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.
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 agree with your sensible solution. Apple may have a conflict of interest. Blocking Apple Pay reduces revenue. Please understand I am not agreeing with Apple's heavy handed approach to this. I think it's all about money. Consumer be darned.
Is it possible for a second law firm to start a class action lawsuit against the first. In this case I want to be in the "class" of users that are glad that Apple is protecting my security by insisting on original parts.
This isn't the situation though. The proper metaphor would be: If I take my car to a non-Honda mechanic and have him change a wear-and-tear part such as brakes, should Honda have the option to lock the brake pistons so that the car is unusable?
There you go. Too painful for what? If you press the Tab key while typing on this forum, it just activates the URL bar, so it's easier for me to write that way than having to do 5 spaces each time.
Here's a term in Honda's warranty that would seem to cover this type of issue:
http://owners.honda.com/Documentum/Warranty/Handbooks/AWL45311.pdf
I think a better analogy would be taking your Honda to a local mechanic to fix. Then, the next time you are in with a Honda dealer, they set your car on fire.
The EULA is not above the law and in some countries this is stepping very close to being unlawful
It is not clear cut at all and depends upon Apple's motivation for doing this. If it was just being over-zealous then that is one thing, if it was a mistake - well we all make them. If they have deliberately decided to brick phones then that is another thing, especially if there is no sound reason to do it.
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.
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.
Yeap and that INCLUDES the cars security system, but that's alright when it's your car, ANY car, but an iPhone woooo no no no because Apple said so.
Meh it will be interesting to watch a UK court backed by British and EU legislation take on Apple, it has to be said they are not a favorite of the British justice system considering the arrogant almost breach of court rule attitude they displayed to them the last time.
That's just silly. First, Apple's already made clear that they'll take care of an issue resulting from a broken device that hasn't been serviced by an unauthorized shop. Second, it's a bit unrealistic to expect the system integrity checks to necessarily be able to determine whether something is out of spec because of a broken component or because of the installation of a bogus component. If there is uncertainty in that regard, the default has to be the assumption that the integrity of the 'enclave' has been violated. There's no subterfuge there. That's how security works.
The TouchID device is sold with the assurance that fingerprint data does not leave the device, but rather remains in the secure 'enclave' that exists from the surface of the reader to the hardware that stores and then verifies the fingerprint of the user. The level of security being sold with this feature means that no one - including Apple - has access to the actual fingerprint data.
The moment Apple allows even for the possibility that the fingerprint data's chain-of-custody could be violated, then the whole thing becomes effectively insecure. If the system integrity check defaults the finding of a failure to the forgiving assumption that the sensor is just broken, then the system's integrity becomes invalid. All the NSA or the Russians or the Chinese, or perpetrators of industrial espionage have to do crack into the 'enclave' is to spoof system integrity check into thinking a failure is just an innocuous broken sensor.
Likewise, the comments elsewhere in this thread that suggest there are legal requirements that Apple has to allow non-Apple components to be installed with impunity miss the implications on the system's integrity. To allow for the installation of non-Apple sensors, for instance, Apple would have to publicly share the security specs that would allow for non OEM parts to be inserted within the fingerprint 'enclave.' They might as well have the TouchID sensor automatically post every user's fingerprint data to this forum, because they really couldn't make the system any less secure.
You can argue about how forgiving or generous Apple should be to customers who find themselves looking at this error code, for whatever reason. O.K., fine. That said, arguments for any sort of relaxing of the security boundaries around the TouchID 'enclave' simply defy the logic of how such a thing works. It's either closed and secure, or it's not.
We are not talking about the warranty though....and there are also laws that prevent these get-outs being used to prevent 3rd party repair.
What we are talking about is a potential (and I say this because we have no idea what their motivation was) decision to deliberately break the hardware and make it no longer usable
I completely understand the reasoning for doing it on security grounds but to absolutely brick the iphone with no way to repair it is a bit extreme. I hope the court cases make Apple rethink their decision. If it's not a proper Apple home button then the Apple Pay (etc) function is disabled until the correct component is installed.
Do you have standing for the litigation? Have you been damaged?
That is a perfect response. you are exactly right... You read my reply too, although disregard the first part because you are not a nincompoop like everyone else here.
