iPhone 13 Screen Replacements Can Break Face ID, a Repair Restriction iFixit Calls 'Completely Unprecedented'

[widEyed]

An inability to replace the iPhone 13's display without breaking Face ID could have a major impact on companies that offer iPhone repairs, iFixit said today in an article advocating for Right to Repair laws.

iFixit first pointed out this repair issue in its iPhone 13 Pro teardown, and has confirmed it with multiple tests. Replacing the display of the iPhone 13 renders Face ID non-functional, so at-home repairs are not an option. Swapping an iPhone 13's display with a display from a new iPhone 13 results in an error message that says "Unable to activate Face ID on this iPhone."

An iPhone display repair, which could previously be done with hand-held tools, now requires a microscope and microsoldering tools or access to Apple's Independent Repair Provider Program, which repair shops have criticized for its "draconian" contracts and requirements.

At issue is a small microcontroller that pairs the iPhone 13 to its display. Apple does not have a tool that allows iPhone owners or repair shops not affiliated with Apple to pair a new screen to an iPhone 13. Authorized technicians who do work with Apple need to use Apple Services Toolkit 2 to log a repair to Apple's cloud services, thereby syncing the serial numbers of the iPhone and the display.

Some repair shops have found a workaround, but it is difficult and work intensive. A soldered chip must be moved from the original screen to the replacement, which iFixit says is "completely unprecedented" as screen repair is "incredibly common" and accounts for a good amount of the revenue that independent repair shops bring in.

iFixit says that Apple's decision to disable Face ID with a screen repair could cause small repair outlets to shut down, spend thousands on new equipment, or lose out on Apple repairs. The site also does not believe that the Face ID repair issue is an accident, as Apple has previously introduced similar repair restrictions for Touch ID, True Tone functionality with display repairs, and iPhone 12 cameras.

Other independent repair shops that iFixit spoke to believe that Apple has implemented this change in an effort to "thwart a customer's ability to repair," directing iPhone owners to Apple retail locations or Apple Authorized Service Providers for help with their displays.

With the iPhone 12, camera repairs initially required Apple's proprietary system configuration tool to function properly, and cameras that were replaced were non-functional. Apple addressed this issue with an update that notifies customers that the camera in their device might not be genuine, but doesn't disable it entirely. Apple could do something similar for Face ID in a future update, but it's not clear yet if that will happen.

Customers with an iPhone 13 would be best served by visiting an Apple Authorized Service Provider or an Apple Store for any kind of repair due to the difficulty of display replacements and the potential for Face ID failure. Without AppleCare+, display repairs are expensive, priced between $229 to $329 for Apple's iPhone 13 models.

Article Link: iPhone 13 Screen Replacements Can Break Face ID, a Repair Restriction iFixit Calls 'Completely Unprecedented'

the RtR movement will get more momentum from this stupid decision by Apple. This company was started by kids who's first product was for freakers, it dialled a tone code to allow free trunk calls in the USA. One of the two active founders is still alive and look at the capitalistic pig Apple has become. such a shame. Luxe product options and pricing galore and shafting the repair industry which is not only of great convenience to many of us, does so a a fraction of the prices Apple charge for common repairs. Ok they use dodgy batteries sometimes, but otherwise an entirely legit cottage industry just got scorched by the Apple flying monkeys.

 

[widEyed]

It's a risk / reward trade off. If something goes wrong I know I can get it fixed, and if I damage it I know what the repair cost will be.



Another way of looking at it is Apple could offer a 3 year warranty out of the box but would have to raise prices to cover the repair liability. Offering it a la carte means consumers get to decide if the value the extra warranty or not. I am generally not a fan of extended warranties as they are really just a profit center; but in the case of my Macs I get them.

For me, who uses my Mac for work, the ability to get a repair or replacement is worth the extra cost. When a power supply dies in Dubai all I have to do is go to the Apple store for a replacement.



In the e90 series BMW's, replacing a battery required reregistering it with a special tool to get the charge profile correct.

Apples limited warranties are in contradiction to consumer law in many countries. Consumer law overrides what Apple staff will tell you. They've had class actions about not reminding people of their consumer law rights and now they are supposed to always mention that when a product repair/replacement is being discussed.

 

[The Clark]

..BUT there is a side to this that could be Apple's way of getting it's customers to look after their iphone, rather than treating it like crap.

...Are you serious?

Apple could be concerened that customers are not treating the iphone with the care and attention it deserves.

