Buy a 2 hand iPhone without ID and password how to deal with it

Summary. Second-hand Apple does not know the original owner ID password The solution is as follows: 1. Contact the seller and ask the seller to tell the password, or ask the seller to tell the password and remove the device.

I bought a second-hand Apple and asked for the original ID and ID password when activating but I don't know, what should I do?

Excuse me, but please go into more detail?

Second-hand Apple does not know the original owner ID password The solution is as follows: 1. Contact the seller and ask the seller to tell the password, or ask the seller to tell the password and remove the device.

Or through the following methods: 1. Search and type "icould" to enter Apple iCloud**. 2. After entering, in the login box, we enter the Apple ID bound to Apple to log in.

3. After clicking on login, the privacy agreement of Apple ID will appear, and we will click the continue option on the page to complete the login. 4. After logging in, you can see many function icons, we select the icon of "Find Phone" on the page to enter. 5. After clicking to enter, the map and device location will be loaded, we are in the top of all devices, and then select the iphone6 device to enter.

6. After clicking, the page will load our iPhone device, and we select the "Erase iPhone" option below the device to clear the iPhone6 lock screen password.

When the second-hand Apple mobile phone is reactivated, you need to log in to the Apple cloud to enter the system, so you only need to register an Apple ID to log in.

If you don't have the original Apple ID and password, you will definitely not be able to open it, and if you force it to open, the price will be very large, so you can only ask the seller to say yes, otherwise this phone may be useless.

Ask the seller to ask for it, if the seller doesn't give it, you can consider returning it, I hope it can help you!

Consider the problems faced by two businesses – Post and Kellogg. Each company will have a new cereal on the market for $3 per box of sales**. To keep things simple, let's assume that the marginal cost of producing cereal is zero, and therefore, $3 is all profit.

Every company knows that if $10 million is spent on advertising, 1 million consumers can try out their new cereal. And, every company knows that if consumers like cereal, they don't buy it once, they buy it many times.

Let's start with Post's decision. According to market research, Post knows that its cereal taste is average. While advertising can get 1 million consumers to buy a box each, consumers quickly learn that cereal isn't so good and stop buying it.

Post decided that it wasn't worth paying $10 million in advertising and only getting $3 million in sales. Therefore, it is not intended to advertise. It makes the chef go back to the kitchen for another flavor.

Kellogg, on the other hand, knows that its cereal is fantastic. Everyone who tried it would buy a box every month for the second year. As a result, $10 million in advertising dollars can generate $36 million in sales.

Here, advertising is profitable because consumers buy Kellogg's good products repeatedly. Therefore, Kellogg chose to advertise.

Now that we've considered the behavior of two businesses, let's consider the behavior of consumers. We start by asserting that consumers tend to try the new cereal they see from the advertisement. But is this behavior rational?

Will consumers try new cereal just because the seller chooses to advertise?

Case Study: The Prisoner Dilemma Match.

Let's say you're playing a prisoner's dilemma with a "suspect" who is locked up in another room. Moreover, imagine that this game is not played once, but many times. The final score you get for your game is the total number of years you have been imprisoned.

You want to make that score as little as possible. What strategy should you use? Should you start by confessing or keeping silent?

How will the actions of another participant affect your confessional decisions later on?

The prisoner dilemma is a complex game. To encourage cooperation, participants should punish each other for uncooperative behavior. But the previously described strategy of Jack and Jill's water cartel – that as long as the other defaults, one party defaults forever – is not forgiven.

In a game that has been repeated many times, it may be more desirable to allow participants to return to the outcome of the cooperation after a period of non-cooperation.

To illustrate which strategy is best, political scientist Robert? Robert Axelrod played a match. People enter the game through a computer program designed to repeatedly play the prisoner's dilemma.

Each program in which the game is played corresponds to all the others. The one who gets the procedure with the fewest total years in prison is the "winner".

The winner results in a simple strategy known as a pay-for-one. According to the report-for-report, participants should start with cooperation, and then do what the other participant did the last time. Therefore, the participants must cooperate until the other party breaches the contract; He defaulted until the other party re-cooperated.

In other words, the strategy starts with friendship, punishes unfriendly participants, and, if the other person changes, gives forgiveness. To Axelrod's surprise, this simple strategy is better than all the more complex strategies that people lose.