Slashdot Mirror


Bricked iPhones With 'Error 53' Just Cost Apple $6.7 Million in Australia (betanews.com)

Apple has been hit with an AUS $9 million ($6.7 million) fine for misleading customers in Australia. More than two years ago Apple started to "brick" iPhones that had been fixed at non-authorized third-party repairers, generating an Error 53. From a report: Apple admitted to intentionally preventing certain repaired iPhones and iPads from working for security reasons, but later apologized and issued a fix. However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sued Apple for "misleading or deceptive conduct," and now an Australian court has hit the iPhone-maker with a multi-million dollar fine.

118 comments

  1. Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but later apologized and issued a fix

    I don't think you understand "bricked".
    When something is "bricked", it can then do anything a brick can, and nothing the bricks can't.
    Bricks can't be given a "fix" that turns them into a smartphone.

    1. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a soft brick and not a hard brick...

    2. Re:Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but later apologized and issued a fix

      I don't think you understand "bricked". When something is "bricked", it can then do anything a brick can, and nothing the bricks can't. Bricks can't be given a "fix" that turns them into a smartphone.

      Well, if it convert a phone to a brick (and yes, it can't be used and really becomes a functionality brick), then a fix should simply convert the brick back to a phone. What's wrong with that meaning?

    3. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      soft brick

      So anything that's temporarily not operational is now "soft-bricked"?

      "I can't pick you up at the airport, my car is bricked and needs a new fuel pump."

    4. Re: Not "Bricked" by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Why even call it "bricked" in that case. If you need to add a qualifier to a binary classifier, you're just creating a useless term. If the software is hosed and needs to be reinstalled or reconfigured, just say so. It would be like using "____ dead" to describe some type of situation where something could be expected to return to life. It's not really dead, so why try to describe it as such unless you're trying to make something sound much more scary than it truly is.

    5. Re:Not "Bricked" by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      The word "brick", when used in reference to consumer electronics, describes an electronic device such as a smartphone, game console, router, or tablet computer that, due to severe physical damage, a serious misconfiguration, corrupted firmware, or a hardware problem, can no longer function, hence, is as technologically useful as a brick.[1]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick_(electronics)

      If Apple was able to issue a patch to fix the phones then it was in fact not bricked in the first place.

    6. Re:Not "Bricked" by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Notice how the wikipedia page you linked specifically describes this case as "soft brick"

    7. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would say something smarter, but my phone is dead.

    8. Re: Not "Bricked" by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Start attending your cognitive therapy sessions again.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, dipshit. How fucking hard was that to comprehend?

    10. Re: Not "Bricked" by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      That's just a metaphor (with a dash of hyperbole), much like claiming that your phone is bricked. The real question is whether it's "soft dead" or "hard dead" and whether or not it would have allowed you to say something "soft smart" or "hard smart". I'm not sure what that might mean, but I think it illustrates the uselessness of those types of phrases.

    11. Re:Not "Bricked" by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I have a bricked phone right here on my desk.

      It goes through the update process but then fails saying it can't communicate with iTunes.

      Two new cables, two different computers.

      BRICKED

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    12. Re:Not "Bricked" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Bricking is relative. The phones were bricked in the sense that there was no action available to the owner to make the phone useful again. Only Apple could fix it.

      Many things called bricked are technically recoverable by soldering a JTAG connector in and such, but are still considered bricked since there is no supported interface that may be used to recover functionality.

      The Wikipedia article you pointed to talks about UNbricking as well. Give it a read.

    13. Re: Not "Bricked" by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      So anything that's temporarily not operational is now "soft-bricked"?

      Yes.

      Please try to keep up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:Not "Bricked" by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but later apologized and issued a fix

      I don't think you understand "bricked".
      When something is "bricked", it can then do anything a brick can, and nothing the bricks can't.
      Bricks can't be given a "fix" that turns them into a smartphone.

      If the user can't fix it and it didn't get fixed until Apple was forced to fix it. Then it was fucking bricked.

    15. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just have to think outside the box. This is easily disrupted by hacking the phone.

      Synergy.

    16. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TRIGGERED!!!

      Missing the word "soft" and STILL triggered!

    17. Re:Not "Bricked" by Calydor · · Score: 2

      So nothing ever gets bricked, as the structural integrity of phones and computers make them ill suited for building houses?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    18. Re:Not "Bricked" by cob666 · · Score: 1

      Whether or not a device is bricked is relative to the person trying to use it. For all intents and purposes, the iPhones were bricked until Apple released a patch or fix to unbrick them.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    19. Re: Not "Bricked" by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The term "bricked" usually means "broken to the extent that the device owner cannot fix it themselves"...
      Clearly anything can be repaired given the skills, tools and parts, something may be in a state that it could be fixed but the owner is not aware how and it requires someone else to provide information or updated software in order to do so.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    20. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only part of the story. The fine was also awarded because Apple was replacing defunct iPhones with refurbished units. Under Australian law, a customer should receive a refund or a new replacement unit if what they purchased has a major issue.

      More significant than the fine, perhaps, is that this featured prominently in the news, so more Australians are now aware of their rights and Apple will find it harder to fob customers off with their company's policies when they do not accord with local regulations.

    21. Re: Not "Bricked" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      soft brick

      So anything that's temporarily not operational is now "soft-bricked"?

