Apple Taken To Court For Refusing To Fix Devices (bbc.com) 130
Australia's consumer watchdog has begun legal action against Apple over claims it refused to repair iPads and iPhones previously serviced by third parties. From a report on BBC: It alleges that Apple made "false, misleading, or deceptive representations" about consumers' rights under Australian law. The case follows complaints that users were "routinely refused" repairs after an error disabled their devices. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) began an investigation after users complained about Apple's so-called "error 53", which disabled some users' devices after they downloaded an update to their operating system.
Apple's Response (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What they really need to be taken to court over is what they did to the iPad one - obsoleting it within just a couple of years, long before the hardware was "worn out" or even outdated. The OS "upgrades" and mandatory update of all the apps turned the iPad one into a virtual paperweight. A $700 paperweight, less than 3 years after purchase.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Apple's Response (Score:5, Funny)
I wasn't aware that there was an iPad before the 1st generation one. WTF are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the iPad ecosystem is that the apps (that we cared about) are "cloud connected" so you have to upgrade them to the latest versions to continue to access the cloud content. The content hasn't changed, but the "upgraded" OS required to run the "updated" apps (which, themselves often do little more than deliver a video from a website), bogged the iPad One down to unusability.
To clarify, this is the original iPad released in 2010, the nice big heavy one with the screen that never cracked, the
Re: (Score:3)
The 1st generation iPad was discontinued less than a year after it was released, then Apple stopped the OS updates only a year after that. Now it's stuck with iOS 5 while all later iPads run iOS 9 or 10.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPad 2 shipped just three weeks shy of one year from when the iPad 1 shipped - nothing unusual about a 1 year upgrade cycle. It initially shipped with iOS 3.2 and continued to receive updates for several years through iOS 5.1.1. The primary reason it did not receive further iOS updates was that there was only 256MB of ram, not enough to run iOS 6 or later.
Re: (Score:2)
The updates it did receive were enough to make the iPad one virtually useless.
Re: (Score:1)
I had an iPad 1, the updates made it far from useless.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you mean "worse than".
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, I mean exactly what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people get off on their wives bearing them, that doesn't mean everyone enjoys painful experiences. My iPad one went in the trash heap after turning into a slow barely functional piece of shit after an update. Devices wait on me not the other way round.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you. Our iPad one was used by our elementary school children. Updates to the OS and apps made things as simple as "Brain Pop" stop functioning.
You can blame the app authors for abandoning iPad one support - they were out there supporting it in 2010 and 2011 - but, without Apple driving the "ecosystem" ever forward, the app authors could have left their apps as they were, functioning wonderfully, until about 2013. After that, virtually everything we used crawled to a useless halt - including Safa
Re: (Score:2)
In a school environment, I am surprised you did not pursue this dysfunction against Apple as hard as possible, collectively across as many schools as possible. Clearly this failure by Apple should have been broadcast loud and wide, to protect others and seek a more reasonable outcome for yourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
This was our personal device, and we have better things to do with our time...
Lots of schools did get iPad ones when they came out, I imagine Apple made them "good deals" on new mini replacements. After our 2nd mini bit the dust, an Apple rep comped us a new one - as if we had paid the AppleCare, though we hadn't.
Re: (Score:1)
The iPad 2 shipped just three weeks shy of one year from when the iPad 1 shipped - nothing unusual about a 1 year upgrade cycle. It initially shipped with iOS 3.2 and continued to receive updates for several years through iOS 5.1.1. The primary reason it did not receive further iOS updates was that there was only 256MB of ram, not enough to run iOS 6 or later.
Wrong.
The iPad 2 was supported to the end of iOS 9, which just happened late 2016. In fact, the iPad 2 on which I am typing this is actually running the last rev. Of iOS 9 (9,3,5, IIRC). That's 5 years of OS Updates, for those who are paying attention.
Re: Apple's Response (Score:1)
I was talking about the iPad 1, not the iPad 2. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Re: (Score:1)
The iPod Video holds the record. Superceded three months after introduction, the only firmware update it ever got was to add some more DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but if I wanted to play like that, I'd buy Kindle Fires for 1/3 the price and jailbreak them...
Re: (Score:2)
You're repairing it wrong.
In some cases, that's exactly the problem... doubly so if the 3rd-party repair shop uses gray-market, eBay-sourced, or similarly dodgy parts to fix it. Also note that the 3rd-party repair shop may or may not (likely not) have sufficient training and knowledge of how the things are put together. Sure, some of them have former Apple employees of sufficient training or such working there, but I doubt that they all do.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the parts themselves were fine. Likely the same sensors as the OEM used -- they had to be pin-compatible.
The problem with the Error 53 is that they randomly decided in an update to activate the Brick Me mode if it didn't have some DRM code built into the fingerprint scanner. Why they didn't have this to begin with, or why did they disable the whole OS instead of just the fingerprint scanner? Probably to fuck with the 3rd party fixers (the noobs who don't know would think the 3rd party repairer
Re: (Score:2)
How are we even supposed to repair anything if everything is glued down? In Macs even components like CPU and RAM are soldered to the motherboard.
Re: (Score:2)
How are we even supposed to repair anything if everything is glued down? In Macs even components like CPU and RAM are soldered to the motherboard.
By replacing the motherboard. It's not glued into the case, glued to the battery, or glued to the keyboard.
What you are complaining about is not the inability to replace parts, it's the granularity.
You want to replace components *on* the motherboard.
You're actually able to do this... you just need some pretty expensive and specialized equipment to do it; you do own a reflow oven and an ultrasonic soldering jig, right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They probably are. I worked for a Motorola car phone repair shop in 1993, and a lot of the previously repaired phones we tried to fix were simply ruined by repairs at crappy unauthorized places. Most commonly, they'd break tabs on the plastic taking it apart then superglue it back together or bad connections that were improperly disconnected.
Apple has never been consumer friendly (Score:4, Interesting)
They are more like a boyfriend who is really good looking but kind of an asshole when you really get to know him.
Re: Apple has never been consumer friendly (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't figure that Apple doesn't have a small army of technicians refurbishing returned equipment because they have long lead times for warranty replacements?
If they were "sold out for months" my guess is that it's even more likely your device was replaced by a refurbished unit, likely built from serviceable parts from multiple returned units by some technician/contractor who has minimal training and equipment. If the units are hard to obtain new, you can bet they are likely to be refurbishing them as fast as they can for warranty claims.
But what difference does it make? You apparently got a serviceable unit for your replacement and Apple honored the warranty on the replacement. That's what they said they would do.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't figure that Apple doesn't have a small army of technicians refurbishing returned equipment because they have long lead times for warranty replacements?
If they were "sold out for months" my guess is that it's even more likely your device was replaced by a refurbished unit, likely built from serviceable parts from multiple returned units by some technician/contractor who has minimal training and equipment. If the units are hard to obtain new, you can bet they are likely to be refurbishing them as fast as they can for warranty claims.
But what difference does it make? You apparently got a serviceable unit for your replacement and Apple honored the warranty on the replacement. That's what they said they would do.
Most businesses create parts as well as the units so they have replacements right off the bat. Unless it's a touch screen issue the delays are due to demand for the overall unit.
Re: (Score:2)
True.. But the post claimed the new units had been "out of stock" for months, obviously Apple undershot demand with their build capacity for new units, which implies they had some kind of limit in their production. This would also imply a limited parts supply, because you don't want parts sitting in inventory for long. A manufacturer like Apple would be prioritizing their parts inventory to build as many new units as possible to meet sales demand first and then meet warranty repairs second. Sales is wher
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple replaces my device with one that works just as well, why should I care if it's new or refurbished? I'd care about badly refurbished, but if I can't tell it isn't new I don't care.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? They replaced my iPod that was over 1100 days out of warranty for nothing. HP wouldn't replace a system board that was replaced under warranty less than 6 months earlier. Guess why I stopped buying HP laptops and guess who has my business today? BTW, my 2800 USD MBP outlasted my 2500 USD HP laptop four fold and is still chugging away today with no issues.
I know I'm a single case but if my MPB fritzed on me today guess where I'd be going for my new laptop?
Re: (Score:2)
Was your iPod affected by a recall that was forced under threat of suit / government action? (I'm guessing: Yes.)
Was your HP laptop? (I'm guessing: No, but it should have been.)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is actually quite consumer friendly.