[doublepost=1454967552][/doublepost]
You can repair it. Either install the original screen/button again or take it to an apple store. There's three ways right there. Again, it is DISABLED when you do that. People don't seem to realize that. iTunes only bricks it when you try to update/RESTORE (not just update) the device.
In case of Touch ID, I do not believe this is the case as there are old-school backups to all the functions that Touch ID serves.
For example, to unlock the phone with Touch ID, you must still create a passcode. After a reboot, you MUST unlock the phone with passcode before Touch ID will work. Also, after 5 failed attempts to unlock with fingerprint or after not unlocking with fingerprint for X amount of time, you MUST use a passcode.
Another function of Touch ID is AppStore. Again, if you are trying to buy an app after reboot, you MUST use AppStore/iTunes password.
As far as Apple Pay goes, you MUST unlock the phone first after reboot before you can use it.
Finally, apps that allow you to log-in using fingerprint all have password backups. Plus the phone needs to be unlocked before you can open any apps.
The way I see it, Touch ID and everything that's tied to it is a merely a convenience, so far it has not replaced original authentication options completely. Which is why I think that by bricking the entire phone Apple may have gone a bit too far. Sure, if Touch ID has been swapped out with non-OEM part or work was done improperly, by all means disable everything related to it, but not the entire phone. I'm sure that swapping a screen or Touch ID requires powering the phone down, and after swap one will be presented with lock screen and be required to unlock the phone with passcode. So if the phone is lost or stolen and whoever in possession does not have the correct passcode, they are still SOL, whether or not sensor is original or replacement. As an extra added security for Apple Pay, the second iOS senses discrepancy with Touch ID hardware, all cards should be removed from the wallet and user will have to manually re-add them after having the phone repaired by Apple or authorized service shop.
OMG I can't believe that 8 pages of comments are so filled with ridiculous comments.
Here are the facts.
In the U.S. you CANNOT require that your customer use genuine parts for a repair.
You CANNOT void a warrantee for using third-party parts that function correctly.
You CAN void the warrantee for damage that is CAUSED by a third-party part.
Apple is breaking US Law. I don't have any fondness for lawyers, but when someone breaks the law they should expect to be sued.
For those struggling to find a good analogy, think about this. I decide to buy my iMac with the minimum RAM since Apple charges an obscene amount for RAM. I get the correct RAM from a third-party and install it and it works fine. I install a new version of the OS and it bricks my entire computer because it detected that I didn't have Apple RAM installed.
Regardless of security concerns, Apple cannot penalize me for using third-party parts in a repair unless those parts cause damage to the phone. Apple will lose this lawsuit.
Here are the facts.
In the U.S. you CANNOT require that your customer use genuine parts for a repair.
You CANNOT void a warrantee for using third-party parts that function correctly.
You CAN void the warrantee for damage that is CAUSED by a third-party part.
Apple is breaking US Law. I don't have any fondness for lawyers, but when someone breaks the law they should expect to be sued.
For those struggling to find a good analogy, think about this. I decide to buy my iMac with the minimum RAM since Apple charges an obscene amount for RAM. I get the correct RAM from a third-party and install it and it works fine. I install a new version of the OS and it bricks my entire computer because it detected that I didn't have Apple RAM installed.
Regardless of security concerns, Apple cannot penalize me for using third-party parts in a repair unless those parts cause damage to the phone. Apple will lose this lawsuit.
BMW orphaned Crewe built Rolls-Royces when BMW bought the brand. Where does a Crewe built Rolls owner go for service and "factory" parts? I really want to know this one for personal reasons.
Thanks in advance!
You realize how stupid this analogy is right?
What if I took my Honda to an independent shop? I hope the "greedy lawyers" sue the s*** out of greedy Apple here.
1) not everyone is in an area where authorized repairs are available.
2) there is a difference between unexpected results and malicious destruction of property as a punitive measure.
3) this may very well be illegal.
Who's "we"? The person that I was responding to said that it was illegal for car companies to include those terms in it's warranty. Hence, my example of including terms from a car company.
Car companies can't prevent you from using compatible third-party parts. Obviously, these third-party home button repairs are not compatible.
You misspelled lawyers. It's spelled A-P-P-L-E.