Apple bricks phone if not serviced by Apple
-
@Dashrender said:
I expect them to take a week,
It's been over a week since the Guardian suggested that they were not just making a plunder, but breaking the law. So they are long past the spinning on a dime point. -
@Dashrender said:
I agree that Apple has definitely taken the wrong path here - Just disabling the touch senor would have been the right thing to do (and personally completely acceptable), but I was mentioning the antenna issue because, as JB said - large corporations don't spin on a dime.
But it's extremely different. The antenna issue was just bad design. There was nothing misleading, illegal or actionable in any reasonable way. Apple needed to change engineering, manufacturing, do tests... all things that they already did once and failed. And then there were potential recalls. The issue was not something that required immediate action nor could it have one.
The issue here is that Apples decides to brick each new phone again. It's not that they've done this to a few people... it's that they are, every day, deciding to do it to new people. It's not a mistake that they made in the past, it is a current decision to keep doing it. And it isn't a mistake (not at this point, at least regardless of how it started), it's an intent. And it is almost certainly illegal in all major jurisdictions.
So different on essentially every means of comparison. If Apple wants to take a conservative approach, they stop bricking phones while they determine what is a reasonable thing to do. The issue here is that they did turn on a dime and do something quickly and are continuing to do it.
-
@scottalanmiller I had no idea it was retroactive to people who've done it in the past - that's horrendous.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I had no idea it was retroactive to people who've done it in the past - that's horrendous.
The bricking happens when you upgrade to a new IOS version regardless of when you fixed your phone.
-
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I had no idea it was retroactive to people who've done it in the past - that's horrendous.
The bricking happens when you upgrade to a new IOS version regardless of when you fixed your phone.
So you have your choice of being slowly screwed as an informed consumer or get a suprise as an uninformed consumer.
Sounds fun to me.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I had no idea it was retroactive to people who've done it in the past - that's horrendous.
Yup. All of it is retroactive, actually. Until now, now it will be for current fixes too. But as of last week, only old ones.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I had no idea it was retroactive to people who've done it in the past - that's horrendous.
The bricking happens when you upgrade to a new IOS version regardless of when you fixed your phone.
So you have your choice of being slowly screwed as an informed consumer or get a suprise as an uninformed consumer.
Sounds fun to me.
I don't understand.
If you never break your phone, or need to have the button replaced by a third party non certified Apple partner, then you have no worries. Now that doesn't mean this is a good thing, because you NEVER know when you will need to replace the glass and probably the button, and from that point on you might be screwed.
-
@Dashrender said:
If you never break your phone, or need to have the button replaced by a third party non certified Apple partner, then you have no worries. Now that doesn't mean this is a good thing, because you NEVER know when you will need to replace the glass and probably the button, and from that point on you might be screwed.
Right... so you always have worries, because you never know when that might happen. I never ever broke a phone until twice in Panama. Had I had an iPhone 6, they would have bricked me, just for fun. Thankfully I have a 5s. But I would have been that "no worries" case that should have been worried.
-
Today the company has issued an apology, along with an update that ensures Error 53 won't happen again. But there's more good news.
If you were talked into paying for an out of warranty replacement as a result of Error 53, you could be in line to get your money back. Apple says that the error came about because a test feature was accidentally made public -- it was an update that was never meant to reach customers.
Satay Sauce: http://betanews.com/2016/02/18/apple-says-sorry-for-iphone-error-53-and-issues-ios-9-2-1-update-to-fix-it/
-
@nadnerB said:
Today the company has issued an apology, along with an update that ensures Error 53 won't happen again. But there's more good news.
If you were talked into paying for an out of warranty replacement as a result of Error 53, you could be in line to get your money back. Apple says that the error came about because a test feature was accidentally made public -- it was an update that was never meant to reach customers.
Satay Sauce: http://betanews.com/2016/02/18/apple-says-sorry-for-iphone-error-53-and-issues-ios-9-2-1-update-to-fix-it/
Well, colour me impressed. I'm so happy with this and @JaredBusch was totally right for saying I was way too quick on feeling that they should do something. Well, I DO feel that they took way too long to do something, but they did the right thing!!
-
-
So...they're now admitting they're lying by saying it wasn't intentional...after saying that it WAS intentional about a week ago...so one of the two has to be a lie...
The great Apple Customer Service continues
-
@NattNatt said:
So...they're now admitting they're lying by saying it wasn't intentional...after saying that it WAS intentional about a week ago...so one of the two has to be a lie...
The great Apple Customer Service continues
Did they? I will admit I did not read many articles on this after I learned the basics. But the articles I did read, never had an actual official statement from Apple stating that.
-
-
@NattNatt said:
@JaredBusch http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/06/apple-says-iphone-error-53-is-to-protect-customers-security
Apple's statement says that TouchID and related was supposed to be disabled. Nothing in that statement directly says that it was supposed to cause Error 53 and cause the system to fail to complete or revert the iOS upgrade.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@NattNatt said:
@JaredBusch http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/06/apple-says-iphone-error-53-is-to-protect-customers-security
Apple's statement says that TouchID and related was supposed to be disabled. Nothing in that statement directly says that it was supposed to cause Error 53 and cause the system to fail to complete or revert the iOS upgrade.
but the TouchID and related were already being disabled, way before the iOS update...
-
@NattNatt said:
@JaredBusch said:
@NattNatt said:
@JaredBusch http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/06/apple-says-iphone-error-53-is-to-protect-customers-security
Apple's statement says that TouchID and related was supposed to be disabled. Nothing in that statement directly says that it was supposed to cause Error 53 and cause the system to fail to complete or revert the iOS upgrade.
but the TouchID and related were already being disabled, way before the iOS update...
Sure, and Apples new releases statement says that Error 53 was suppose to be a Factory Floor only thing.
But Apple's previous statements don't specifically say that Error 53 was intentional to be in public.
-
@Dashrender said:
@NattNatt said:
@JaredBusch said:
@NattNatt said:
@JaredBusch http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/06/apple-says-iphone-error-53-is-to-protect-customers-security
Apple's statement says that TouchID and related was supposed to be disabled. Nothing in that statement directly says that it was supposed to cause Error 53 and cause the system to fail to complete or revert the iOS upgrade.
but the TouchID and related were already being disabled, way before the iOS update...
Sure, and Apples new releases statement says that Error 53 was suppose to be a Factory Floor only thing.
But Apple's previous statements don't specifically say that Error 53 was intentional to be in public.
Hmmm, I interpreted the statement in the guardian article to say similar to that...
-
I don't know the source quote, so I'm not commenting on Apple's statement, but the Guardian definitely says that Apple said that the error itself was intentional:
"Apple has hit back at criticism of its controversial “Error 53” message on iPhones, claiming it is part of measures to protect customers’ security."
