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

[mateytate]

So, according to this logic, if you take your new Lexus to a non-dealership repair shop and they put non-factory aftermarket replacement parts on your car, Lexus is liable when something goes wrong?

Totally different, I think most people understand the risk of using 3rd party parts, and they are probably not as good quality as OEM parts. The difference here is Apple purposefully bricking the phone once it detects them with no warning.

A better analogy would be you buy a new Lexus, you fit a nice new set of 3rd party rims on the car, the car detects it and then fries the ECU for your protection and safety as the new rims may or may not meet Lexus's stringent safety test. That wouldn't wash, and it shouldn't here. It should give you the option to continue, or even force you to wipe the phone but bricking it is overkill.

 

[997941]

That's the problem - they didn't use approved hardware. Why is that so hard to understand?

And why can't you understand? The 3rd party part did not render the device useless. Apple did that. if a person chooses to use a 3rd party part which in fact damages the iPhone, then Apple has every right to void any warranties, since their warranties extend to oem parts. However, it is not illegal to purchase and install 3rd party parts, and thus Apple should not be bricking any phones because of a non-approved part. I believe security is the facade, and has everything to do with Apple greed.

 

[69Mustang]

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.

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.

Maybe one of you can help me with this. You're both advocating the security angle. One of you is seriously advocating the security angle. I mean, Bold, CAPS, and underline. Now that's emphatic. Okay, here we go.
Help me understand where the security kicks in.
Guy breaks phone in September. Gets phone fixed by unauthorized repairman and it works fine. He uses an unauthorized part. *This part is made up: The part contains malware to steal data. So for the rest of September and through October, November, and December the phone continues to work fine while stealing copious amounts of data.* At some point in January, the guy gets a notification to update his phone's OS. Instead of getting to play around with new features, the update bricks his phone.

-minus the part I made up, this is the exact situation from yesterday...

See, nowhere in that scenario do I see protective security. If I understand a large number of comments in this thread, Error-53 is supposed to be that security. Can either of you provide some insight? I mean, reading through this thread, one could easily get the idea that this feature is what stands between us and chaos.

 

[Cndnmax]

That's the problem - they didn't use approved hardware. Why is that so hard to understand?

You do realize that an OEM button (that is one made by Apple) will still cause the same error unless you pay Apple to reprogram your phone. So far Apple will not replace only the button and will force you to pay for a screen replacement. You can get an OEM button for very cheap compared to a replacement screen. Now if Apple wants to offer button only replacement for a reasonable price (maybe $10) that's a different story.

 

[LovingTeddy]

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.

Yes. Your car should do that... Prevent someone else drives away your car. But what if your car decided to destory the engine completely becuase someone trying to break in?

This is exactly what happened with iPhone. Your iPhone should disable TouchID and force you authentic yourself before let access your info. But your iPhone should not brick itself.

 

[mikefla]

I don't see anything wrong with this Picture Apple like any other company has the right to do this. Of course some scum law firm would love to pursue a class action suit and if they win which I seriously doubt they would the lawyers will get millions while the average Joe like you and me get peanuts! Don't fall for this junk you may get yourself a $5 gift card out of this deal if that...

-Mike

 

[SusanK]

I believe security is the facade, and has everything to do with Apple greed.

Clearly. If Apple is able to slide on this issue they will require Apple issued finger prints next.

 

[Tsuchiya]

Apple are being heavy handed about this. By all means temporarily disable phones with unofficial parts, but instead of writing off that entire device, simply forcing a restore then reactivation via iCloud would remove personal data and the associated risks without screwing over the original owner of the phone. Win-win, no?

 

[uid15]

I don't see anything wrong with this Picture Apple like any other company has the right to do this. Of course some scum law firm would love to pursue a class action suit and if they win which I seriously doubt they would the lawyers will get millions while the average Joe like you and me get peanuts! Don't fall for this junk you may get yourself a $5 gift card out of this deal if that...

-Mike

Oi! Who let the rational people out? Go back to senseville Shoo!

