You just keep speculating and saying they should be able to do things. You have zero clue about how deeply integrated that system is. Touch ID is connected to the display, and hundreds of thousands of lines of code . You are just speculating that it can be both secure and easy
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.
Law Firms Consider 'Error 53' Lawsuits Against Apple as Some Stores Authorized for Repairs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but they may not be authorized to do modular repair.Geez...It says right in the headline that some of the stores were authorized. You didn't even have to read through the entire article to see that...
Why should Apple stay liable for non-OEM parts used?
Let's apply this logic to BMW. I go to a non-BMW service center and get a certain part replaced with an non-OEM equivalent. It doesn't work in the future. I can't go to the BMW dealer and be like "hey, why doesn't it work right?" The dealer will tell you it's because of the non-OEM part used. In this case, the owner wouldn't sue BMW. Why should it be any different for Apple?
They could do it in a way that doesn't brick your phone
Hi all
First post!
I am not understanding some of the posts on here - there seems to be a huge 'benefit-of-the-doubt' giving to Apple here
Firstly, we have the 'security' excuse which seems to be a little odd as it only applies after an update and doesn't (from a number of sources) seem to be limited to 3rd party replacement.
That is a certain irrelevance though because the consumer law problem will be based on the actions of Apple with respect to them bricking phones remotely and by choice as seems to be the case. As a poster above states any court action would require Apple to provide clear proof that their action prevented security breaches and this would have to be pretty conclusive in order to justify damaging somebody else's property - which is, in fact what they have willingly decided to do
Apple can void warranties due to 3rd party repairs as stated in their EULA
Apple can also make changes that will disable certain functionalities of phones using their software as stated in their EULA
Apple are not responsible if a 3rd party repair damages the phone - that lies with the repairer or with the owner
What Apple cannot do is damage other people's property without extremely good reason, and the deliberate bricking of phones via an update would probably fall into this, or at least be very much arguable in a court .
If they have clear evidence that there is a severe security risk then they may just about be able to justify it but that will be a tough sell and courts will take some convincing. If there is no evidence that the security argument is justified then they will have to replace a lot of phones
I am amazed that people on here seem to be blaming the lawyers, this seems to be all Apple's fault - either through deliberate and unlawful action to prevent non-Apple repairs or just really poor communication of the consequences of any damage to the home button. If I was affected and had just paid a lot for a phone on a contract then I would not be very happy at all in being asked to pay a lot of money for something that was deliberately done by Apple
In the end it is all supposition though - this one will head to the courts and the decisions will be made there - Apple PR department may be looking for some new staff shortly though
First post!
I am not understanding some of the posts on here - there seems to be a huge 'benefit-of-the-doubt' giving to Apple here
Firstly, we have the 'security' excuse which seems to be a little odd as it only applies after an update and doesn't (from a number of sources) seem to be limited to 3rd party replacement.
That is a certain irrelevance though because the consumer law problem will be based on the actions of Apple with respect to them bricking phones remotely and by choice as seems to be the case. As a poster above states any court action would require Apple to provide clear proof that their action prevented security breaches and this would have to be pretty conclusive in order to justify damaging somebody else's property - which is, in fact what they have willingly decided to do
Apple can void warranties due to 3rd party repairs as stated in their EULA
Apple can also make changes that will disable certain functionalities of phones using their software as stated in their EULA
Apple are not responsible if a 3rd party repair damages the phone - that lies with the repairer or with the owner
What Apple cannot do is damage other people's property without extremely good reason, and the deliberate bricking of phones via an update would probably fall into this, or at least be very much arguable in a court .
If they have clear evidence that there is a severe security risk then they may just about be able to justify it but that will be a tough sell and courts will take some convincing. If there is no evidence that the security argument is justified then they will have to replace a lot of phones
I am amazed that people on here seem to be blaming the lawyers, this seems to be all Apple's fault - either through deliberate and unlawful action to prevent non-Apple repairs or just really poor communication of the consequences of any damage to the home button. If I was affected and had just paid a lot for a phone on a contract then I would not be very happy at all in being asked to pay a lot of money for something that was deliberately done by Apple
In the end it is all supposition though - this one will head to the courts and the decisions will be made there - Apple PR department may be looking for some new staff shortly though
So if an Authorized store used Bogus parts wouldn't that be the store's fault. If I take my car to the Ford dealer and find them using AutoZone parts then there is hell to pay. That issue would be between me and that dealer, not Ford.
Here's the part that bothers me. APPLE ALREADY SAID CONTACT THEIR SUPPORT AND THEY WILL HELP IF YOU GAVE THE ERROR. What else do you want? They already are on top of what they need to do
[doublepost=1454965118][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1454965118][/doublepost]
Apple already said you can contact their support for help if you got the error. Why are you complaining again?
So, if someone attempts to "borrow" you car, and tries to start it with a "replacement" key, you want the law to require that the car's ignition system software lets any person who wants to "borrow" your car to start it and drive it away using any 3rd party (or someone else's) key?
