Users Facing 'Error 53' Bricking Message After Third-Party iPhone 6 Home Button Repairs

[MH01]

You should buy whatever suits your individual preference and use case.

Many of us here have pre glued macs/devices that we bought and upgraded ourselfs and are very happy with, a software update that would stop them working due to customs HDD and ram, or caddies etc would upset many of us who bought products that met our use cases.

It's very easy to spin the security angle ....

 

[Marshall73]

Dupe

 

[Mfnd]

Sorry to ask such a basic question but could someone clear something up for me-is this just an issue with the Touch ID button? I recently had my iphone6 screen replaced by the 3rd party. The Touch ID was not touched. Am I safe to upgrade or likely to have issues to? Thanks.

 

[Mfnd]

Many thanks. For some reason that thread didn't appear in a general search of the phrase 'error 53'.

 

[I7guy]

It only says the Warranty is invalid, not that they "can brick your phone" 🙂

Moreover, notice that they carefully follow the law's requirements by NOT saying that just using third party parts voids the warranty. Because by law, they cannot.

Instead, they say that it happens if a part causes DAMAGE, because the law does allow that.



I agree that it's not about making money. It's probably more about lazy coding. Someone should've thought it through more. Perhaps warned the user, and then allowed them to re-validate by entering their passcode. At the most, disable TouchID and force use of the passcode. Disabling the entire device is just wrong.



Could be. The basic idea is good, but the current implementation sucks. Whatcha bet that it'll change in future releases? 🙂

But an unauthorized repair could also cause a software failure as hardware is not working to spec.🙂

 

[PJL500]

Can confirm. I bought an OtterBox case for my 6S and that bricked my new iPhone. Here’s how. Rain dripped on to my backpack from umbrella. A little got through the lining and on to the lightening port. Capillary action drew the liquid in under the built-in protective screen on the case creating a trapped film right over the Home Button. Further capillary action forced this down through the Home Button though at the Apple Store they were not sure if it soaked in there via the Lightening Port. None of the liquid sensors were triggered.

Long and short: they would not replace the Home Button. They would only replace the phone. So that case cost me almost $400- in the end. (Water would probably not have gotten into the phone if I had not put this case on it.)

 

[CarlJ]

I'm going to stop reading this thread now, to keep myself from wanting to strangle conspiracy theorists. It's just not worth the effort.

 

[numlock]

Let's sum this up.

1. iPhone user takes phone to shadetree workshop, gets TouchID button replaced with aftermarket parts, voids warranty and current user agreement, and now owns what amounts to an insecure, hacked device.

2. User then connects said hacked, voided hardware to Apple and requests free software upgrade (for improved utility and security updates!), clicks 'I Agree' on user agreement that the hacked, voided hardware (by definition) violates.

3. New software detects hacked, voided hardware, and shuts it down.

4. User is then upset that Apple did not accommodate the violation of user agreement by writing code that provides a workaround to enable hacked, voided hardware to still function in a security-breached mode.

5. Some people on MacRumors forum appreciate that Apple takes data security seriously.

6. Other people on MacRumors forum feel that Apple should soften security protocols in order to accommodate users who knowingly or foolishly have their hardware hacked, and that by not doing so, Apple is evil and greedy.

if aftermarket parts are the only ones available then people make due with that. dosent mean the repair technician isnt reputable or honest. in an ideal world apple or authorised resellers would deal with devices under warranty but there can be cost, time and geographical issues. can you please post that specific clause from the eula? where has it been proven that the device would automatically be insecure?

i like how you italicise "free" as if people who pay for their devices are less entitled to the updates. where are the consequences implied or frankly spelled out so that informed choice can be made? btw thats the same nonsense as allowing a sl machine start an update to ios9.

if apple takes data security so seriously why does this work differently on the 5 models? if apple takes data security so seriously why is a pin and touch id setup not mandatory?

 

[Thunderhawks]

My kid broke his iPhone 6 and lost his home button. I had a shop fix it and it worked fine (minus Touch ID) until he did an update. I had a long chat session with Apple Care people on this subject. They told me the following:
1) Shouldn't ever have a non-authorized shop fix your phone.
2) Apple refuses to look/fix the phone after it's be opened by anyone.
3) Sprint and another "Apple Authorized Dealer", both recommended by Apple and both flat out refused to deal with the phone.
4) After I told this to Apple, they said they could fix it, after I complained and escalated the issue, but the cost to fix would be more than buying a new phone.

