When you spend enough time doing diagnostics — the technical kind or the human kind — you eventually notice something: most conflicts don’t resolve because one side “wins.” They resolve because the incentives change.
That realization hit me again recently over something incredibly small: my dad’s old iPad.
A Missing iPad and a Strange Situation
While my dad was in rehab recovering from a broken ankle, his aging iPad disappeared. It’s not a valuable device. It’s locked. It’s old. We weren’t trying to reclaim a piece of hardware — all we wanted was a simple check:
“Is his personal information safe?”
That’s the entire ask.
We know exactly where the iPad ended up.
We know the person who has it.
And yet… that made things more complicated, not less.
Human behavior often defies logic. People don’t like admitting they made a mistake. They don’t like looking irresponsible, even when the stakes are low and the solution is simple.
So instead of, “Sure, come take a look,” we got silence, avoidance, and denial.
Not malicious — just human.
The Bureaucratic Path Wasn’t Worth It
Could we recover it through official channels?
Technically, yes.
Practically? No.
It would require:
- Police reports
- Property-room processing
- Delays
- Releasing a device we don’t actually want back
All for a 9-year-old iPad with $0 resale value.
The system exists, but it’s not designed for real-world friction.
Where the Technology Gets Interesting
Here’s what most people never consider:
An iPad with Find My enabled can be forced to emit a loud “Play Sound” alert.
Over and over.
Indefinitely.
At unpredictable times.
As long as:
- It’s charged
- It’s on Wi-Fi
- It hasn’t been wiped (and this one hasn’t)
This feature wasn’t designed for situations like ours. But like many tools, it has secondary uses that emerge from its structure.
You can’t harm the device.
You can’t access it remotely.
You can’t break anything.
You just… change the incentives.
Suddenly the cost of “holding onto” something that isn’t yours becomes far higher than the benefit.
Not through force.
Not through confrontation.
But through structure.
This Pattern Shows Up Everywhere
This situation reminded me of something I’ve seen repeatedly in engineering, forensics, legal disputes, and organizational behavior:
You don’t always need to overpower someone.
You just need to change the environment they’re operating in.
It’s the same principle behind:
- cybersecurity deterrence
- fraud prevention
- negotiation strategy
- operational governance
- conflict de-escalation
- incentive engineering
People move when the structure around them moves.
The iPad is just a small example — but a clear one.
Humans Don’t Respond to Force. They Respond to Incentives.
We often think the “best” resolution comes from proving we’re right or escalating until someone yields. But most conflicts — from lost iPads to six-figure construction disputes — don’t hinge on force. They hinge on perceived value.
In this case, the value of keeping the iPad is low.
The hassle of a device that periodically screams at random times is high.
That’s the entire chessboard.
The Real Lesson
I didn’t write this story because of the iPad.
I wrote it because it perfectly captures a principle I use in nearly every domain of my life and work:
Asymmetric problems are best solved with asymmetric solutions.
You don’t always need to fight harder.
You just need to design the system so the rational choice becomes obvious.
Smart beats force.
Structure beats confrontation.
Incentives beat resistance.
Sometimes the smallest situations illustrate the biggest truths.