      Bob Dylan said that slang changes so fast, people in the future won't even be able to understand it! Although I do understand over 90% of Subterranean Homesick Blues. But kids who grew up on the other side of the tracks already might not.

      Don't worry, there is no requirement or expectation that you keep up with modern language. Let the whippersnappers make their noise, even if it sounds like they're worshiping the devil and getting married to a holiday resort; don't worry Gramps, it's just the new words, that isn't at all what it means. No Gramps, they do still listen to the Beatles. No, the Beatles are still not devil music.

    22. Re: Not "Bricked" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you need to add a qualifier to a binary classifier, you're just creating a useless term.

      Outside of programming languages and math formulas, creating a useless term is not a mistake, problem, error, or in any way incorrect. Useless terms are perfectly cromulent, and it is up to the reader to find value or not.

    23. Re:Not "Bricked" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You were right, once upon a time.

      But that's the thing about an open language like English; it changes whenever people want, even though the People are mostly a bunch of idiots. They're not wrong though, the language really does include whatever stupid shit they're saying these days.

      So you can never just know that you're using the term correctly, and other people are incorrect; all you can really know is the way you used to use the term, and that if you keep using it in the same way then for you it can mean the same thing. But when you hear other people using a term, and it sounds wrong, the obvious implication is that the language shifted, not that more people are just wrong now.

    24. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I say I shit a brick, does my ass ring?

    25. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, someone who can hand solder an 0201 or someone who knows how to flash the chips directly would have a different definition of bricked than the average consumer.

    26. Re:Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For real, just got back from China. The factory workers can do repairs and reworks by hand that most people would assume are impossible. Their definition of bricked would be much more stringent than mine

    27. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you author that Wikipedia page yourself?

    28. Re:Not "Bricked" by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It actually goes deeper than that. Apple has been penalised for an action that was considered illegal under consumer laws and penalised. That action was proven but that was not the only law broken. Apple in illegal bricking phones, did make illegal use of a computer network and illegal use of a person computerised product, they used the computer network illegally to make use of a product owned by the person targeted and forced the product to turn itself off permanently. That is more than just a consumer related offence, that is a prosecute table computer crime. Also end users can now jump on the civil suit wagon and sue for all provable damages caused by that now proven criminal act, Apple criminally breached contract and is no longer protected bullshit warranty clauses. For those they want to play, now the fun can really start.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    29. Re:Not "Bricked" by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Bricks can't be given a "fix" that turns them into a smartphone.

      You're talking about a problem that required complete and full intervention from the manufacturer to correct. The end user had something as useful to them as a brick and it was only through the will of the brick factory that they were able to be given something else.

      I'm okay with this use of the word brick. If the user did something that they can undo then it's not a brick. But if the user requires intervention from the manufacturer then you have created a distinction without any practical purpose. By your definitions bricks don't exist because functioning hardware can effectively always be returned to life by a manufacturer.

    30. Re:Not "Bricked" by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      If the user can't fix it and it didn't get fixed until Apple was forced to fix it. Then it was fucking bricked.

      Perhaps we need to start using the term Apple Bricked for "Manufacturer has decided you're not allowed to use the device you've paid for until the manufacturer is forced to concede you consumer rights"
      I think this should be used in a similar way to the term Streisand Effect

    31. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the brick soft or hard?

    32. Re:Not "Bricked" by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Bricked is relative. If I brick my router while installing DD-WRT that does not mean that the manufacturer could not plug into their dev port and fix it, or anyone could not open the box and do some soldering work. It means that you cannot fix it. Bricked is used pretty much exclusively for software, and sometimes for minor hardware damage caused by software. In all cases the devices can be easily fixed, just not by the typical user, and not without using non standard channels (standard with respect to how a user is supposed to interact with the product).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    33. Re:Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's slang, there's never been a codified definition.

      If you want to AKCHUALLY then no device is beyond repair, there's always a theoretical substitution of components (literal or conceptual) that would result in a working device.

      That humans can't/won't perform it due to massive cost/technology is irrelevant to an AKCHUALLY. It is theoretically repairable, and >> was in fact not bricked in the first place

      Yay pedantry.

    34. Re: Not "Bricked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that language is a tool for communicating, idiots consistently misusing words to the point they effectively become redefined makes precise communication harder.

      The term "bricked" used to mean, it is broken to the point where a hardware fix (either replacing parts, or special tools and some dismantling required) is necessary to get it to do anything more useful than act as a brick. Nowadays, it has become subverted to the point of being applied to things that even temporarily don't start (e.g. someone who leaves a floppy in the drive of their computer which stops Windows booting might call it bricked).

      Unfortunately fighting the misuse of language is futile, with the sad result that once useful words with precise meanings become useless as you can no longer know what the intended meaning is, and often there isn't a replacement to convey the precise meaning the word used to hold.

  2. Right to repair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this will give "right to repair" some teeth.

    1. Re:Right to repair. by mschaffer · · Score: 1

      Teeth? More like a mosquito bite.

    2. Re:Right to repair. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You mean like a dentist?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: Right to repair. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      With a 6.7 billion fine it would be a painful penalty causing a hiccup for Apple.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  3. That'll learn'em by AlanBDee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do they realize that a mosquito bit is more annoying to the decision makers at Apple then having to pay a $6.7 million dollar fine? This is hardly a deterrent, they need to add a few extra zeros to that before Apple will change any behavior.

