Using your comparison, why would you blame the auto manufacturer when an after market radio installation done by Best Buy drains your battery? You wouldn't, you'd take it back to Best Buy for them to make right. Not that anybody with any brains would have Best Buy install anything more complicated than a floor mat, but it illustrates the point.
But I would blame the auto manufacturer if the software of the car, after detecting a non standard radio, refuses to start the car, displaying the error 53 on the dashboard
Not if it detects tampering with the security system of the car.
Using your comparison, why would you blame the auto manufacturer when an after market radio installation done by Best Buy drains your battery? You wouldn't, you'd take it back to Best Buy for them to make right. Not that anybody with any brains would have Best Buy install anything more complicated than a floor mat, but it illustrates the point.
But I would blame the auto manufacturer if the software of the car, after detecting a non standard radio, refuses to start the car, displaying the error 53 on the dashboard
Yes, the flaw here us picking a trivial component of a car to make your argument. Let's try this: what if car's engine management software had been replaced during a service at a back street dealer? You'd probably be a lot better off if the car didn't start.
Now you may think that the Touch ID component is trivial, Apple sees things differently. If it's compromised then the company has opted to protect the user's privacy at the expense of the phone. If you disagree then buy a Samsung.
But I would blame the auto manufacturer if the software of the car, after detecting a non standard radio, refuses to start the car, displaying the error 53 on the dashboard
Yes, the flaw here us picking a trivial component of a car to make your argument. Let's try this: what if car's engine management software had been replaced during a service at a back street dealer? You'd probably be a lot better off if the car didn't start.
Now you may think that the Touch ID component is trivial, Apple sees things differently. If it's compromised then the company has opted to protect the user's privacy at the expense of the phone. If you disagree then buy a Samsung.
Many years ago my father replaced the ignition switch on his Mustang. There was a hack that allowed him to pair it with the car's computer that saved the cost and trip to a dealer to do it. It worked for about 3 days. At some point whatever code or pool of codes needed to authenticate the switch/key with the ECU expired and the car would not start. The final bill was somewhere in the neighborhood of $800.
But I would blame the auto manufacturer if the software of the car, after detecting a non standard radio, refuses to start the car, displaying the error 53 on the dashboard
Yes, the flaw here us picking a trivial component of a car to make your argument. Let's try this: what if car's engine management software had been replaced during a service at a back street dealer? You'd probably be a lot better off if the car didn't start.
Now you may think that the Touch ID component is trivial, Apple sees things differently. If it's compromised then the company has opted to protect the user's privacy at the expense of the phone. If you disagree then buy a Samsung.
I don't think that the Touch ID is a trivial component. But the case is not that simple. The faulty touch ID was replaced by a genuine component (but with differrent encryption keys) and it worked fine until the next iOS software update was installed. If Apple really was concerned about a possible security breach, Apple should not have waited for the next SW upgrade but should have informed the user immediately. The fact that the this did not happen and the wording in the message "unknown error 53", makes me speculate that the security concern was a sophism.
Anyhow a message like unknown error 53 is a very poor message. I don't care if such a message comes from Apple, Samsung or any other manufacturer, a user who pays $600 or more for a high end smartphone, deserves more respect.
Yes, the flaw here us picking a trivial component of a car to make your argument. Let's try this: what if car's engine management software had been replaced during a service at a back street dealer? You'd probably be a lot better off if the car didn't start.
Now you may think that the Touch ID component is trivial, Apple sees things differently. If it's compromised then the company has opted to protect the user's privacy at the expense of the phone. If you disagree then buy a Samsung.
I don't think that the Touch ID is a trivial component. But the case is not that simple. The faulty touch ID was replaced by a genuine component (but with differrent encryption keys) and it worked fine until the next iOS software update was installed. If Apple really was concerned about a possible security breach, Apple should not have waited for the next SW upgrade but should have informed the user immediately. The fact that the this did not happen and the wording in the message "unknown error 53", makes me speculate that the security concern was a sophism.
Anyhow a message like unknown error 53 is a very poor message. I don't care if such a message comes from Apple, Samsung or any other manufacturer, a user who pays $600 or more for a high end smartphone, deserves more respect.
Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue.
Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.
I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
I tend to like using car analogies, however, this examples does not hold in this case. Yes you can use after market parts to repair your car, but if those parts do not meet spec and cause other problems the car manufacture is not liable for the outcome. Also, there are parts on the car today which you can not buy from anyone but the car manufacturer like the ECU. Why, they own the IP and software licenses on those parts. In the case of the Iphone Apple owns the touchID IP and has not licensed it to anyone so they are not liable for damage caused by third party products.