This has to be the most absurd take I've ever read on this forum.

Yes Apple is very concerned about the amount of respect we show our iPhones and has decided to restrict repairability in an effort to make us more RESPECTFUL 🤣

 

[beeftick]

This isn't new. Replacing the display caused FaceID to break since the X. There was a special firmware that had to be installed after display replacement for FaceID to work again. This firmware wasn't downloaded via a website link. It was downloaded and installed passively through their proprietary device calibrator software.

 

[jlc1978]

Apples limited warranties are in contradiction to consumer law in many countries. Consumer law overrides what Apple staff will tell you. They've had class actions about not reminding people of their consumer law rights and now they are supposed to always mention that when a product repair/replacement is being discussed.

True, and Apple needs to be upfront about rights and limitations, but that is a separate issue from AppleCare and its value to consumers.

Even where local laws extend warranties beyond Apple's 1 year, you may have to go back to teh seller first, which may not be convenient depending on when and where you bought it. If they go out of business your recourse may be gone; and consumers pay upfront for the additional time as it gets baked into the price.

As I said, AppleCare is a risk reward decision each makes based on their needs and risk tolerance.

 

[Alonzo84]

Maybe people who take their $30k, $40k, $50k and more cars somewhere other than the dealer.

And that doesn’t make sense either.

Accidents happen and stuff can happen where not everyone can afford the Apple prices. Up until a few years ago, car dealers prices were outrageous for work and repairs (in some cases, they still are). How would it be if you bought a certain car and you can only go to that certain car manufacturers dealer to get it worked on or fixed? BTW, cars cost a lot more money than an iPhone. Why would anyone want to work on a $20,000, 30,000, or more vehicle, just take it to the dealer to get it fixed 🙄

I can fix a lot on my own on my car, I bet there are people who can fix their own iPhones too.

Umm, I do. Why wouldn’t I take my vehicle to a certified technician who uses authorized parts?

 

[HughRR]

Imagine every single item you bought that ended up having an issue, you could only have it sorted by the manufacturer?

Your trousers get a rip? Think again about going to the local alterations place, you have to send them off to Levis to get fixed. How about your car needs a service or something like an oil change? You can't use the local garage that's always been there, you have to goto the dealer and pay 3x the price.

It's horrible behaviour.

And for people saying this will mean iPhones are worthless. They aren't. The people that steal iPhones will still steal them, and sell them to people who will still sell the parts. The screen isn't worthless. Anyone with a rework station and a steady hand can change the display IC.

The ONLY thing this does, is hurt the end user. It doesn't affect criminals or shops with a technician with any sort of experience with a rework station. But keep drinking the Apple kool-aid, thinking it will keep you safe and that they actually care about you...

I used to rework stuff on a larger scale admittedly.

This is rubbish. Reworking BGA packages on that scale has a massive failure rate of around 30% which makes it unrealistic. Those failures aren’t always evident immediately until the device has been thermal cycled a few tens of times.

Just because when you walk out of a repair shop your device looks like it works doesn’t mean that it is fit for purpose.

Buy insurance (AppleCare) and get proper FRU replacements. If you can’t afford it walk away if this is a problem and sit in your own mire/hellscape (been there with Samsung and Motorola myself).

As for Levi’s there aren’t any high integration microcomputer systems in any of my pairs. Second worst straw man of the year I’ve seen that.

Honestly the repair industry is mostly predatory these days. I’ve been poor and that’s when it hurts you which is why right to repair can go to hell and we should concentrate on forcing manufacturers to support their hardware instead. See my other post on this.

Right to repair is the dying gasp of a dying industry being replaced with the recycling industry.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

And that doesn’t make sense either.

Umm, I do. Why wouldn’t I take my vehicle to a certified technician who uses authorized parts?

There are people who like to work on their own cars. There are people who also like to work on their electronics also.

 

[deevey]

So mix and match phones aren't gonna work properly, which means that iPhones are less likely to be stolen for parts cannibalization.

This is a good thing.

 

[laptech]

...Are you serious?

This has to be the most absurd take I've ever read on this forum.

Yes Apple is very concerned about the amount of respect we show our iPhones and has decided to restrict repairability in an effort to make us more RESPECTFUL 🤣

Why is the concept so daft?? You purchase an expesive new car, the inside is all done out in nice looking expensive leather. You do not want the leather interior to get damaged so not only yourself but others as well, you ask them to be careful when being in the car to not damage the upholstery. You purchase a new expensive leather sofa. You do not want it getting damaged so easily so you ask people to be careful that they do not rip or damage the leather or to spill drinks on it. Damage caused to both examples means a potentially expensive repair so naturally in the back of your mind you ask people to be careful but your also careful yourself.

