The ACCC is an independent authority of the Australian government. This is not about making money for lawyers. This is about protecting the rights of consumer.
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.
Australian Consumer Regulator Sues Apple Over 'Error 53' iPhone Shutdowns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great post.
This issue is that Apple is selling the iPhone in Australia, so must do so in accordance with Australian consumer law. If Apple really dislike Australian consumer law, they could stop sell the iPhone in Australia
.Your point about temporary license that Apple may revoke is important. One way Apple maybe able to prevent 3rd party repairs would be not to sell the iPhone, but lease it to the consumer for 24 months.
Wow, people are really defending this ****.
Reminds me of the right to repair bill where some Apple lobbyist said that if someone exchanges a part, your Mac becomes a standard PC and the macOS licence should be revoked.
I also like how people totally spin what happened.
Nobody wanted to use a fingerprint sensor, third party repairs installed a plain button to get homebutton functionality.
It hasn't been possible to use a different fingerprint sensor on an iPhone. They are married to the board, if you exchange one of them, fingerprint will stop working. Yes, even before Error 53.
It wasn't about security, they've covered this risk since 2013. It was about discouraging people from using third party repair.
Reminds me of the right to repair bill where some Apple lobbyist said that if someone exchanges a part, your Mac becomes a standard PC and the macOS licence should be revoked.
I also like how people totally spin what happened.
Nobody wanted to use a fingerprint sensor, third party repairs installed a plain button to get homebutton functionality.
It hasn't been possible to use a different fingerprint sensor on an iPhone. They are married to the board, if you exchange one of them, fingerprint will stop working. Yes, even before Error 53.
It wasn't about security, they've covered this risk since 2013. It was about discouraging people from using third party repair.
This is the entire issue in a Nutshell. Just sour grapes over the attempt to steal Apple's NFC fail by the Australian banks. Won't go anywhere.
Rubbish, its about ensuring Sims and his cronies are fully funded in the 17-18 federal budget by finding a novel, high profile case right when the ACCC lodges its budget submission. Apple was just to the hive mind due to a recent ACCC decision re the banks wanting to collude against it. It always amazes me how trusting people can be when it comes to quasi judicial bureaucracies. Nothing will come of this except Rod Sims will get to extend his time at the taxpayer filled trough that little bit longer.
Ever have a car go into "limp" mode? It's virtually the same thing as stalling the engine.
(a) There are other ways of achieving security other than the punitive fix they applied, that is bleedingly obvious.
(b) Apple broke the law in the eyes of the regulator, who should know, and that will be adjudicated by the courts. You seem to think Apple is above the law.
(c) The UK laws may or may not be stronger that Aus laws, but what's certain is that the UK regulators are weak, since they did not sue on something so obvious - disabling an entire device for merely repairing it.
I do know why the error occurred. I agree that this is a case where the rights of the consumer and the integrity of the finger print scanner do clash to some extent. This issue in my opinion is that Apple bricked the iPhones rather than just disabling the possible compromised fingerprint scanner.
To quote the post: [Apple] but later admitted the error was a mistake and apologized for it, offering instructions online explaining how to fix affected devices.
I'm with Apple on this one. I see this no differently than Apple's MFi ("Made for iPhone") program. The MFi process is in place in order to control quality and safety of accessories. Yeah sure, you can buy a sketchy $2 charging cable on Amazon, but it's not Apple's fault when it burns your house down.
I can't think of any instances when UK consumer protection laws go beyond EU ones. It will be interesting to see how these laws evolve after Brexit.
I think it is great that you guys have strong consumer protection, and I sometimes wish that the US had stronger consumer protection laws.
But, one downside is that the cost associated with consumer protection laws and stuff like mandatory warranty coverage gets carried down to the consumers themselves. I remember a few articles recently with a lot of complaints about the price difference from the US to some of the overseas markets.
As it is said often in the Accounting world, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I don't know about this. I all for Apple for protecting the consumer from things, but they do this by bricking the device? How about a warning, or disclaimer saying that there might be a consumer violation. Apple loves the warning disclaimers, look at the annoying pop-up on CarPlay.
AS AN AUSTRALIAN... I 100% agree with you...
[doublepost=1491483463][/doublepost]
Because warning of a possible attempt to access secure data defeats the purpose of having measures in place that protect secure data.
The Touch ID is not required to operate the iPhone or to keep it secure. So, again, why is bricking a reasonable consequence of a third-party repair?
I'm glad. Second time the ACCC have stood up to Apple - last time they forced Apple into two years of warranty.
At the end of the day if a consumer wants to have their home button repaired by a 3rd party thats their choice. Apple should have made a warning dialogue. Disabling the phone was over the top and obviously to discourage 3rd party repairs.
At the end of the day if a consumer wants to have their home button repaired by a 3rd party thats their choice. Apple should have made a warning dialogue. Disabling the phone was over the top and obviously to discourage 3rd party repairs.
The problem happened when the fingerprint sensor was changed, even when using a genuine sensor from another Apple iPhone. If Apple were only concerned about protecting the security of the data and software then why were the phones also hardware bricked? Protecting the data only requires triggering a wipe restore on iTunes, not also killing A$1000 hardware.
Apple continued to break the law for months until the media story came out. That must be dealt with by legal proceedings in Australia. Apple lawyer in court - 'but it was only a SOFTWARE doodad'
So security be damned? What if someone steals your phone, replaces the fingerprint sensor and then uses that to bypass the security to get your bank, contacts and whatever else is on your phone. Think about this just a little.
Fairly sure that A) the fingerprints would not match those stored and B) you need a passcode after restarting every time and I don't think you can change the fingerprint sensor without shutting down the iPhone.
I am not saying this is bad, but the cost of the two year warranty gets added to everyone's Apple device purchase in Australia. In this forum, there are complaints all the time about the Australian Apple products, when compared with the US price. The extended warranty is one reason for the difference.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
The Touch ID is not the only security that the iPhone has. You cannot access any of those things you mentioned without knowing the persons passcode.
Also, this doesn't justify bricking the iPhone. If anything, the unauthorized part could have been disabled.
Apple later admitted that it was NOT a security issues. This just reminds us that even though Apple is run by a privileged individual (according to media standards and 50% of the U.S. population) it is still a greedy profit chasing monster. It does not matter how many Red phones it produces or what charities it supports, Apple is still a greedy US corporation. The only way to keep Apple or any other greedy corporation within normal bounds is continuous comment and criticism when it shows its ugly side.
That must be dealt with by legal proceedings in Australia.
Really? It must? Well then if it must the legal proceedings should have been brought up at the time it happened, or hell, at least sometime around when it happened, not over a year later.
Wha wha what??? Pretty sure that if you enabled touch id to unlock your phone, and touch id stopped working, you wouldn't be able to access your phone at all, let alone operate it. So, it is indeed required to operate the phone for those that have it enabled as a security feature.
Sure, you dont "need" touch id to secure an iphone. But if you have a iphone with touch id, and you have it turned on in the apps where your using it for security (banking, passwords, apple pay) then it absolutely needs to work properly for those things to remain secure. If a third party repairs your phone, and then that repair directly enabled others to circumvent touch id to unlock your lost iphone, then to access all the apps you had it enabled and stole credit card numbers, bank accounts, debit cards, passwords. Well, lets just say the **** storm that would cause would make this ACCC lawsuit look like a case on Judge Judy.