Slashdot Mirror
Apple Taken To Court For Refusing To Fix Devices (bbc.com)
Australia's consumer watchdog has begun legal action against Apple over claims it refused to repair iPads and iPhones previously serviced by third parties. From a report on BBC: It alleges that Apple made "false, misleading, or deceptive representations" about consumers' rights under Australian law. The case follows complaints that users were "routinely refused" repairs after an error disabled their devices. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) began an investigation after users complained about Apple's so-called "error 53", which disabled some users' devices after they downloaded an update to their operating system.
You're repairing it wrong.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
They are more like a boyfriend who is really good looking but kind of an asshole when you really get to know him.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
So, your next phone will be from Apple, right?
Only applicable where the law permits Apple, MS, etc... to use such wordage, ie the U.S.. In the rest of the world, where people and governments are civilized, ie outside the U.S.. Consumers are protected from such corruption. Those consumers, actually own their products they purchased or were transferred ownership.
They aren't broke. They are designed to work that way, so we can't fix them.
If your phone has the "touch disease" Apple will admit its their fault and fix it for you for $149. Of course you get a refurbished board and minimal warranty. Apple cheapened up the phone and didn't solder a metal shield to the board that reinforced against flexing. Now they used some foil tape as a shield. However 3rd party companies will fix it the right way, reflow the chip and solder on a shield. They even offer a better warranty than Apple!
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Actually, in the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for any company to void your warranty if you open up a device and repair it yourself, or have a third party do so. Or using third party replacement parts. It covers any item that costs over $15. But since most people don't know this, most companies have gotten away with it.
Apple Ink's user license agreement has nothing to do with ownership.
Apple Ink does not confer ownership of any of its products. Apple Ink retains ownership of all its products after sell. The buyer only buys the user license agreement document, nothing more.
Therefore, if Apple Ink does not want to fix a product, it is well within its ownership of the product to do nothing.
Ha ha
Prove it.
Case law says otherwise.
They refuse to repair devices in Australia, while at the same time fighting to take away our rights to have third-partys repair apple products in America.
Basically Apple never wants any iDevice repaired, they just want you to keep buying the latest, newest version.
they voided the warranty by taking it to an iFixit shop
No matter what their TOS says, that's illegal. See Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the US.
turned out to be incompatible with an OS upgrade they knew was bound to happen
Incompatible = Apple deciding to block fingerprint readers with a different ID than originally came with the phone. A security move that only makes sense during the initial design - not when done after the phone is out there. It was a valid repair and the iPhone offers no way to pair with a new fingerprint reader except by Apple (which is just as bad as putting a chip on a printer cartridge and should be illegal).
Do you think all those "fixit" shops were buying their parts from Apple? Apple only sells to authorize service persons, and they only sell to them because they have been trained in proper repair techniques.
They're not buying stolen parts, if that's what you're implying. There is more than enough demand for 3rd parties to manufacture replacement Apple parts. I just bought a brand new replacement LCD for an iPhone 6 for all of $25.
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
No problem. iPhones were just bricking themselves if unauthorised third party repairs are made. Only stopped due to bad publicity.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
But why? I'm sure that when you buy Apple device you agree to a license agreement that you will repair that device only in Apple authorised places. Regardless of what you may think of it, that's the agreement and I don't understand why Apple shoud be forced to do anything. If you disagree, the solution is simple. Don't buy Apple.
The touch sensor is tied to the CPU.
That's all the "error 53" issue is.
It's intentionally tied so that some asshole who steals you iPhone, and then parts it out on eBay for grey market repairs now has a worthless piece of junk.
This discourages assholes like that from stealing your iPhone in the first place, because they can maybe sell the battery and a couple of other parts ... and that's it.
Do you think all those "fixit" shops were buying their parts from Apple? Apple only sells to authorize service persons, and they only sell to them because they have been trained in proper repair techniques.
Can someone figure out how to repair something with no training? Probably. But that won't cause Apple to sell them legitimate replacement parts.