I bet there have or has been examples in your life where you have done just that, worried about something getting damaged because you know it will cost a lot of money to get repaired so what do you do? you look after it. Am i right?

Also, there are many compaines out there that are very passionate about the products they make and therefore would like and would hope their customers take care of the product. Why can't Apple be one of them?

People hate on Apple so much that they are incapable of seeing Apple as anything other than in their view of being a money grabbing company who does not care about it's customers one bit.

 

[HughRR]

There are people who like to work on their own cars. There are people who also like to work on their electronics also.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is endemic in those who repair their own electronics. And cars to some extent.

I’m very opposed to those who promote self repair as it’s usually to people who should never be allowed to wield hands, let alone blessing them with a screwdriver.

I moonlit as a friendly local repairer after working as an EE for a decade in the defence sector. I’ve seen some **** in my time and most of it is from equally amateur and professional repairers. I won’t touch anything now.

 

[HughRR]

Sounds more like iFixit is worried about the sales of their overpriced screw-it yourself toolkit.

Probably is.

Their tool kits are garbage. Someone gave me one thus opening up the lines of “seeing as I bought you that nice toolkit” conversation.

I have replaced the bits I use with Wera tools which last more than one repair…

 

[2REPOU]

I could see this restriction if these devices were leased, but these are products we buy. I get that fixing yourself voids the warranty but that is where the oversight and restriction should end. There should be a way for the registered owner to enter their apple ID and sync up the screen to the phone then presto. Its not that complicated

 

[svish]

Best to visit Apple directly for any kind of repair. Problem is repairs are costly and many would like to get it done elsewhere. Bad that screen repairs renders FaceID useless.

 

[BuddyTronic]

I'd wager it was harder to redesign it to make it use this chip... I mean the iPhone 12 Pro was designed in the manner I described and so has every iPhone with FaceID until now.

https://guide-images.cdn.ifixit.com/igi/chi1kJ15PSPUxlRM.huge

Ok. So design for easy repairs? Or design for security? Guess what I choose. It’s not necessarily about easy repair or easy design here. I suspect it’s about money, or security as a selling feature for the end users.

I mean, yah, gotta keep those repair shops happy right? Who needs security? Just let any joker mess with faceID. Customer won’t know the difference.

Go ahead and do what you want - you are free to modify your hardware. Just don’t insist that it still can run the same OS. Go make your own OS

 

[citysnaps]

Perhaps it's you who needs to calm down and actually listen to what people are saying, and why they are saying it.

The problem you're choosing to overlook with your blithe "go somewhere else" nonsense is both simple and obvious: all the other vendors an Apple refugee might flee to are just as bad or worse. Sure, some might be better than Apple in some ways, but in others they'll be worse, often far worse. There's nowhere for the disaffected to go.

Indeed, Apple was supposed to be the refuge people flee to, not the soulless corporate monster they seek to escape. That was how Apple billed itself for decades, how they thought of themselves, and it showed. They were the oddballs of the tech world. They went their own way, did their own thing. It was baked right into their corporate DNA: they "Think Different." They do the right thing for customers, even if that's not the most profitable thing right now, because in the long run they'll build up loyalty and trust that pays dividends.

And it worked. Apple built itself a loyal following indeed. Loyal to a fault, in many cases: witness those who can find no fault with Apple, ever, and who will brook no dissent. You talk about those "outraged" with Apple, but if you actually stop and look, here is what you will see: someone says something like, "Apple really needs to do better in this particular area," and a great screeching is heard as the Apple faithful converge on her, as if she has spat in the face of their beloved mother. It's bizarre to watch, to be frank. It smacks of religious fervor, or some sports nut losing his mind because you just insulted his team.

Someone says: "I think it's wrong for Apple to make repairs so egregiously difficult and expensive, causing a lot of otherwise salvageable devices to end up in the landfill because the repair costs more than the device is worth."

A half-dozen outraged retorts: "IF YOU HATE APPLE SO MUCH, GET OUT! GO! DON'T LOOK BACK! BYE!"

That's just so silly, and yet it's what happens over and over again.

