Error53, Iphone6 is Bricked

[tulak]

So the Seattle lawyers in the first article will represent class action defendants "for free". Uh-huh.

My guess is that they'll take it on contingency and negotiate a settlement that pays them a few million $$ in fees and gives each plaintiff a $25 credit toward a new iPhone.

Yep, the vultures are circling.

 

[ls99]

Yep, the vultures are circling.

Moving right along:

Class-action suit over iPhone-bricking Error 53 filed in California | Ars Technica


On Thursday, a Seattle law firm filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. It argues that preventing iPhones with damaged TouchID buttons from working normally otherwise is "abusive," that Apple did not adequately warn consumers of problems that could arise from a damaged or replaced TouchID sensor, and that "more than 62 million units" have been affected in the US as of November 2015.

From the filed lawsuit:

"........but they pointed out to Apple representatives that nothing in marketing materials or purchase documents ever disclosed that their iPhone products would be destroyed by an imbedded software code if they had repaired iPhones using an independent service and then updated to certain iOS versions............"

 

[hnzw_rui]

From the filed lawsuit:

"........but they pointed out to Apple representatives that nothing in marketing materials or purchase documents ever disclosed that their iPhone products would be destroyed by an imbedded software code if they had repaired iPhones using an independent service and then updated to certain iOS versions............"

Actually, I do believe this is covered in the Terms of Service that everyone agrees to but no one ever reads (likely under unauthorized third party modifications).

 

[ls99]

Actually, I do believe this is covered in the Terms of Service that everyone agrees to but no one ever reads (likely under unauthorized third party modifications).

If true could you provide a link to that part of TOS?

I do not mind being beaten over the head with ugly facts destroying beautiful theories.

It is reasonable to expect that class action filing lawyers would have found that relevant liittle tidbit. Me thinks automakers found out the hard way that locking customers into dealer service only is not a good idea.

 

[ERD50]

Actually, I do believe this is covered in the Terms of Service that everyone agrees to but no one ever reads (likely under unauthorized third party modifications).

I can see where lawyers will be performing surgery in just what these words mean:

Apple - Legal

This Warranty does not apply: .... (f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”);

I'd say it is clear and perfectly reasonable and expected that Apple isn't responsible if you had a third party replace your home button, and they damaged your phone in the process (let's say they broke a PC board connection, or the case), or if that home button just didn't work properly.

But was the damage (bricking) that people are upset about caused by the third party, or caused by Apple? Since there was no apparent problem UNTIL users ran an Apple software upgrade, I think lawyers will have a good case that it was APPLE that caused the damage. We will see.

Either way, this is bad PR for Apple - they should bend over backwards to make this right for customers, IMO. And add appropriate warnings regarding security issues.

-ERD50

 

[photoguy]

How many phones are actually impacted?


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[ls99]

How many phones are actually impacted?


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

See post 52. about 62 million, per article linked.

 

[hnzw_rui]

See post 52. about 62 million, per article linked.

Doesn't mean that's how many phones were actually affected by the upgrade. That number's probably just based on sales figures. I doubt there are 62 million iPhones with faulty TouchID buttons who got them replaced by a 3rd party.

Mind, if it's a genuine hardware problem that caused the bricking and the phone wasn't modified or tampered with in anyway, Apple will likely be willing to replace it through Apple Care warranty (or OOW replacement).

 

[photoguy]

Yes. I am interested in knowing how many phones are bricked. Not how many potentially could be bricked.

News articles mention "thousands" but provide no support other than a relevant webpage got something like 200k hits. As we know hits are a terrible measure of pretty much everything (except for hits). If anything, having 200k hits would suggest to me that the problem is tiny.

Mind, if it's a genuine hardware problem that caused the bricking and the phone wasn't modified or tampered with in anyway, Apple will likely be willing to replace it through Apple Care warranty (or OOW replacement).

This appears to be the case (free replacement by apple) as reported here:
What is Error 53 and why did it kill my iPhone?

The person's phone (6+) would still be under warranty. It's not clear if apple would still replace it if it was an older phone and applecare expired.

 

[explanade]

Of course the lawyers are going to make it sound worse than it is.

It's one thing for them to get replacements for clients.

But you know they're going to get millions while the customers get nominal fees which probably won't cover the cost of replacement.

 

[tulak]

Problem solved: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/new-ios-9-2-1-build-will-un-brick-iphones-affected-by-error-53/

Apple is also reimbursing affected customers who paid for a replacement iPhone.

 

[harley]

Problem solved: New iOS 9.2.1 build will un-brick iPhones affected by Error 53 | Ars Technica

Apple is also reimbursing affected customers who paid for a replacement iPhone.

Nicely done, assuming it works (without unintended consequences). I'm an AAPL stockholder, as well as an occasional user. I'm not particularly for or against Apple, other than their stock price. But this seems a fairly elegant solution for the problem.

 

[ERD50]

Nicely done, assuming it works (without unintended consequences). I'm an AAPL stockholder, as well as an occasional user. I'm not particularly for or against Apple, other than their stock price. But this seems a fairly elegant solution for the problem.

Yes, this is what some of us suggested earlier - disable the fingerprint access if it fails the security checks, but the phone should be left operational otherwise.

edit/add: I'm also glad to see that Apple is resolving this, rather than a bunch of lawyers make $$$$ while the affected parties get a $5 discount coupon.

further edit/add: I don't think this fix is deserving of the adjective 'elegant'. I'd say it was the obvious fix, and how it should have been from the start. If you read between the lines from Apple, it appears that they now admit the error53 was an unintended result of their internal test/verification code, and that it should have acted as described - disable the fingerprint access, but continue to work normally otherwise.

Minor point, but - I'll also say that this definition of 'bricked' does not match the one I'm used to hearing. When we spoke of a 'bricked' device, it was a goner. Not something that could be revived from software. Depending on how big a deal security was on the device, you might not even to be able to revive it with a hardware swap out of a component - the secure boot code would see a mismatch with other components on the board, and abort. Only if you replaced all involved components (CPU, RAM, ROM, key I/O), and then started it in the mode that allowed it to learn all its related keys (or maybe these were one-time-programmed - I'm fuzzy on the details now, and this was a while ago), could you revive that board. But it was easier to scrap it and start with a new one at that point. It wouldn't retain any of its previous data, so really not much point in it.


I wonder if MP still feels this action from Apple is a security risk (post #40 & #43)?

-ERD50

 

[dvalley]

x10 - this is a more logical solution as a few previously suggested here rather than turning a $600 device in a doorstop. Finally, Apple has come to their senses and hopefully those here too who were adamant that Apple's bricking solution was the one and only logical response to aftermarket repair! God that was getting under my skin as I read through this thread especially being in IT security and knowing a few things about encryption algorithms and how fingerprint scanners work. Heck fingerprint chips on laptops have been around for 10+ years, sure glad IBM/Lenovo/HP weren't bricking those laptops.

 

[ls99]

The obvious fix, Which shoulda been the right way to go to start with. There is some hope for apple yet. No gold star atta boy.

As is often said, one "aw $hit" effectively wipes out one thousand attaboys

 

[athena53]

Good solution but it reminds me of the TurboTax fiasco last year. Do something crappy, make some poor spokesperson explain it away when there's outrage and bad publicity, then back down when people don't accept the explanation.