Yes, I understand that. And now again: for a security device, isn't it reasonable? Do keep in mind that Error 53 means "security check failed"... aka, a new fingerprint scanner has been found, which can indicate a serious intrusion.
Just swallowing that is a no-no. I'll formulate it differently: Had Apple allowed such swaps, without even a message, and someone used this to hack someones phone and steal their identity, we would all be yelling "Security Failure" at Apple. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd rather have them defending the security of their customers.
Non-security related things can be replaced just fine. I'm on my third battery in my iPhone....
Again, what does Apple Repair technicians do so that their repairs work? That's the crucial difference: they do something that allows genuine part to be recognised by the current hardware. Do the same, and Error 53 will never happen with your customers. Why didn't you do that step? If you say "it wasn't documented", it means there is a flaw in documentation... If you knew it was needed and you didn't do it: why? That's your mistake....
Works too, even though that would open the way to trusting devices that just feign to be fingerprint sensors.... Again, I said they handled it badly. However, doing this without any warning would have been incorrect. They went the hardcore "deny" way.... In security, the default deny stance is considered "good practice". I can see why the developer chose that way.
So, would you be okay with someone replacing your fingerprint reader behind your back with something that compromises your fingerprint hash or allows unlocking by any fingerprint? All without being warned?
That's what I said. Read again: "Now, it would have been better to warn the user and allow it to be used as a normal home button,". Apple did handle it badly, but just allowing the new sensor blindly would not have been correct either. A dialog "Hey, you messed with the fingerprint reader, we'll revert to Home Button functionality" would have been the correct way. Do note that it is exactly in that way they fixed the Error 53 debacle. Hence, my remark: "It just wasn't handled elegantly."... The elegant way is what they do now.
"Authorized" as in "Knows the procedures to do it right". The repair services causing Error 53 lacked a certain information, causing them to skip a crucial step. Should it be publicly documented? Sure... Fact is: the repair was not done according to procedure... even if it was done with genuine parts...
If you install a new battery and mix up negative and positive and it burns out, is it Apples fault too? Because that is, a bit exaggerated, exactly what happened.
Aunt Tilly does need to be aware of the need to upgrade, doesn't she? It's not as if there will be huge marketing campaigns for the Aunt Tillies to tell them they need to update their software. That is a problem. Stuff like this should be automatic and without any difficulty. Good for Mobile-Ahmed if he can earn a living with it, but his market is "well informed customers, who are technically not able to do it themselves". How large do you think that that market is in the grand scheme of things?
So, it means that the replacement process was not well documented. A repairman with all the information (like Authorized Apple Repair Service), can replace it. Something needs to be done in order to register the new official fingerprint reader. This was clearly not done by the unauthorized repair centers:they missed a step.
Now granted, they may not have known about the step that needed to be done, but they did not repair according to the required procedure. That's why they are not authorized, you see... As another comment under this story said begin with clear schematics and procedures. If those are present, a non authorized repair center could have done the work as required, without causing an Error 53. For all we know, many repair centers did... We just won't ever know because people using those phones are not complaining.
The fact that official channels can and do replace fingerprint scanners, means it's possible... and the unauthorized repair centers missed crucial information.
To use a car analogy that's like saying ford disabled your truck because the brakes were replaced - it's for your safety.
In a sense, yes... Though I'd more compare it to the "service" light that stays on, if you go to a 3rd party mechanic for an oil change and he doesn't know how to reset the service light back to "serviced". Granted, the service light here stops you from starting the engine, but that's mainly because it thinks you might have filled up the engine with water, and wants to prevent further damage (identity theft in case of a tampered fingerprint reader). Car analogies always break down somewhere.
True, but the risk is significantly less high than being exposed to the Internet. This problem, by the way, is completely shared with feature phones... who have their own vulnerabilities and never get patches at all.
This is not about anti-repair measures. This is about planned obsolescence and while anti-repair measures didn't drop prices, planned obsolescence did. It's the reason you can get $200 fridges. When fridges become popular (1950ties), they could last 50 years, be repaired and costed... nearly a months pay. (List price: $329.00. Average monthy wage: $392.75) Now, of course, in the long run, the expensive 50ties fridge is better value (ignoring electricity costs, and that they're full of freon), but the lower cost fridge allows more people to get a fridge.... It's a trade-off really.