 

[C DM]

Totally different, I think most people understand the risk of using 3rd party parts, and they are probably not as good quality as OEM parts. The difference here is Apple purposefully bricking the phone once it detects them with no warning.

A better analogy would be you buy a new Lexus, you fit a nice new set of 3rd party rims on the car, the car detects it and then fries the ECU for your protection and safety as the new rims may or may not meet Lexus's stringent safety test. That wouldn't wash, and it shouldn't here. It should give you the option to continue, or even force you to wipe the phone but bricking it is overkill.

Well, rims wouldn't be analogous to Touch ID sensor. Something more analogous like maybe a new ignition is put in with hardware that works with keyless key fobs to start the car or to support remote starters, and then the manufacturer has some sort of software update that has additional checks for parts that are non-authorized due to additional security measures and that ignition then no longer works because of that update. Still not the same thing really, but at least somewhat more analogous.

 

[uid15]

I think Rene Ritchie would be invaluable in this "discussion", but I feel he is far too busy (and too sensible) to come here. I am sure he would feel he was talking into the wind

His incredible, balanced knowledge of Apple is amazing, if you've ever watched "MacBreak Weekly".

 

[Ingenieux]

These are security-related items that are being replaced by those from unknown vendors. A very bad idea.

Consider: your TouchID does more than just open your phone. It also authenticates ApplePay transactions, and many other apps depend on the integrity of TouchID for authentication purposes. Off the top of my head, my own phone uses TouchID authentication to open 1Password (which contains ALL my accounts and passwords), several financial and health applications, and so on. Not to mention four credit cards stored in my Wallet.

If my TouchID were compromised, I'm not entirely convinced that bricking my phone is the worst-case scenario!

If it's truly a security feature then why does the phone to continue to work normally after the repair? It's not until a user downloads the software update that the phone becomes useless, and the time between repair and update could be (and was for several users) months.

 

[mikefla]

These are security-related items that are being replaced by those from unknown vendors. A very bad idea.

Consider: your TouchID does more than just open your phone. It also authenticates ApplePay transactions, and many other apps depend on the integrity of TouchID for authentication purposes. Off the top of my head, my own phone uses TouchID authentication to open 1Password (which contains ALL my accounts and passwords), several financial and health applications, and so on. Not to mention four credit cards stored in my Wallet.

If my TouchID were compromised, I'm not entirely convinced that bricking my phone is the worst-case scenario!

Yeah I would hate those Chinese, Iranians or ISIS to get a hold of my fingerprints screw that!

-Mike

 

[Gamewave]

I am a repairer and have done over 5000 devices. Before the update, if you switched out the button with a knock off, the "home button" function would work, but the Touch ID would fail. For most customers, not an issue. I had a customer Saturday come to me, screen smashed, home button ripped off. The connector was still attached, but no button. I explained if I put a button in that it could brick the phone. He said not to risk it, change the screen, and leave the home button out. Everything was great until he contacted me last night, his son updated the phone and it bricked.

So it's the motherboard trying to connect and verify with the chip in the home button. It has nothing to do with the replacement part itself.

I'm going to put the broken screen back on and have them call apple. It would have bricked no matter if I repaired it or not.

How does apple deal with a case like this? Button ripped, not replaced, phone updated and it bricks.

 

[C DM]

If it's truly a security feature then why does the phone to continue to work normally after the repair? It's not until a user downloads the software update that the phone becomes useless, and the time between repair and update could be (and was for several users) months.

Perhaps the checks for things of that nature can reasonably happen during the update/restore process but aren't part of the regular boot up code.

 

[TomMcIn]

Have there been any "Error 53" s from Apple repaired iPhones? Done right, with the proper procedures, parts and equipment, all should work properly and if not should be repaired by Apple with no questions.

What percentage will these scum bag lawyers want and how much will they want up front?

Can Apple sue the shysters if the case is thrown out by the courts?