In the car world there is a saying we use, it cost to play, meaning for those people who want to modify their car while it is still under warranty , they assume all responsibility for what they do to their car. I read and hear all the time about someone doing something dumb with their new car and expect the car company to pay for the damage they cause to playing. This is no different people did not take care of their phone broke the screen and did not want to pay the cost to get it fixed and get upset when they break the phone even more.
Wow, it's pretty obvious most people do not 1) understand warranty laws and 2) don't even understand what happened in the Error 53 situation. Those two things together lead so many to a ridiculous positions. It's funny to see exactly the same people who couldn't acknowledge Apple doing something wrong to save their own lives.
People might also want to understand the dismissal in this case. It was based on a failure to articulate damages because Apple eventually offered a software fix to Error 53. However, the judge explicitly left open the point - which he stated in his opinion - that the complaint can be amended to include damages and it will survive a motion to dismiss.
Regarding warranty law, a manufacturer is not obligated to fix a problem caused by an aftermarket part or repair but they absolutely are NOT permitted to cause a problem. If you replace the ECU on a car and it doesn't work, that's not the manufacturer's problem. If you replace the ECU and the manufacturer has software that, for no legitimate reason, stops the car from working then that is a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
In the case of Error 53, bricking the phone beyond repair is absolutely not a legitimate act. If Apple had merely popped a message saying "TouchID Sensor Invalid" and prevented the software update, they'd have a better case. The fact that they ultimately issued a software fix suggests they absolutely knew their position was weak.
The angry swarm seems to overlook that rather than disable the use of TouchID on the device the designer chose to deny access by the owner to his phone. Every iOS device with TouchID also has a passcode, doesn't it? Why not disable TouchID but allow passcode access? Even devices with original part and functioning TouchID require entry of the passcode after the device is rebooted.
I have TouchID on the iPhone SE and find it to be a great convenience. But except for Apple Pay it doesn't seem to be crucial. So disable Apple Pay but bricking a person's iPhone is a dick move.
Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue.
Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.
I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
And you being a shareholder means what exactly ?
If you have a vehicle that is still in warranty and you take it to an independent shop rather than going through the oem for a computer problem, and they install an aftermarket ( non oem ) component your warranty is void. If the car is out of the original warranty and you take it to a mechanic that installs a non oem computer module without knowing this will make the car inoperable, that is that shops responsibility to rectify, not the original car manufacturer. Come on shareholder stop reaching.
I have posted previously Apple offers a send in for repair option through their website and they will have it back to you in 3-5 business days. If that doesn't work than have a spare phone, or carrier insurance. Personally I would never let some corner shop, or mall kiosk touch my iPhone 6s Plus.
Yes, the flaw here us picking a trivial component of a car to make your argument. Let's try this: what if car's engine management software had been replaced during a service at a back street dealer? You'd probably be a lot better off if the car didn't start.
Now you may think that the Touch ID component is trivial, Apple sees things differently. If it's compromised then the company has opted to protect the user's privacy at the expense of the phone. If you disagree then buy a Samsung.
I don't think that the Touch ID is a trivial component. But the case is not that simple. The faulty touch ID was replaced by a genuine component (but with differrent encryption keys) and it worked fine until the next iOS software update was installed.
Sorry, but even if it was a genuine part, the bloke who repaired it clearly didn't know what he was doing. I can have the best car part money can buy, but if it is installed upside-down then it's still a problem that I would like my car to detect because now my car is dangerous. If he didn't know that the phone runs component checks then he has no business tampering with the phone.
If Apple really was concerned about a possible security breach, Apple should not have waited for the next SW upgrade but should have informed the user immediately. The fact that the this did not happen and the wording in the message "unknown error 53", makes me speculate that the security concern was a sophism.
The phone is unlikely to carry out system checks all the time. This would use battery power and hamper performance. The best time to make the checks is when the operating system is being upgraded because it is more likely to be connected to a power outlet and the user is not expecting anything to happen in a hurry.
The reason that you get a rather nondescript error 53 code is not surprising; it's most probably a general fault code that covers a wide range of hardware failures. Low level problems like this can be caused by a range of factors, so developers use an error code to tell them the general area where the problem occurred and then investigate from there.
They could have said 'invalid checksum' but they would never say 'you have a dodgy technician' because they don't know exactly what's caused the problem.
Wow, it's pretty obvious most people do not 1) understand warranty laws and 2) don't even understand what happened in the Error 53 situation. Those two things together lead so many to a ridiculous positions. It's funny to see exactly the same people who couldn't acknowledge Apple doing something wrong to save their own lives.