Regulation causes more cost, more cost is offset to the customer... ergo, regulation causes prices to raise... If that's extrapolation from a false premise, we can trash all of economics.
Do keep in mind that Error 53 is there for good reason: The Fingerprint reader has been tampered with and cannot be trusted. Now, it would have been better to warn the user and allow it to be used as a normal home button, but the reason for Error 53 is sound. It just wasn't handled elegantly.
Pay tell me how Aunt Tilly a) knows about this, b) is able to install it herself. Aka... I know this exists, but it cannot be classified as support. Android people always come with "you can install $THIRD_PARTY_SOFTWARE", but for a normal user that is a pipe dream.
I'm sceptical. One of their main examples is the cellphone. The problem with the celphone is that it's a bad example. Cellphones become obsolete due to software, not hardware. A typical iPhone can last up to 5 years (I still use an iPhone 5, not 5C, not 5S, 5). Changing batteries is 49€ at a local phone repair shop. It's no big deal. I know the support for that phone is going to stop around the next apple conference. However, in the cellphone world, this longevity is unheard of. This is because Apple provides the software, not just patches, true OS upgrades, free of charge for a long time. Yet, iPhones still sell. Why? Because people want the new iPhone! Would an out of support iPhone still be usable? Yes, but... at the first reported vulnerability, you'd would need to stop using it as a smartphone. As a normal phone, it could last for multiple more years. Case in point, I gave an old iPhone 4 to an aunt of my wife. Her subscription has no Internet. She uses it as a phone. It will cause no problems.
The Android world has a support problem. Patches are only dependable with well know brands (Samsung) and you never know how long you'll get them (6 months? 2 years? Your guess is as good as mine!). Android handset developers have no incentive to update the software of their phones, because they want you to buy new handsets. This is where such a law would works, BUT, it would make those handset much more expensive: the software development costs would skyrocket, and as such the handset makers will have to charge more. You'll basically, get a world where Android handsets lose their "cost less" status.
In summary: a law like this will ensure that your devices will double or triple in price. Basically making certain devices so high on the luxury ladder, that normal people won't be able to afford them... making the divide between poor and rich bigger. (Similar to the roaming regulation, where basically many people lost roaming because their plans became national-only... Or if you don't want that: pay more... often for less data/calls... In my eyes, it's the poor "less roaming" people subsiding the rich "travelling a lot and thus roaming" people... A scandal... It is, however, hailed as one of the major achievements of the EU.)
I still don't get it. Most applications I use are free, and even for some I don't see a need for an "App". Most of the time the mobile-aware (or responsive design) websites work just fine. Except the m.slashdot.org thing, I could probably write 10 bug reports just by thinking of it. Luckily, you can tell it to load the desktop site. For most stuff the mobile website is just fine. I even use Facebooks mobile site, because I ditched their app it after the split of their core app and messenger. Never looked back. Works wonderfully.
How do you make money on apps? The only thing I can see, is selling your App-writing skills to a big company, which then distributes it for free to the end-user.
I also don't like the word "app". What is wrong with "application" or "program"? Those words were just fine. *sigh* Now, get off my lawn!
Are you calling 144€ per year per line "negligible"?!? Will you pay me those 288€/year I'll be missing each year because of this?!? No, of course not.. Negligible my arse...
The number of minutes you get for a certain price is about market segmentation; not how much it costs them.
So, my market doesn't exist (low volume calls, quite a bit of data, rarely roaming, but roaming required)? I either fit in the "roaming not allowed" or in the "get fleeced because I need roaming" market? Got that...
For me, and many low use users, this regulation is a huge bite out of our budget. It was a monumentally bad decision.
With this they merely take a loss in premium revenue, of course they could always put prices up to try and recover that but potential competition makes that scary
Which is exactly what they did... Raise prices, at least where I live..
By contrast if I get a cellular contract in the EU I have to go to a different company in each country
If that was their intention, I should now be able to move to, for example a Polish operator and pay Polish prices and preferably even keep my number. That, however, is not allowed (there are regulations against permanent roaming). So, if that was their intention they evidently botched it seriously.
