Did you read the same warranty document's opening paragraphs?
I don't know about across US, but a company willfully disabling a device - for security reasons or otherwise - just wouldn't fly in many countries.
consumer laws generally deal with the condition an item is in when sold and the condition of said items with all the bits and baubles it was sold with. According my BF the genius they have never seen an error 53 that wasn't a 3rd party screen device. So the fact that it has a part that is not part of the original and wasn't installed by the seller or manufacturer as part of an attempt to 'make right' a poor sale could void those consumer rights.
If Apple expects to sell automobiles which have similar "security" features, so that only authorized repair shops can do engine work, reset computers and sensors, maybe even top off the wiper fluid.... they won't be selling any such cars to me. #GetMeThatSamsungCar
Please. Cry me a river.
Doing "engine work", replacing tires, topping off wiper fluid is completely different than replacing a key component responsible for security/encryption of said device with an unauthorized part.
Apple should be taken to task for this. I should be able to take my phone to any repairer that I choose. Saying they are all back street seedy places is just ignorant. If I choose to get the home button repaired outwit apple or an authorised repairer, then all that should happen is the touch ID is disabled to protect the security. Apple could then do a safety check (and charge) to reactivate it. I can live without touch ID, but living with a £619 brick is harder.
Can you imagine if you could only use the builder that built your house for repairs on your property (window and doors as they need to be secure). I got a key cut for my car (transponder key), took it to a local locksmith and saved over £60 from the car manufacturer.
Once I buy the phone it belongs to me, not Apple. They have no right to brick my phone because I don't use them for repair.
Oh and I am an Apple fanboy. I have been using the iPhone since the first generation. I have been using the mac since the Performa 5300. Own an Apple watch.
How is this "going too far?" And the use of the word unauthorized should tell people not to mess with the component. Hell, there's computers I've worked with that if you open the case, you void the entire warranty on it. For me at least, when it comes to sensitive parts, I trust only the Apple Store or an AASP to do the work. At least they're provided the proper tools to ensure everything is fixed properly.
Not all iPhones are still under warranty. My iPhone 6 is out of warranty so Apple doesn't have a hold over me.
It's a security feature to stop iOS device thieves from simply changing the Touch ID button and gaining access to all your stuff with any thumbprint somehow.
So apple can't simply disable Touch ID instead?
I personally think it's a bug in the installer but wow. Bricking a phone and its contents because it can't validate a component is a bit rich, particularly when said component isn't strictly necessary for the safe operation of the device. Touch ID is optional for gods sake.
It is fully OK that people lose their warranty when using unauthorized repair services. It is also fully OK that Apple disables a security feature, if unauthorized parts have been introduced into the signal chain. Especially since biometric data can't be changed once compromised.
The part where they are indeed wrong is when they render the entire device unusable because of this. Yes, disable TouchID and wipe the Secure Enclave – that is reasonable and justified. But when people do a restore using their valid Apple ID and having the required credentials, then at least the rest of the device should still work. Apple did the convenient thing putting TouchID into the home button, but using an iPhone without the home button is impossible – and it should be fully OK for somebody with an out-of-warranty device (and maybe liquidity problems, or just living somewhere where there is no Apple or AASP) to have it repaired elsewhere, even if that means giving up TouchID. I do not agree with the lawsuit, but Apple has to provide a better solution for this.
Guess what, go buy an Android phone or whatever phone you like. An iPhone is apparently not for you.
This Error 53 feature makes Touch ID and iPhones even more great.
Hell, Apple should make a TV commercial featuring Error 53, and make the commercial about security/touch ID and how people use touch id to make countless transactions and access bank accounts, trading accounts etc. Security is a very important issue for many people. It's good that Apple detects iPhones that have had their Touch ID security mechanisms tampered with.
Uh yeah. There is no way on Earth that the courts are going to force companies to deal with claims arising from devices that have been tampered with. That would open a Pandora's box and is just a ridiculous idea to begin with - "I stuck a screwdriver into my phone and I want you, the manufacturer, to pay for it" - ? There is no way a court could objectively distinguish between unauthorised third-party repair, and tampering. It's the same thing.
That one looses the warranty after an unauthorized repair, seems logical. But there is big difference between losing warranty and bricking a device. That Apple bricks a phone for that reason is for me definitely not the way forward. No equipment vendor can brick any device because the consumer chooses an alternative repair service. The consumer law in the EU says it very clearly: forcing to use an authorized repair center is an illegal practice. There is enough jurisprudence in the automobile sector: all car manufacturers lost their cases. If someone in the EU will file a class action suit, Apple has no chance at all. Calling "error 53" a feature is a contradictio in terminis, an afterthought and a very arrogant one
I can easily understand why Apple can and should disable touch ID if it has been compromised by the user's decision to bypass authorized repair service. What is less understandable is having the iPhone rendered utterly unusable.
A stolen iPhone could conceivably be tampered with to allow the thief to use ApplePay to make purchases which should be Apple's responsibility if it did nothing to defend against this. But I don't understand why a user who doesn't care about TouchID shouldn't be able to continue to use the iPhone sans TouchID due to third party repair.
