A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Australia suing Apple over bricked iPhones



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 11th 17, 01:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Australia suing Apple over bricked iPhones

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.


they don't have a case at all. the error 53 issue was a bug that was
fixed in a later system update. the problem has already been solved.


There seems to be much more to it than just error 53. According to the
article cited by the OP:

"The regulator is accusing the U.S. tech giant of violating
consumers' rights by refusing to service certain iPhones and iPads
that were disabled by a software update."


and later un-disabled by a software update.

... and those certain iPhones and iPads were those which

"Through the software update, Apple effectively "bricked" devices
repaired by third parties and then "refused to look at or service"
them,".


not only did apple *not* refuse to look at or service the affected
devices, but they remedied the shutdown issue (they weren't bricked).

In other words Apple were discriminating against those devices which
had previously been repaired by other than Apple.


nonsense.

It is the
discrimination which is the offence, not the error 53. There may be a
very good reason for the discrimination but Apple will have to prove
this in court.


there is no discrimination.

apple has *zero* obligation to fix devices that are broken by a random
repair shop, particularly one who lacks the training and equipment to
properly do the repair.

if the user opened up the phone and ****ed it up, the same would apply.
  #12  
Old April 11th 17, 04:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Australia suing Apple over bricked iPhones

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:58:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.

they don't have a case at all. the error 53 issue was a bug that was
fixed in a later system update. the problem has already been solved.


There seems to be much more to it than just error 53. According to the
article cited by the OP:

"The regulator is accusing the U.S. tech giant of violating
consumers' rights by refusing to service certain iPhones and iPads
that were disabled by a software update."


and later un-disabled by a software update.

... and those certain iPhones and iPads were those which

"Through the software update, Apple effectively "bricked" devices
repaired by third parties and then "refused to look at or service"
them,".


not only did apple *not* refuse to look at or service the affected
devices, but they remedied the shutdown issue (they weren't bricked).

In other words Apple were discriminating against those devices which
had previously been repaired by other than Apple.


nonsense.


The ACCC seems to believe the evidence is otherwise.

It is the
discrimination which is the offence, not the error 53. There may be a
very good reason for the discrimination but Apple will have to prove
this in court.


there is no discrimination.

apple has *zero* obligation to fix devices that are broken by a random
repair shop, particularly one who lacks the training and equipment to
properly do the repair.

if the user opened up the phone and ****ed it up, the same would apply.


I would be surprised if that was what has been happening. I understand
the situation to be:

1. Joe Bloggs breaks the screen on his iDevice.

2. Joe Bloggs takes his device to XXXFixers who repair the iDevice.

At this point there are two choices.
A. The iDevice does not work in which case Joe Bloggs does not
pay XXXFixers but mutters a curse and throws his iDevice
away. In this case the software which gives rise to error 53
will never be loaded and Joe Bloggs will never know that his
iDevice has been bricked. Accordingly he will never take it
to Apple to have error 53 dealt with and Apple will never
refuse to repair it.
or B. The iDevice works in which case Joe Bloggs pays XXXFixers and
goes on happily using his iDevice until it is bricked by
error 53.

We can forget about case A and from what little I have read the ACCC
charges arise from people whose circumstances are as in case B.
Continuing:

3. Joe Bloggs takes his bricked iDevice to Apple and says "My
iDevice has stopped working after the last update and tells
me 'error 53'. Can you fix it for me please."

4. Apple looks at the iDevice and says "Naughty, naughty! You
have had someone other than Apple undertake repairs on your
iDevice so we will not undertake any work on it for you."

So Apple will not carry out repairs on an iDevice which has been
worked on by others, even if the repair is for a fault which has no
connection with the cause of the previous repair. (I don't know that
this is the case. I am just assuming that is the case from what I have
read about the matter).

I further assume that the ACC will be asking Apple to justify a broad
ban on the repair of iDevices which have been apparently successfully
repaired by others.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #13  
Old April 11th 17, 05:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Australia suing Apple over bricked iPhones

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


In other words Apple were discriminating against those devices which
had previously been repaired by other than Apple.


nonsense.


The ACCC seems to believe the evidence is otherwise.


they can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true.

anyone who looks at the facts in the case rather than repeat the same
old anti-apple mantra can clearly see that there is no discrimination
whatsoever.

It is the
discrimination which is the offence, not the error 53. There may be a
very good reason for the discrimination but Apple will have to prove
this in court.


there is no discrimination.

apple has *zero* obligation to fix devices that are broken by a random
repair shop, particularly one who lacks the training and equipment to
properly do the repair.

if the user opened up the phone and ****ed it up, the same would apply.


I would be surprised if that was what has been happening.


then prepare to be surprised.

I understand
the situation to be:

1. Joe Bloggs breaks the screen on his iDevice.

2. Joe Bloggs takes his device to XXXFixers who repair the iDevice.


....without having done his due diligence in determining if xxxfixers
are qualified to fix it.

had he done so, he'd have learned that they are not qualified, and if
he hired them anyway, it's entirely his fault.

At this point there are two choices.


there's more than two choices.

A. The iDevice does not work in which case Joe Bloggs does not
pay XXXFixers but mutters a curse and throws his iDevice
away. In this case the software which gives rise to error 53
will never be loaded and Joe Bloggs will never know that his
iDevice has been bricked. Accordingly he will never take it
to Apple to have error 53 dealt with and Apple will never
refuse to repair it.
or B. The iDevice works in which case Joe Bloggs pays XXXFixers and
goes on happily using his iDevice until it is bricked by
error 53.


or c. xxxfixers informs joe that that the repair requires special
equipment they do not have along with training that they have
not received, therefore they are not qualified to perform the
repair. xxxfixers further informs joe that they can still
replace the display, but without re-pairing the touchid
sensor, there will be problems later on.

or d. joe contacts apple to have the phone properly repaired, and in
some cases, it's done without charge.

We can forget about case A and from what little I have read the ACCC
charges arise from people whose circumstances are as in case B.


keep reading.

what you're missing is that xxxfixers claimed that they could fix the
phone when in reality they could not, thereby misleading the customer.

joe was not told the entire story and therefore made a bad decision
based on inaccurate and misleading information given to him by a third
party. that ain't apple's fault.

Continuing:

3. Joe Bloggs takes his bricked iDevice to Apple and says "My
iDevice has stopped working after the last update and tells
me 'error 53'. Can you fix it for me please."

4. Apple looks at the iDevice and says "Naughty, naughty! You
have had someone other than Apple undertake repairs on your
iDevice so we will not undertake any work on it for you."


nope.

apple stated that the error 53 issue was actually an error on their
part and soon issued a firmware fix that resolved the issue.

that still leaves the faulty repair, which apple will fix, but for a
fee, since any warranty is now void.

So Apple will not carry out repairs on an iDevice which has been
worked on by others, even if the repair is for a fault which has no
connection with the cause of the previous repair. (I don't know that
this is the case. I am just assuming that is the case from what I have
read about the matter).


keep reading.

apple will fix it but it won't be free.

I further assume that the ACC will be asking Apple to justify a broad
ban on the repair of iDevices which have been apparently successfully
repaired by others.


they *haven't* been successfully repaired by others. they *can't* be
repaired by others.

only apple can re-pair the touch id sensor with the secure enclave and
that ain't going to change. allowing third parties to do that would
compromise the security of every ios device, which is simply not going
to happen. ever.

a similar thing happened with the fbi, who tried to sue apple to add a
back door to ios. apple said no ****ing way.

the fbi soon realized that they were about to have their asses handed
to them with a precedent opposite to what they wanted, so they quickly
backed down. then they suddenly 'found a way' to unlock the phone,
despite claiming under oath that they 'exhausted all options' and 'only
apple could unlock it', both of which turned out to be false and known
to the fbi as false when they said it. lying under oath is not a good
legal strategy.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chinese horrors. Apple suing Amazon retailer for selling fake Apple products Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 2 October 21st 16 09:19 AM
Sleazy scam (using desperate for money, CNN!) to flog Apple iPhones Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 60 October 11th 15 07:25 AM
GPS/iPhones/Lightroom John McWilliams Digital Photography 3 June 25th 09 07:17 PM
Texas suing slime pit store in Brooklyn RichA[_3_] Digital Photography 3 December 1st 08 07:24 AM
Texas suing slime pit store in Brooklyn RichA[_3_] Digital SLR Cameras 3 December 1st 08 07:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.