Cost for repairs: $120
Cost for new iPhone 6: $549
Cost for being a Apple fanboy: priceless.

Thank You Apple.

May I recommend Apple Care for any product that costs major $$$, especially when given to kids
or klutzes (like me)?
[doublepost=1454785066][/doublepost]

Can anybody tell me how Apple can get away with this scam? I mean... I buy an iPhone 6s in Denmark for 7000 kr (1000$) and believe it's my private property now? Then I modify it, and along comes Apple and bricks it! Okay, now Apple has to pay for a new iPhone... or at least I expect them to, because if I bump into a person on the street and she looses her iPhone 6s, I will have to pay a new one to her, wether she's modified it or not! How come you Americans do not sue Apple for 100's og billions, when they delibritly put scam software on your iPhones, but gladly sue VW for 100 billions for scam software in their cars? Doesn't make sense... If Apple bricks my phone they MUST pay... and I don't care if they say it's all about security... It's MY phone and they bricked it!
Can anybody here show where Apple has claimed that it's not legal to change the Home-button yourself, and if you do, Apple has the legal right to posses your private property, and brick your brand new iPhone at will? Then I will disgres...

Apple Care takes care of your problem.

 

[AppleScruff1]

This is actually a good thing. However, people will still be mad.

It is a good thing. I'd get the repair done by Apple anyway instead of at a mall kiosk.

 

[KiwiAdventure]

It just shows how stupid some people are. The iPhone is a secure device if it wasn't then anyone could steel iPhones change some parts and on sell as a working iPhone,

How does this even make news or is this about the stupidity of some in having third party non approved repairers destroy iPhones.

 

[Capt T]

if aftermarket parts are the only ones available then people make due with that. dosent mean the repair technician isnt reputable or honest. in an ideal world apple or authorised resellers would deal with devices under warranty but there can be cost, time and geographical issues. can you please post that specific clause from the eula? where has it been proven that the device would automatically be insecure?

i like how you italicise "free" as if people who pay for their devices are less entitled to the updates. where are the consequences implied or frankly spelled out so that informed choice can be made? btw thats the same nonsense as allowing a sl machine start an update to ios9.

if apple takes data security so seriously why does this work differently on the 5 models? if apple takes data security so seriously why is a pin and touch id setup not mandatory?

It is mandatory if you want to use Apple Pay, it states it when you choose not to use Touch ID or a password.

Also an example of other companies taking in authorized parts seriously, Microsoft takes it all a step farther with their game consoles....your username/account and machine can be banned from their service, and any digital content is no longer accessible that is tied to the user name. And not only for replacing a part with an unauthorized part....could be language, improper use of the attached camera, any number of things. They have been doing this for years.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Banned-Xbox-Live-Accounts-Lose-Access-All-Xbox-One-Games-56755.html

No, just because a repair place isn't authorized, doesn't mean they are less than reputable...but it does mean they don't have access to authorized parts. And Apple do not have to support unauthorized tampering/repairs with their updates to their software.

 

[palmerc]

Whether it's interesting or not, and echoed, the information is out there online.

Maybe it's just because I've grown up in the UK under EU influence, that I have grown accustom to the strict laws they impose on businesses, protecting consumers and making sure they are treated fairly.

After all it's us, the consumers who have made Apple what it is today.

First, talking about the EU as a whole is a bit dangerous, especially when the UK may very well be on its way out. 🙂 I live in Norway, home of consumer protection. However, phones aren't given the same level of protection as computers or other large appliances for good reason. They aren't expected to last and are subjected to very different treatment than for example a TV or laptop. However, in ANY case, 3rd party unauthorized servicing would void any consumer protection.

 

[kdarling]

But an unauthorized repair could also cause a software failure as hardware is not working to spec.🙂

Ah, but reportedly the repair WOULD work if the replacement hardware was simply re-linked to the Secure Element.

This is like buying a new automobile key fob. Apple should provide tools or a service to re-link to a device, perhaps requiring the passcode to ensure the owner is involved.

