Law Firms Consider 'Error 53' Lawsuits Against Apple as Some Stores Authorized for Repairs

[gaximus]

The EULA says it is right so that is that? Lol

The iPhone gets bricked after a check during iOS updates. It doesn't brick right away.

Car analogy would be when you take in your Ford car to the Ford dealership for an oil change and they see you used non-ford authorized tires and Ford decides to brick your ignition.

A better analogy would be when you take your ford car to the ford dealership for an oil change and they see you have tires not authorized by ford with no tread that will explode causing you to wreck if you keep driving on them, and they say you can't leave with those tires on them.
Which does happen and by law they can't let you drive away.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not really, just asking them not to break my hardware

Maybe from your end. But in reality it requires them to support third-party parts by building a fall back pathway if they detect mismatched parts.

 

[techpr]

Execute Order 66

 

[cocky jeremy]

This is ludicrous. If Apple didn't protect against this vulnerability, they would be on the hook for fraudulent CC charges and probably identity theft. Protection of the secure enclave is one of the biggest selling points of iOS.

Exactly. It's pretty simple. If they didn't do this, they'd get sued when someone installed parts that allowed CC info to be stolen.

 

[apolloa]

That isn't a very interesting conspiracy. You can do better.

That's because it's not a conspiracy, what you think Apple cares about you? Hahahahahaha no... They only want your money and then for you to lap up their image and advertising to persuade more people to give them their money. It's a capitalist world run by giant corporations. No conspiracy to it at all.

 

[CFreymarc]

Even if the repair facility is authorized....how does that guarantee their not skimping out and using 3rd party parts?

That is exactly what Apple will come back with if this litigates. This is very similar to "approved" auto repair places that maintain under warranty but use cheap knock-off parts instead of factory parts. Some shops have lots their franchise over doing this when a secret shopper shows to audit the place.

 

[Futurix]

I guess they ran out of ambulances to chase...

 

[applezulu]

Just registered on these forums to express my concern about this issue. I've been really happy with the Apple iPhone 6 I purchased when it was released in October 2014 but am now concerned that at no point was I told that I had to either buy Apple official insurance or go to their official repair dealer if anything were to happen to it. Luckily I've had no reason fo that but just checked my packaging and there is nothing there about how my Touch ID is specially protected and that I should be careful if anything happens to it. That worries me.

I'm really not sure if I will be buying from this company again, bringing to an end a twelve year relationship with Apple after buying very many of their desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. I'm surprised so many of you are defending them. It will be annoying to bring myself out of what had been a secure and decent Eco-system but I can't really in good conscience continue a relationship with a company that appears to treat its customers in such a shoddy fashion. In the long run I think it's probably going to be a good decision, albeit a tough one in the short term as I have to find new apps and new ways of working. Luckily my Abode and Microsoft subscriptions are platform agnostic.

Good luck when you're facing down the insane list of permissions that just about every app insists on having as you install them on your new Android phone. Read them carefully. They may want access to your children's kidneys.

 

[springsup]

"You're holding it wrong" Steve Jobs, 2010

Yeah, that was an example of them doing it right - they investigated the issue (for about a week, IIRC) and as soon as they knew what was up, they communicated clearly what the issue was and what you should do about it.

In this case, they know exactly what is going on - the system is working as it was designed to. They're just not communicating clearly to people that this one component, the TouchID sensor, cannot be replaced except by an authorised repair place.

By far the most worrying thing for people is that this locks out 3rd-party screen repairs, as cracked screens are by far the most common sort of damage that happens to smartphones. That is not the case, and Apple should be getting that message out clearly and concisely.

Here's an example:

While we always recommend that our customers have their Apple devices serviced by an authorised reseller, only the home button (including TouchID sensor) and mainboard absolutely must be serviced at these locations for the device to be restored to full functionality as these components are coupled for your security. No other components are coupled in this manner, and iOS does not enforce any other restrictions with regards to repairs by unauthorised third parties.

Boom. Story over.

Well... almost. Even if TouchID is compromised, you should still be able to access the phone using your passcode.

 

[gaximus]

No, Apple should disable the touch ID function that has been compromised, not brick your whole phone.

If my car detects that someone is trying to break into my drivers side door, it should disable all locks on the car, and disable the ignition, not just the lock being tampered with.

 

[bazzasc]

The argument seems to boil down to Apple's motivation for doing this and whether it leaves them open to anti-competitive behaviour

If there is a real security need that can only be solved by bricking the phone completely necessitating an Apple-only repair then there may be a justification

If there is a security issue but it can be solved by a disabling of the Touch ID function and they chose not to do that then there may be a case for them to answer as it smells a bit bad

If the security issue cannot be shown to be a real issue then it starts to smell worse

I am sure Apple make a lot of money from repairs....the phones are expensive and many people will go for a repair over replacement if they can...and there are a lot of phones out there as well so saying that it is not an important revenue stream is a bit naïve - although it may not be their motivation - who knows?

I, personally, am skeptical about their explanation and because so many people have been affected and the potential cost to them and benefit to Apple then it may need to go to court

 

[C DM]

That's because it's not a conspiracy, what you think Apple cares about you? Hahahahahaha no... They only want your money and then for you to lap up their image and advertising to persuade more people to give them their money. It's a capitalist world run by giant corporations. No conspiracy to it at all.