    1. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about 6.7% of total cash on hand?

    2. Re:That'll learn'em by Luthair · · Score: 1

      We really need more jurisdictions to inflict a similar fine - Australia has 24 million people, to make numbers easy if we pretend 2.5-billion people are in countries where Apple operates then this is ~1% of the fine they should receive globally. Likely the potential market is larger so we could guess the fine might be approximately $1-billion globally.

    3. Re:That'll learn'em by aicrules · · Score: 1

      They would love that. How much cash on-hand in Australian jurisdiction? Apple: what cash?

    4. Re: That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about 6.7% of annual turnover?

    5. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what behavior is that?

      Apple didn't intentionally "brick" anything. It's not reasonable to expect them to support 3rd party displays which they neither designed nor vetted for their products.

      I'm not saying that having 3rd party hardware in your phone is wrong but a software update may brick your phone because said 3rd party screens may have a hackish/incomplete implementation of the display interface.

      This ain't auto parts. Most cars don't run a touchy high-speed differential signaling protocol between their components (And if they did no 3rd party parts would be available for things involving such an interface)

      Apple, in their view, saw these customers had unknown parts and rightly said "we can't support operation with these parts because we don't make them, we don't owe you a warranty"

      Australia's courts disagreed (They follow AUS law after all), and levied a fine they felt was fair compensation. Jacking up the fine on Apple isn't going to do jack shit. They're not going to restructure what is probably the most finely tuned, effective, design-to-manufacture supply chain in the world just to make some people in Australia happy.

      They're just going to re-word their terms of service according to what their lawyers say, pay the fine, and increase the number of dollary-dos all iPhones cost down under to compensate for the increased cost of business there.

      All increasing the fine will do is proportionally increase that last figure.

    6. Re:That'll learn'em by sycodon · · Score: 1

      That is probably a better way of awarding damages like this.

      Get away from $X and go to % of net worth.

      The only way to punish a company is to ultimately punish the shareholders. And the only way you punish the share holders is to take money out of their pockets and the only way you can do that is to impact the company's bottom line. When a fine or damages is awarded that affects the stock price negatively, THEN it is an effective fine.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about Aussie's courts, but wouldn't this be akin to printer/ink/toner here? They can't stop you from using third party. Same with the coffee maker that makes you use their brand (smart something). No? Yes?

      If you put a screen in and the phone doesn't even attempt to use it (e.g. dies), then yes, they are directly responsible. Who do you think wrote that code?

    8. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hardly a deterrent, they need to add a few extra zeros to that before Apple will change any behavior.

      Oh Apple will change their behavior alright.
      The lesson learned is stick with your original story and don't apologize or even attempt to make things right or else you'll lose a lawsuit.

      Of course hypocritical shit like this makes the entire world worse. Do you think Australia will pay everyone else once we have our data stolen after they demand the security features to lock the phone are removed?

      Of course they won't, as the judge goes right back to playing on facebook and giving all his personal information away after fining a company for actually securing their products so that type of thing can't happen.

    9. Re:That'll learn'em by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The difference is between intentionally refusing to work, and unintentionally not working due to an incompatibility.
      It appears that apple intentionally broke otherwise working third party screens, and hence a justified fine.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not even close.

      Ink/toner and coffee are just liquid / powder that only need to meet a very small and irrelevant set of requirements (mainly thickness/viscosity, melting or dilution point).

      A display requires a very specific set of wired connections, power requirements, interfaces (both hard and soft) as well as latencies/speeds and sensitivity levels. Both the OS and the hardware need to understand each other before anything can happen. When you install hardware (on any tech) that is not certified, you run the risk of actually causing more damage than what you are trying to fix. A cheap knockoff can actually cause electrical damage to a phone (not just an iPhone, any smart or dumb phone). A bad performance part can cause the appearance that the phone is not operational (or not optimal), can drain the battery (even cause some damage to it) and can even short other parts of the device.

      So no. This is in now way anything like using a 3rd party ink/toner on a printer or a cheap coffee brand on your coffee maker.

    11. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apple would tell the little piss-ant country to go piss off and simply remove itself. And then people would grey/black market products in because well they sell because they are good and people desire them. Really....

    12. Re:That'll learn'em by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If they use the money to fund additional enforcement efforts then it could be more powerful, but I don't know anything about if that happens in Australia or not.

      Unfortunately, this amount of money is likely too small to even get Apple execs to ask where it goes, or care. But it doesn't have to hurt to lose the money for losing it to modify behavior; though is certainly helps.

    13. Re:That'll learn'em by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's not a practicable option. The closest you could get would be simply banning operations in your country.

      If it was a thing, every country would do it, and every company would have negative infinity net value.

    14. Re: That'll learn'em by fj3k · · Score: 1

      I agree that it would be justified to fine them for that, but that isn't what they were fined for. They were fined for telling customers that the fix for the Error 53 message wasn't covered by waranty because the customer had used a third party repairer. Since Error 53 is a software problem, and the fix was to do with the display, the waranty was not voided under Australian law. And Apple had been warned about this behaviour before.

      --
      Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
    15. Re:That'll learn'em by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do they realize that a mosquito bit is more annoying to the decision makers at Apple then having to pay a $6.7 million dollar fine?

      Of course they do. They're not trying to kill the goddamn goose, they just want some of the gold. These trivial fines don't even slightly dissuade Apple from doing business in their country, but they are a nice little shot of funding.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good? Really?

      I have an iPod touch (6th gen, 64GB) here that was gifted to me. What I want to do is use it as a media playback device for my 3yo kid. He won't have access to it all the time, just when we are out and about, or travelling, and he wants to watch some Peppa Pig or something. Note, the content has to be stored on the device as there is no cellular data, and we may not have WiFi on the move.

      How can I copy my video files onto the device?

      Direct USB transfer doesn't work at all under Windows or Linux. There are some apps that allow me to access SMB/CIFS network shares, so I tried them, and they actually work quite well, though the free versions are speed limited: fine. I copy some video files over, but I can't work out how to find the files. Ah, there's a "files" program that allows me to browse files...what files? There is no local file system, it doesn't exist. So I realise I'm flogging a dead horse here anyway as the speed-limited SMB/CIFS transfer is going to take 24 hours per 10GB of data, so I stop it. I make up a WebDAV server and share the content that way, and low-and-behold, the transfer is nice and fast, though the app I was using doesn't support automatic syncing. I would gladly pay for an app that does this, but the app descriptions don't give me enough information to know which one can do it, so I flag it as a "thing to do" for now and will come back to it kater. My WebDAV content is downloading nicely, but I still can't play it. VLC! Of course, one of the most versatile players out there. I install it on the iPod, run it, but the "media library" is empty. Easy, I'll just add the new content to the "media library" (as I would on any other system) but...er...grrrr...there is no way to do that. I can't work out how to add content to the media library, and my suspicion at this point is that the "media library" is "special" and has to be set up by Apple, perhaps by iTunes, which I want to avoid because it's a pile of crap. VLC has their own system for adding media to the device. I can turn on this WiFi tool in VLC and it then creates a webpage that I can access from the PC and drag and drop media for transfer to the iPod. I test this out, and it works! Actually, seems to work...except not all of the media files are then playable on the iPod, and, I can only drag and drop simple groups of files - there is no way to copy over an entire directory structure. And, I already had my heart set on an automatic WebDAV sync that would allow me to easily push new content to my kid's device without me having to find it or do anything special on it....even if I was to now use the VLC tool, I will have to manually go through all of the media (nicely arranged by folder) and transfer it in groups of files, then re-organise it on the device, though I'm so fed up by now I'd probably just let it sit in VLC as a huge list of content that we just pick from...

      So for now, the iPod is a bust and does not meet our use case at all and is essentially completely useless.

      Can I call it "bricked"? :)

      If anyone cared enough to read, what am I missing? Any suggestions? Thanks!

    17. Re:That'll learn'em by robbak · · Score: 1

      And if countries were willing to do this - levy fines based on, say, the corporation's market value, then traders would shy away from companies that are likely to incur such fines, and corporations would be forced to act lawfully, to some degree.

      A few hundred billion dollar fines would also do wonders for the national debt.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    18. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're apologising for their poor treatment of customers. The fatal part of your argument is that the phones were repaired and functional before Apple deliberately CHOSE to make them non-functional. They didn't just not offer support for future changes, which would be something that they would not get fined for - they *deliberately* did this, and it wasn't tied to a new feature or an actual update.

      What it is actually about is right to repair, and competing with your existing old products. If people have a non-working phone, they have to buy a new one. But why would a consumer choose to spend a thousand AU dollars on a new iPhone if their existing one will work with a simple repair worth maybe $100? Why are they having to go to these shops for repair in the first place? Repair shops are now everywhere BECAUSE of Apple.

      That's what this is about. Please stop trying to muddy the waters with your 'very specific requirements' bullshit. Any decent electronics engineering team can sort that out, and guess what? If it's not of acceptable quality (and yes that happens), then the repair shops wouldn't be having a very fun time with their dissatisfied customers, because they'd then need to get unhappy with their vendor.

    19. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Apple, in their view, saw these customers had unknown parts and rightly said "we can't support operation with these parts because we don't make them, we don't owe you a warranty"...

      Which was OK until they also said "so now we've stopped you using your phone".

    20. Re:That'll learn'em by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This is hardly a deterrent

      The punishment fits the crime. You don't arrest people for j-walking, you slap them with a $50 fine which is about as annoying as a mosquito bite to most people too.
      The distinction here is that this entire case was based on the premise that Apple said 3rd parties aren't authorized to repair something. They created this Error 53, and then fixed it before the ACCC even got involved.

      This mosquito bite is for making a deceptive claim and nothing more.

    21. Re:That'll learn'em by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      And what behavior is that?

      Apple didn't intentionally "brick" anything. It's not reasonable to expect them to support 3rd party displays which they neither designed nor vetted for their products.

      Except that Apple have also done this with refurbished displays eg where the glass has cracked, but the underlying electronics are fine so the gladd was replaced
      It's also been proven when a display was swapped from one fully working iphone6 to another working iphone6

      This ain't auto parts.

      Fake Auto parts can cause serious injury or even death
      Personally I'd prefer to use a 3rd party part in my phone than my car. I'm far less likely to have a life changing injury from my phone

    22. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > expect them to support
      Ha ha ha, come back, we're over here where the goalposts actually are.

      It's reasonable to expect them to not go out of their way to write device-disabling code.

      >implying expectation is an active obligation on apple
      >implying code was for consumer benefit
      kys

    23. Re:That'll learn'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS, no one? Really?

      Apple shit sucks fucking balls.

  4. Pocket Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The fine appears pointless since Apple has billions in cash and such a paltry fine will do little to discourage similar behavior in the future.

    1. Re:Pocket Change by green1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are correct, however I think it sets a precedent. And once a precedent is set, the fines tend to ratchet higher in the future as you can now argue that they knew better and decided to do it despite the fine.

      Of course for this to work, you need a jurisdiction that actually has consumer protection laws, and not only do those not exist in North America, they're becoming rarer and rarer by the day in the rest of the world.

    2. Re:Pocket Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.
      Its about the message.
      Fuck you apple!

    3. Re:Pocket Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This judgement fucking bullshit. Apples shouldn’t be responsive for shotty repair work of unqualified retards like you.

    4. Re:Pocket Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Its about the message." What message? We'll fine you so lightly that you shouldn't give a shit? It's like taxing a millionaire 50 cents, they love that "message". Fucking idiot.

    5. Re:Pocket Change by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      FFS, what a day to be without mod points.

      1) You obviously didn't read TFA
      2) You can't master basic English (responsive? shotty? really??)
      3) You have no idea what you're on about.

      Step away from the keyboard. I'm revoking your internet privileges for 24 hours.

    6. Re:Pocket Change by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you saying he didn't advocate that Apple stop answering low-value repair calls for consumers without professional qualifications?!

      Golly! With a comment so stupid, how can we really be sure he didn't mean what he said??!

    7. Re:Pocket Change by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Every millionaire I've met would rather spend a thousand dollars on a lawyer than pay a fifty cent tax, so yes; if you can somehow swindle them into talking about it as a tax instead of a fine, then they'll stop feeling like they got away with something and feel like they need to avoid it next time! As long as it is a fine, they just feel good about paying it, it means they were trying hard!

    8. Re:Pocket Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll.

      Independent repairers (e.g. Louise Rossman) consistently do a much better job than Apple.

    9. Re:Pocket Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a twofold thing.
      1) The precendent is set, so if they (or anyone else) do it again, they know the will be fined.
      2) The fine was around $32,700 per known offence (275) , so well in excess of what they would have sold the phones for.

      They probably were at least close to breaching several sections of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010
      Misleading and deceptive conduct
      Misuse of market power
      etc.

      The ACCC chose the easy one to prove (misleading and deceptive conduct) because they were more likely to get a conviction for it.
      They are a very active regulator, (see https://www.accc.gov.au/media/media-releases) for recent activities they have been involved in

  5. fines need to dramatically increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you do something like this as an individual? That is, purposefully destroy something of someone's, for profit? And in a fraudulent way? And then publicly lie about it, further compounding things?

    You'd be called a fucking psychopath, and fines wouldn't be the equiv of a cup of coffee. Hell, this fine is the same as .. well, less than a penny in a normal person's pocket.

    What would happen to a *person*? After all, corporations have greater freedoms, powers, and abilities as they've been legally defined as 'persons' in most commonwealth nations. So -- if that's the case?

    Well.. a person might see jail, but would certainly be hit with a life crippling fine.

    Is this life crippling? Does this make Apple reel with the implications, tottering on personal bankruptcy? The fine or the jail time would, for something like this, for 'just a real person'.

    Corporations need to be *deathly afraid* of running afoul of the law. Fire people without morals, that skirt legalities, because otherwise? They'll be bankrupt.

    This fine should have been in the billion dollar range, because Apple has billions in the bank.

    And the same should be so, for any corp that willingly steals and defrauds people.

    1. Re:fines need to dramatically increase by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      You realize this story is about Australia, right?

    2. Re:fines need to dramatically increase by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you do something like this as an individual? That is, purposefully destroy something of someone's, for profit? And in a fraudulent way? And then publicly lie about it, further compounding things?

      You forgot about the bit where they then promptly issued a fix after the outcry.

      But your rant is irrelevant. The fine had nothing to do with getting an error 53. The fine had to do with telling customer that they had no right to warranty if their phone had been repaired (false under Australian law). Also Apple had to separately pay compensation to 5000 customers.

  6. That's it?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Should have made it 6.7 billion to make them notice. 6.7 million is morning coffee for the legal team.

  7. Interesting precident... by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but $6.7M US is pocket change to Apple.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Interesting precident... by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 2

      ...but $6.7M US is pocket change to Apple.

      Depends. A penalty shouldn't be based on how much you hate a company, it is proportional to damage done. I can't work out the detail, but TFA implies there were 5000 customers affected which means the penalty is about the price of two new iPhones per customer,
      This seems appropriate to me.

    2. Re:Interesting precident... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And? The punishment fitted the crime. The fine was for telling customers that their warranty was void. They separately also had to compensate customers, and Australia has a history of escalating punishments for repeat offenders.

    3. Re:Interesting precident... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...but $6.7M US is pocket change to Apple.

      Depends. A penalty shouldn't be based on how much you hate a company, it is proportional to damage done. I can't work out the detail, but TFA implies there were 5000 customers affected which means the penalty is about the price of two new iPhones per customer,

      This seems appropriate to me.

      And I'm sure it's just part of the cost of doing business for Apple.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  8. The summary and article didn't say by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    anything about court costs or legal fees in addition to the fine, which seems to be a slap on the wrist...

  9. apple's anti 3rd party repair policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    apple is definitely up for a slap in the face. after applying to be an apple repair center for nearly 2 years and reply and reply, waiting and waiting... they came back and said.. no.. we are shutting down and getting rid of 3rd party authorized repair centers -- say what?

    sounds like the John Deere & Apple legal issue. -- is it my tractor or not? why can't i fix it myself?
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-john-deere-apple

    rotten bastards..doh! it's ok.. i do appreciate the innovation though..

  10. Ohhh nooo! by gatfirls · · Score: 2

    No beef wellington on the menu at the campus cafe this week, got to tighten our belts.

    1. Re:Ohhh nooo! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Apple employees don't eat beef wellington! It's probably just Kale and Yogurt.

    2. Re:Ohhh nooo! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      No beef wellington on the menu at the campus cafe this week, got to tighten our belts.

      Why do Americans think Beef Wellington is fancy?

      Its a beef roast wrapped in pastry... if you struggle to make that you should probably admit you're a failure of a cook.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Ohhh nooo! by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      Because beef tenderloin is usually regarded as the best cut of meat and it's a ridiculously complicated preparation? I would agree that most Americans find the simplest of cooking tasks complicated but let's have a looksee at classic beef wellington: .............."Preparation
      Make the duxelles
      Heat the butter and oil in a 10-inch skillet over low heat. Add the shallots and cook, stirring often, until translucent, 3 to 4 minutes. Add the mushrooms, stir well, and raise the heat to medium. Cook, stirring occasionally, until the mushrooms have cooked down to a thick, almost black mixture, about 15 minutes. Season with a pinch of salt and a few grinds of pepper. Stir in the parsley; then transfer to a small bowl and cool completely. (The duxelles can be refrigerated for up to 2 days or frozen for up to 2 months.)

      Begin the Madeira sauce
      Bring 6 cups of the stock to a boil in a 12-inch skillet over medium-high heat and boil until reduced to 2 cups, 20 to 25 minutes. Add the Madeira and continue boiling until the liquid is again reduced to 2 cups, about 5 minutes. Season to taste with salt and pepper. (The sauce can be prepared to this point up to 1 day ahead. Finish the sauce just before serving the Wellington.)

      Make the crêpes
      In a large bowl, whisk the flour and salt. Make a well in the center, break in the eggs, and add 1/4 cup of the milk. Gently whisk the eggs and milk, gradually incorporating the flour. Slowly whisk in the remaining milk to make a smooth batter. (The batter can be covered and set aside for up to an hour at this point.)Melt the butter in a 10-inch skillet over medium-low heat. Swirl the pan to coat with the butter; pour the excess butter out into a small bowl. Whisk 1 Tbs. of the melted butter into the batter. Reserve the rest for greasing the pan between crêpes. Increase the heat to medium high and pour 1/4 cup of the batter into the skillet. Swirl so the batter thinly and evenly coats the base of the pan.
      Cook until the crêpe is spotted with brown on the underside, about 1 minute, then flip and cook the other side until lightly browned, 30 seconds to 1 minute more. Repeat with the remaining batter, greasing the pan off the heat as necessary. Transfer the crêpes to a plate, separating them with sheets of parchment, and cool. You’ll need 4 crêpes.

      Assemble and bake the Wellington
      Remove the beef from the refrigerator about an hour ahead so it has time to lose its chill. Pat the beef dry and season all over with salt and pepper. Heat the oil in a 12-inch skillet over high heat until very hot. Sear the beef until it is evenly browned all over (don’t worry about the ends), 2 to 3 minutes per side. Transfer the beef to a baking sheet and cool.In a medium bowl, mash the pâté and the duxelles with a fork until they form a soft paste.
      Lay 4 crêpes on a clean work surface, overlapping them just enough to give you a 13×13-inch roughly square surface. Dot the pâté mixture over the crêpes, then use an offset spatula to spread it evenly across the crêpes’ surface.

      Place the tenderloin in the center of the crêpes and carefully wrap them around the filet, pressing and molding them into place. Trim off any excess crêpe at the ends.

      If using store-bought puff pastry that’s packaged as 2 sheets, fuse the sheets together by slightly overlapping them and lightly rolling over the seam until adhered.

      On a lightly floured surface, roll out the puff pastry to a 13×16-inch rectangle (for store-bought puff, roll in the direction of the seam).

      Transfer the wrapped beef to the center of the pastry and tuck any crêpes that have come loose back into place. Bring the pastry up around the beef, smoothing out any air pockets. Brush some of the beaten egg along the bottom edge of the seam and then press gently to seal; trim off any excess. Seal the pastry similarly at the ends.

      Lightly grease a large baking sheet with the butter. Lift the W

  11. Idiot ruling from court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The courts can't hold apple accountable for third party repairs that weren't within the spec of the official original parts used.

    You repaired your phone with a substandard part, so what if it works for *THAT* IOS version - it's not going to work for any future versions if apple decide to fully utilise that part's speed/capabilities, and apple can't know the shit parts third party repairers are going to try to pass-off as working.

    Let me iterate that again - the spec on the replacement part has changed, to that of a lower specification which *appears* to work. A typical 'car' analogy would be you getting to sue GM because your aftermarket fuel filter fucked the engine over after another 10k miles.

    This is going to come back to bite a lot of people, and those people, like apple, should be getting this decision by the aussie courts reversed asap, as it's going to set a precedent alright, and cause a shitstorm for all kinds of things (healthcare, cars, houses, etc ,etc). I look forward to reading the aussie fallout from this

    1. Re:Idiot ruling from court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an analogy, what Apple has done is like disabling your car because you replaced a smashed windscreen with an after-market version. Fair enough to not honour the warranty for the windscreen after that, but disabling the entire car is just profiteering. Forcing users to overpriced Apple genuine repairs.

    2. Re:Idiot ruling from court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... A typical 'car' analogy would be you getting to sue GM because your aftermarket fuel filter fucked the engine over after another 10k miles...

      No, it would be you getting to sue GM because they fucked your engine after they found an aftermarket fuel filter.

    3. Re:Idiot ruling from court by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      Except that this happened even if you swapped the screen from one working iphone 6 to another, or swapped a broken screen with a refurbished one.

    4. Re:Idiot ruling from court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though the error 53 was basically unable to init the touchid hardware because it failed it's integrity test (ie: wrong signature == been fucked with == possibly hacked, as in hacker/espionage so disable device) After all, apple puts their device encryption and privacy above all else and goes to great lengths to protect it - this was one of those countermeasures.

      The problem was however, inept marketing/support from apple regarding this, and instead of saying (the part is defective, the crypto signature is wrong on it, or your phone has been hacked by an unknown third party) they simply shut up and then said utterly the wrong thing.

      The error 53 was done to protect people with 'dodgy' touchId devices that could be doing unknown things like storing your fingerprint, etc.

    5. Re:Idiot ruling from court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this would fall under the guarantee offered by the fuel filter manufacturer that their part was free from defects and would work with every OS update the car had. They can't guarantee that, or know it, as the part isn't to spec or has been tested, and apple aren't aware of this aftermarket part.

      If however you can stop the damage to the engine from the part, because are able to detect that part is out of spec, then should you? It affects the guarantee of the engine if there is one currently running. GM would be able to tell the consumer to 'get fucked' at that point because of non-standard part

      Instead of that, you have the user of non-standard-shit-part getting to sue GM because the part doesn't work with the engine and will probably damage it.

      The precedent this will set will cause a lot of problems, most of which will ultimately be to the determent of the consumer (ie: companies going the 'no user servicable parts' route inside devices, and gluing/conformal/sealing/resin the phone into an unrepairable block so this shit can't happen in the future. You already have this starting to happen in the 'car' analogy (big plastic cover over engine with only holes for oil and water, everything else hidden away). It will only get worse now, for the consumer.

    6. Re:Idiot ruling from court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err no it didn't unless you damaged the connector (and there were issues with screen flexing, that is unrelated to this).

      TouchID was the issue - the signature on the 3rd party chip wasn't the same as apples, so basically it failed that test and rightly stopped the OS from starting due to security a breach. Apple places high standards on security and encryption, and this was one of those blocks(shitly PR'ed by apple after people complained).

      So, if your phone detects a potential compromise, what should you do? Let the OS potentially be compromised on boot and the user use it, or *stop* with an error that can be sorted by support and the user can be told how to correct the problem (get a proper part with the correct crypto signature)

      Because, you know, TouchID is used to payments that aren't limited to 30dollars/ukp/etc and frankly, what an excellent attack vector to exfiltrate fingerprints at that point. Apple are rightly being *very* careful here.

    7. Re:Idiot ruling from court by nzkbuk · · Score: 1
      https://ifixit.org/blog/7911/e...

      We took a fully functional, space gray iPhone 6s and removed its original home button. In its place, we dropped in the stock home button from a different, rose gold iPhone 6s.

      We downloaded and installed the latest iOS through iTunes by connecting to a computer (in this case, a MacBook Pro). Halfway through the process, iTunes gave us the bad news: The iPhone could not be updated. An unknown error occurred (53).

      I may have cherry picked the sentences, but not changed the context etc to imply a different meaning.
      Search for yourself for "iphone 6 error 53 refurbished screen"

    8. Re:Idiot ruling from court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Error 53 "security keys don't match"

      Likely problem there. You changed the keys the device was registered with. TouchID is something that needs to stay secure. Just think of the hardware mitm attacks you could do otherwise given this is used for a payment system with no limits like normal 'contactless' systems

    9. Re:Idiot ruling from court by nzkbuk · · Score: 1
      So I don't use apple products so I've never had the chance to personally experience this issue

      Error 53 "security keys don't match"

      If it said that, maybe people wouldn't be as annoyed. From what I can see on Apple's website about error 53 there is no indication of "security keys don't match".
      My initial response however was to the bulk of the statement, all of which is about 3rd party parts.

      The courts can't hold apple accountable for third party repairs that weren't within the spec of the official original parts used.

      You repaired your phone with a substandard part, so what if it works for *THAT* IOS version - it's not going to work for any future versions if apple decide to fully utilise that part's speed/capabilities, and apple can't know the shit parts third party repairers are going to try to pass-off as working.

      Let me iterate that again - the spec on the replacement part has changed, to that of a lower specification which *appears* to work. A typical 'car' analogy would be you getting to sue GM because your aftermarket fuel filter fucked the engine over after another 10k miles.