People might also want to understand the dismissal in this case. It was based on a failure to articulate damages because Apple eventually offered a software fix to Error 53. However, the judge explicitly left open the point - which he stated in his opinion - that the complaint can be amended to include damages and it will survive a motion to dismiss.
Regarding warranty law, a manufacturer is not obligated to fix a problem caused by an aftermarket part or repair but they absolutely are NOT permitted to cause a problem. If you replace the ECU on a car and it doesn't work, that's not the manufacturer's problem. If you replace the ECU and the manufacturer has software that, for no legitimate reason, stops the car from working then that is a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
In the case of Error 53, bricking the phone beyond repair is absolutely not a legitimate act. If Apple had merely popped a message saying "TouchID Sensor Invalid" and prevented the software update, they'd have a better case. The fact that they ultimately issued a software fix suggests they absolutely knew their position was weak.
Yep, the fact that you started with a dig at people who disagree with you kind of demonstrates the strength of your argument.
The people bringing the case lost because there was no injury. The phones can be recovered with a software fix, so they are not 'beyond repair'. If you paid for an out-of-warranty repair then Apple will pay the money back.
Apple has stated that this was test is actually carried out as part of a security check. However, it was never meant to be seen outside of the factory, so my mistake: it wasn't done to deter phone thieves.
Apple's mistake: not realising that folk would take a phone costing hundreds of pounds to a backstreet dealer to repair a critical security component.
Your mistake: Assuming that Apple was deliberately bricking the phone, rather than it being caused by a bug in the software. It's funny to see the same people who couldn't acknowledge Apple not being the internet equivalent of Dr Evil to save their own lives.
Using your comparison, why would you blame the auto manufacturer when an after market radio installation done by Best Buy drains your battery? You wouldn't, you'd take it back to Best Buy for them to make right. Not that anybody with any brains would have Best Buy install anything more complicated than a floor mat, but it illustrates the point.
But I would blame the auto manufacturer if the software of the car, after detecting a non standard radio, refuses to start the car, displaying the error 53 on the dashboard
Not if being a "non-standard radio" had the potential to be a security breach, allowing someone to hack into your car and use it against your wishes, you wouldn't. Because that's what we're talking about here. Installing a part that could have compromised the security of the phone, not just some cosmetic fluff that has no effect on the phone's operation and security.
Wow, it's pretty obvious most people do not 1) understand warranty laws and 2) don't even understand what happened in the Error 53 situation. Those two things together lead so many to a ridiculous positions. It's funny to see exactly the same people who couldn't acknowledge Apple doing something wrong to save their own lives.
People might also want to understand the dismissal in this case. It was based on a failure to articulate damages because Apple eventually offered a software fix to Error 53. However, the judge explicitly left open the point - which he stated in his opinion - that the complaint can be amended to include damages and it will survive a motion to dismiss.
Regarding warranty law, a manufacturer is not obligated to fix a problem caused by an aftermarket part or repair but they absolutely are NOT permitted to cause a problem. If you replace the ECU on a car and it doesn't work, that's not the manufacturer's problem. If you replace the ECU and the manufacturer has software that, for no legitimate reason, stops the car from working then that is a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
In the case of Error 53, bricking the phone beyond repair is absolutely not a legitimate act. If Apple had merely popped a message saying "TouchID Sensor Invalid" and prevented the software update, they'd have a better case. The fact that they ultimately issued a software fix suggests they absolutely knew their position was weak.
Actually I have been doing warrant stuff for a long time and I actually negotiate warranty language in contracts and very familiar with Magnuson Moss and the law is not that simple or clear cut since there is all kinds of case law around this law as well as separate laws in various states. Such as Mass required manufactures to sell any special tools to fix a item to independent shops, no other state required this.
As I said your comment, you can not replace the ECU in your car with an aftermarket product replacement and expect your warranty to stay in tract. Why, simple it would violate the Software Licensing which the automotive company owns as well as all the Patents they hold on the ECU. Using them means you broke other laws. Now you can install a completely different computer in your car, there are companies who make them for "off road use" ie for racing. I will tell you if you put those computers in your car or any part which does not meet OEM requirements and specs and it brakes the car or the car refuse to run the automotive company are not required to honor the warrant. Trust me, I play and modify cars and I know people who have done the same and try to get dealer to fix what broke because they decided to play and when the dealer figured out what was done and what cause the problem they tell you to take hike or give you a large bill and I know people who tried to sue and lost. It does not hold up in court. Car ECU's now have what is known as shadow codes which stores information about the car's performance which is outside of spec and only the dealer has access to this information and if codes are stored there the dealer can refuse to work on your car since they know you been doing things with the car which is not covered under warranty.