Electronics aren't some mystical voodoo that just works. Many parts such as the home button can be disassembled and duplicated. They don't need access to Apple to make replacement parts for these items that work just fine. It's Apple that added software deterrents to using after market parts by implementing proprietary codes to their parts.
Whilst it's not exactly clear in the summary, consumers aren't taking Apple to court, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is, which is a government funded body. As far as I know they rarely lose too, especially high profile cases.
Australians have strong consumer protections allowing us to actually own the device we purchase to do with that we will, ignore vendor warranty length and use a reasonable expectation on both cost and expected lifetime of product. That is if an Apple phone is $1200, where that price is at a premium and one would reasonably expect the devices lifetime to be 3 years, then you'd likely get warranty up to this time (assuming Apple only have 1 year warranty).
Or how about to easily prevent hacking via the fingerprint sensor?
Consider this scenario - FBI acquires your phone. They remove the display and replace the touch sensor with their own special fingerprint sensor they designed. They they go "hey Apple, I just replaced the screen on my phone, care to re-pair the fingerprint sensor?", thus putting their fake fingerprint sensor on your phone. Their fake sensor then proceeds to hack until it can unlock your phone.
Without allowing easy re-pairing, the fake sensor data is simply ignored - the secure enclave knows someone tampered with the sensor and can consider all data being sent to it as attempts to hack in. Of course, the proper way to do it is to re-pair the sensor and secure enclave only after a full system wipe and restore.
Of course, it's also a given Apple didn't know how many people got affected by this - all the people who brought in their phones had the repair done properly and there was no sense of the scale to which people were using third party unauthorized repair shops.who were not doing the proper steps.
The PIN is more secure than fingerprints - fingerprints are everywhere. All it takes is requiring the PIN to pair a new fingerprint sensor.
In fact, the FBI has no trouble getting fingerprints - what they have trouble with is bypassing the PIN.
There's no such thing as an "unauthorized repair shop." They're just repair shops. Apple calling theirs "Authorized" does nothing to de-legitimize repair shops. Do you think the only place to get your car repaired is the dealer? Or do you take your car to an "unauthorized" repair shop?
No they didn't. The law is very explicit, you DO NOT void a warranty by using your own repairer unless the damage that was done is a direct result of that repair which in this case it was NOT. In Australia a company cannot change a consumers rights under the law regardless of what they say in EULA's, warranty statements etc.
They're not buying stolen parts, if that's what you're implying. There is more than enough demand for 3rd parties to manufacture replacement Apple parts. I just bought a brand new replacement LCD for an iPhone 6 for all of $25.
Given that Apple has a vertical monopoly on between 6 and 11 parts for each of their devices, you either bought a use part, likely from a stolen iPhone, or you bought a new part, stolen from the factory that makes the parts exclusively for Apple, or you bout a part that was from a repair center (and either it's a repair center which is violating its contract with Apple not to sell parts to third parties, or it was stolen from the repair center).
Apple intentionally controls the market to prevent "third shift" style product forgery, which is otherwise pretty common in China: run two shifts to build product for the contracted company, and then run a third shift, using the same employees, and parts sourced from different suppliers, to manufacture knock-off which you can then sell as if they were products from the company to which you are contracted.
Apple intentionally established vertical market monopolies on certain parts to prevent them being available, other than through sourced from Apple, or from parting out Apple products with the genuine part (sourced from Apple).
Actually, in the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Doesn't apply here since the damage voided the warranty in the first place.
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
Actually your quote doesn't apply here as the damage wasn't caused by the 4rd party repair. Apple simply charged money "IF" any 3rd party repair work had been done which is in direct violation of the laws around consumer protection.
Electronics aren't some mystical voodoo that just works. Many parts such as the home button can be disassembled and duplicated. They don't need access to Apple to make replacement parts for these items that work just fine. It's Apple that added software deterrents to using after market parts by implementing proprietary codes to their parts.
