Mr_Grey

bonsly16 said:

How does this not violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which applies to all US products, and prohibits warrantors from refusing service if there are third party parts involved (which is why you can buy auto parts from other aftermarket vendors without requesting permission from Ford, or Chevy)?

"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[7] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions,[8] and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."

I think if you read it closely you will find that the manufacturer does have the right to enforce that replacement parts need to be "verified" (or similar language) however.  

At least that's the language found in laws like this in my country and a few others that I'm aware of.  The parts have to come up to a minimum spec that the manufacturer controls and any alternate parts must be demonstrably "the same" as the "branded" parts they replace.  The idea of the law is to prevent the manufacturer from forcing the user to buy parts from them alone, not to allow anyone to swap anything for anything and still have the warranty apply.  

If this wasn't true, then your auto warranty would still be in effect even if you were driving on cheap bald tires made out of old sandal rubber that you bought at a boot sale.  Your home insurance would still be in effect even if you replaced your front door with a beaded curtain.  Your TV would still be returnable even if you've unscrewed the back and replaced the internal speakers with some made out of a breakfast cereal box, etc. etc.  There are limits and in this case, security is one of them. 

muppetry said:

gatorguy said:

Absolutely the way it should be done. Anyone complaining about it hasn't thought thru the possible even if unlikely consequences of it not working that way.

Agreed, but there should be a way to get the Phone reauthorized by Apple. I can't see any negative security implications from being able to take it to an Apple Store, verify ones identity, and reactivate the secure element.

Well, at the very least, this path would require Apple to take out the "repaired" element and replace it with a verified Apple element, so a person would have to do the repair all over again, lose all the money for the first repair and pay Apple probably double what they would have, if they had just let them repair it in the first place.  

The kind of people who would consider a cheap third party repair, and the kind of people that are hot under the collar about their phones being bricked, are unlikely to consider any of that "fair" or to be inclined to do it.  It seems very likely to me that the folks who have been bitten by this are sitting at home right now demanding (to their wives or whomever is forced to listen) that Apple fix it all up "for free."  They aren't going to just smack themselves in the forehead and say "Oh, this is all my fault!  I hope Apple can fix it for me, I'd pay them whatever they want to too so."  

volcan said:

gatorguy said:

Absolutely the way it should be done. Anyone complaining about it hasn't thought thru the possible even if unlikely consequences of it not working that way.

I agree in principle, however, the error message should provide better communication to the user, not just Error 53. You know something like "iOS has detected a security issue with Touch ID. Please visit an authorized Apple repair location. Error 53."

On thinking about it ... it might also make more sense to simply disable TouchID on the device instead of bricking it.  The error message could tell you what you did and what the consequences were instead of being obtuse and killing the phone as well.  

gatorguy said:

Absolutely the way it should be done. Anyone complaining about it hasn't thought thru the possible even if unlikely consequences of it not working that way.

Agreed.  But that won't stop the shit storm.  
People will agree out of one side of their mouth that it sounds reasonable for Apple to do this, but still demand that they "fix" it anyway.  To do otherwise would be to take responsibility for one's actions.  Something that's been an anachronism for many years now.  

Is this another USA only thing?  They've previously said that Netflix was integrated into the search but it has never worked for me or anyone I know who has a unit.