Repairmen aren't consumers. They aren't very repairman friendly, outside repairmen who go through their authorization process.
It's like a building that's friendly to general contractors and union construction workers, but has no tolerance for the average "handyman" or the truckload of "sheetrock people" you pick up at the Home Depot parking lot at 7:30 AM to work for you for one day.
Re: (Score:2)
They are more like a boyfriend who is really good looking but kind of an asshole when you really get to know him.
Apple is more like the woman who conforms perfectly to the Vougue/Cosmo image of feminine beauty (stupidly thin and coated in make up), but has an eating disorder and a full cavalcade of mental and anger control issues.
Google is the cute clued in girl who tells her friends everything about you, including that mole you have just above your arse.
Microsoft is the ugly girl, but is so desperate she'll let anyone do anything to her.
Re: (Score:1)
Only applicable where the law permits Apple, MS, etc... to use such wordage, ie the U.S.. In the rest of the world, where people and governments are civilized, ie outside the U.S.. Consumers are protected from such corruption. Those consumers, actually own their products they purchased or were transferred ownership.
Re:Apple "Sales" Are Not Sell To Own! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. iPhones were just bricking themselves if unauthorised third party repairs are made. Only stopped due to bad publicity.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, in the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Doesn't apply here since the damage voided the warranty in the first place.
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
Actually your quote doesn't apply here as the damage wasn't caused by the 4rd party repair. Apple simply charged money "IF" any 3rd party repair work had been done which is in direct violation of the laws around consumer protection.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you appear to be the RIGHT MORON.
Firstly, damage does not void a device warranty, only on the part that is damaged (if you break the usb connector, the screen will almost certainly still be covered by warranty for example).
Secondly, really? you checked ALL these cases? made sure the refusal to repair was on warranty voiding damage? Thats quite impressive as this case is about a large number of cases.
In other works, stop shilling you moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Ink's user license agreement has nothing to do with ownership.
Apple Ink does not confer ownership of any of its products. Apple Ink retains ownership of all its products after sell. The buyer only buys the user license agreement document, nothing more.
Therefore, if Apple Ink does not want to fix a product, it is well within its ownership of the product to do nothing.
Ha ha
Prove it.
Case law says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually have a source for that? I have bought numerous Apple products, and have never been told such a thing. Nor have I ever seen it in a EULA (and I do occasionally read them all the way through). In the US, an exchange of a thing for money, without further ado, is generally considered a sale.
Re: Issue in USA too! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, back when I bought Apple products I never even SAW the EULA until after I'd paid for it. And they altered the EULA in a "Security update" to something I found unacceptable.
Since then I haven't bought or recommended any Apple products. And I'm not likely to unless they make a legally binding promise to never alter the EULA of something that is purchased from them. Even then I probably wouldn't because enforcing the "legally binding promise" isn't cheap or easy, and I wouldn't trust them to keep the
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is Apple not allowing third-party repairs? TFS says they refuse to repair devices that already have third-party repairs. Not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So, your next phone will be from Apple, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dodgy logic (Score:1)
So, they broke their iPhone. Then, to try to get it fixed on the cheap, they voided the warranty by taking it to an iFixit shop where it was repaired using unauthorized parts of unknown quality and suitability that turned out to be incompatible with an OS upgrade they knew was bound to happen. And now the complaint is Apple won't fix it after the unauthorized fix which voided the warranty. This is compounded by the reality that if Apple were to do the fix, the cost of the repair would probably be more than
Re:Dodgy logic (Score:5, Insightful)
they voided the warranty by taking it to an iFixit shop
No matter what their TOS says, that's illegal. See Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org] in the US.
turned out to be incompatible with an OS upgrade they knew was bound to happen
Incompatible = Apple deciding to block fingerprint readers with a different ID than originally came with the phone. A security move that only makes sense during the initial design - not when done after the phone is out there. It was a valid repair and the iPhone offers no way to pair with a new fingerprint reader except by Apple (which is just as bad as putting a chip on a printer cartridge and should be illegal).
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about to easily prevent hacking via the fingerprint sensor?
Consider this scenario - FBI
Re: (Score:3)
The PIN is more secure than fingerprints - fingerprints are everywhere. All it takes is requiring the PIN to pair a new fingerprint sensor.
