stop.
| spijdar wrote:
| I agree -- I meant it in contrast with smartphones, where
| it's seen as totally normal to have no escape hatch to
| run your own software.
|
| Most "normal" people see that a coffeemaker putting "DRM"
| on your coffee is ridiculous, but that outrage never
| really extended to digital devices for some reason.
| dTal wrote:
| >for some reason
|
| Ignorance. If people had no real idea how coffee was made
| either, you wouldn't see much outcry over locked-down
| coffee pods either. "You want to _grind your own beans_?
| What an eccentric nerd! _My_ coffee maker works perfectly
| with the manufacturer pods, why would I ever switch? "
| drieddust wrote:
| Well last time I got angry down votes for saying this.
| But you are really renting if apple can lock you out.
|
| My non technical wife managed to lock herself out of her
| device and icloud with no recourse as I didn't preserve
| the reciept.
|
| So now we have a device but it is just an unusable brick.
| So are we the owner or renter?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I let an iPad sit on a shelf for a few years. In that
| time, Apple removed the account it was registered under,
| so I can't log in to it at all.
| samatman wrote:
| It's not correct to say that Apple doesn't make a profit on
| devices.
|
| In fact, Apple makes a robust profit on every mobile device
| they sell.
|
| This is in contrast to, e.g, gaming consoles, which are (at
| least were) sold below cost, with the profit coming from
| games.
|
| Apple also won't stop you from installing whatever on your
| gizmo, legally I mean. With mobile, they do several things
| which make it pointlessly difficult, and I would rather
| they didn't.
| zepearl wrote:
| In general, I kept reading in the past that Apple's sold
| HW (including MacBooks etc..., not just phones) has at
| least about 30% profit?
| s_dev wrote:
| There is precedent -- e.g. Bootcamp -- Apple share price rose
| 10% or something when this was initially announced.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| I would love to install Linux on my old (unsupported)iPad 2
| astrange wrote:
| It wouldn't be very useful without swap, and the device isn't
| meant to be used with swap enabled.
| daemoon wrote:
| I can guarantee that this will never happen as the whole point
| of Apple products is the hardware and software working
| seamlessly together - for the most part anyway.
| mholm wrote:
| That's a tough guarantee to make. Apple has already been
| putting in in some effort on their M1 macs to ensure that
| other operating systems can be booted, without compromising
| their bootloader's security. https://mobile.twitter.com/marca
| n42/status/13331260180689551...
|
| While I don't think it's likely, it would be _possible_ for
| Apple to open this up on the phone side too
| wmf wrote:
| People would use that to install compromised versions of iOS
| with all the problems that entails.
| tuxone wrote:
| For each iOS device sold Apple can profit from selling services
| (iCloud sub, App Store, Music, TV+ etc) so allowing something
| like that would only result in loosing customers.
|
| The customers Apple can win are those willing to buy a brand
| new $1K+ iPhone, switch OS and void (at least part of) the
| warranty. If they are not supporting a Bootcamp for Android
| probably is because they did the math and it was not worth it.
| freeopinion wrote:
| Just to be clear, "did the math" in this context would mean
| "made some guesses."
| darepublic wrote:
| thanks for the old.reddit link
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-11 22:00 UTC)