Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Student Mods an iPhone X to Add a Functional USB-C Port
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple could still make money on the MFi program using a proprietary protocol for many things like, music sync, USB 3.0 speeds, video out (the way it works right now is a great example - others use displaylink which has the same principle) and many other stuff, fast charging and etcetera.
Just to let you know that the first iPhone with USB-C is on sale, black iPhone X 64GB. I'm not affiliated or anything, just to let you know of the opportunity.
No, it's not. There's a very clear difference between buying a product, and buying the rights to a limited use of a product. Apple doesn't sell you macOS. They only sell you a licence to use macOS under very specific conditions. Conversely, Ford doesn't sell you a licence to drive the car. They sell you the actual car. That's where the difference lies.
This isn't necessarily about software versus hardware. The owner of a hardware item can theoretically do the same. Namely, instead of selling you the device, they could lend it to you on their own terms. Leasing a car is the perfect example: the lessee doesn't own the car, they may only use it under certain conditions.
Or the other way around: the owner of a song can theoretically sell it to you - meaning that you become the legal owner of that song and can do whatever you wish with it, including charging other people for listening to it. Though in that case you'd probably have to pay an awful lot more money than what you're currently paying Apple for the mere right to listen to it.
Last edited:
Apple makes BILLION$$$$$ of licensing lightening cables.
That’s the only reason why.
Apple: “Yeah, but E-Waste!!!!!”
While Apple, Microsoft, Amazon lobby$$ against climate change legislation.
Microsoft can shove it’s “ocean plastic” made mouses up it’s a**
While Apple, Microsoft, Amazon lobby$$ against climate change legislation.
Microsoft can shove it’s “ocean plastic” made mouses up it’s a**
I doubt that. I'd bet the licensing fees basically covered the development and ongoing costs with maybe a small profit, relative to Apple's normal profit margins.
Total iPad and iPhone sales are just under 2 billion since the introduction of the Lightning connector. If we assume every unit also resulted in the purchase of a non-Apple MiFI certified cable or accessory at $4/unit fee that's about $8billion over 8 years. Since many units are likely replacements that don't result in new cable/accessory sales and many users probably never by a 3rd party MiFI cable (vs a knockoff that is not certified) the actual number is probably a lot lower. Given in 2020 there were just over a billion iPhone users even assuming every active user at some point bought a MiFi cable that's about $4billion in revenue over 8 years.
Since Apple's revenue over the same period was more than $2 trillion, MiFi licenses are a rounding error (~.2% of total revenue if you use $8billion).
Looking at the auction, I predict it will not end well for the seller due to what has been written and what has not not been written.
The way it has been worded and the words used can very easily confuse potential bidders that the phone is somehow the work of Apple when in fact it is not. This is due to the use of the word 'prototype'. Such a word is very commonly and well known to be associated with manufactureres who produce 'specials' or 'one-offs' of their product. The iphone was modified by the seller and thus the seller should use the word 'modified' or 'modification' to describe the iphone.
Also, many in the mobile phone industry know about Europe pushing for an industry usb standard for mobile phones and other mobile devices with the media making numerous articles about how this will affect Apple and thus what will Apple do about it. Therefore to use the line 'World's first USB-C iphone' again plays into the minds of potential bidders that this iphone is the product of Apple's doing when in fact it isn't. Also and more importantly, the seller does not disclose that the modification was done by him and not Apple and that Apple had no involvement.
What the auction does do is give the impression that the iphone is a USB-C prototype produced by Apple and the seller just happens to have it and is selling it on a well know auction site. The seller is therefore clearly being very deceptive and dishonest in my opinion and thus will backfire on the seller.
You need to understand the signifigance of the seller using the word 'prototype' because in the context of what is being sold, it is extremely important.
For the general understanding of the man/woman on the street, when the word 'protype' is used it can have the following meaning 'prototype is an early sample, model, or release of a product built to test a concept or process'. The word 'prototype' is a word used by manufacturers to describe a design concept.
Therefore lets be clear about something here, the phone is NOT, i repeat NOT a prototype because Apple did not design and build USB-C into the iphone to test it's 'concept'. In actual fact the correct termanology for what has taken place to the iphone is 'modification', a modification which took place by the hands of the seller, not Apple.
Also, you fail to understand that once the auction sale is over it forms a contract of sale between the seller and buyer the wording used in the sale forms part of the contract of sale which means the wording has to be clear, precise and factual. The fact that the iphone is not a prototype and the USB-C feature is a modification of an existing iphone means if the winning bidder feels they were mislead thinking Apple were the ones who owned the iphone and made the 'prototype', the winning bidder could claim they was mislead and thus have the contract of sale voided.
Based on the wording used in the auction, if the winning bidder felt they was duped or mislead, they would easily win in a court of law due to the wording used. it's all based an a case of 'reasonable expectation' and many a sale of goods contract have been thrown out by the courts due to the misleading and confusing wording used in sale of goods contracts also sometimes known as 'Terms and Conditions'. Auctions are no exceptions.
I think you're reading too much into one word - a word which could be interpreted in many ways regardless of how some manufacturers choose to use it. If someone, after reading that description, is stupid enough to buy the phone thinking it was made by Apple, then they shound't even be allowed to walk the streets unattended, let alone to use the internet.
I'm all for fighting against dishonest sellers who use misleading wording, but in this particular case I see no such thing. The message seems perfectly clear to me. Even if I were somehow misled for half a second by that particular word, I would still realize what it's all about after reading the rest of it.