 

[ElRojito]

Totally different, I think most people understand the risk of using 3rd party parts, and they are probably not as good quality as OEM parts. The difference here is Apple purposefully bricking the phone once it detects them with no warning.

A better analogy would be you buy a new Lexus, you fit a nice new set of 3rd party rims on the car, the car detects it and then fries the ECU for your protection and safety as the new rims may or may not meet Lexus's stringent safety test. That wouldn't wash, and it shouldn't here. It should give you the option to continue, or even force you to wipe the phone but bricking it is overkill.

Except it doesn't 'fry the ecu.' you can take it to apple and they can put a legitimate display on it.

Also, Apple has pretty reasonable prices. 109 for an iPhone 6 -- my local 3rd party shop (iQue) is $129... Even though they say that 'retail price' is $169. Not sure where that number comes from.

 

[rimmeyb]

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

Please note that there is no such thing as an authorized repair facility for iOS devices that does not have a direct tie to Apple.

Here is the issue. When a third party repair facility does a repair to replace a screen on anything iPhone 5S or after it is really easy to tear the flex cable that attached to the home button. This needs to be transferred from the damaged screen assembly to the new screen assembly. Most technicians are able to do this repair without damaging this component. But in the case they do they use a replacement home button. These replacement home button are 100% OEM button but 2 things. 1. There is no method for a repair facility to purchase parts direct with Apple. 2. There is no way to link the new home button with the secure enclave that the original one is synced too. So, in the instance that a repair shop does need to use a replacement home button(100% authentic) the Touch ID does not work. Just the function of the home button.

So, in that instance there are 2 things that can come into play. 1. The repair shop is responsible for the damage and should do what it takes to replace your phone with a working one. 2. You signed a waver before the repair started understanding that you knew the risk of them taking on the repair. This can be a gamble. A. The repair is commonly less expensive to do a repair with a third party company. B. The tech informed you of the home button that quit working and issued a discount for the mistake that they made. C. This error 53 is a new consequences for the damaged flex cable.

I suggest knowing the risk prior to the repair and considering the benefits of a 3rd party repair shop.

I must disclose that I am an owner of a wholesale repair parts company and that the Touch ID repair has been an issue since the first 5S was repaired.

Hope this helps.

 

[nutjob]

It's amazing. No matter how much Apple tortures its customers, they keep on coming back!

 

[kdarling]

That's ********. I own my phone and if I have a third party repair it or use approved hardware from Apple then it's my right to.

By law, you don't even have to use "approved hardware" to keep a warranty on the rest of the device.

The 3rd party part did not render the device useless. Apple did that. if a person chooses to use a 3rd party part which in fact damages the iPhone, then Apple has every right to void any warranties, since their warranties extend to oem parts.

Right, they can only void the warranty if that part installation damaged the device.

The twist here is that Apple doesn't seem to be voiding the warranty on the rest of the device. They're bricking it, instead.

However, it is not illegal to purchase and install 3rd party parts, and thus Apple should not be bricking any phones because of a non-approved part. I believe security is the facade, and has everything to do with Apple greed.

I think security is only a partial excuse, but I don't think it has anything to do with greed (although I agree that Apple is greedy). I think it was simply someone at Apple coding the OS update without thinking through the ramifications and possible public backlash.

It wouldn't be surprising if the next OS revision does not brick the device, but at most disables the touch id part and puts up an alert saying to visit an Apple Store to buy an OEM part or to get the current one revalidated.

As some have noted, the whole thing is similar to what BMW does. If you replace one of the computers in the car, and the ECU notices that the embedded VIN does not match, the ECU will ignore the obviously replaced computer, unless the ECU is reset using dealer means.

 

[gavroche]

Try this...

http://www.theguardian.com/money/20...e-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair

I cannot find any reference in the article you linked to anyone having had this problem after a repair at an authorized repair facility. They mention a couple countries (Macedonia, Dubai)... But not what type of facility.