You believing Apple is greedy doesn't change anything about the idea that Apple did this just because they want to make more money from repairs/replacements simply being a just a theory.

 

[ilikewhey]

I may be incorrect, but I believe that in the terms of use Apple states using unauthorized 3rd party repair shops may void your warranty and lead to unexpected results, even those rendering the device unusable.

Solution? DON'T utilize unauthorized 3rd parties!

apple can make their rules but if their rules contradicts the common law set out by the state then the state cannot protect the said company.

 

[bazzasc]

A better analogy would be when you take your ford car to the ford dealership for an oil change and they see you have tires not authorized by ford with no tread that will explode causing you to wreck if you keep driving on them, and they say you can't leave with those tires on them.
Which does happen and by law they can't let you drive away.

No it is not a better analogy at all.....where is the law being broken by not having Apple repair your phone for you?

My Microsoft one was better I think!

 

[AbSoluTc]

A UK barrister told The Guardian disabling iPhones "could potentially be viewed as an offense" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which covers the destruction of property

However, it's totally cool to have a back door so the government can gain access whenever they want. Lol Oh what a ****ed up world we live in.

 

[MH01]

Maybe from your end. But in reality it requires them to support third-party parts by building a fall back pathway if they detect mismatched parts.

its not supporting 3rd party software . Upon detection it needs to disable touchid functionality in the OS , with no ability to re enable. It's needs to brick the function on the device for good and not the device.

 

[Haynzee]

Does this "Error 53" only appear if a user 3rd party repairs the touch ID sensor/home button or on any repair? If its just for the touch ID then that seems fair enough really. If it's doing it for screen replacing or batteries seems unfair.

 

[paul4339]

The argument seems to boil down to Apple's motivation for doing this and whether it leaves them open to anti-competitive behaviour

If there is a real security need that can only be solved by bricking the phone completely necessitating an Apple-only repair then there may be a justification

...

Agreed, but it's not just an "Apple-only" repair... it's an Apple or Apple authorized dealer repair.
It still allows an authorized dealer to undercut Apple if Apple charges too much for the service.

The restriction is that authorized dealers must use legit Apple parts (which are usually priced higher than 3rd party parts).

.

 

[LV426]

OMG I can't believe that 8 pages of comments are so filled with ridiculous comments...

You CANNOT void a warrantee for using third-party parts that function correctly.

Except... doing the repair incompetently (i.e. failing to properly pair secure components) means that it's not actually functioning correctly. The effects of the error might incur a delay, but it's still an error. That would become abundantly clear if it ever got to court.

 

[springsup]

They could do it in a way that doesn't brick your phone

Yeah, that's the only part of this that's really worrying, and in my opinion it's probably a bug.

Even if TouchID is compromised, you should still be able to access the phone using your passcode. The way TouchID is architected, it never gives you any more protection that your passcode/password; it's just a shortcut for typing them in.

Whenever you authenticate with TouchID, it just virtually types in your passcode/password in to the screen. That's one of the reasons it's so secure - it's all hardware, not inspectable by software, and the app just ends up with a password to authenticate like if you'd typed it in manually.

 

[DCIFRTHS]

Apple is doing the right thing not allowing bogus finger print sensors to work on their devices. They should allow third parties who are authorized to do it also; it is unclear if authorized repair places are affected or not.

And it was a huge mistake to brick the phone on OS upgrades. The customers should be notified in advance when they first turn on a device with a bogus sensor that Touch ID and Apple Pay are disabled, and you cannot update the OS.

Honestly I would not use a third party place myself anymore. I had my screen replaced by a place in the mall for $100, and the screen was garbage.

If this is true, why does it take a software update to trigger the error? If Apple's story was true, it would detect the third party hardware at boot time, and disable the device. I guess Apple feels that your fingerprint is okay for hackers to steal until the next software update is released.

To date, this is the biggest load of horse **** I have ever heard from Apple.

 

[gaximus]

No it is not a better analogy at all.....where is the law being broken by not having Apple repair your phone for you?

My Microsoft one was better I think!

Its not about the law its about safety. If it wasn't a law, a decent car dealership shouldn't allow you to drive away in a car thats going to get you killed.

 

[scrannel]

Well...it is in the EU. Sadly, our American cousins don't have such rights as consumers....

Actually, we (yanks) passed this exact legislation in 1890. Glad you finally caught up. In the USA, if Apple will not sell OEM parts to 3rd party shops, they still must allow them to fix iPhones. By making it impossible for you to get your phone repaired (in this instance) except at Apple shops, they are "creating a monopoly" which has been illegal in the USA since... 1890. Every lawyer in the USA knows about this which is why they are jumping on this lawsuit already.

 

[bazzasc]

Its not about the law its about safety. If it wasn't a law, a decent car dealership shouldn't allow you to drive away in a car thats going to get you killed.

Wow, replacing my damaged home button will get me killed now!

I had a look at my paperwork and there was no indication that any work done on the home button by anyone else other than them would lead to a kill switch being applied.......

 

[Nunyabinez]

Now you're asking them to support third-party parts. They certainly have no obligation to do that.

In the U.S. they do have the legal obligation to ALLOW third-party parts that perform according to specification.