The Home button is cryptographically tied to the CPU.
Good luck making a home button ripped out of another iPhone correctly identify itself without having the correct cryrptographic codes. It'll work as a button; it won't work as a fingerprint unlock.
because you cannot enter into an illegal contract. Apple cannot put items that override laws into the consumers contract and hence such an acceptance or agreement is null and void.
IIRC, back when I bought Apple products I never even SAW the EULA until after I'd paid for it. And they altered the EULA in a "Security update" to something I found unacceptable.
Since then I haven't bought or recommended any Apple products. And I'm not likely to unless they make a legally binding promise to never alter the EULA of something that is purchased from them. Even then I probably wouldn't because enforcing the "legally binding promise" isn't cheap or easy, and I wouldn't trust them to keep the promise unless it was enforced frequently and expensively.
P.S.: This is *not* an argument in favor of Microsoft. I stopped trusting them before I stopped trusting Apple.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Apple stopped selling Ink when they killed the Stylewriter printer line.
I agree that third party repairs should invalidate an Apple warranty, but refusing to repair a device at all (even at the owner's expense) is completely wrong... especially when it was an Apple software update that bricked the device.
The law in Australia is (as far as I understand it) that the original manufacturer is not obliged to fix problems related to a third-party repair under warranty. That is, problems with the third party part, problems with bits which are using the third party part, or problems caused by damage caused by the repair, are all exempt from warranty fixes. But anything that can't be considered one of those is still the manufacturers responsibility. And I'm guessing the courts will consider an OS update bricking a device that's had a third party repair something which Apple should fix.
Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
No, you appear to be the RIGHT MORON.
Firstly, damage does not void a device warranty, only on the part that is damaged (if you break the usb connector, the screen will almost certainly still be covered by warranty for example).
Secondly, really? you checked ALL these cases? made sure the refusal to repair was on warranty voiding damage? Thats quite impressive as this case is about a large number of cases.
In other works, stop shilling you moron.
it was repaired using unauthorized parts of unknown quality and suitability that turned out to be incompatible with an OS upgrade they knew was bound to happen.
I see what you're doing there. Maybe you should work in Apple's PR or something.
You make it sound obvious that they should know an update would brick the device, for having 'unauthorised' parts. Not so.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
What?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The point your missing is it didnt work as a button, it bricked the phone.
The "error 53" display was turned off in the next update.
The phone isn't bricked. "Bricked" means that it's no longer usable as a phone.
Although if your only way in was the fingerprint sensor, because you didn't also set a passcode: that's a problem for you, but it's fixed with a factory reset.
they voided the warranty by taking it to an iFixit shop
This is factually incorrect.
In the US, a warranty cannot be voided due to third-party repairs.
If the third-party damages anything, those damaged components are ineligible for warranty repairs just as if the owner had damaged them. But absent any damage to the item, warranty coverage remains.
Manufacturers may authorize certain shops to perform work under their warranty and refuse to cover expenses for unauthorized work, but they cannot refuse coverage to items simply because they have been repaired elsewhere before.
E.g., if my fingerprint sensor fails and I pay iFixit to replace it, Apple is still obligated to replace the screen if it fails later. They can only refuse to fix the screen if they can demonstrate that it was damaged (and it doesn't matter whether the damage was caused by me or iFixit).
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Do you actually have a source for that? I have bought numerous Apple products, and have never been told such a thing. Nor have I ever seen it in a EULA (and I do occasionally read them all the way through). In the US, an exchange of a thing for money, without further ado, is generally considered a sale.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In what way is Apple not allowing third-party repairs? TFS says they refuse to repair devices that already have third-party repairs. Not the same thing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They should know that an update might be incompatible with parts of unknown quality, suitability, and source. The OS is designed to work on unmodified Apple devices. One of Apple's advantages is being able to design for a limited hardware range, and they use that. After you get dodgy repairs on a device like that, your best move is to refuse any OS updates.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes