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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |