Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the no-mercy dept.

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.

11 of 118 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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=-
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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..

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

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