I know the difference between the software that interfaces between the sensor and the device actually running is definitely one line of code. It's definitely possible for iOS to run with it being disabled.
Well, lets actually just let them brick phones because that's easier for them. I think it actually easier for Apple if we all threw everything we own in the bin and went out and bought a 128 GB iPhone 6S plus right now so I guess we'll have t do that too.
Unfortunately the entire home button is a fingerprint sensor. So even if your home button breaks (fairly common occurrence besides a cracked screen), Apple will still brick your phone if it's replaced. Even if you've never enabled touch fingerprint security. Not cool.
Apple already said that their support will help those who got the error. Why are you still arguing?I know the difference between the software that interfaces between the sensor and the device actually running is definitely one line of code. It's definitely possible for iOS to run with it being disabled.
Well, lets actually just let them brick phones because that's easier for them. I think it actually easier for Apple if we all through everything we owned in the bin and went out and bought a 128 GB iPhone 6S plus so I guess we'll have t do that too.
Unfortunately the entire home button is a fingerprint sensor. So even if your home button breaks (fairly common occurrence besides a cracked screen), Apple will still brick your phone if it's replaced. Even if you've never enabled touch fingerprint security. Not cool.
You do not know that, as I know that's wrong. Also, Apple Support already said they would help people with the error. So why are you arguing?I know the difference between the software that interfaces between the sensor and the device actually running is definitely one line of code. It's definitely possible for iOS to run with it being disabled.
Well, lets actually just let them brick phones because that's easier for them. I think it actually easier for Apple if we all through everything we owned in the bin and went out and bought a 128 GB iPhone 6S plus so I guess we'll have t do that too.
A barber?
Horrible analogy. Replace barber with a shade tree mechanic and your analogy makes sense.Personally, I don't take my car to the dealership for repairs. Minor stuff, I do myself. Major work, I've got a trusted mechanic (ASE Master certified) who charges a lot less than the dealer. There are certain ridiculously specialized stuff that he tells me only the dealership can do.
Replacing the home button on the iPhone would fall under ridiculously specialized stuff.
You do not know that, as I know that's wrong. Also, Apple Support already said they would help people with the error. So why are you arguing?I know the difference between the software that interfaces between the sensor and the device actually running is definitely one line of code. It's definitely possible for iOS to run with it being disabled.
Well, lets actually just let them brick phones because that's easier for them. I think it actually easier for Apple if we all through everything we owned in the bin and went out and bought a 128 GB iPhone 6S plus so I guess we'll have t do that too.
And, if you actually "RTFA" you'd see that Apple is allowing some stores to repair phones that were previously repaired by unauthorized shops and got the error 53. The question is then if Apple will allow all stores to do this, or just some.
The title is pretty bad. No where in the article does it suggest that some authorized stores caused the error.
You should actually, you know, read it (or skip to the last two paragraphs if you're that lazy).
Because all I asked was why can't they disable it, and you have also just speculated. If you can't answer my question don't answer it.
Of course! why I can not loner use something that is mine? Is my responsibility and belongs to me. So, if that is the case, Apple still the owner of my iPhone, not me. Is like an ex boyfriend telling me what to do with my husband, excuse Sr... I broke up with you already BROKE UP! Finito!
all they have to do is just disable the TouchID so that they can't use apple pay.they don't have to brick the entire phone.
Absolutely ridiculous. As many have mentioned already, third party parts fitted by an unauthorised repair centre void the warranty anyway. Those are the terms you sign up for. That isn't isolated to Apple. It's standard in the industry — but you'll bet that other companies won't be sued over it.
And before anybody says that other manufacturers don't brick the systems, just try fitting a different wireless card in an HP laptop over their junk stock ones, for instance. The system won't even boot and will message that it's a non-OEM part.
And before anybody says that other manufacturers don't brick the systems, just try fitting a different wireless card in an HP laptop over their junk stock ones, for instance. The system won't even boot and will message that it's a non-OEM part.
I did and they asked for me to pay money to them...didn't want to use my own situation as anecdote is not data....let it head to court and see if Apple are being truthful here
If it was any other company who had deliberately (and this is one reading of the situation) bricking a device then there would have been howls of protest on here
All I know is my expensive device stopped working completely after an update and I have been asked to pay more money for a replacement. I am skeptical of the security excuse but, in the absence, of anything else I am happy to let the courts decide
And the very next jobs had an emergency press conference offering full refund to anyone who simply didn't like their iPhone 4.
We will never see anything like that about this because Tim Cook is.... Tim Cook thinks Europe is Android lol.
