Recent iOS Update Kills Functionality On iPhone 8s Repaired With Aftermarket Screens (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Apple released iOS 11.3 at the end of March, and the update is killing touch functionality in iPhone 8s repaired with some aftermarket screens that worked prior to the update. That means people who broke their phone and had the audacity to get it repaired by anyone other than Apple is having a hard time using their phone. "This has caused my company over 2,000 reshipments," Aakshay Kripalani, CEO of Injured Gadgets, a Georgia-based retailer and repair shop, told me in a Facebook message. "Customers are annoyed and it seems like Apple is doing this to prevent customers from doing 3rd party repair." According to Michael Oberdick -- owner and operator of iOutlet, an Ohio-based pre-owned iPhone store and repair shop, every iPhone screen is powered by a small microchip, and that chip is what the repair community believes to be causing the issue. For the past six months, shops have been able to replace busted iPhone 8 screens with no problem, but something in the update killed touch functionality. According to several people I spoke to, third-party screen suppliers have already worked out the issue, but fixing the busted phones means re-opening up the phone and upgrading the chip. It remains to be seen whether Apple will issue a new software update that will suddenly fix these screens, but that is part of the problem: Many phones repaired by third parties are ticking timebombs; it's impossible for anyone to know if or when Apple will do something that breaks devices fixed with aftermarket parts. And every time a software update breaks repaired phones, Apple can say that third-party repair isn't safe, and the third-party repair world has to scramble for workarounds and fixes.

Comments

But hey, at least they're not selling your data.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who cares about this, or anything else Apple does that's shady? They're not harvesting or selling our data, at least. Surely that's well worth all the premiums and walled gardens.

Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone go for aftermarket repairs when the device is still under warranty? They arent even a year old!

Re:Aftermarket?

[eagle42]

Why would anyone go for aftermarket repairs when the device is still under warranty? They arent even a year old!

How much does warranty help if you break the screen yourself? Of course it would void the warranty, but I can imagine people would take that risk to save some money...

Re:Aftermarket?

[gravewax]

since when was dropping your phone and breaking the screen covered under warranty?

Re:Aftermarket?

[TheFakeTimCook]

since when was dropping your phone and breaking the screen covered under warranty?

Since you have AppleCare+

Cracked screens are replaced for $29. Twice.

For 2 years (or 3. can't remember offhand).

Re:Aftermarket?

[Trogre]

The same AppleCare+ that costs $149 per iPhone 8 (or $199 for the iPhone X) at the point of sale?

Is that the AppleCare+ you're talking about?

Re:Aftermarket?

[omnichad]

That plus the insurance premiums likely come close to the cost of the repair or exceed it on average. And if a phone is more than a few years old, Apple will call it obsolete and won't repair it even at full price.

Re: Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone wants to be cheap they would not be buying Apple products.

Re:Aftermarket?

[gravewax]

That is insurance not warranty.

Re: Aftermarket?

[eagle42]

Pretty sure that AppleCare Plus covers screen breakage.

If someone wants to be cheap and not purchase coverage and, instead, go to a 3rd party âoeafter-marketâ repair dealer...oh well.

It's just choosing which risks to take -- the money for AppleCare would be wasted if you don't break your phone during its validity, right?

Of course, it's just mean from Apple to break working products afterwards. I mean, if the thing doesn't work right after you get the screen switched, then you can always complain to those who replaced it, and probably get compensated. But if it stops working several months afterwards, because Apple decided to issue a kill switch?

And yes, I'm salty here, since I got my screen of a 6S replaced after-market -- and Touch ID stopped working about half a year later. I have no way to prove if the events are related, but it seems very suspicious, and will make me consider very hard if I want another Apple product the next time I buy a new phone.

Re: Aftermarket?

[grif_91]

As opposed to how any other insurance works? You don't pay a deductible for your ER visit with your insurance? That's pretty good.

Re:Aftermarket?

[grif_91]

*Cough Cough* The iPhone 4s is still eligible for service.

Re: Aftermarket?

[Hamsterdan]

On the other hand, Apple (like any other manufacturer) tests updates with hardware they sell. They can't test every combination out there. I don't think they're doing it intentionaly, they just didn't test it, because they don't sell those screens

Re: Aftermarket?

[Dog-Cow]

I don't. But I don't live in the insurance hell that is the US.

Re:Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

Extended warranty? How can I lose?!?!

Re:Aftermarket?

[hai_Priesty]

Speaking as someone who had paid out of pocket for iphone for repairs under warranty:-

(1) Some people value time. There are 2 Apple-authorized Service Provider in my place that is within 1 hour travel if you include walking/waiting time. Long Queue. They'll take your iphone to diagnose and you can come back a few working days later for it. Total time taken is exceeds half a work day when all things are factored. Some people actually value their time (understatement) .

(2) Some people need their phone and cannot part with it for 3 days, maybe?

(3) It's pre-requisite that they wipe your phone for privacy purposes. For people that had any amount of important new data stored unto it since the last backup - even those that back up weekly - Paying yourself may be more viable in order not to lose that. That was also the occasion where I fork out money to change the battery for my less than 1 year old iphone - about 20 paid repair places available within my walking distance, and 20 minutes later my phone is good-to-go again.

Re:Aftermarket?

[thegarbz]

Why would anyone go for aftermarket repairs when the device is still under warranty?

You do know repairs and warranty repairs are two different things right?

Re: Aftermarket?

[thegarbz]

On the third hand, Apple (unlike many other manufacturers) controls the supply chain tightly enough to prevent people actually obtaining hardware to make the repair. If may not be bricking devices intentionally but they certainly aren't making it easy to prevent getting caught in that situation.

