A British Reddit user, using the alias TheEdmard, reported an unsettling incident involving an Android-based hack tied to a supposed purchase of the original iPhone 15 Pro Max from Apple’s official site. The post originally surfaced on Android Authority, providing details that raised questions about product authenticity and delivery security.
The sequence began when TheEdmard placed an order for the iPhone 15 Pro Max via Apple’s online storefront. The package arrived through the DPD courier network, and initial impressions suggested a routine handoff: the shipping carton appeared intact, and the exterior packaging carried no obvious signs of tampering. For many buyers, a secure shipping exterior is the first line of defense against counterfeit or compromised devices, making this initial calm a notable point in the narrative.
However, the moment of truth arrived upon unboxing. The device inside did not resemble Apple’s flagship model. The device betrayed multiple telltale indicators of a counterfeit, most strikingly the physical design differences. The fake showcased noticeably thicker bezels, an IPS display that hearkened back to older LCD technology rather than Apple’s OLED treatment, and a screen protected by a legacy-notched film that dated the unit to an earlier era of iPhone design. These elements were conspicuous enough to prompt immediate doubt about the product’s provenance.
Further red flags emerged once the device was powered on. The counterfeit ran an Android operating system, attempting to mimic iOS’s look and feel but doing so with several noticeable flaws. The user reported widespread instability, frequent errors, and apps that failed to operate as expected. Pre-installed services often associated with iPhones, such as popular video platforms and social apps, allegedly recognized the device as inauthentic or non-functional, reinforcing the conclusion that this was not an official Apple product.
Within the Reddit thread, commentators speculated that the switch to the counterfeit may have occurred during the delivery chain rather than earlier in the supply process. The discussion highlighted the vulnerability of the last-mile phase to counterfeit and tampering risks, and it underscored the importance of verifying both the provenance and integrity of devices upon receipt. The community’s input reflects a broader concern among consumers about how to authenticate premium electronics purchased online, especially when the seller is the original manufacturer or an authorized retailer.
The individual behind the post did reach out to Apple Support for assistance, and the support team reportedly pledged to investigate the issue and follow up with additional information. The exchange suggested that Apple was taking the claim seriously and intended to communicate a resolution or guidance once more details were gathered. While the official outcome was not immediately disclosed, the engagement indicated Apple’s willingness to address potential counterfeit scenarios and to provide directions for legitimate warranty or replacement considerations.
In the wake of the incident, commentators recalled prior statements about Apple’s ongoing development of new software and hardware generations. The reference to Apple’s stated ambition for its software ecosystem—often described by the company as moving toward more integrated, feature-rich, and secure experiences—frames this episode as part of a larger conversation about protection against counterfeit devices while preserving the integrity of brand hardware and software.