You're trying to say the manufacturer has to honor the warranty no matter what, even when the customer does something they were not suppose to do. In this case broke the screen and refuse to pay apple to fix it, went out and put in a part which may or may not have meet Apple specs into the phone which in turn cause the phone to stop working. So they violate the terms of the warranty on the phone and they expect Apple to honor the warranty no matter what. You are speculating why Apple fix the error, you're assumed it was because they knew what they did was wrong. The phone was not bricked because Apple could recover the phone, but since the warranty was void they are not required to do anything. Whether this error came up or not Apple would still know the warranty would be voided since they know the phone was open in and replace with parts which are not apple parts. This is why the person could not articular their loss they knowingly violated the warranty, therefore, there is no loss. Now if they took it to apple and they tried fixing it and then threw the code and it was truly bricked then they would have case. You know jailbreaking a phone can brick the phone and no one is suing over this, why is violated apples software licensing and you voided the warranty.
I will give you a real world example that happens every day. If your engine blows up in your car while in warranty and unless you can show you did all the routine maintenance with OEM spec parts and service items before or during the service intervals they are not required to repair the engine. You could pay to have it replace but your car is till dead without the engine and there is nothing you can do. I actually had a similar issue with my car, major engine problem, 2K miles out of warranty, because the car was at the dealer for every single maintenance interval and they did all the work on the car they fix the car at no cost to me there was no argument about what was done to car since they did all the work under warranty and service plan and they knew I did not abuse the car and there were not shadow codes. They even said they did not have to fix but because they had done all the work on the car they honor the repair outside of warranty and it was not a known issue with the car that other cars were having.
Comments
Now you may think that the Touch ID component is trivial, Apple sees things differently. If it's compromised then the company has opted to protect the user's privacy at the expense of the phone. If you disagree then buy a Samsung.
Anyhow a message like unknown error 53 is a very poor message. I don't care if such a message comes from Apple, Samsung or any other manufacturer, a user who pays $600 or more for a high end smartphone, deserves more respect.
I tend to like using car analogies, however, this examples does not hold in this case. Yes you can use after market parts to repair your car, but if those parts do not meet spec and cause other problems the car manufacture is not liable for the outcome. Also, there are parts on the car today which you can not buy from anyone but the car manufacturer like the ECU. Why, they own the IP and software licenses on those parts. In the case of the Iphone Apple owns the touchID IP and has not licensed it to anyone so they are not liable for damage caused by third party products.
In the car world there is a saying we use, it cost to play, meaning for those people who want to modify their car while it is still under warranty , they assume all responsibility for what they do to their car. I read and hear all the time about someone doing something dumb with their new car and expect the car company to pay for the damage they cause to playing. This is no different people did not take care of their phone broke the screen and did not want to pay the cost to get it fixed and get upset when they break the phone even more.
People might also want to understand the dismissal in this case. It was based on a failure to articulate damages because Apple eventually offered a software fix to Error 53. However, the judge explicitly left open the point - which he stated in his opinion - that the complaint can be amended to include damages and it will survive a motion to dismiss.
Regarding warranty law, a manufacturer is not obligated to fix a problem caused by an aftermarket part or repair but they absolutely are NOT permitted to cause a problem. If you replace the ECU on a car and it doesn't work, that's not the manufacturer's problem. If you replace the ECU and the manufacturer has software that, for no legitimate reason, stops the car from working then that is a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
In the case of Error 53, bricking the phone beyond repair is absolutely not a legitimate act. If Apple had merely popped a message saying "TouchID Sensor Invalid" and prevented the software update, they'd have a better case. The fact that they ultimately issued a software fix suggests they absolutely knew their position was weak.
I have TouchID on the iPhone SE and find it to be a great convenience. But except for Apple Pay it doesn't seem to be crucial. So disable Apple Pay but bricking a person's iPhone is a dick move.
If you have a vehicle that is still in warranty and you take it to an independent shop rather than going through the oem for a computer problem, and they install an aftermarket ( non oem ) component your warranty is void. If the car is out of the original warranty and you take it to a mechanic that installs a non oem computer module without knowing this will make the car inoperable, that is that shops responsibility to rectify, not the original car manufacturer. Come on shareholder stop reaching.
I have posted previously Apple offers a send in for repair option through their website and they will have it back to you in 3-5 business days. If that doesn't work than have a spare phone, or carrier insurance. Personally I would never let some corner shop, or mall kiosk touch my iPhone 6s Plus.
Sorry, but even if it was a genuine part, the bloke who repaired it clearly didn't know what he was doing. I can have the best car part money can buy, but if it is installed upside-down then it's still a problem that I would like my car to detect because now my car is dangerous. If he didn't know that the phone runs component checks then he has no business tampering with the phone.