And of course not, because why offer screens for sale when you can charge a small fortune for their repair along with getting the opportuntity to guilt the owner into buying a new iShiny when they get into the store?

Re: Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've done this before, intentionally!

Re: Aftermarket?

[AmiMoJo]

Car manufacturers are required to offer parts and the information necessary to make repairs to third parties. Apple only gives repair shops that if they agree to severe restrictions and high prices.

If it was just once or twice I could accept that it was just due to a lack of testing, but it's not. This is a regular problem with Apple, which they seem to have no interest in addressing.

Re: Aftermarket?

[sg_oneill]

Apple care coverage doesn't cover user broken. Screens , water damage or actually much at all. I've yet to get Apple to explain to me precisely what the warranty gives me not already covered under Australian mandatory lifetime warranties

Re: Aftermarket?

[sg_oneill]

I should note your always better off with Apple authorised repair dudes than the Apple Genius Bar. The financial incentive for Apple is to not give free shit away so they are pretty ruthless with invalidating warranties. However the authorised repair centres don't get paid if they don't do a repair. So there's an incentive there to overlook the occasional problems pinked out liquid sensor (which can often just be a sign of humidity in some places) or overlooking a home installed memory stick or whatever

Re:Aftermarket?

[TheFakeTimCook]

The same AppleCare+ that costs $149 per iPhone 8 (or $199 for the iPhone X) at the point of sale?

Is that the AppleCare+ you're talking about?

Yes.

And since a rather significant percentage of smartphone screens get cracked at least once in their lifetimes, it's an insurance policy you are pretty likely to need to use at one point or another.

Perhaps Apple should structure AppleCare like Samsung does their similar policy: Instead of a lump sum up front, they charge something like 11 Dollars per month for their insurance. If you keep your phone for two years like a lot of people, that ends up being $269, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE money than even the iPhone X's $198 AppleCare+, but since it is "only" $11 per month, the frog (you) doesn't even realize the water is getting hot...

Re:Aftermarket?

[TheFakeTimCook]

That plus the insurance premiums likely come close to the cost of the repair or exceed it on average. And if a phone is more than a few years old, Apple will call it obsolete and won't repair it even at full price.

So, take that money and stick it a desk drawer in an envelope labeled "Screen repair". Then pray nothing more than a cracked screen happens to your smartphone. But, if you are one of the statistically-unlikely few to never even crack your phone's screen, you beat The Man.

But if not...

Re:Aftermarket?

[TheFakeTimCook]

*Cough Cough*
The iPhone 4s is still eligible for service.

Wow! That's freakin' AMAZING!

Re: Aftermarket?

[stealth_finger]

On the other hand, Apple (like any other manufacturer) tests updates with hardware they sell. They can't test every combination out there. I don't think they're doing it intentionaly, they just didn't test it, because they don't sell those screens

Yes, because you always hear of various android phones bricking after updates because they didn't test every possible combination except you don't because that's not what's happening, apple are telling it to look for a flag only they can set and if its not there then no iphone for you because even though you bought it, it's still theirs and they can and will fuck you over for not using their overpriced repair scheme, this isn't even the first time they've done this.

Re: Aftermarket?

[stealth_finger]

Apple care coverage doesn't cover user broken. Screens , water damage or actually much at all. I've yet to get Apple to explain to me precisely what the warranty gives me not already covered under Australian mandatory lifetime warranties

The answer will be very little if not nothing. Like most big companies they will do they absolute minimum they are mandated by law to do but they will hope you don't know they're legally required and try to make out they're doing you a favour.

Re:Aftermarket?

[stealth_finger]

Not counting the $150 you've already paid. So really you get a max of 2 screens for $200 3/4 of which you're required to pay even if you never break a thing? Fucking bargain!

Re:Aftermarket?

[omnichad]

Insurance is based on statistics. You're statistically likely to save money or the insurance would not be offered or profitable.

Re:Aftermarket?

[the_B0fh]

And if a phone is more than a few years old, Apple will call it obsolete and won't repair it even at full price.

Is there any manufacturer that won't call a "more than a few years old" phone obsolete?

Re: Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Car manufacturers are required to offer parts and the information necessary to make repairs to third parties.

This is going to be a tricky area to balance as we increasingly rely on complicated, software-supported systems.

With a physical product like a car, a mechanical part can be observed, measured and reproduced by a third-party repair supplier. If they're accurate enough, it will work just like the original.

As you get into software systems, there are going to be legitimate and difficult questions about how much disclosure should be required. It's good to ensure fair competition and avoid lock-in effects. However, this also imposes overheads on a business, even if that business otherwise provides and supports good products. Quite reasonably, the business doesn't want to end up responsible for supporting every third party's possibly sub-standard replacements.

I'm not sure there are any really good answers here. It might be a good start to mandate that businesses can't knowingly and actively interfere with third party replacement components, for example, by introducing a software kill switch whose main or only purpose is to brick a device if it doesn't have "official" components.

Maybe the time has also come to look again at the short warranties and support periods often offered for these expensive devices, and start imposing stricter rules about end-of-life, compatibility and data portability, and so on to bust some of the lock-in effects that way.

Re: Aftermarket?

[RatPh!nk]

Yes, because you always hear of various android phones bricking after updates because they didn't test every possible combination except you don't because that's not what's happening, apple are telling it to look for a flag only they can set and if its not there then no iphone for you because even though you bought it, it's still theirs and they can and will fuck you over for not using their overpriced repair scheme, this isn't even the first time they've done this.