 

[Smartass]

Knock knock
who is it?
Class action suit
class action suit who?
class action suit whos gonna take a lot of money from you

 

[Tubamajuba]

I made the reference to Cook. Nothing about Steve. You brought a dead man into a conversation about an issue that postdates his death.

Why would the reference to Cook not also apply to Jobs? Under Jobs, Apple's policy in regards to third party repair facilities was the same that it is now. So unless you can prove that this Error 53 business is actually an intentional business decision by Cook to increase iPhone sales, all we have to go by is the policies that led to the Error 53 problem in the first place- only authorized repair facilities can replace components within Apple hardware. Within the bounds of that policy, it can be reasonably expected that some non-authorized repairs might not turn out as well as legitimate ones.

Now, as to why I brought Jobs up in the first place- Cook gets unfairly targeted for things that Jobs did as well, along with being pinned as excessively greedy. I was simply pointing out that if Cook is actually greedy, then so is Jobs.

 

[I7guy]

Ah, but reportedly the repair WOULD work if the replacement hardware was simply re-linked to the Secure Element.

This is like buying a new automobile key fob. Apple should provide tools or a service to re-link to a device, perhaps requiring the passcode to ensure the owner is involved.

Hypothetically they may provide said tools to authorized vendors. With the key fob you need a master to program the other slave. So with a new touch id assembly you would need authorized tools.

But that's a different conversation than IOS 9 perhaps checking to see if all devices are in working order and if not, execute a panic.

 

[kdarling]

Reportedly Apple has said this:

"We protect fingerprint data using a secure enclave, which is uniquely paired to the Touch ID sensor. When iPhone is serviced by an authorised Apple service provider or Apple retail store for changes that affect the touch ID sensor, the pairing is re-validated. This check ensures the device and the iOS features related to touch ID remain secure."

"Without this unique pairing, a malicious touch ID sensor could be substituted, thereby gaining access to the secure enclave. When iOS detects that the pairing fails, touch ID, including Apple Pay, is disabled so the device remains secure."

1. It sounds like it's just supposed to disable Touch ID, not the entire phone. Could be a bug in iOS 9.

2. Not sure it's smart to use a claim that something can be added to the system and get unauthorized access to the secure enclave.

 

[I7guy]

Why would the reference to Cook not also apply to Jobs? Under Jobs, Apple's policy in regards to third party repair facilities was the same that it is now. So unless you can prove that this Error 53 business is actually an intentional business decision by Cook to increase iPhone sales, all we have to go by is the policies that led to the Error 53 problem in the first place- only authorized repair facilities can replace components within Apple hardware. Within the bounds of that policy, it can be reasonably expected that some non-authorized repairs might not turn out as well as legitimate ones.

Now, as to why I brought Jobs up in the first place- Cook gets unfairly targeted for things that Jobs did as well, along with being pinned as excessively greedy. I was simply pointing out that if Cook is actually greedy, then so is Jobs.

Good point. All the good things about apple on this forum go to SJ, while the bad things get pointed to TC. It's as if all of the complaints about apple started after TC took office and somehow apple under SJ was perfect. At this point, they have the right person for that job. /ot
[doublepost=1454790485][/doublepost]

Reportedly Apple has said this:

"We protect fingerprint data using a secure enclave, which is uniquely paired to the Touch ID sensor. When iPhone is serviced by an authorised Apple service provider or Apple retail store for changes that affect the touch ID sensor, the pairing is re-validated. This check ensures the device and the iOS features related to touch ID remain secure."

"Without this unique pairing, a malicious touch ID sensor could be substituted, thereby gaining access to the secure enclave. When iOS detects that the pairing fails, touch ID, including Apple Pay, is disabled so the device remains secure."

1. It sounds like it's just supposed to disable Touch ID, not the entire phone. Could be a bug in iOS 9.

2. Not sure it's smart to use a claim that something can be added to the system and get unauthorized access to the secure enclave.

It's impossible now.🙄

 

[Tubamajuba]

Good point. All the good things about apple on this forum go to SJ, while the bad things get pointed to TC. It's as if all of the complaints about apple started after TC took office and somehow apple under SJ was perfect. At this point, they have the right person for that job. /ot
[doublepost=1454790485][/doublepost]
It's impossible now.🙄

Thank you, that's exactly my point. Apparently, Apple under Jobs was magical, exceptional, and nearly perfect. Apple under Cook is stingy, greedy, and deeply flawed... apparently. In general, this forum has a problem with long-term memory. Kind of like how every new version of iOS is the worst ever until the next version comes out, at which point the previous version is put on a pedestal. Some of the widely held opinions on this forum are so extreme and bizarre, even "Twitch Plays MacRumors Forums" couldn't make it any weirder.