I had an iPod touch with a failed lightning port so it could not be recharged. Apple's only solution was to swap it for a pricey rebuilt unit without the contents of my internal drive (I was traveling and did not have a good backup). I found a third party that would replace the lightning port and almost all was well. I was able to back up my data at home.
You'd be OK with a thief continuing to use your phone and having access to the entire contents of your phone? That's nuts.
I don't believe I said anything like that. I was implying that it makes sense to me that Apple could legitimately disable the TouchID function of an iPhone if it detected that the security function had been tampered with in some way. At the same time I questioned if it made good sense to brick the phone since it is certainly the case that many iPhones have been in the possession of their owners who have done nothing more than repair a broken device.
In the case you seem to posit a thief has stolen iPhone, defeated the TouchID feature so he has complete access to the device. I certainly do not have first hand information but in the reports the theoretical thief has nothing to worry about Apple's bricking of the iPhone since it just occurs when the user (or thief) tries to update or restore the iPhone. Remember that the unauthorized repair does not brick the phone. It is done by Apple when the person with the phone tried to restore or update the system. So a thief would not be thwarted, but the legitimate owner would (and apparently has been in a number of cases).
It is worth bearing in mind that much of this disputation is based on possibly incomplete information. So some of the reasoning may simply not apply. But it appears to me (an admirer of Apple since the late 70's) that Apple's policy causes owners of iPhones to be willfully denied the continued use of their iPhone. Disable ApplePay, turn off TouchID, but 'brick' the phone? It is hard to see how that is justified.
I hope Apple not only fights this lawsuit all the way to the end, but then turn right around and sue the ambulance-chasing lawfirm into oblivion.
They are going to bank on the ignorance of users and obfuscate the necessity of the security implementation (basically LIE) to make a case against Apple.
If you're going to turn this around and debate with me why you should be allowed to take your iPhone to "Mr. Dark Alley" to replace a key security component because you feel that $10 sketchy repair is a much better deal than whatever Apple charges to get it fixed properly, then don't bother discussing it with me.
You think the iPhone's security is too high for you? Go with Android.
Agree one hundred percent. Just another law firm being greedy. And on the behalf of stupidity in people.
It's a security feature to stop iOS device thieves from simply changing the Touch ID button and gaining access to all your stuff with any thumbprint somehow.
So apple can't simply disable Touch ID instead?
I personally think it's a bug in the installer but wow. Bricking a phone and its contents because it can't validate a component is a bit rich, particularly when said component isn't strictly necessary for the safe operation of the device. Touch ID is optional for gods sake.
Why do that and leave the door possibly open to a compromised system?
the class action was to be expected... Now I'm curious to see the results. Im very happy about Apple attitude regarding security, but I kind of think the reaction was overkill. Why not just disable TouchID, Apple Pay and every service connected ? Why not put a warning during iOS update ?
I can easily understand why Apple can and should disable touch ID if it has been compromised by the user's decision to bypass authorized repair service. What is less understandable is having the iPhone rendered utterly unusable.
A stolen iPhone could conceivably be tampered with to allow the thief to use ApplePay to make purchases which should be Apple's responsibility if it did nothing to defend against this. But I don't understand why a user who doesn't care about TouchID shouldn't be able to continue to use the iPhone sans TouchID due to third party repair.
I had an iPod touch with a failed lightning port so it could not be recharged. Apple's only solution was to swap it for a pricey rebuilt unit without the contents of my internal drive (I was traveling and did not have a good backup). I found a third party that would replace the lightning port and almost all was well. I was able to back up my data at home.
Do you really want someone to access your data, possibly all saved passwords (including wifi passwords to your personal home network) by simply "repairing" the device?
Like what Apple has done in this case is exactly what should be done if the device has been compromised. The only thing that should come from this lawsuit is that Apple should "fix" this for no-charge, even on out-of-warranty devices, because the alternative renders the device unusable. If a third party has damaged the phone, then tough cookies.
Perhaps Apple should put a sticker on the inside of the TouchID component which says "Unauthorized repair of this component will permanently disable the device." I wonder what procedure an authorized repair service does to avoid bricking the device. Is it simply a matter of using a genuine Apple part verses a knockoff?
You're missing the point. It's apple's decision to disable a component of a device in the name of security. it doesn't matter that it's for security, it doesn't matter that it's in the best interest of the consumer - it's giving up liberty. Does that mean nothing?
Apple should offer a choice - one that says that a modification has been discovered in the hardware that could potentially lead to identity fraud, device theft, snooping or whatever and it's strongly, strongly suggested that the component be turned off and the device taken to an apple store for checking. That would be a perfect solution - giving the consumer a say in the deactivation of a component of a device they purchased, taking the risks into their own hands of actually saying yea, that's a good idea and getting it checked.
When Sony disabled Linux installation functionality on the PS3, it was a lawsuit big enough to cause Sony to have to refund PS3 purchases. Sony purposely disabled a component of the PS3 which some people purchased it for, and it was done for nothing but "security" as Sony claimed it was breached by hackers. Was that acceptable?Microsoft has filled Windows 10 with adware and spyware that snoops on the user and dials home information, and forces updates on the consumer for security reasons. Is that acceptable?