The phone is unlikely to carry out system checks all the time. This would use battery power and hamper performance. The best time to make the checks is when the operating system is being upgraded because it is more likely to be connected to a power outlet and the user is not expecting anything to happen in a hurry.
The reason that you get a rather nondescript error 53 code is not surprising; it's most probably a general fault code that covers a wide range of hardware failures. Low level problems like this can be caused by a range of factors, so developers use an error code to tell them the general area where the problem occurred and then investigate from there.
They could have said 'invalid checksum' but they would never say 'you have a dodgy technician' because they don't know exactly what's caused the problem.
Yep, the fact that you started with a dig at people who disagree with you kind of demonstrates the strength of your argument.
The people bringing the case lost because there was no injury. The phones can be recovered with a software fix, so they are not 'beyond repair'. If you paid for an out-of-warranty repair then Apple will pay the money back.
Apple has stated that this was test is actually carried out as part of a security check. However, it was never meant to be seen outside of the factory, so my mistake: it wasn't done to deter phone thieves.
Apple's mistake: not realising that folk would take a phone costing hundreds of pounds to a backstreet dealer to repair a critical security component.
Your mistake: Assuming that Apple was deliberately bricking the phone, rather than it being caused by a bug in the software. It's funny to see the same people who couldn't acknowledge Apple not being the internet equivalent of Dr Evil to save their own lives.
Not if being a "non-standard radio" had the potential to be a security breach, allowing someone to hack into your car and use it against your wishes, you wouldn't. Because that's what we're talking about here. Installing a part that could have compromised the security of the phone, not just some cosmetic fluff that has no effect on the phone's operation and security.
Actually I have been doing warrant stuff for a long time and I actually negotiate warranty language in contracts and very familiar with Magnuson Moss and the law is not that simple or clear cut since there is all kinds of case law around this law as well as separate laws in various states. Such as Mass required manufactures to sell any special tools to fix a item to independent shops, no other state required this.
As I said your comment, you can not replace the ECU in your car with an aftermarket product replacement and expect your warranty to stay in tract. Why, simple it would violate the Software Licensing which the automotive company owns as well as all the Patents they hold on the ECU. Using them means you broke other laws. Now you can install a completely different computer in your car, there are companies who make them for "off road use" ie for racing. I will tell you if you put those computers in your car or any part which does not meet OEM requirements and specs and it brakes the car or the car refuse to run the automotive company are not required to honor the warrant. Trust me, I play and modify cars and I know people who have done the same and try to get dealer to fix what broke because they decided to play and when the dealer figured out what was done and what cause the problem they tell you to take hike or give you a large bill and I know people who tried to sue and lost. It does not hold up in court. Car ECU's now have what is known as shadow codes which stores information about the car's performance which is outside of spec and only the dealer has access to this information and if codes are stored there the dealer can refuse to work on your car since they know you been doing things with the car which is not covered under warranty.
You're trying to say the manufacturer has to honor the warranty no matter what, even when the customer does something they were not suppose to do. In this case broke the screen and refuse to pay apple to fix it, went out and put in a part which may or may not have meet Apple specs into the phone which in turn cause the phone to stop working. So they violate the terms of the warranty on the phone and they expect Apple to honor the warranty no matter what. You are speculating why Apple fix the error, you're assumed it was because they knew what they did was wrong. The phone was not bricked because Apple could recover the phone, but since the warranty was void they are not required to do anything. Whether this error came up or not Apple would still know the warranty would be voided since they know the phone was open in and replace with parts which are not apple parts. This is why the person could not articular their loss they knowingly violated the warranty, therefore, there is no loss. Now if they took it to apple and they tried fixing it and then threw the code and it was truly bricked then they would have case. You know jailbreaking a phone can brick the phone and no one is suing over this, why is violated apples software licensing and you voided the warranty.
I will give you a real world example that happens every day. If your engine blows up in your car while in warranty and unless you can show you did all the routine maintenance with OEM spec parts and service items before or during the service intervals they are not required to repair the engine. You could pay to have it replace but your car is till dead without the engine and there is nothing you can do. I actually had a similar issue with my car, major engine problem, 2K miles out of warranty, because the car was at the dealer for every single maintenance interval and they did all the work on the car they fix the car at no cost to me there was no argument about what was done to car since they did all the work under warranty and service plan and they knew I did not abuse the car and there were not shadow codes. They even said they did not have to fix but because they had done all the work on the car they honor the repair outside of warranty and it was not a known issue with the car that other cars were having.