Is the code for hardware fingerprint sensors in the Android OS core code or is it written and supplied as moduled for each phone manufacturer? I suspect it is the latter, but I'm not sure. Also, I would imagine most android phones, especially not from the big 3 are using pretty standard/generic fingerprint sensors. I doubt the same is true from Apple. All of this complicates the picture and could lead to unintended consequences, especially involving part of the crypto scheme on the phone.

Re: Aftermarket?

[stealth_finger]

Maybe, but this isn't killing fingerprint sensing, it's killing all touch so basically making the phone useless rather than nixing a security feature because it can't verify whatever. They've taken something that was working and applied software to make it not work. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with petty greed.

Re: Aftermarket?

[AmiMoJo]

If it needs software to fix it, you must provide that software. It will create some extra burden on the manufacturer, just like all the other consumer protection stuff like the warranty, safety approvals, standard charger (in the EU) etc.

The software doesn't have to be open source of anything, they just have to provide it. The same way that car manufacturers do if special software is needed to repair their vehicles.

Re: Aftermarket?

[AmiMoJo]

AppleCare might actually be worse than the minimum legal requirement in some cases.

For example, in the UK if the phone dies after say 3 years due to a manufacturing defect you can either have Apple fix it or give you a 50% refund. If you have AppleCare, they might give you a used one. What is worth more to you, a used 3 year old phone or 50% of the purchase price?

With Apple prices that 50% would more than cover a brand new, better spec Android replacement.

Re:Aftermarket?

[Luthair]

No it does not void the warranty, most jurisdictions have laws that make voiding the warranty if the product is repaired illegal.

Here is a link for the USA - https://motherboard.vice.com/e...

Re: Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If it needs software to fix it, you must provide that software. It will create some extra burden on the manufacturer

One difficulty with that approach is that the software required for a third-party replacement component might be completely different to the software required for the component from the original manufacturer. What is really needed isn't necessarily like-for-like copycat products, it's modularity and compatibility. That means it's the specs and interfaces that really need to be standardised and disclosed, not so much the full set of code.

However, that supposes that the original manufacturer designed their components and software in a conveniently modular way. That is a significant restriction to impose that could have all kinds of unwanted side effects if you required it by law, including potentially making some useful products objectively worse than they could have been and/or significantly more expensive than they could have been, perhaps even to the point of not being viable at all in some cases. On the other hand, without such a legal requirement, this is a gaping loophole in the protections, since a manufacturer can just build monoliths deliberately and then argue that interoperability is irrelevant. That in turn would be balanced by meaning that of course the manufacturer couldn't then replace the same components themselves either, which could be good for their built-in obsolescence plans if that's how they want to work, but again isn't necessarily good for the end customer.

As I said, it's a tricky area to balance. There are good arguments on both sides, but sometimes the goals are mutually exclusive.

Re: Aftermarket?

[Hognoxious]

One difficulty with that approach is that the software required for a third-party replacement component might be completely different to the software required for the component from the original manufacturer.

And yet it worked before the upgrade. It's not proof, but it's cause for suspicion.

Re: Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's not proof, but it's cause for suspicion.

That's the key point. It could be something shady going on, that we might prefer to prevent. Or it could just be that the replacement part relied unwisely on undocumented behaviour that the third-party manufacturer didn't understand because they weren't the original manufacturer and made assumptions, in which case that's hardly the OEM's fault.

Re: Aftermarket?

[rjstanford]

apple are telling it to look for a flag only they can set

Which explains how it started working after the 3rd party upgraded their chips, I suppose?

More like the chips were supposed to support functionality that coincidentally wasn't being called prior to the update and was afterwards. The cheaper chips - as cheap chips often do - only supported what they thought the likely feature set was, or the current features used, not the full spec. It happens.

Re: Aftermarket?

[stealth_finger]

Well if that was the case why would the whole thing stop working and not just the new previously uncalled for bit and again why is it apple having this 'problem' for a second time?

Re:Aftermarket?

[stealth_finger]

Don't worry I won't, likewise don't make out it's cheap when it's not.

Re:Aftermarket?

[omnichad]

if you are one of the statistically-unlikely few to never even crack your phone's screen, you beat The Man.

I dunno. You disagree with yourself.

Re:Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... you do realize that Samsung's Premium Warranty *SENDS SOMEONE OUT TO YOU*. You do not wait in line and they meet you wherever is convenient for you. Which is kind of funny since APL brands themselves as a high-end 'valet' style company - you still have to make your way to the store, wait for a while, etc.

$256 that you can stop at any time (first month is free) if you deem the phone too old.

I finally understand why apple stores are so busy now. Most of them are waiting on phone repairs ;)

Re:Aftermarket?

[hai_Priesty]

Straight from authorized repairer's mouth (here in Singapore). They also tell you to thus backup everything before you even come.

It's so burdensome that I suspect Apple made this policy to minimize repair cost by making people jump through the hoops.

The largest repair they can do here without sending the phone in seems to be screen change. But from what other replies suggest it's also possible they're trying to maximize the incidents where phones are sent to, to maximise profit. (From my post above, the time they wanted me to send phone in, it is already obvious that there's a high chance my issue can be solved by a battery change, yet they somehow insist to send phone in to diagnose what's happening first.)

Re: Aftermarket?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What the hell could be different? WHY would you make it different?

I don't know. Not working inside Apple, I have no special information to share on this subject. However, having worked inside various other places that make electronic devices of one kind of another, I am well aware that sometimes supposedly similar components turn out not to be as compatible as you might have expected.

Something could have been slightly out of spec in a certain production run. A special case might then have been added in the software to recognise that part and adjust accordingly, instead of writing off all of that stock or delaying production for several weeks while replacements were sourced.