By killing roaming the EU is actually trying to entice companies to merge their operations across countries and sell across the entire single market.
Ah, great... so a few very large companies controlling all telco. That sounds like excellent for the customer as there is basically no competition. That ought to put down price. Gonna work for certain.
Do I believe that? Depends a bit. Smaller operators (for example in small countries... I live in Luxembourg) will have more trouble to negotiate bit the big ones. Obviously, the big telcos have not much interest in our networks, but our operators have a big interest in their networks. In economy, that means, our operators have to pay the big ones a lot of money, because they don't have much to give back. What you essentially say is that you would like to have all telcos be totally dominated by a handful of large multinational companies. You do know that is bad for competition and thus bad for the consumer, right?
So are Luxembourgish operators owned by "large international companies"? No. We have three: Post, which is the former State Monopoly, only operates in Luxembourg. Tango, the second one is owned by Proximus, the former Belgian State operator. Belgium, for all intents and purposes is also small and their subscriptions are just a tiny bit cheaper than ours. Then there is Orange, which is the former French State operator (France télécom), which has spread its operations all over Europe. However, they aren't dumb: since the two other operators have to keep prices high, they can keep them high too. Finally there is Join, which is just a subsidiary of Post... So that's not going to help much.
That said, I'm sure they make a hefty profit on roaming. The thing is: I don't mind, it's cheaper for me *with* roaming: 4€ for being reachable (and calling/receiving calls without having to worry too much. It's not as if we didn't take any calls or cut each call short) is not a very big amount. Having to pay a whopping 144€/year more to get roaming under the same conditions, is unacceptable. I'd have to do 36 weeks of Portugal vacations to break even! (Actually 72 weeks, since we have two lines, both requiring 144€/year more). Do you vacation that much? I most certainly don't. Normal people don't travel that much and I live in a frigging country where you drive 50km and you're outside of the country!
It doesn't change fact that I am now paying for people who travel a lot. By definition, people who travel a lot are larger earners. This means, the poor subsidize the the rich. Thank you EU..../me rolls eyes.
This regulation is bad for many customers. One has to understand that companies do not like to be cheated out of profits, so if you regulate a profit generating feature away, the money will be found elsewhere. Also, you have to understand that the telco companies still have their costs when you roam. It's a bad deal for them.
So, what did happen? This regulation has been in the works for ages. Companies knew it was coming and could prepare. Where I am, the average subscription cost (including cellphone) has raised with 22% in the last four years, in a period with ~0% inflation. I gave up on that, and went a SIM-only subscription for 15€/month. For that I got 6000 units (SMS/call) nationally, and 5GB data nationally. For roaming I paid on usage. If you don't roam often: You just make sure you don't exaggerate and use Wifi when possible. My last vacation, I had a full blown 4€ roaming bill, for one week of Portugal for two lines (my wifes line and mine). That's cheap.
Now, with the regulation, my cellphone provider gave me the following options:
Keep the 15€/month plan, but you will be blocked from roaming.
Get the 17€/month plan, but only get 2000 units (still plenty) and 2GB data (unacceptably low)
Get the 27€/month plan, to keep what I had (6000 units, 5GB data) but be able to use it in the EU
In summary: Option 1. gives me less for the same money. I don't know how you feel about it, but being able to call or get called when you are abroad is an essential feature of having a cellphone. I could see this plan be useful for kids and teenagers, but not for normal mobile adults. Even adults like me who do a few vacations a year and perhaps a business trip or two.
Option 2, is basically: pay more, for getting less. Sure, you might argue that I get "more" in the sense I can call EU wide, but in the day to day case, I simply pay more.
Option 3 is really just pay much much more to get exactly what I had. I mean, that's 144€ per line, per year more, simply to keep the ability to roam and have "decent" amount of data.
Now, granted, if you are the cosmopolite Eurotrotter you will be better off. Keep in mind that those people are already people who earn a better living. So, basically, this really is the "poorer" (or more frugal) people subsidizing the richer people. Incidentally, the EU Commissioners are notorious Eurotrotters. For them this is awesome. For normal people much less. I do suspect a lot of self-interest.