In fact, the FBI has no trouble getting fingerprints - what they have trouble with is bypassing the PIN.
There's no such thing as an "unauthorized repair shop." They're just repair shops. Apple calling theirs "Authorized" does nothing to de-legitimize repair shops. Do you think the only place to get your car repaired is the dealer? Or do you take your car to an "unau
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Whilst it's not exactly clear in the summary, consumers aren't taking Apple to court, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is, which is a government funded body. As far as I know they rarely lose too, especially high profile cases.
Australians have strong consumer protections allowing us to actually own the device we purchase to do with that we will, ignore vendor warranty length and use a reasonable expectation on both cost and expected lifetime of product. That is if an Apple phone is
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it was repaired using unauthorized parts of unknown quality and suitability that turned out to be incompatible with an OS upgrade they knew was bound to happen.
I see what you're doing there. Maybe you should work in Apple's PR or something.
You make it sound obvious that they should know an update would brick the device, for having 'unauthorised' parts. Not so.
Re: (Score:2)
They should know that an update might be incompatible with parts of unknown quality, suitability, and source. The OS is designed to work on unmodified Apple devices. One of Apple's advantages is being able to design for a limited hardware range, and they use that. After you get dodgy repairs on a device like that, your best move is to refuse any OS updates.
Re: (Score:2)
they voided the warranty by taking it to an iFixit shop
This is factually incorrect.
In the US, a warranty cannot be voided due to third-party repairs.
If the third-party damages anything, those damaged components are ineligible for warranty repairs just as if the owner had damaged them. But absent any damage to the item, warranty coverage remains.
Manufacturers may authorize certain shops to perform work under their warranty and refuse to cover expenses for unauthorized work, but they cannot refuse coverage to items simply because they have been repaired elsewhere
They are working as designed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They aren't broke. They are designed to work that way, so we can't fix them.
Wrong. It's a Security Feature.
Error 53 is what happens when you don't transfer the Home button from an original display/digitizer assembly to the new digitizer/display assembly, and cause a mismatch between the serial number for the home button's controller that is written to the SoC at product manufacture. Apple can reconcile that; but won't, for obvious reasons (because someone could then steal your phone, replace the Home button which has THEIR fingerprint stored in it, and then break into your phone.
So
Re: (Score:3)
And if an end user breaks the home button and knows their PIN (which is more secure than a fingerprint), then they should be able to replace that. Apple put that roadblock end only for their own bottom line.
Re: (Score:1)
And if an end user breaks the home button and knows their PIN (which is more secure than a fingerprint), then they should be able to replace that. Apple put that roadblock end only for their own bottom line.
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Great argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Great argument.
It is the only one needed.
Touch Disease (Score:5, Informative)
If your phone has the "touch disease" Apple will admit its their fault and fix it for you for $149. Of course you get a refurbished board and minimal warranty. Apple cheapened up the phone and didn't solder a metal shield to the board that reinforced against flexing. Now they used some foil tape as a shield. However 3rd party companies will fix it the right way, reflow the chip and solder on a shield. They even offer a better warranty than Apple!
Re: (Score:2)
If your phone has the "touch disease" Apple will admit its their fault and fix it for you for $149.
If they are admitting fault then why are they charging you for the repair?
Re: (Score:1)
Because Apple sheep will pay it and thank the ghost of Steve Jobs for the privilege.
Re: (Score:1)
If your phone has the "touch disease" Apple will admit its their fault and fix it for you for $149. Of course you get a refurbished board and minimal warranty. Apple cheapened up the phone and didn't solder a metal shield to the board that reinforced against flexing. Now they used some foil tape as a shield. However 3rd party companies will fix it the right way, reflow the chip and solder on a shield. They even offer a better warranty than Apple!
This wasn't that. Error 53 is the "Unrecognized Touch ID" error, from changing the Home Button. And it is fully intentional as an anti-theft/anti-breaking-in deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
The touch disease is flashing grey bars at the top of the screen and the screen stops responding while this is going on. Flexing the phone slightly makes it go away.
Re: (Score:1)
The touch disease is flashing grey bars at the top of the screen and the screen stops responding while this is going on. Flexing the phone slightly makes it go away.