Two components could both have been within spec, but at the same end of their specified range for something. When one was swapped out for a different component with the same theoretical spec but at the opposite end of the acceptable range in practice, maybe it exceeded some tolerance that hadn't been specified wide enough and again required some sort of adjustment to compensate.

These sorts of things happen all the time, sometimes due to mistakes not caught early enough, and sometimes even when no-one made a mistake. Manufacturing is not a perfectly consistent process. Testing of components before you include them in your product and ship them to customers isn't infallible and never can be.

There is plenty of scope for questionable, customer-hostile practices in this area, and some manufacturers use them while others don't. But we shouldn't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that anything like that is going on, because there are plenty of benign explanations that are entirely possible as well, and if we wind up with too much regulation and throw the baby out with the bathwater, that could make things worse rather than better for all concerned.

Re:Aftermarket?

[TheFakeTimCook]

if you are one of the statistically-unlikely few to never even crack your phone's screen, you beat The Man.

I dunno. You disagree with yourself.

No.

There are two and only two choices:

1. Pay the money for AppleCare+ up front.

2. Don't.

With choice #1, you MAY spend more money than is necessary; if you manage to make it to 2 years without any damage to your phone. But if you do need it, it's there.

With choice #2, you may be inconvenienced at a financially-difficult time if you break your phone (or it breaks for you on its own), and you don't have the $150 dollars or more to fix it at that time. But then again, you might get lucky and not need your phone repaired for 2 years.

No contradiction. Choice.

Re:Aftermarket?

[apoc.famine]

Yes. But the statistics only work in the company's favor. For the consumer, it's an all-or-nothing gamble.

For some people, it's an OK gamble. But a lot of people don't have the reserves to shell out hundreds of dollars on emergency repairs to a luxury item. (Leaving aside the argument about whether or not they should have purchased it in the first place.) For them, the insurance may well make sense. Their cash-flow may be such that an extra $10/month or a planned extra $140 at the time of purchase is doable, but a surprise $300 bill isn't.

And sure, they could "self-insure", and stock away $10 every month, but until they've got a years or two of that banked, the surprise bill risk is still out there.

While in terms of pure dollars and cents the math doesn't work out in the consumer's favor in aggregate, individually, it might be a price worth paying for risk mitigation.

Re: Aftermarket?

[Lord_Jeremy]

Here's what AppleCare+ (the extended warranty product for iPhones) covers according to Apple's site:

AppleCare+ provides repair or replacement coverage, both parts and labor, from Apple-authorized technicians. Service coverage includes the following:

• Your iPhone
• Battery
• Included earphones and accessories
• Coverage for up to two incidents of accidental damage, each subject to a service fee of $29 for screen damage, or $99 for any other damage, plus applicable tax

Having AppleCare+ meant that I just had the battery replaced for free in my iPhone 7. In the 18 months I've had it, the battery went through >800 charge cycles and its total energy capacity had decreased by about 15%. When a friend of mine dropped the iPhone X he just paid north of $1,000 for, replacing the screen glass cost him $30. Sure he had spent an addition $200 up-front for the warranty but if he hadn't, replacing the display would've been nearly $300. If he drops it again it's just $30 again. If it ever is totally broken, then replacing it is $99 instead of $999.

It seems like Apple has designed the extended warranty coverage to fit the way typical consumers use (and break) their phones. My sister has had her phone display replaced twice and she has a decent protective case on her iPhone. I can't remember the last time I've dropped a phone and my screen glass cracked literally this weekend when I tried to break up a fight at a bar and I knocked down. Now when I go spend the $30 on the covered repair, I know that I've got an OEM part installed in my phone and I won't ever have to worry about reduced performance or incompatibilities with software updates.

Re: Aftermarket?

[rjstanford]

Because when you have code that calls into a routine in a trusted, internal chip, and that code then crashes, bad things happen? Lots of software would stop working if the chips they're running against stopped supporting all of the instructions the compiler was built against. I'm somewhat amazed that all it did was stop working temporarily instead of corrupting data to be honest.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

You're repairing it wrong.

Why should Apple QA your garbage screens?

[Balial]

These things have broken before, and apple fixes them (error 53). Unless you have a contract with Apple, why do you think they'd spend time doing the QA on your shady 3rd party screens?

Your customers want a lower price bracket, they get a lower support bracket. Wake me when Apple refuses to fix it.

Re:Why should Apple QA your garbage screens?

[fluffernutter]

What I don't understand is, why would anyone make a third party screen that isn't absolutely compatible. I mean, just follow the specs that Apple releases, then there is no need for Apple to test for 'every screen' because every screen works the same. It's called a standard.

Re:Why should Apple QA your garbage screens?

[omnichad]

What this really is, effectively, is DRM against repair. How is it "shady" to do everything imaginable to match non-standard specs created by Apple? This is the best that is possible, and Apple blocks it.

Re:Why should Apple QA your garbage screens?

[omnichad]

follow the specs that Apple releases

Sarcasm? They don't release any such thing.

Re:Why should Apple QA your garbage screens?

[Dog-Cow]

You can't reason with people who think the definition of overpriced is "more than I want to pay".

Re:Why should Apple QA your garbage screens?

[Dog-Cow]

Microsoft breaks hardware all the time with Windows updates, and they are trying not to. Apple never pretends to offer any support for non-OEM hardware, especially for internals. Why would anyone expect things to always work?

Also, 11.2 was released in the timeframe discussed in the article, so if Apple was purposefully breaking anything, they could have done it a while ago.

Now we know how someone's breaking into iPhones

[mveloso]

Well, now we know that the touch chip is a vector for unauthorized access.

