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.

Comments

Not "Bricked"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Not "Bricked"

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Not "Bricked"

[AlanBDee]

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.

Re:Not "Bricked"

[Luthair]

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

Re: Not "Bricked"

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Not "Bricked"

[MightyMartian]

Start attending your cognitive therapy sessions again.

Re: Not "Bricked"

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Not "Bricked"

[sycodon]

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

Re:Not "Bricked"

[sjames]

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.

Re: Not "Bricked"

[Joce640k]

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

Yes.

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

Re:Not "Bricked"

[Carewolf]

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.

Re:Not "Bricked"

[Calydor]

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

Re:Not "Bricked"

[cob666]

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.

Re: Not "Bricked"

[Bert64]

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.

Re: Not "Bricked"

[Aighearach]

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.

Re: Not "Bricked"

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:Not "Bricked"

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:Not "Bricked"

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Not "Bricked"

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Not "Bricked"

[nzkbuk]

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

Re:Not "Bricked"

[wisnoskij]

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).

That'll learn'em

[AlanBDee]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[Luthair]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[aicrules]

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

Re:That'll learn'em

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[sycodon]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[Bert64]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[Aighearach]

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.

Re: That'll learn'em

[fj3k]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[robbak]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:That'll learn'em

[nzkbuk]

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

Pocket Change

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pocket Change

[green1]

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.

Re:Pocket Change

[Mattcelt]

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.

Re:Pocket Change

[Aighearach]

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??!

Re:Pocket Change

[Aighearach]

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!

fines need to dramatically increase

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:fines need to dramatically increase

[JackieBrown]

You realize this story is about Australia, right?

Re:fines need to dramatically increase

[thegarbz]

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.

That's it?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Interesting precident...

[roc97007]

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

Re:Interesting precident...

[Peter P Peters]

...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.

Re:Interesting precident...

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Interesting precident...

[roc97007]

...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.

The summary and article didn't say

[bobstreo]

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

apple's anti 3rd party repair policies

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

Re:Right to repair.

[mschaffer]

Teeth? More like a mosquito bite.

Re:Right to repair.

[DontBeAMoran]

You mean like a dentist?

Ohhh nooo!

[gatfirls]

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

Re:Ohhh nooo!

[freeze128]

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

Re:Ohhh nooo!

[mjwx]

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.

Re:Ohhh nooo!

[gatfirls]

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

Idiot ruling from court

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Idiot ruling from court

[nzkbuk]

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.

Re:Idiot ruling from court

[nzkbuk]

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"

Re:Idiot ruling from court

[nzkbuk]

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.

So?

[OneHundredAndTen]

What is $7M to Apple?

Apple had dealer only tools needed to pair parts

[Joe_Dragon]

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?

About 16 minutes of iPhone sales

[turp182]

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.

Wow. What a punishment! NOT!

[Chas]

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.

Re: Right to repair.

[Z00L00K]

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

Why no criminal charges?

[schwit1]

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

Cost of doing business

[duke_cheetah2003]

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!

Re:Cost of doing business

[The123king]

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

Chump Change for Apple.

[shubus]

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

Not enough

[The123king]

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