Would a dummy who claimed they were duped stand a chance of winning in court? Of course. But that doesn't mean they're right, it only means the justice system is messed up.
I'm all for fighting against dishonest sellers who use misleading wording, but in this particular case I see no such thing. The message seems perfectly clear to me. Even if I were somehow misled for half a second by that particular word, I would still realize what it's all about after reading the rest of it.
Would a dummy who claimed they were duped stand a chance of winning in court? Of course. But that doesn't mean they're right, it only means the justice system is messed up.
OK, if you believe the seller is not being dishonest they why didn't the seller make it clear in the listing that it was HE who modified the iphone? It clearly is not a 'prototype' because Apple did not build/manufacture it so why use the word 'prototype' instead of 'modification'. I'll tell you why it's because he want's to dupe potential bidders into thinking that it was Apple that made the feature, hence why the bidding has gone so high. He knows full well that if he put in the listing that the USB-C feature is a modification that he made to the iphone, there is no way potential bidders would think the phone is worth above $1000.
It is clear what his intention is and I find it shameful and alarming that a) you cannot see what the seller is doing and b) your in support of the seller.
There's a link to a YouTube video in the listing, in which he clearly states that he did it. There are also pictures of the opened phone. And there are comments to that video, as well as other related videos. It takes you literally less than one minute to realize what this is all about.
I agree that "prototype" may not be the right word. Maybe he should have said "proof of concept". But I think that indicates just a slight lack of eloquence and familiarity with subtle meanings of the words, rather than a flat-out intention to deceive. If he really wanted to make it look like an Apple prototype, I'm sure he could have done it better than that.
I agree that "prototype" may not be the right word. Maybe he should have said "proof of concept". But I think that indicates just a slight lack of eloquence and familiarity with subtle meanings of the words, rather than a flat-out intention to deceive. If he really wanted to make it look like an Apple prototype, I'm sure he could have done it better than that.
So your saying that because he put a link to his video, a link potential buyers HAVE to click to find out the true and real intentions of the seller, it's ok then and that absolves him of any responsibility of misleading potentioal buyers??
Again, the same question, why did he write in the listing that it was he that modified the iphone? what is he afraid of? oh and in my opinion the reason he put the video link in the listing is so he can benifit from channel views because the more views a channel gets, the more money the creator of the channel gets.
Again it's a shame you cannot see what he is doing and has obviously got you fooled. If he can fool you, how many others is he able to fool.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what's needed to absolve him in case of a dispute. All I'm saying is that the listing is perfectly clear for someone who's willing to spare half a minute and has at least two neurons in their head.
Could it be clearer? Sure it could.
Is it clear enough to absolve him in a court of law? I don't know. Possibly not.
Is it clear enough for most people? Yes, I think so.
Does someone who buys it thinking it's an Apple product, because they're either too dumb or too lazy to click on a link, deserve sympathy? Nope.
Anyway, if it bothers you so much, why don't you report the listing to eBay? They will take it down if they find it deceitful.
I get why you’re insisting on a more explicit disclaimer by the seller. Ambiguity is very irritating but part of the world of commerce. If you interpret each ebay listening description as layman’s advertising - advertising which our societies encourage, or at its worst tolerate, then there is not much of a case here.
If you accept the reality, that we all live in a world of white (and black) lies - especially when it comes to matters of commerce - then the question remains: is that particular lie (for a lack of better word) you're referring to punishable by law?
If they did something illegal, you've got a case.
If not, then your argument is still valid but reveals itself as being part of a much larger philosophical discourse, in particular that of morality.
That being said, yeah it sucks, he did not make a big fat disclaimer but if he had done so it might have been bad advertising. And let’s not forget the buyer bares some responsibility, too. The rarity of actual „prototypes” would give any person hunting for this type of gear pause to contact the seller. Just that tidbit should be enough to give the guy a pass.
Last edited:
Why are you defending the seller so much? He modified the iphone but clearly does not want buyers knowing this hence why he has not mentioned it in the listing and the only way potential buyers can find out the truth is to click on a link in the listing. It is not the responibility of buyers to go looking for answers to their questions about the listing, everything should be in the listing but it is not. It therefore implies that the seller has something to hide because why not make it obvious in the listing that he is the one that modified the iphone, why hide that fact from buyers?
I am curious, do you know the seller? do you have links with or to the seller because it seems strange to me that based on the evidence put forward to you, you still stick to the defence that the listing is very clear and thus sticking to defending the seller.
Again, the same question applies to you to. The seller is the one who modified the iphone so why does he not disclose this fact in the listing? why is he hiding that fact? Both yourself and the other member are too focused on what is written in the listing and not focusing on what is not in the listing and as such I am having a hard time understanding this.
The fact the seller does not disclose in the listing that he is the one that modified the iphone and uses statements such as 'Worlds first USB-C iphone' and 'prototype' in my opinion implies that he is trying to get potential buyers to think it was Apple that made this prototype phone to enhance it's value.
No, I don't know the seller. But I also find your aggressiveness towards him quite strange. Do you know him or have anything to gain by bashing him?
Like I said, if you have a problem with his listing, then report it. Ranting about it on an Apple forum isn't going to help those poor souls that this evil conman has set out to deceive.
Just report it to eBay. If they take it down, it means you were right. If they don't, it means I am.
Like I said, if you have a problem with his listing, then report it. Ranting about it on an Apple forum isn't going to help those poor souls that this evil conman has set out to deceive.
Just report it to eBay. If they take it down, it means you were right. If they don't, it means I am.
Last edited:
Then let me reiterate my question: do you think suing him would lead to punishment? This is not a trick question.