When you reverse engineer stuff you pay the price when things change. If it's only one vendor having the problem then you bought your stuff from the wrong vendor.

This one I don't get

[alvinrod]

I could understand the story from last year (or whenever it was) about Apple updating their devices to reject third party repairs to the home button / finger scanner as that could have presented some obvious security risk. However, I'm having a hard time seeing the same here. I suppose one could make a case for this third party chip being able to scrape the screen in some nefarious manner, but that just seems a bit tinfoil hat.

Re:This one I don't get

[Zaelath]

I really doubt this is even intentional on Apple's behalf, and I have never owned or wanted an iPhone...

The strength of their brand has always been reliability based on them making BOTH the software and the hardware which means their regression testing is infinitesimal compared to Microsoft or Google.

It also meant they could double down on aesthetics without too much concern about what the device might be required to run later, since they control all of that as well.

Take all that and replace a significant part with a 3rd party controller chip, and yeah, it's not always going to be compatible.

Re: But hey, at least they're not selling your dat

[Anonymous Coward]

You're worth $100 to Facebook.
You're worth $1,000 to Apple (and counting).

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[Zalbik]

They're not harvesting or selling our data, at least

They haven't been caught harvesting or selling our data, at least.

Fixed that for you.

Are we sure the replacement chip is to spec?

[Wrath0fb0b]

Possible explanation #1: they intentionally killed the functionality of third party chips.

Possible explanation #2: some third party chips were not actually up to spec in some subtle way, which wasn't an issue before.

Both seem fairly plausible. I didn't see anything in TFA that gave a solid reason to believe one or other.

Re:Are we sure the replacement chip is to spec?

[EETech1]

Option 3:
The update tried to reprogram the chip, and it didn't update properly.

Re:Are we sure the replacement chip is to spec?

[omnichad]

Spec? What spec? Apple does not release specs. They will release OEM parts if you pay huge money to be an authorized repair center. That's it.

Re:Are we sure the replacement chip is to spec?

[houghi]

Looking at the history of Apple and the fact they want to have it all in their own garden, I am going for option one, until they can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was option 2. At that moment I will still go for option two as the correlation and still believe it is option one.

Remember: these are the guys blaming their customers that they where holding their phone wrong.

The thing is that they will get away with it. In three weeks they will state that they reversed it. The bad thing will already have happened and less people will be willing to repair their devices elsewhere.

As they will not be punished in any way, they will be doing this again and again. Nice to have no accountability whatsoever. What should happen is that each person that is affected gets the money to buy of the price of a new phone AND a new phone. That for all people that have bought said phone, regardless if it is broken or not.

That would make it that this will NEVER happen again. Not with phones, not with anything else.

Re:Are we sure the replacement chip is to spec?

[omnichad]

There are still specs, even if they have to be reverse-engineered to be publicly available.

By that definition they were already following specs.

Re:Are we sure the replacement chip is to spec?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dog-cow is violent and likes asses and shit. He sure posts enough about both.

In addition his ego is damaged when anyone points out that his favorite company might not be a paragon of virtue.

Mac users, in general, have a sense of superiority far beyond your normal human. Insulting their beloved idol is akin to blasphemy, and you should be drawn-and-quartered for saying such awful things against Steve jobs, allah al'wahid.

APPLE AKBAR!

Re:Are we sure the replacement chip is to spec?

[Wrath0fb0b]

I'm going to assume you're a smart dude, so I think it's fairly clear that you know that just because the spec is not released publicly does not mean that it does not exist.

Re:Are we sure the replacement chip is to spec?

[epine]

A captive repair model is a moral hazard and always has been. The king is dead. Welcome to your new Detroit.

The Surprising Source Of Car Dealers' Profits

If you've ever had to take your car into the dealer for a new gear box, you're unlikely to be surprised by this: Using data from the publicly traded dealership groups, Forbes' Jim Henry has discovered that the most profitable part of a dealer's business is its service and parts department.

For the Penske Automotive Group ... the gross margin for service and parts was 57 percent, vs. just 8 percent for new-vehicle sales.

Of course, Apple's profit margins for new phone sales is closer to 57 percent than 8 percent.

We could hypothesize that Apple skews to laudanum on both sides, or we could hypothesize that Apple takes more on one side, and hence less at the other (really?), or we could form a trust relationship with a third party mechanic, and not think about this at all.

If only.

Already solved?

[Anonymous Coward]

"According to several people I spoke to, third-party screen suppliers have already worked out the issue, but fixing the busted phones means re-opening up the phone and upgrading the chip. "

Why wasn't this being done as part of the repair process in the first place?

Re:Already solved?

[guruevi]

There is a reason these repairs are cheap. They don't spend a bunch of money. I had my computer screen "repaired" once by one of these shops. Instead of replacing the entire clamshell, they bent it back into a somewhat straight form and placed the new LCD in it causing pressure on it which warps and discolors the screen image and any subsequent pressure snapped it again.

Whatâ(TM)s the story?

[pev]

So... there are two scenarios :
1) Apple has crafted an update to specifically disable some 3rd party components
2) The third party component designer has failed to make a properly compatible part.

Despite the story sounding like theyâ(TM)re spinning it as (1) Iâ(TM)d be very surprised if it wasnâ(TM)t (2) as thatâ(TM)s the most likely if they can fix it with an update as reported. Whatâ(TM)s the news? Why should a manufacturer go to the effort of testing badly made replacement parts that they never claimed to support in the first place?

This should affect anyone...

[qzzpjs]

Since the 8s hasn't even been released yet.

Re:This should affect anyone...

[qzzpjs]

Sorry,... shouldn't affect anyone :)

Do not confuse incompetence with malice.

[Proudrooster]

Something I learned working in technology, "Do not confuse incompetence with malice."

Just because something breaks doesn't mean it is malicious move. It could be a lack of testing or just plain incompetence not realizing there existed thousands of 3rd party iPhone 8 screen repairs done. I don't think Apple intentionally wants to upset this many premium customers.

Re:Do not confuse incompetence with malice.

[thegarbz]

I don't think Apple intentionally wants to upset this many premium customers.

There's a solution to that. They could actually offer legitimate parts for sale to repairers.

Personally given the cost of a screen replacement from Apple vs one from a repair shop, I actually think even if Apple unintentionally upset this many premium customers, they are probably still happy about it.

Re:Do not confuse incompetence with malice.

[Waccoon]

"Do not confuse incompetence with malice."

That implies that you should investigate first before reaching a conclusion. Always assuming incompetence is just as bad as always assuming malice.

I don't think Apple intentionally wants to upset this many premium customers.

Apple has been this way since the company was founded decades ago. They very much understand their customers and how much they will tolerate.

A long tradition

[willoughby]

Back when Apple introduced the first iMac they also introduced the "G3 Blue & White Tower". Some months later, when everyone knew a new machine from Apple with a G4 processor was planned, some aftermarket outfits began selling a G4 upgrade kit. You could buy & install the upgrade kit and have a G4 Mac without the wait and without having to buy a new machine from Apple.

Apple released a firmware update (remember the "programmer's button"?) disguised as something I can't remember. That update broke all of these G4 upgrade kits.

This is simply the way Apple does business.

Re:True of every industry

[omnichad]

Right to repair, which should be the law. You can't get OEM parts because Apple won't sell them.

You bought the iPhone...

[sharkbiter]

If you buy an iPhone then Apple is going to do everything in its power to ensure that all repairs (that are under warranty) will be done by authorized Apple repair shops. Why are people surprised when they push an update that invalidates third party repair? You're buying a product that bases its profit on the fact that it'll break just after warranty (or several months, whichever comes first) and you'll have to shell out for a new one. Apple doesn't give a shit whether or not they piss off a few people, they know that what the consumer is buying is their image. The only way they'll release a patch to allow third party screens is if they piss off enough people to affect their bottom line. Same thing happened with the fingerprint sensor.

Of course, Apple will say that they're protecting their "customers" by preventing those inferior third party parts from making their "product" unstable as a coverup, but that's just business right?

tl;dr: If you shell out the cash for the image product, why cheap out on repairs? Go whole hog with your bucks for the full user experience and feel the burn.

Re:You bought the iPhone...

[jareth-0205]

If you buy an iPhone then Apple is going to do everything in its power to ensure that all repairs (that are under warranty) will be done by authorized Apple repair shops. Why are people surprised when they push an update that invalidates third party repair?

Um... because it's immoral and potentially illegal?

Re:You bought the iPhone...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... because it's immoral and potentially illegal?

Apple has a history of immorality. See tax evasion, children labor etc. Don't expect morality as a given. The mantra is profit at all costs.

Re:You bought the iPhone...

[Dixie_Flatline]

Apple doesn't care, and that's why this update broke some phones. They don't have time to track down every 2-bit repair part and shop and devise some sort of code patch that'll break it. They just make updates and if it breaks your 3rd party shit, they don't care. They won't do anything to help you, and you're on your own.

Seriously, people have a really elevated sense of self importance here. Apple isn't out to get you: Apple couldn't care less who you are or what you've done.

Re:You bought the iPhone...

[Lord_Jeremy]

They care enough that when it became apparent that updates were "bricking" phones which had the touch ID/home button sensor replaced with an incompatible part, they released another update which fixed those phones. There's a decent chance Apple will release another update that will fix these phone with incompatible aftermarket displays, assuming that it's possible. If the issue is that Apple's updater tried to update the firmware on the display controller chip and the chip freaked out, then I wouldn't be surprised if the only fix is replacing the hardware.

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[exomondo]

Google isn't "selling your data" either; it's way too valuable to let out. They're both selling you instead.

No they're selling the ability to possibly show you something, where 'you' is a loosely defined demographic and if you have an ad blocker the thing they are selling is of no value whatsoever.

It's not a repair if isn't fully functional

[goombah99]

Right to repair, which should be the law. You can't get OEM parts because Apple won't sell them.

Companies are not required to sell parts for complete systems.

But repair companies could still acquire the OEM parts. Just buy a bunch of iphones and part them out.

And if they choose non-OEM parts, then the people who repair them need to also patch the drivers for their screens not apple

Re:It's not a repair if isn't fully functional

[omnichad]

That wouldn't have even worked for Error 53.

But with screens/digitizers, the cost would be outrageous to the consumer by the time you clean all the glue off the item.

Why I don't Do "i"-Anything

[rally2xs]

Its just one thing after another with these guys. You'd think that a company would do everything that they could to make sure everything worked for the customer. That would include publishing specs so aftermarket manufacturers could provide alternative screens and then ensuring the software works with that spec. But when they don't, customers expectations are not met, and you get people like me, that long ago stopped doing anything "i".

Re:Why I don't Do "i"-Anything

[Lord_Jeremy]

The Apple-ecosystem definition of "make sure everything works for the customer" is providing a fast, streamlined experience for having your display replaced at a bright, shiny Apple Store. Publishing specs so third parties can make kinda-sorta-compatible replacement parts in a razor-thin margin industry is not to result in a better user experience. I remember back in the iPhone 3G/3GS days when Apple was using phone displays closer to commodity parts in other smartphones, having you screen fixed at your local mall phone repair stand meant that your new screen would scratch more easily than the old one would've. This was because Apple OEM displays used a highly scratch resistant glass that wasn't yet ubiquitous in phone displays and as a cost-saving measure, the aftermarket manufacturers of iPhone displays used cheaper glass. Just because you publish specs doesn't suddenly mean the Chinese knockoff factories aren't still going to be doing shoddy work as they race to the bottom on prices to attract the rather large cheapskate market.