All of you are nincompoops. For one thing, the article is just stating that Some Apple Stores are authorized for repair. No where does it say that someone took their phone to an apple store or an authorized apple service provider and had it brick. They only use genuine parts there... Im a technician, so I know. So you all need to read more critically. Second of all, if the TouchID sensor is replaced (or a screen for that matter that breaks one of the ribbons), then TouchID and ApplePay ARE disabled. Along with that, on the next update, it will brick the phone. But it IS disabled. Honestly, if you're going to say "it's a big security risk not disabling touchID and apple pay before bricking the phone" then you need to do the repairs yourself and see whether it does or not. I have done them. Before I even knew about error53, I just thought apple was cracking down on screen replacements and disabling TouchID and ApplePay, because the Customer said that wasn't working. .. If I restored the original screen, it worked fine. So they said they could live without touchID... Then they updated and it error'd. Same with breaking the ribbons... If you pry the TouchID sensor too fast, the pins and ribbons will bend and rip a little (i've seen it under a magnifying glass), and therefore iOS won't be able to correctly identify the sensor. TouchID will disable, and your phone will brick. So seriously, people, read more critically. I mean really? What do they teach in schools these days. The Title even says "Law Firms Consider 'error 53' lawsuits against apple as some stores authorized for repair' it just means Apple is authorizing repairs, as they are fixing to get sued. Now let's analyze. If the title ended with '. . .authorized for repair are bricking phones' then yes, that is what that would mean. Seriously, take a literature class people. But there you go. As a Computer Technician, I am behind Apple on this one. If you're ridiculous enough to get your phone replaced via Third-Party or some unauthorized repair place, then so be it. Those screens have wacky voltage, the cameras have weird voltage, so it's no wonder they don't want it. I've burnt several screens out before I realized to stop. It's just something they want. They can't be sued by it.. The customer causes damage by doing it, all Apple has to say is that prying the touchID sensor up to fast can rip the cable, which it totally can, causing the brick-age of the phone.
I suspect Apple took a short cut.
On the other hand, if Apple did disable Touch ID and Apple Pay, the users would be complaining (and the lawyers litigating) about that. "Apple disabled an advertised feature on the phone that I paid for, and they had NO RIGHT to disable Apple Pay on MY iPhone."
Again, you were ridiculous enough to do it. Of course they want you to pay money, they have to replace your parts with genuine parts. You don't understand the risks. Here's my last post on this same matter "All of you are nincompoops. For one thing, the article is just stating that Some Apple Stores are authorized for repair. No where does it say that someone took their phone to an apple store or an authorized apple service provider and had it brick. They only use genuine parts there... Im a technician, so I know. So you all need to read more critically. Second of all, if the TouchID sensor is replaced (or a screen for that matter that breaks one of the ribbons), then TouchID and ApplePay ARE disabled. Along with that, on the next update, it will brick the phone. But it IS disabled. Honestly, if you're going to say "it's a big security risk not disabling touchID and apple pay before bricking the phone" then you need to do the repairs yourself and see whether it does or not. I have done them. Before I even knew about error53, I just thought apple was cracking down on screen replacements and disabling TouchID and ApplePay, because the Customer said that wasn't working. .. If I restored the original screen, it worked fine. So they said they could live without touchID... Then they updated and it error'd. Same with breaking the ribbons... If you pry the TouchID sensor too fast, the pins and ribbons will bend and rip a little (i've seen it under a magnifying glass), and therefore iOS won't be able to correctly identify the sensor. TouchID will disable, and your phone will brick. So seriously, people, read more critically. I mean really? What do they teach in schools these days. The Title even says "Law Firms Consider 'error 53' lawsuits against apple as some stores authorized for repair' it just means Apple is authorizing repairs, as they are fixing to get sued. Now let's analyze. If the title ended with '. . .authorized for repair are bricking phones' then yes, that is what that would mean. Seriously, take a literature class people. But there you go. As a Computer Technician, I am behind Apple on this one. If you're ridiculous enough to get your phone replaced via Third-Party or some unauthorized repair place, then so be it. Those screens have wacky voltage, the cameras have weird voltage, so it's no wonder they don't want it. I've burnt several screens out before I realized to stop. It's just something they want. They can't be sued by it.. The customer causes damage by doing it, all Apple has to say is that prying the touchID sensor up to fast can rip the cable, which it totally can, causing the brick-age of the phone." And no, Apple isn't going to retrieve your data for you. That's ridiculous. It's your fault. That's why they are called THIRD PARTY. Maybe instead of skimping out on low-quality repairs, you'll go and either buy a case, or you'll get it repaired at the manufacturer.
[doublepost=1454966048][/doublepost]
It does disable it... Have any of you never replaced a stinking phone before??? Apple's own statement even says that it does. Being a technician, I know. It disabled TouchID and any touchID related features.
Indeed and that is caveat emptor....
This is not the case here though is it? The part itself does not render the phone unusable - that is only the case after Apple have released an update
My phone worked until the update so the part itself was not responsible for the bricking of the phone
If Apple deliberately targeted this type of repair then they need to have a very good reason to do so and I must say I am not being convinced by the posts on here today (which seem to be very good at drawing false analogies) or anything that Apple have said to me in explanation
All I know is that my phone used to work, now it doesn't and I would like to know why and, if it was Apple who decided this, what gives them the right to do so?
