From this article:
As explained in a thorough post from iFixit, a repair made by a third-party service using non-original components cannot pass a Touch ID validation check because mismatched parts don't sync up properly.
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
From this article:
As explained in a thorough post from iFixit, a repair made by a third-party service using non-original components cannot pass a Touch ID validation check because mismatched parts don't sync up properly.
Yeah, so there's nothing wrong with the parts, they are failing Apple's check to see they are genuine. Which is a violation of U.S. law.
The "It says" it's an original part should be noted don't you think.... Is it?
Even if it was, is Apple selling it for random sale on Ebay.... Doubt that.
If they only recommend authorized place install it using a very specific way of doing so, well, these lawyers are out of luck.
The lawyers will lose like well, they've lost 50 times before.. But, hey, hoping for payola drives them on.
but does that test have any real security implication or is it Apple protecting their market
Only way to find out may be to test in court if someone is such inclined....you opinion or mine are irrelevant
There may be a case to answer and if it is for a bonafide security reason then there will be loads of info to show in court and the case will be chucked out
Using a third party source and not a manufacturer will run the risk of having non-authorized parts used in a device. Those that use a third party, and not the manufacturer cannot then bring about a lawsuit when their device doesn't work properly. They took the risk of going on the cheap, and are paying the price for it. In the end, there isn't a legal issue there. The manufacturer warned of this consequence, but left the responsibility of choice up to the user, who made a bad choice. The user is the one who is left paying the price and is now looking to someone else to blame instead of taking responsibility for their actions. It's pretty open and shut on that case. If this was to go to trial, a judge would be able to be convinced from Apple's lawyers that this case didn't even need to see the light of day.
This is a non issue, securing touch ID is more important than this!
It's like saying you got a replacement bank card from a street corner and your bank stops you from withdrawing money! you can't use third party things for such a security system, sorry but there is no lawsuit here just cheap ass muther Fkrs.
It's like saying you got a replacement bank card from a street corner and your bank stops you from withdrawing money! you can't use third party things for such a security system, sorry but there is no lawsuit here just cheap ass muther Fkrs.
IF by "work fine" you mean left your phone open to all sort of hacks... Well, I guess so.
Guess it's better if it's some crook steals your car off the street and goes for a joyride than your straw man dealer goes and bash it.
True assuming the dealer can prove that damage was cause by the part before the software update and not after. Also warranty repairs don't work that well in this case because most manufacturers will deem the warranty void if the car isn't serviced by a dealer. The trouble is with using car analogies is that the warranty laws do differ between industries.
Consumer electronics generally have a 1 year warranty by law. The motor industry is different. As far as I'm aware warranties are not required by law for new vehicles, generally they are added by manufacturers for customer piece of mind. Vauxhall for example have a lifetime warranty on a new car but it's only valid whilst the car is under 100,000 miles.
Except that comparing a battery to something as complicated as TouchID is ignorant at best. They're not anywhere near the same thing, and people making this argument clearly don't know what they're talking about.
If Apple sold you a reconditioned iPhone to replace one this error code had bricked, are you forced to give them your bricked iPhone in exchange? Or not?
I said that? Just saying so many external forces on apple most of them see to be against security. I like a idevice I can trust and knowing no one can snoop in it. Hope Apple doesn't budge but who knows.
Yes. I does not work to maintain the security of the secure enclave.
It has a real security implication. Read Apple's response. Why else would they care? Do you really think out of warranty home button repairs are big business to Apple?
Your first sentence would suggest that there is a case to answer
I am pretty sure that the law says that a manufacturer cannot insist that only OEM parts can be fitted.
The unanswered question for me is whether the non-OEM parts are inherently causing a problem with the device or that Apple has decided that they do...if the latter then there is, at least, a case to answer
The result is in the hands of a judge but everyone who has a broken phone now has the right to test it in court - even if it gets thrown out
So a fingerprint sensor is found to not match the secure enclave? Disable the sensor and erase the secure enclave. Require the use of the passcode until the genuine sensor is installed and re-paired with the enclave.
Permanently locking the phone to an "Error 53" state is actionable.
Permanently locking the phone to an "Error 53" state is actionable.
Your example is a little off. If you want to make a true comparison, taking an iPhone to an un-authorized phone repair store is like taking your Honda to your local mechanic instead of the Honda dealership. Also the point you make of "I wouldn't expect Honda to fix it when it broke or didn't work." People are not upset because they took their phone to a 3rd party repair service and it stopped working, people are upset because they updated to the latest iOS version and the device stopped working. The two are very different scenarios so lets not mush them together..
Simple facts.
TouchID is a convenience feature. The actual security is in the PIN / password on the device.
If touchID is compromised, Apple could simply disable the TouchID to avoid any potential security flaw.
However, it chooses to brick an entire phone.
I'll put it straight with you. Apple are in the ****; And deservedly so.
Where has anybody shown or even claimed that using a third-party button had any impact on security? You people are making things up just to protect Apple.
Not if the update is to prevent the car from being stolen, because the new hardware could allow any key to work with the car.
Yes. I does not work to maintain the security of the secure enclave.
It has a real security implication. Read Apple's response. Why else would they care? Do you really think out of warranty home button repairs are big business to Apple?
hmmmm....not convinced by taking one side of it....there are plenty of people more in the know than me who say otherwise (and on the other side to)