It's literally impossible to have a calm, reasoned, nuanced discussion within these pages because the Apple faithful show up to gatekeep what is and is not allowable criticism and shout down anyone who disagrees: "Apple good. Shut up end enjoy the Apple bliss or leave." Clearly, the faithful want us to know, if we aren't blindly and deliriously happy with Apple then we and anything we have to say are unworthy of consideration.

And so people like you come along, saying, "If you criticize Apple about anything, ever, then you should just GTFO of Apple-land," because if Apple has done this thing that annoys you then that thing must perforce be good, since Apple did it, and if it wasn't good, they wouldn't have done it! A neat tautology, that. It all comes across as so silly to me. As if Apple, this multi-trillion-dollar globe-spanning juggernaut, is your close, personal friend and you feel compelled to defend its honor. How deeply strange and sad. But I digress.

Apple, as I was saying, is supposed to be different. I'm reminded of the time a few years ago when that activist investor took a large stake in Apple and confronted Tim Cook over how much money they "waste" on building industry-leading accessibility features into their products. The guy's argument was, basically, that those requiring accessibility services make up such a tiny fraction of Apple's customers that spending so much time and money catering to them is not a financially sound decision. And Cook's response was perfect: he basically told the guy that not everything Apple does is solely about money, and that if he couldn't understand that then maybe he needed to find a new stock to invest in.

That is the Apple I grew up with, the Apple I root for, the Apple that is slowly being hollowed out from the inside, replaced by just another giant corporation behaving and looking like all the others.

I suppose there are some who would say that's quite untrue, and I wouldn't even argue with them, if I had a lick of sense, because you can't argue with a zealot about the object of his zeal. It's a fool's errand. You cannot make someone see what they have decided they will not see.

So, we come back to folks like you, who keep suggesting to people that if they're unhappy with the way Apple does things now they should "leave."

And go where, exactly?

That's the whole point. That's why people find this sort of thing so frustrating. Since the 80s, people chose Apple because they were different. They chose Apple because they weren't just another coldly calculating, money-grubbing corporate monster. They were the scrappy underdog. They were principled. They were Apple.

And yet over the last 10-15 years we've watched, if we had eyes to see, the Apple we grew up with turning into just another interchangeable corporate machine just like all the rest. However controlling and monopolistic Microsoft was back in the day (and likely still remains, given the opportunity), Apple is just as bad and worse, and getting worse every day.

Back to the topic of this article, which the Apple faithful have steadfastly refused to allow any real discussion of in this thread: Apple claims to be great a steward of the environment, then it turns around and makes it so expensive and difficult to do even the simplest of repairs to its devices that those devices, which could be saved, end up in the garbage, polluting someone's groundwater somewhere.

Where I live Apple would charge me over $600 to replace the screen in my 4-year-old iPad Pro if it broke. That's not much less than I paid for it new, and it's quite a bit more than I could sell it for, so if the screen breaks, it's garbage. I'd be an idiot to pay $600 to fix it when that would buy me a whole new iPad, after all -- and that equates to more e-waste in the garbage and money for Apple, despite all their moralizing about how environmentally conscious they are.

The Apple I grew up with would never have engaged in that sort of hypocrisy. Or maybe it would have, and I was a silly zealot myself in my younger days, like so many others, then and now.

To be clear, I don't expect much of a response from you beyond your usual knee-jerk Apple apologia. I'll save you the trouble:

Apple did it, so that makes it good, and if I don't like it I can go 🤬 myself. I get it. You don't have to remind me.

Try and muster up some backbone and not be beholden to a corporation you have strong issues with against your will. That is just sad.

 

[alphasports]

Tim Cook has made more money this year than I will probably ever make in my lifetime so forgive me if I don’t shed a tear if right to repair makes him slightly less filthy rich.

Agreed, but I would replace "Tim Cook has made more money this year than I will probably ever make in my lifetime" with "Tim Cook has made more money by breakfast today...".

 

[jlc1978]

Ok. So design for easy repairs? Or design for security?

It's not necessarily an either or. You could design a device so that subcomponent assemblies are easy to replace, batteries not glued in, but still enforce security measures such as requiring real OEM parts by not allowing salvaged parts to be registered. That would, however, probably increase the size of the device since you now require on board connectors, cables, etc.; as well as increase costs since you would be using discrete components no all in one chip sets.

 

[HughRR]

It's not necessarily an either or. You could design a device so that subcomponent assemblies are easy to replace, batteries not glued in, but still enforce security measures such as requiring real OEM parts by not allowing salvaged parts to be registered. That would, however, probably increase the size of the device since you now require on board connectors, cables, etc.; as well as increase costs since you would be using discrete components no all in one chip sets.