Device repair is not at all a money-making industry. I highly doubt Apple profits on their Genius Bar and repairs. It's in Apple's interest to make repairs to the phones as reasonably priced as they can to ensure that customers hold onto their iPhones and don't go for a cheaper Android device after they shatter the glass on their new $1,000 iPhone X.

"It seems like Apple's doing it because"

[Chas]

No. Apple IS doing it because they're trying to prevent customers from doing 3rd party repair.

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not harvesting or selling our data, at least

And you know this because... they said so?

Should a brand test on 3rd party hardware?

[Camembert]

I don't think that Apple should be testing compatibility of IOS updates (or any other tech vendor or producer of for example cars) on permutations of 3rd party hardware. It is the job of the part producer to check that their replacement part is indeed 100% compatible.
This being said, was the compatibility breakage done on purpose? I don't think they'd do that effort, since it can only piss off recurring customers, but even so it might be possible..
In any case this is a good example of the value of AppleCare+ for a mobile device. We used it to get my wife's Apple Watch screen replaced after our toddler threw it on the floor.

Let's not forget batteries too

[rworne]

Back when he battery slowdown fiasco was coming to a head, I elected to take my out-of-warranty iPhone 6+ and swap the battery (iFixit brand) myself.

This went well and good until Apple decided to announce their own program 2 weeks later.

iOS 11.3 with the new battery diagnostics is a new problem. While the phone is perfectly able to report the charge amount of the battery, and it dutifully reports low battery notifications, it does not apparently work the same when the battery is near exhaustion. Now when the phone powers off due to a depleted battery, it no longer displays the "empty battery" symbol and shuts off. No, it tries to reboot itself and goes into a boot loop - which cannot be good for the phone or the battery. Once that happens, all you can do is plug it in and let it go until it gets enough of a charge to stop doing it.

iOS 11.3 also helpfully says the phone/battery requires service. Which they won't do now because there's a 3rd party battery installed. Doubly screwing the owner and killing the resale/trade-in market at the same time.

 

Re:Let's not forget batteries too

[Lord_Jeremy]

Speaking as a developer of iOS device diagnostic and quality assurance tools, 3rd party batteries in iPhones and iPads don't always report correct/sane capacity and consumption statistics. All Apple batteries have a hardware component called the GasGauge which is a chip that gets paired with a battery and monitors its charging and discharging to accurately report not only charge percentage but also how much energy the battery can store, the current it can sustain and how many charge cycles it's been through. I'm not an electrical engineer, but this guy is and he explains how some aftermarket batteries don't use the right GasGauge hardware and thus can't report accurate information:

I’ve noticed that many of the iPhone 5S and 5C batteries that can be purchased online are reusing iPhone 4 circuits, which will cause a significant decrease in gauge accuracy (proper parameters need to be programmed into the gas gauge, and that information is chemistry dependent), and the protection circuits in the iPhone 4 battery PCB will kick into overvoltage protection mode at 4.25 volts, less than the 4.3 volts that the iPhone 5 (and newer) batteries need to charge fully.

As a side note, the GasGauge is locked with something called an unseal key which locks out any changes to the statistical information it stores. This is to prevent unscrupulous battery recyclers from taking used or consumed batteries and resetting their statistics to make them look like new batteries again. However, the most cost-effective way to refurbish a battery is to replace the LiPo cells in the pack, reset the cycle count and retest the full-charge capacity. At one point, a batch of supposedly refurbished Mac laptop batteries I ordered from eBay were all failing to hold charges their gauges said they should be holding. I can only assumed that I got burned after someone figured out the key for a certain model of battery and was turning them around without refurbishing the cells.

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[thegarbz]

Seriously, who cares about this, or anything else Apple does that's shady? They're not harvesting or selling our data, at least.

I've heard of reality distortion but this is some next level shit right there. I'd much sooner have Samsung sell some data on me to advertisers than push out an update that bricked my phone.

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[AmiMoJo]

Privacy for the rich isn't much of an achievement. It should be universal, not just for those who can afford to own and maintain an iPhone.

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[jenningsthecat]

Seriously, who cares about this, or anything else Apple does that's shady? They're not harvesting or selling our data, at least. Surely that's well worth all the premiums and walled gardens.

Dude! That's like excusing the actions of an extortionist because he was so kind as to not tell the whole neighbourhood about your porn stash. Nice troll though...

3rd party repairs are safe

[Opportunist]

What ain't safe is iOS updates. They keep breaking functionality on phones that worked prior to the update.

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[stealth_finger]

I know man, apple should make it so no other charger other than the one with their premium on top should work, at all, and no off brand usb wires either, oh no, we can't be having that now. Why not go the whole hog and put chips in their cases, then when the phone detects it's in an off brand case they can shut the whole show down. Sounds completely reasonable to me.

Simple solution!

[MoarSauce123]

Stop buying Apple crap!

Re:True of every industry

[Freischutz]

Right to repair, which should be the law. You can't get OEM parts because Apple won't sell them.