These are similar situations, and frankly it's downright unacceptable to see a company as large as Apple take such an authoritarian approach to a consumer's best interests.
They have a fracking say, don't go to POS repairement that knew they would brick your phone for one year (IOS 8.3) and didn't tell you. You don know that those turds knew about this. This has been going on for quite some time. That's it : every else is just posturing bull shit.
It's a security feature to stop iOS device thieves from simply changing the Touch ID button and gaining access to all your stuff with any thumbprint somehow.
It's more they find out the key inside the secure enclave this way (the same place your passcode ID is stored) and decrypt your phone that way. It's not done to prevent some low level hacker from getting in; this is to prevent major attacks.
Comments
consumer laws generally deal with the condition an item is in when sold and the condition of said items with all the bits and baubles it was sold with. According my BF the genius they have never seen an error 53 that wasn't a 3rd party screen device. So the fact that it has a part that is not part of the original and wasn't installed by the seller or manufacturer as part of an attempt to 'make right' a poor sale could void those consumer rights.
Can you imagine if you could only use the builder that built your house for repairs on your property (window and doors as they need to be secure). I got a key cut for my car (transponder key), took it to a local locksmith and saved over £60 from the car manufacturer.
Once I buy the phone it belongs to me, not Apple. They have no right to brick my phone because I don't use them for repair.
Oh and I am an Apple fanboy. I have been using the iPhone since the first generation. I have been using the mac since the Performa 5300. Own an Apple watch.
Gary.
Gary.
I personally think it's a bug in the installer but wow. Bricking a phone and its contents because it can't validate a component is a bit rich, particularly when said component isn't strictly necessary for the safe operation of the device. Touch ID is optional for gods sake.
The part where they are indeed wrong is when they render the entire device unusable because of this. Yes, disable TouchID and wipe the Secure Enclave – that is reasonable and justified. But when people do a restore using their valid Apple ID and having the required credentials, then at least the rest of the device should still work. Apple did the convenient thing putting TouchID into the home button, but using an iPhone without the home button is impossible – and it should be fully OK for somebody with an out-of-warranty device (and maybe liquidity problems, or just living somewhere where there is no Apple or AASP) to have it repaired elsewhere, even if that means giving up TouchID. I do not agree with the lawsuit, but Apple has to provide a better solution for this.
Guess what, go buy an Android phone or whatever phone you like. An iPhone is apparently not for you.
This Error 53 feature makes Touch ID and iPhones even more great.
Hell, Apple should make a TV commercial featuring Error 53, and make the commercial about security/touch ID and how people use touch id to make countless transactions and access bank accounts, trading accounts etc. Security is a very important issue for many people. It's good that Apple detects iPhones that have had their Touch ID security mechanisms tampered with.
I have phones that are ages old (going back to flip phones) without a SIM or contract that can still contact 911 without a problem.
The bricking seems more dangerous than safe in that case.
There has to be a better way.
The consumer law in the EU says it very clearly: forcing to use an authorized repair center is an illegal practice. There is enough jurisprudence in the automobile sector: all car manufacturers lost their cases. If someone in the EU will file a class action suit, Apple has no chance at all.
Calling "error 53" a feature is a contradictio in terminis, an afterthought and a very arrogant one
In the case you seem to posit a thief has stolen iPhone, defeated the TouchID feature so he has complete access to the device. I certainly do not have first hand information but in the reports the theoretical thief has nothing to worry about Apple's bricking of the iPhone since it just occurs when the user (or thief) tries to update or restore the iPhone. Remember that the unauthorized repair does not brick the phone. It is done by Apple when the person with the phone tried to restore or update the system. So a thief would not be thwarted, but the legitimate owner would (and apparently has been in a number of cases).
It is worth bearing in mind that much of this disputation is based on possibly incomplete information. So some of the reasoning may simply not apply. But it appears to me (an admirer of Apple since the late 70's) that Apple's policy causes owners of iPhones to be willfully denied the continued use of their iPhone. Disable ApplePay, turn off TouchID, but 'brick' the phone? It is hard to see how that is justified.
Now I'm curious to see the results. Im very happy about Apple attitude regarding security, but I kind of think the reaction was overkill.
Why not just disable TouchID, Apple Pay and every service connected ? Why not put a warning during iOS update ?
This isn't a warranty issue at all. This itself should be enough to throw the case out.
http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=touch+id+part
Like what Apple has done in this case is exactly what should be done if the device has been compromised. The only thing that should come from this lawsuit is that Apple should "fix" this for no-charge, even on out-of-warranty devices, because the alternative renders the device unusable. If a third party has damaged the phone, then tough cookies.
They have a fracking say, don't go to POS repairement that knew they would brick your phone for one year (IOS 8.3) and didn't tell you.
You don know that those turds knew about this. This has been going on for quite some time.
That's it : every else is just posturing bull shit.
It's not done to prevent some low level hacker from getting in; this is to prevent major attacks.