Apple goes far beyond this. They don't merely recomment that you use only authorized repair centers, they will actively disable the entire product if it detects one OEM part was changed for another identical OEM part.
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
Apple goes far beyond this. They don't merely recomment that you use only authorized repair centers, they will actively disable the entire product if it detects one OEM part was changed for another identical OEM part.
Advertising that a repairer is authorised but Apple doesn't actually consider that to be the case.
So you believe your choice is a bricked phone or a wide open phone?
How about instead of bricking the phone, wipe the data and leave it fresh and ready to restore a backup?
Bricking the phone is purely anti-consumer and illegal (because the law is clear you have the right to mod/repair your own device). Apple needs to be sued until it hurts their bottom line in a big way for this. It needs to be such a scandal that Timmy is personally apologizing. And the fact that people on this forum actually defend Apple here is so sad it's funny.
First, as far as I've seen, nobody has pointed to incompatible third-party touchid sensors. I am talking about using OEM touchid sensors from other "for parts" or "salvage" iphones of the same model. Second, Apple doesn't just "not support" the replacement, they actively disable the entire product. They aren't just denying a warranty claim, their software intentionally bricks the entire phone.
Would you also get upset if your car wouldn't start because you have the wrong key?
Alternatively. to put it simply, the 'Error 53" issues could be just an reason that users find it hard to work in an closed eco-system. and fail to do the right thing by getting it repair at Apple..... even if they charge u more as the reason not to do it.
I gave a few options... i's up to you to decide. But what do I know
You forgot another option...treating your investment with the care that it deserves. My phone cost me $1000 so I'm careful with it, including the purchase of AppleCare and taking it to Apple for repairs. Not that I deserve any pats on the back; this is what any smart consumer would do.
Agree to disagree there, but I think this is plainly illegal and exactly the kind of anti-consumer abuse MM Act was meant to prevent.
Stop defending them. Apple have been dishonest before and they’ll no doubt be dishonest again when it suits them. They have form for this 'lets keep quiet and just destroy a users property' before.
Well Apple did it. See you in court.
that Apple automatically got bashed when believe it or not they have their customers best interest is sad.
I would be upset if my car wouldn't start because I swapped the ignition from another car of the same make and model, where the car doesn't start because the new ignition doesn't work but because the car company has software that remotely disabled the car because I decided to use a third-party repair shop.
The new piece added isn't working properly and wasn't configured properly (I think the latter is the most important part). Not sure how that's Apple's fault.
Not really happy with the way it stops the phone from working, seems like it could just disable the fingerprint scanner and ApplePay settings (with a much better message). BUT if it thinks it's an attack, currently occurring....
Gary
Last edited:
The sad part is that some people blindly take Apple's word when on it's face this is a very anti-consumer move.
They haven't come up with a good lie yet. Apple needs a story that does not incur liability and makes customers believe that destroying expensive devices is customer friendly.
They'll have to put the first team on that one.
So you want them to wait until a sensor is hacked and Apple pay compromised? It'll be too late by then, the damage would already be done.
Well, I suppose you can continue to ignore the security aspect until you get a personal explanation from someone that you trust that has inside knowledge of iPhone security. Maybe Apple can walk you and your trusted security expert through all of the security ramifications of the secure enclave and touch ID sensor.
I would 100% believe the security argument if their detection was focused on detecting third-party or tampered sensors. Since, as I've said, this error occurs when an authentic OEM sensor from one iphone is put into another iphone of the same model, where there is zero tampering and the part is original Apple, their instrument is too blunt. It is a very over-broad restriction.
Again, you have to move the goalposts. I didn't claim incompatible third-party sensors. I claimed "incompatible third-party repairs". It's right in the original post. The third-party repairs don't properly validate the secure pairing.
As Wikipedia summarizes:
"In the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prevents manufacturers from voiding warranties solely due to tampering. A warranty may be dishonored only if the tampering actually affected the part that has failed, and could have caused the failure."
I have already demonstrated how an incorrectly paired TouchID sensor compromises the Secure Enclave, and how a compromised Secure Enclave compromises the entire phone, regardless of whether TouchID is enabled or not. Therefore, as the summary states, Apple has 100% legal grounds to state that the part caused hardware failure, being that the Secure Enclave is physically on the Apple A series coprocessor, which is a physical part of the phone. The only chance Apple has of losing this battle should it go to the courts is a lack of technological understanding by the judge or jury.
Just because you don't understand why the parts are securely paired doesn't mean that it is unnecessary.
They're always adding new security updates to every update, which makes me happy that they do.
Possible scenarios: Maybe they just realized this was an issue or they realized the code wasn't working properly in previous versions.
Again: I'm not happy with the implementation; seems like they could have just disabled/wiped the fingerprint/ApplePay data. Don't know what level of "attack" would shut the phone down (with such a poor message).
Occasionally companies get some non-company programmer/security person who warns then of a security flaw, demands they fix it or they'll release it to the public. Who knows what let them to this.
Gary
Last edited:
You're just arguing semantics now. What is an "incompatible repair"? I have a screw driver that fits, the parts fit, seems the repair is compatible. It's a straw-man argument to say the third-party repairs don't properly validate the secure pairing because that is precisely the issue here. What I say is an anti-consumer issue, you say it's fine because they meant it to be that way.
Apple Stores Now Offering Belkin Screen Protector Application
Welp, looks like those who self-applied another brand of screen protector can look forward to having their phones bricked by Apple...
Welp, looks like those who self-applied another brand of screen protector can look forward to having their phones bricked by Apple...
Egg Freckles did a nice article on this, some history(repair, Apple third party parts and device) and then the current issue.
It's a pretty short article, check it out http://eggfreckles.net/notes/error53/
It's a pretty short article, check it out http://eggfreckles.net/notes/error53/