I thought TFS mentioned "53". What does the "touch disease" (a/k/a "de-balling", which many other devices have also suffered from) have to do with Error 53?
Re: (Score:2)
Error 53 has to do with replacing the touch sensor. They have encryption built in and can't be moved from one phone to another. You can replace the button itself without a sensor but swapping from a parts phone gives error 53.
Re: (Score:1)
Error 53 has to do with replacing the touch sensor. They have encryption built in and can't be moved from one phone to another. You can replace the button itself without a sensor but swapping from a parts phone gives error 53.
I know that. Read the thread. The person above my post started talking about "Touch Disease", which has nothing to do with the Error 53 lawsuit TFA is about.
Which is what I was pointing-out.
Re: (Score:2)
If your phone has the "touch disease" Apple will admit its their fault and fix it for you for $149.
So Apple admits its a design flaw... And Apple users still have to pay to have it fixed.
Man, you guys have been whipped.
disgusting (Score:1)
Basically Apple never wants any iDevice repaired, they just want you to keep buying the latest, newest version.
Re: disgusting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, thank you. NOT. You cannot defy governmental consumer-protection regulations by writing onerous license agreements. Not successfully. The laws which society settles on rule.
Do you suppose some low-life corporation could get away with selling you something cheap as long as it sticks you with an "agreement" that you forfeit your life for organ harvesting as of one year post-sale?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think all those "fixit" shops were buying their parts from Apple? Apple only sells to authorize service persons, and they only sell to them because they have been trained in proper repair techniques.
They're not buying stolen parts, if that's what you're implying. There is more than enough demand for 3rd parties to manufacture replacement Apple parts. I just bought a brand new replacement LCD for an iPhone 6 for all of $25.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not buying stolen parts, if that's what you're implying. There is more than enough demand for 3rd parties to manufacture replacement Apple parts. I just bought a brand new replacement LCD for an iPhone 6 for all of $25.
Given that Apple has a vertical monopoly on between 6 and 11 parts for each of their devices, you either bought a use part, likely from a stolen iPhone, or you bought a new part, stolen from the factory that makes the parts exclusively for Apple, or you bout a part that was from a repair center (and either it's a repair center which is violating its contract with Apple not to sell parts to third parties, or it was stolen from the repair center).
Apple intentionally controls the market to prevent "third shift
Re: (Score:3)
The touch sensor is tied to the CPU.
That's all the "error 53" issue is.
It's intentionally tied so that some asshole who steals you iPhone, and then parts it out on eBay for grey market repairs now has a worthless piece of junk.
This discourages assholes like that from stealing your iPhone in the first place, because they can maybe sell the battery and a couple of other parts ... and that's it.
Do you think all those "fixit" shops were buying their parts from Apple? Apple only sells to authorize service persons, and they only sell to them because they have been trained in proper repair techniques.
Can someone figure out how to repair something with no training? Probably. But that won't cause Apple to sell them legitimate replacement parts.
Electronics aren't some mystical voodoo that just works. Many parts such as the home button can be disassembled and duplicated. They don't need access to Apple to make replacement parts for these items that work just fine. It's Apple that added software deterrents to using after market parts by implementing proprietary codes to their parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Electronics aren't some mystical voodoo that just works. Many parts such as the home button can be disassembled and duplicated. They don't need access to Apple to make replacement parts for these items that work just fine. It's Apple that added software deterrents to using after market parts by implementing proprietary codes to their parts.
The Home button is cryptographically tied to the CPU.
Good luck making a home button ripped out of another iPhone correctly identify itself without having the correct cryrptographic codes. It'll work as a button; it won't work as a fingerprint unlock.
Re: (Score:2)
The point your missing is it didnt work as a button, it bricked the phone.
The "error 53" display was turned off in the next update.
The phone isn't bricked. "Bricked" means that it's no longer usable as a phone.
Although if your only way in was the fingerprint sensor, because you didn't also set a passcode: that's a problem for you, but it's fixed with a factory reset.
Re: (Score:1)
You are suggesting that the entire market of screen replacement and phone repair shops are all only using stolen parts?
No, of course not.
There are also parts provided to Apple authorized repair centers. By Apple. And there are iPhones which are legitimately parted out, after having been purchased legally for that purpose.
It's only the many of third party repair places that are using stolen parts. Not all of them.