 

[SRLMJ23]

I am with Apple on this one. They are protecting your fingerprint data, and more importantly most likely is your bank information. So if error-53 never showed up and and somehow people got your banking data and stole money from you, you would want to sue Apple for that as well right? This is for your security, so stop complaining!

 

[dk001]

All of you are nincompoops. For one thing, the article is just stating that Some Apple Stores are authorized for repair. No where does it say that someone took their phone to an apple store or an authorized apple service provider and had it brick. They only use genuine parts there... Im a technician, so I know. So you all need to read more critically. Second of all, if the TouchID sensor is replaced (or a screen for that matter that breaks one of the ribbons), then TouchID and ApplePay ARE disabled. Along with that, on the next update, it will brick the phone. But it IS disabled. Honestly, if you're going to say "it's a big security risk not disabling touchID and apple pay before bricking the phone" then you need to do the repairs yourself and see whether it does or not. I have done them. Before I even knew about error53, I just thought apple was cracking down on screen replacements and disabling TouchID and ApplePay, because the Customer said that wasn't working. .. If I restored the original screen, it worked fine. So they said they could live without touchID... Then they updated and it error'd. Same with breaking the ribbons... If you pry the TouchID sensor too fast, the pins and ribbons will bend and rip a little (i've seen it under a magnifying glass), and therefore iOS won't be able to correctly identify the sensor. TouchID will disable, and your phone will brick. So seriously, people, read more critically. I mean really? What do they teach in schools these days. The Title even says "Law Firms Consider 'error 53' lawsuits against apple as some stores authorized for repair' it just means Apple is authorizing repairs, as they are fixing to get sued. Now let's analyze. If the title ended with '. . .authorized for repair are bricking phones' then yes, that is what that would mean. Seriously, take a literature class people. But there you go. As a Computer Technician, I am behind Apple on this one. If you're ridiculous enough to get your phone replaced via Third-Party or some unauthorized repair place, then so be it. Those screens have wacky voltage, the cameras have weird voltage, so it's no wonder they don't want it. I've burnt several screens out before I realized to stop. It's just something they want. They can't be sued by it.. The customer causes damage by doing it, all Apple has to say is that prying the touchID sensor up to fast can rip the cable, which it totally can, causing the brick-age of the phone.

Name calling? Chuckle.
Recommend you try reading a bit more than a skim of an MR article.
Couple of things:
- after a shutdown, TouchID cannot be used. You have to use your passcode/passphrase first
- People with damage, with repairs, with authorized repairs, people from countries with NO Apple repair, people who had repairs months ago.... it is all over the place
- Having this error occur only on an update doesn't reek of a security option, rather something else. Fill in the blank

Next time try reading a bit more broadly and maybe keying a bit less.

 

[hk67]

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!

Once you purchase your phone, it is your phone - it is your prerogative to do whatever you like, with the risk of rendering your warranty void. This is not a warranty issue.

Apple created an update which sweeps your phone for non-apple branded products (repairs), and upon finding said repairs/products, shuts your phone down, that is borderline criminal. No reasonable user of an iPhone would ever have foreseen that this would be something that would arise if they used 3rd party repairs - the most that would happen is that your warranty would be void. Additionally, the agreement you agree to before updating your phone does not include any information regarding the update - it does not mention that your phone may or may not be rendered inoperable so as to avoid having to update it.

For example, if you purchase a Ford and put aftermarket wheels and tint the windows, then take it in for servicing, would it be fair for them to kill your engine because you have put aftermarket products on your vehicle?

This is not a warranty issue - this is a deliberate attempt to compel those who OWN their iPhones to have to purchase new ones with no other alternative option. But for the update, my phone was working perfectly. The fair thing to do would have been to deny the privilege of having your phone updated.

I see a huge legal problem for apple and once the floodgates open, they'll regret having imposed such an unfair, unreasonable and bizarre update.

 

[AFDoc]

Ah greedy lawyers, how predictable.

Greedy lawyers? What about greedy apple? THEY are the cause of this not greedy lawyers.