 

[sososowhat]

MAN!!! this is just crazy, what happened to you, happened to me exactly the same!! i live in cancun, but hell no im going to pay for something that they screwed up, this sounds like a bad move from apple, in a way that they say,
"oops! sorry friend, its our mistake but as you don't have warranty we cannot help you, but HEY!! here´s a new one for half a price!!"
**** THAT ****!!! I've been an apple boy since always but this seems like some ****ed up play by apple!
Anywhore, lets see up to where this scales.

So you no longer have an iPhone? Basically, I treated this an out of warranty failure -- my Apple phone died before it should have, but that's the risk I take by not paying the AppleCare tax. Something in my hardware (?) failed & Apple bricked the phone, thinking I'd messed with the Touch ID. It does feel screwed up, but at least they provided me a replacement for less than the $899 or whatever the phone costs to buy new.
[doublepost=1454791629][/doublepost]

I've had error 53 popping up quite a few times in the past when iPhone updates had to be done via USB and iTunes. It simply and very non-specifically indicates an error with installing a new firmware or OS. In some cases I could trace it back to a dodgy USB cable, sometimes a Mac reboot or iTunes update fixed it. In a couple of cases Apple replaced the phone.

The most recent of those cases happened just a week ago and was nearly identical to what sososowhat experienced. The iPhone 6 failed the over-the-air iOS update to 9.2.1, told me to do a restore via iTunes and boom! – error 53! Apple said it was most likely a flash memory fault and replaced the phone for free after checking that there had been no liquid damage or unauthorised repair. The phone had no issues with TouchID prior to the failure.

I guess I wasn't upset enough or something -- I didn't get an offer of free replacement. Not sure if there's anything I can do now to get my money back. Would be nice!

 

[djgamble]

Fools!!! Why do people spend money on 3rd party repairs when their iPhone would HAVE to still be under warranty since it is less than a year old?

 

[mateytate]

I really don't understand this - if you install a 3rd party Touch ID module in it and the phone can detect it which it clearly can, why doesn't it just 'brick' the Touch ID feature on the phone so it no longer works, or even (worse case) require you to factory reset the phone before you can use it again and then give you a warning that you are using non-genuine parts and security could be comprised?

I cannot believe it just bricks the whole thing and people are supporting Apple, yes, they are trying to protect data but this is the most extreme action they could have taken! Surely there are many other ways they could have protected the users data, just bricking the phone is absolutely ridiculous and they are (rightly so) going to hit with lawsuits because of this.

 

[sososowhat]

I really don't understand this - if you install a 3rd party Touch ID module in it and the phone can detect it which it clearly can, why doesn't it just 'brick' the Touch ID feature on the phone so it no longer works, or even (worse case) require you to factory reset the phone before you can use it again and then give you a warning that you are using non-genuine parts and security could be comprised?

I cannot believe it just bricks the whole thing and people are supporting Apple, yes, they are trying to protect data but this is the most extreme action they could have taken! Surely there are many other ways they could have protected the users data, just bricking the phone is absolutely ridiculous and they are (rightly so) going to hit with lawsuits because of this.

I think it's not just protecting data, but making phone thefts less attractive. This way, if a thief tries to replace the TouchID unit, the stolen phone can not be used at all.

 

[Timur]

1. It sounds like it's just supposed to disable Touch ID, not the entire phone. Could be a bug in iOS 9.

Which obviously would be the sensible thing to do. Especially since the whole discussions forgets about us people who don't even make use of the TouchID sensor. I am completely ignoring that sensor, just as if I was using an older generation iPhone that did not have it.

So when I replace a button Apple can brick my iPhone, because of a sensor that I never used? How does that protect my security that was never compromised to begin with?

2. Not sure it's smart to use a claim that something can be added to the system and get unauthorized access to the secure enclave.

Try to get quick (!) access to my finger: easy.

Try to get quick (!) access to a pin/password in my head: not so easy.