It really depends a lot where you live. From what I heard, France kept to the intent of the EU regulation. Not raising prices, giving everyone everything for the same price. In Germany, for example, I have heard that many subscriptions also will lose the roaming feature, basically locking people to their home country.
I am not happy at all with this regulation. Especially, that the EU Commission conceded to the telcos on many things and basically made roaming worse or more expensive for low-usage people. You can't even escape, as they made sure "permanent roaming" isn't allowed. I can't get a Polish SIM and use it permanently here in Luxembourg.
Do note that I can't even escape to other operators nationally: they all have equally bad conditions. Some even much worse than my current one. For now I negotiated with my current operator to get the 27€ plan with a 55% discount for one year. So, I hope the markets normalize and I'll have better choice in 12 months. That is just a slim hope and I suspect I'll have to start paying the insane rates in a year. Perhaps, I'll just go to a pay as you go plan, with roaming pay as you go. That is allowed in the regulation, just not if you have packages. I'll lose data then. Data is extremely expensive with pay as you go.
The worst part is that any first year economy student could have explained these consequences to them... I can't believe that they didn't have economic advisers on their overpaid panels.
Yes, it is the last part being key. I do know that Android cellphones can be long lived, but it's never the manufacturer that is providing the software in an automated way. Going the alternative firmware way is simply not an option for non-techs.
Uhm... Isn't the current version of Android Nougat? The point being, the iPhone 5 came with iOS 6 out of the box. The iPhone 5 could be upgraded to iOS 7, then iOS 8, then iOS 9 and finally iOS 10... and it runs fine. That would be like having an Android phone that came with Android Jelly Bean, that could be upgraded all up to Android Nougat, and all that with firmware/upgrades pushed by Samsung itself.
I'm glad you get security updates for your phone. That is great, but it is in no way comparable to the iPhone 5 situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Just swallowing that is a no-no. I'll formulate it differently: Had Apple allowed such swaps, without even a message, and someone used this to hack someones phone and steal their identity, we would all be yelling "Security Failure" at Apple. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd rather have them defending the security of their customers.
Non-security related things can be replaced just fine. I'm on my third battery in my iPhone....
Again, what does Apple Repair technicians do so that their repairs work? That's the crucial difference: they do something that allows genuine part to be recognised by the current hardware. Do the same, and Error 53 will never happen with your customers. Why didn't you do that step? If you say "it wasn't documented", it means there is a flaw in documentation... If you knew it was needed and you didn't do it: why? That's your mistake....
Fraudulent Fred does the same and upgrades Aunt Tillies phone with "modified" firmware that allows him to steal her identity....
... that would actually be an argument to actually disallow repairs. It opens you up to lawsuits. Seems Apple does the legally wise thing then.
Works too, even though that would open the way to trusting devices that just feign to be fingerprint sensors.... Again, I said they handled it badly. However, doing this without any warning would have been incorrect. They went the hardcore "deny" way.... In security, the default deny stance is considered "good practice". I can see why the developer chose that way.
... or more like a new battery that doesn't follow specifications and the phone doesn't turn on? Would that surprise you. Me? Not at all.
So, would you be okay with someone replacing your fingerprint reader behind your back with something that compromises your fingerprint hash or allows unlocking by any fingerprint? All without being warned?
That's what I said. Read again: "Now, it would have been better to warn the user and allow it to be used as a normal home button,". Apple did handle it badly, but just allowing the new sensor blindly would not have been correct either. A dialog "Hey, you messed with the fingerprint reader, we'll revert to Home Button functionality" would have been the correct way. Do note that it is exactly in that way they fixed the Error 53 debacle. Hence, my remark: "It just wasn't handled elegantly."... The elegant way is what they do now.
If you install a new battery and mix up negative and positive and it burns out, is it Apples fault too? Because that is, a bit exaggerated, exactly what happened.
Aunt Tilly does need to be aware of the need to upgrade, doesn't she? It's not as if there will be huge marketing campaigns for the Aunt Tillies to tell them they need to update their software. That is a problem. Stuff like this should be automatic and without any difficulty. Good for Mobile-Ahmed if he can earn a living with it, but his market is "well informed customers, who are technically not able to do it themselves". How large do you think that that market is in the grand scheme of things?
