This makes no sense. I've done numerous screen replacements and button replacements for friends/ family. It's stupid easy to do. The issue isn't that the replacement part doesn't work, you can use an OEM screen/button and you will get the same error unless APPLE Re-validates the Touch ID to the phone. In the past (iphone 5s) Apple just disabled the touchID, now they decided to brick the whole phone... The replacement parts work just fine and don't cause any issues, Apple just wants you to come to them. Just like jailbreaking your phone isn't illegal but they sure tried to stop you from doing it.
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
I understand the need to keep Touch ID secure -- at the same time, do they really need to disable the whole device if Touch ID is detected to be unsecure? Just disable Touch ID and let the user know why.
The keyword is "may", as in the 3rd party repair "may" not be good enough to fix your phone and the warranty is voided and Apple won't repair devices with 3rd party fixes because they don't want to mess with repairs that "may" have been bad. That is quite different from a software mechanism that detects a 3rd party repair and then disables the whole phone.
The keyword is "may", as in the 3rd party repair "may" not be good enough to fix your phone and the warranty is voided and Apple won't repair devices with 3rd party fixes because they don't want to mess with repairs that "may" have been bad. That is quite different from a software mechanism that detects a 3rd party repair and then disables the whole phone.
So, let's step back a little and review this SENSIBLY:
#1: Let's say the chain of trust didn't exist; the consumers would be THE FIRST ONES to complain when their data was compromised.
#2: The chain of trust DOES EXIST, but because most people are - inevitably - consumers of secure products, and not encryption/security engineers WHO WOULD UNDERSTAND A CHAIN OF TRUST, as soon as their safe, insular bubble of blissful consumer ignorance is pierced by the big nasty arrow of cheap repair, which is a BREAK in the secure chain, everyone defaults to panic and pandemonium, because sensationalist media chumps want to draw attention to a story JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT, AND TO MAKE MONEY.
The perpetual wheel of fail and media-driven sensationalism, continues to spin.
#1: Let's say the chain of trust didn't exist; the consumers would be THE FIRST ONES to complain when their data was compromised.
#2: The chain of trust DOES EXIST, but because most people are - inevitably - consumers of secure products, and not encryption/security engineers WHO WOULD UNDERSTAND A CHAIN OF TRUST, as soon as their safe, insular bubble of blissful consumer ignorance is pierced by the big nasty arrow of cheap repair, which is a BREAK in the secure chain, everyone defaults to panic and pandemonium, because sensationalist media chumps want to draw attention to a story JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT, AND TO MAKE MONEY.
The perpetual wheel of fail and media-driven sensationalism, continues to spin.
I dunno... a scenario where a button can get security information from the OS seems pretty knowable to me, and pretty piss poor design.
Either way, it shouldn't have killed the phone. It should have, at best, disabled fingerprint authentication and forced a backup auth method. Or failing that, waiting for a command signed by Apple with it's own keys to unlock the phone. There are any number of other ways Apple could have handled this less bad than the way they chose.
Wrong literary device. There is no hidden meaning in my analogy.
More to your point, complete failure of the vehicle would definitely be something going wrong, per my original post. Or multiple things simultaneously going wrong if it makes you feel better.
That's not keeping your device secure is it? If it has been tampered with and they let you in anyway, that's another lawsuit.
Except nothing has gone wrong with the cae due to the non-dealership, Lexus have simply made it so the car is not usable unless you buy the parts and repair it via. There own repair shops.
[doublepost=1454976317][/doublepost]This should be an opt in "feature"
If only there was a passcode to use instead of the TouchID... Oh wait, there IS!
I used "battery" to make it easier to understand. Of course, memory and hard drives are not uncomplicated, yet they are also covered for computers the same way.
As far as the iPhone goes, do you think a touchscreen or LCD is uncomplicated? How about a camera module? Replacing one of those cannot void the warranty for the device, unless the act of doing so damaged other parts.
In this case, the replacement sensor damaged nothing. In fact, a phone with one works perfectly right up until it gets an OS update.
I don't think you grasp what the TouchID sensor's role is, in the secure chain of trust. Regardless of TouchID being disabled IN SOFTWARE, and the user having implemented PIN protection instead of TouchID, the actual *physical* sensor that was paired to YOUR PHONE and associated chip/crypto/unique signature/hash/whatever is BONDED in some secure form, and trusted by the chain of trust ON YOUR DEVICE. If that is removed and replaced with a part WHICH IS NOT YET TRUSTED, the chain is broken.
Your comment is like saying "Oh, the front door has been kicked in and the locks busted off, and anyone could walk in, but I only use the BACK door..." you're STILL POTENTIALLY OPEN TO ATTACK!
A man turning up in a black car and shooting you in the face would also be an "unexpected result". But that doesn't somehow make it ok.
Well, perhaps it would make the boot up process too long or involve too many resources that are not typically involved during a normal boot up process. There are often additional considerations that play a role and not just one or another on their own.
Your nonsensical reply with no relation to the topic, is also not okay. It makes no sense, what you said.
But why shouldn't (approved?) 3rd parties be able to repair Apple devices with genuine Apple supplied parts? Like any other piece of hardware. Especially out of warranty.
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 repaired/replaced by a third party. Even if you've never enabled touch fingerprint security. Not cool.
Exactly. If they used genuine Apple parts there would be no error.
Apple doesn't render your device useless, the repair guy does by replacing a critical security element the wrong way. It's exactly the aforementioned risk you take by choosing unauthorized repair. And yes idiots, we have manufacturer authorized service providers for a reason.
Last edited:
Who is "they"? The user, or Apple?
If you mean the user, yes, but the USER is not in control of how the chain of trust remainds locked and secure, iOS and its protocols and encryption - both in hardware and software - are. It is abundantly clear that you, and most of the other people complaining about this "Error 53" issue, do not understand what a chain of trust IS, and just want to voice your discontent, and whether or not that comes across as uninformed, you seem not to care.
Auto manufacturers went through this a long time ago. You can't use the excuse that your "parts" are the only ones you can use. And if you do that, you better make them available to repair shops and customers so people are not left with bricked phones. I could see this gaining traction.
Consumers are much more technically advanced these days. Many repairs can be done by customers, but getting authentic parts is the issue.
Lawyers are always greedy, has nothing to do with the underlying principle. This could go far and it could pave the way for Apple to be forced to offer authentic repair parts to any third party repairman/shop.
If you had to go to your dealership to have them do an oil change and you couldn't do it yourself, you would be very mad. Same here. You can do it yourself cheaper and often better.
Consumers are much more technically advanced these days. Many repairs can be done by customers, but getting authentic parts is the issue.
Lawyers are always greedy, has nothing to do with the underlying principle. This could go far and it could pave the way for Apple to be forced to offer authentic repair parts to any third party repairman/shop.
If you had to go to your dealership to have them do an oil change and you couldn't do it yourself, you would be very mad. Same here. You can do it yourself cheaper and often better.
Actually there still would, Apple had to use à special software to validate the new button even if it's OEM.
The sensor IS PART of THE CHAIN OF TRUST, whether you use the sensor OR NOT, the hardware INSIDE IT is checked on boot (and at other times) and if it doesn't marry up to a trusted value, it's kicked out.
People, take a week off whining (and a LOT of load off the internet!) and study THIS document, and then come back if and WHEN you understand it:
https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
If not, shush, and leave it to people WHO UNDERSTAND.
But you probably need to go to the dealership if it involves something more specific/complex related to the car, like some sort of ECU fix or something along those lines?