      My response was that the whole 3rd party parts does not cover this. The same error occurs with original parts. Perhaps if there was one error code for 3rd party parts and another for "security keys don't match", or maybe the error was descriptive enough to allow the end user some way of figuring out the issue, or maybe if Apple wasn't so bad about right to repair issues, didn't gouge their customers for repairs and allowed 3rd partied to purchase official parts, OR had repair programs in place that covered any repair that an end user may have eg Linus Tech Tips iMac Pro. There might be something in it.

  12. So? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    What is $7M to Apple?

  13. Apple had dealer only tools needed to pair parts by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Apple had dealer only tools needed to pair parts that they did not give to 3rd party shops. That is the issue and is the same issue with cars.

    What if GM had an change oil light that needed an dealer only tool to reset?

  14. Re:RIGHT ON!!! AU!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apples are more expensive, and the hardware is generally less beefy than what you get from top of the line Android manufacturers. That said, you get support, which has to be paid for. With Android, you get a device with 18 months of support once the design phase has been completed. So, if you plop down for a brand new, top of the line or mid-tier Android, it's end-of-life is easily 2 years. With somewhat equivalent Apples, you get 3 to 4 years. I'd prefer an Android vendor to step up, and I'd like to put my money behind one, but I just cannot. Even Google says that 18 to 24 months for a flagship device is totally acceptable. They recently dropped support for the Nexus line of phones (including the 5X and 6P) and tablets that were released when the iPhone 6s was new. Meanwhile, the iPhone 5s released more than a year prior, is still supported by Apple.

    TL;DR

    • * Apple - premium price, mid-tier hardware, well supported
    • * Android - premium price, high-end hardware, unsupported

    The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

  15. About 16 minutes of iPhone sales by turp182 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Assuming an average cost/revenue of $700, $6.7M USD is just above 9,500 iPhones.

    Per Google search, they sell about 590 per MINUTE (4th quarter last year on average).

    So that's about 16 minutes of sales:
    https://www.google.com/search?...

    They were probably laughing while lounging on their yachts that cost more than the settlement.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:About 16 minutes of iPhone sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it wasn't a settlement, it was a fine.

    2. Re:About 16 minutes of iPhone sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to subtract cost from sales to determine profit. That is well over 16 minutes worth of profit, might be 8 hours worth.

    3. Re:About 16 minutes of iPhone sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL
      You apple apologists are too funny.
      apple sure the hell cared enough about 6.7 million dollars to NOT settle out of court and pay lawyers to fight this; and lose.
      If apple truly did not care about the money they could have settled and saved the lawyer costs.
      You really think that apple; the Scrooge McDuck of tech is happy about throwing any amount of money away you been chugging the apple koolaid too hard.
      I realise this is the equivalent of apple punching themselves in the face and their zealots saying that it didnt hurt but all these lost lawsuits add up. It may not hurt apple financial but it tarnishes the brand and that the main thing keeping apple alive right now. Its sure not quality of their products.

  16. Wow. What a punishment! NOT! by Chas · · Score: 1

    7 million dollars.

    Wow.

    Apple spends more than that on TOILET PAPER!

    Their annual revenues are north of 200 BILLION and have been since 2015.

    This isn't even a slap on the wrist.

    This is more of a smiling "tsk tsk tsk" while shaking a "naughty naughty" finger at them.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  17. Re:Wow. What a punishment! NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agreed. Not nearly enough.
    Lets hope all the other countries that sell iphones fine apple for the same amount.

  18. Re:Apple had dealer only tools needed to pair part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since GM actually has plenty of "oil light" related tools that only dealers have access to .... what is your point again?

    In fact, they now have troubleshooting tools that are only accessible by special techs and dealers have to schedule the techs, hook up a specialized rugged computer that connects to the internet and then they walk away. They don't even know what data the techs are accessing. The dealer only gets a final report once the techs are done ... and sometimes not even that.

  19. Why no criminal charges? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    This should fall under the statutes relating to the destruction of private property or theft of private property.

  20. Re:RIGHT ON!!! AU!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should compare Android phones to iPhone not to Apple which is the company as everyone knows.

    In the case of iPhone, that is premium price on high-end hardware which is well supported.

  21. Cost of doing business by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    6.7 million USD? Is that a joke? Apple probably spends more on cardboard packaging than that, a year.

    In the face of such a horrifically crippling punishment, I'm fully confident Apple will never ever try anything shady again!

    1. Re:Cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fine could have been 20 times that value and apple would still be a cancer in the tech industry. Its in their DNA to be a corrupt untrustworthy company.

    2. Re:Cost of doing business by The123king · · Score: 1

      Every company in the tech space is a corrupt, untrustworthy company. Name me one that isn't.

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  22. Chump Change for Apple. by shubus · · Score: 1

    Here's the real story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  23. Re:Apple had dealer only tools needed to pair part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia 3rd line forcing is also illegal. That is saying you can only buy or or get parts/service/repair from our company. So, they missed being fined for that at the same time. So is price fixing /price collusion, for repairs as well. Oh well, maybe they will follow through.

  24. Not enough by The123king · · Score: 1

    The fine isn't big enough. It needs more zeros

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  25. How about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...sentencing the criminals at Apple who did this to some hard time at "guard your bung-hole" prison?

    If people from Ford came over to my driveway, and smashed my Mustang up with sledgehammers "for security reasons", that's exactly where they would be going!

    1. Re: How about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies like Apple eat lawsuits and fines for breakfast. They will very well change their tune when they face the prospect of being a bad man's girlfriend behind bars.