Now granted, they may not have known about the step that needed to be done, but they did not repair according to the required procedure. That's why they are not authorized, you see... As another comment under this story said begin with clear schematics and procedures. If those are present, a non authorized repair center could have done the work as required, without causing an Error 53. For all we know, many repair centers did... We just won't ever know because people using those phones are not complaining.
The fact that official channels can and do replace fingerprint scanners, means it's possible... and the unauthorized repair centers missed crucial information.
In a sense, yes... Though I'd more compare it to the "service" light that stays on, if you go to a 3rd party mechanic for an oil change and he doesn't know how to reset the service light back to "serviced". Granted, the service light here stops you from starting the engine, but that's mainly because it thinks you might have filled up the engine with water, and wants to prevent further damage (identity theft in case of a tampered fingerprint reader). Car analogies always break down somewhere.
True, but the risk is significantly less high than being exposed to the Internet. This problem, by the way, is completely shared with feature phones... who have their own vulnerabilities and never get patches at all.
Regulation causes more cost, more cost is offset to the customer... ergo, regulation causes prices to raise... If that's extrapolation from a false premise, we can trash all of economics.
Do keep in mind that Error 53 is there for good reason: The Fingerprint reader has been tampered with and cannot be trusted. Now, it would have been better to warn the user and allow it to be used as a normal home button, but the reason for Error 53 is sound. It just wasn't handled elegantly.
Pay tell me how Aunt Tilly a) knows about this, b) is able to install it herself. Aka... I know this exists, but it cannot be classified as support. Android people always come with "you can install $THIRD_PARTY_SOFTWARE", but for a normal user that is a pipe dream.
Would an out of support iPhone still be usable? Yes, but... at the first reported vulnerability, you'd would need to stop using it as a smartphone. As a normal phone, it could last for multiple more years. Case in point, I gave an old iPhone 4 to an aunt of my wife. Her subscription has no Internet. She uses it as a phone. It will cause no problems.
The Android world has a support problem. Patches are only dependable with well know brands (Samsung) and you never know how long you'll get them (6 months? 2 years? Your guess is as good as mine!). Android handset developers have no incentive to update the software of their phones, because they want you to buy new handsets. This is where such a law would works, BUT, it would make those handset much more expensive: the software development costs would skyrocket, and as such the handset makers will have to charge more. You'll basically, get a world where Android handsets lose their "cost less" status.
In summary: a law like this will ensure that your devices will double or triple in price. Basically making certain devices so high on the luxury ladder, that normal people won't be able to afford them... making the divide between poor and rich bigger. (Similar to the roaming regulation, where basically many people lost roaming because their plans became national-only... Or if you don't want that: pay more... often for less data/calls... In my eyes, it's the poor "less roaming" people subsiding the rich "travelling a lot and thus roaming" people... A scandal... It is, however, hailed as one of the major achievements of the EU.)
I never had complaints when using my scythe. I'm cutting grass, not heading a mob.
How do you make money on apps? The only thing I can see, is selling your App-writing skills to a big company, which then distributes it for free to the end-user.
I also don't like the word "app". What is wrong with "application" or "program"? Those words were just fine. *sigh* Now, get off my lawn!
Are you calling 144€ per year per line "negligible"?!? Will you pay me those 288€/year I'll be missing each year because of this?!? No, of course not.. Negligible my arse...
So, my market doesn't exist (low volume calls, quite a bit of data, rarely roaming, but roaming required)? I either fit in the "roaming not allowed" or in the "get fleeced because I need roaming" market? Got that...
For me, and many low use users, this regulation is a huge bite out of our budget. It was a monumentally bad decision.
Which is exactly what they did... Raise prices, at least where I live..
If that was their intention, I should now be able to move to, for example a Polish operator and pay Polish prices and preferably even keep my number. That, however, is not allowed (there are regulations against permanent roaming). So, if that was their intention they evidently botched it seriously.
Ah, great... so a few very large companies controlling all telco. That sounds like excellent for the customer as there is basically no competition. That ought to put down price. Gonna work for certain.