It’s difficult to have an external bus that is trusted. For example consider the LPC bus in PCs. Also Thunderbolt (look at how it and DMA works). Even that is a security risk. Thus the correct security posture is minimise bus availability by keeping it on die and/or in difficult to access both electrically and physically.

It’s really hard to do it. I mean really hard. Even back in the days of me wrangling FPGAs in defence sector the security posture was to epoxy pot the entire assembly so it would be destroyed if tampered with.

As I always say: don’t break your **** and if you do cover it with insurance or be prepared to pay for a new one. It’s not 1970 any more - this isn’t some LSI logic and a soldering iron job any more.

 

[BuddyTronic]

It’s difficult to have an external bus that is trusted. For example consider the LPC bus in PCs. Also Thunderbolt (look at how it and DMA works). Even that is a security risk. Thus the correct security posture is minimise bus availability by keeping it on die and/or in difficult to access both electrically and physically.

It’s really hard to do it. I mean really hard. Even back in the days of me wrangling FPGAs in defence sector the security posture was to epoxy pot the entire assembly so it would be destroyed if tampered with.

As I always say: don’t break your **** and if you do cover it with insurance or be prepared to pay for a new one. It’s not 1970 any more - this isn’t some LSI logic and a soldering iron job any more.

Zenith TV's or maybe Quasar TV sets (cathode ray tube) used to have the "works in the drawer". The TV repairman would make a house call and replace a discreet "card". The designers put all the capacitors or whatever parts they knew would be failing more often on these cards.

It was "Quasar" by Motorola.

 

[jMack5]

In other words, if you have the screen replaced by a NON-AUTHORIZED repair shop, there is risk that Face ID will be broken.

I'm ok with that.

I disable Face ID on my iPhone as it is. It's easier to spoof that than with my 5 digit passcode.

 

[LogicalApex]

Ok. So design for easy repairs? Or design for security? Guess what I choose. It’s not necessarily about easy repair or easy design here. I suspect it’s about money, or security as a selling feature for the end users.

I mean, yah, gotta keep those repair shops happy right? Who needs security? Just let any joker mess with faceID. Customer won’t know the difference.

Go ahead and do what you want - you are free to modify your hardware. Just don’t insist that it still can run the same OS. Go make your own OS

Yeah, the iPhone 12 Pro is so insecure Apple should recall it...

 

[jlc1978]

It’s difficult to have an external bus that is trusted. For example consider the LPC bus in PCs. Also Thunderbolt (look at how it and DMA works). Even that is a security risk. Thus the correct security posture is minimise bus availability by keeping it on die and/or in difficult to access both electrically and physically.

It’s really hard to do it. I mean really hard. Even back in the days of me wrangling FPGAs in defence sector the security posture was to epoxy pot the entire assembly so it would be destroyed if tampered with.

All depends on the level of security you need for teh task. I've worked in environments where all USB connections were epoxied shut, CD Rom drives disabled, and hard drives had to be taken apart and the platters physically destroyed (which was fun) after erasing them before they left the area.

You could make a more secure iPhone by epoxy potting the entire interior and putting on the back case with expose as well, deleting the Lightening connector and FaceID, etc.; but most users never need that level of security. You could design one with reasonable security and repairability but I suspect the size / cost tradeoffs make it unlikely. Going to as few chips as possible also work against repairability because it eventually becomes replace entire guts to repair it.

As I always say: don’t break your **** and if you do cover it with insurance or be prepared to pay for a new one. It’s not 1970 any more - this isn’t some LSI logic and a soldering iron job any more.

How true.

 

[Pro Apple Silicon]

I wouldn't repair any phone outside of an official service provider, but some people are much more skilled that are able to do this themselves if they get access to the right parts or prefer to take it to a third party because Apple rates are insane (in some case up to 70% of the value of a new phone).

Why is it so hard to comprehend that some people might have the skills to this on their own or just simply prefer to have OPTIONS?

Apple just locks this to compel people to invest on insurance (AppleCare+) on top of the expensive phones.

Why is so hard to comprehend that just because some CAN do something does mean they should be allowed to?
People's sense of entitlement today is astounding.

 

[Pro Apple Silicon]

I don’t understand why people can’t fix what they own? I already posted this:

You don't own it. And your comparison to a shower head is a pointless argument and you know it. There are lots of things you CAN'T fix. Sophisticated things.