It should. However, smartphones, whether they are made by Apple or anybody else, are not like build-it-yourself custom PC's that you can mod anyway you want with any hardware that catches your eye because there is such broad driver support for 3rd party hardware for smartphone OS'es. If you buy a highly tuned piece of kit like a smartphone which is specifically geared up to work only with a narrow set of manufacturer tested pieces of hardware, then those are the hardware that is guaranteed to work and you are best off replacing OEM parts with OEM parts. If, however, you put a piece of 3rd party hardware into your device that the manufacturer has not certified will work then you should not be surprised when an update breaks your device when the OEM has the 'audacity' to issue an update for the device that does not take your 3rd party hardware into account. This applies to all these devices not just Apple and the iPhone but Google/Samsung/HTC/Microsoft ... all of them. The guy cited in the summary offered a repair service, he used non certified parts because they are cheaper and then he pocketed the extra revenues generated by people flocking to his service. Now these parts are not working properly and people are beating down his door demanding reparations. Tough shit but this was kind of predictable.

As for Apple refusing to sell OEM internal spares to 3rd party repair shops, they are in good company since according to iFixit: "It’s important to note that while Apple is improving their battery replacement program, every single Android phone manufacturer also refuses to sell consumers integrated batteries or other internal repair parts."

Re:True of every industry

[omnichad]

when the OEM has the 'audacity' to issue an update for the device that does not take your 3rd party hardware into account.

Oh, they take it into account. You really think they don't try to break this stuff with their updates? The same company that got caught slowing down old hardware to make you buy a new phone?

Right to repair?

[cmaurand]

Doesn't this put Apple in violation of "right to repair" laws?

Re:True of every industry

[RatPh!nk]

Oh, they take it into account. You really think they don't try to break this stuff with their updates?

Do you really think I have time to write code to fix problems/bugs/features as part of my daily job *AND* evilly scheme to write extra code just to break random bits of hardware that may or may not be present in a phone?

The same company that got caught slowing down old hardware to make you buy a new phone?

You mean the company that didn't want their phone randomly shutting down with a battery meter at say 25%. They absolutely should have thrown up an alert that said - "Your battery needs replacement. Please call us or visit an Apple Store for more information. Your phone will now run in "energy saver" mode (or some such) to protect against unexpected shutdowns." But not likely to be some conspiracy.

It does make me wonder though...I bought an iPhone 6 when it came out and use it every day until it is almost dead. 11.3 upgrade said my battery is still 86% "good". Pretty shocking.

Re:True of every industry

[RatPh!nk]

One final thought from the article:

Apple released iOS 11.3 at the end of March, and the update is killing touch functionality in iPhone 8s repaired with some aftermarket screens that worked prior to the update. “Customers are annoyed and it seems like Apple is doing this to prevent customers from doing 3rd party repair.”

I added the emphasis on some. If you really thought Apple was doing this, because as the article also points out "they can", why wouldn't they just kill all third party parts? Would be more efficient.

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[Hognoxious]

Why would they sell it once when they can rent it an infinite number of times?

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[thegreatbob]

I'd be interested to know the last time a company I did not directly pay made any money off of me. Not saying it hasn't happened, just that I'd be interested to know.

Typical

[p51d007]

If you don't purchase an overpriced repair part for your overpriced phone, we will figure out a way to make your phone not work. But...don't forget, we are Apple...you can trust us.

Apple just can't win

[Malenx]

Consumers: All IPhones should be completely repairable with third party solutions!
Also Consumers: All IPhones should be completely unhackable even by the goverment!

My gut feeling is some of these updates by Apple are the result of closing security holes.

Not just Apple...

[wootcat]

"Many phones repaired by third parties are ticking timebombs; it's impossible for anyone to know if or when Apple will do something that breaks devices fixed with aftermarket parts. And every time a software update breaks repaired phones, Apple can say that third-party repair isn't safe, and the third-party repair world has to scramble for workarounds and fixes."

This statement is applicable to pretty much any company out there with technological products, not just Apple.

Re: But hey, at least they're not selling your dat

[rjstanford]

Exactly. Its one thing if the screen was confirming identity, its another thing if a new iOS update was - for free - upgraded and reasonably expecting to use some functionality present in factory chips that wasn't present in the knockoff to provide a better experience. The fact that they can be so easily fixed does seem to imply that the previous chips were just lucky in that the malfunctioning code wasn't being executed.

Such BS

[Maury Markowitz]

> That means people who broke their phone and had the audacity to get it repaired by anyone other than Apple

Repair shops have access to Apple OEM screens. Even the one run out of a basement a couple of streets away from me has OEM.

The 3rd party screens are CRAP - I know because I got the "best one" and it was dead in 2 weeks.

So if your repair shop is using a 3rd party screen, that's the problem right there. I'm *sure* they didn't tell the customer they were being fleeced.

Re:But hey, at least they're not selling your data

[jaymemaurice]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but I think it's high time an open standards group works on creating standards for deviating from existing standards to ensure propriety.

Re:True of every industry

[Lord_Jeremy]

They didn't get caught slowing down old hardware to make you buy a new phone. They got caught down-clocking the CPU to reduce the voltage requirements of the hardware when the battery capacity and efficiency had been reduced (through use, not age) to the point where the CPU would suddenly halt during normal use.

Re:True of every industry

[omnichad]

Which they could easily have informed the user of or published it in the release notes of the update. The fact that they didn't is very telling. It's not like they don't offer battery replacement - it's just not as profitable.

Re: But hey, at least they're not selling your dat

[mschwanke97402]

You do realize that all those things you plug into the wall are 5v power supplies (or higher with the new quick charge standards) . They have no charging circuitry in them at all. The actual charging circuit is in the phone.

And yet there are multiple reports of crappy iPhone and Android chargers burning up. Doesn’t really matter if the term charger is a misnomer the point remains.