So are Luxembourgish operators owned by "large international companies"? No. We have three: Post, which is the former State Monopoly, only operates in Luxembourg. Tango, the second one is owned by Proximus, the former Belgian State operator. Belgium, for all intents and purposes is also small and their subscriptions are just a tiny bit cheaper than ours. Then there is Orange, which is the former French State operator (France télécom), which has spread its operations all over Europe. However, they aren't dumb: since the two other operators have to keep prices high, they can keep them high too. Finally there is Join, which is just a subsidiary of Post... So that's not going to help much.
That said, I'm sure they make a hefty profit on roaming. The thing is: I don't mind, it's cheaper for me *with* roaming: 4€ for being reachable (and calling/receiving calls without having to worry too much. It's not as if we didn't take any calls or cut each call short) is not a very big amount. Having to pay a whopping 144€/year more to get roaming under the same conditions, is unacceptable. I'd have to do 36 weeks of Portugal vacations to break even! (Actually 72 weeks, since we have two lines, both requiring 144€/year more). Do you vacation that much? I most certainly don't. Normal people don't travel that much and I live in a frigging country where you drive 50km and you're outside of the country!
It doesn't change fact that I am now paying for people who travel a lot. By definition, people who travel a lot are larger earners. This means, the poor subsidize the the rich. Thank you EU.... /me rolls eyes.
So, what did happen? This regulation has been in the works for ages. Companies knew it was coming and could prepare. Where I am, the average subscription cost (including cellphone) has raised with 22% in the last four years, in a period with ~0% inflation. I gave up on that, and went a SIM-only subscription for 15€/month. For that I got 6000 units (SMS/call) nationally, and 5GB data nationally. For roaming I paid on usage. If you don't roam often: You just make sure you don't exaggerate and use Wifi when possible. My last vacation, I had a full blown 4€ roaming bill, for one week of Portugal for two lines (my wifes line and mine). That's cheap.
Now, with the regulation, my cellphone provider gave me the following options:
In summary: Option 1. gives me less for the same money. I don't know how you feel about it, but being able to call or get called when you are abroad is an essential feature of having a cellphone. I could see this plan be useful for kids and teenagers, but not for normal mobile adults. Even adults like me who do a few vacations a year and perhaps a business trip or two.
Option 2, is basically: pay more, for getting less. Sure, you might argue that I get "more" in the sense I can call EU wide, but in the day to day case, I simply pay more.
Option 3 is really just pay much much more to get exactly what I had. I mean, that's 144€ per line, per year more, simply to keep the ability to roam and have "decent" amount of data.
Now, granted, if you are the cosmopolite Eurotrotter you will be better off. Keep in mind that those people are already people who earn a better living. So, basically, this really is the "poorer" (or more frugal) people subsidizing the richer people. Incidentally, the EU Commissioners are notorious Eurotrotters. For them this is awesome. For normal people much less. I do suspect a lot of self-interest.
It really depends a lot where you live. From what I heard, France kept to the intent of the EU regulation. Not raising prices, giving everyone everything for the same price. In Germany, for example, I have heard that many subscriptions also will lose the roaming feature, basically locking people to their home country.
I am not happy at all with this regulation. Especially, that the EU Commission conceded to the telcos on many things and basically made roaming worse or more expensive for low-usage people. You can't even escape, as they made sure "permanent roaming" isn't allowed. I can't get a Polish SIM and use it permanently here in Luxembourg.
Do note that I can't even escape to other operators nationally: they all have equally bad conditions. Some even much worse than my current one. For now I negotiated with my current operator to get the 27€ plan with a 55% discount for one year. So, I hope the markets normalize and I'll have better choice in 12 months. That is just a slim hope and I suspect I'll have to start paying the insane rates in a year.
Perhaps, I'll just go to a pay as you go plan, with roaming pay as you go. That is allowed in the regulation, just not if you have packages. I'll lose data then. Data is extremely expensive with pay as you go.
The worst part is that any first year economy student could have explained these consequences to them... I can't believe that they didn't have economic advisers on their overpaid panels.
Doing AI is much harder than being an application developer. I doubt most of us would be able to switch. Good luck.
Yes, it is the last part being key. I do know that Android cellphones can be long lived, but it's never the manufacturer that is providing the software in an automated way. Going the alternative firmware way is simply not an option for non-techs.
I'm glad you get security updates for your phone. That is great, but it is in no way comparable to the iPhone 5 situation.