Apple is violating Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 with 'Error 53'

[illegaloperation]

Of course. Said person owns the product, so said person can do with it what they want.

That doesn't mean Apple should always go out of their way to accommodate them after they have made said choice.

I changed the battery on my car. I came back and found my car locked and disabled. Toyota said that it was done for security reason because my non-Toyota approved battery hasn't been tested (by Toyota) and could potentially explode.

Maybe attitudes towards these sorts of issues are greatly different across the pond.

No kidding! Not everyone can or want to go to Apple every time there is a problem with his/her iPhone.

 

[C DM]

I changed the battery on my car. I came back and found my car locked and disabled. Toyota said that it was done for security reason because my non-Toyota approved battery hasn't been tested (by Toyota) and could potentially explode.



No kidding! Not everyone can or want to go to Apple every time there is a problem with his/her iPhone.

As far as car analogies go, it seems the one mentioned at https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-button-repairs.1954696/page-29#post-22546351 is more appropriate.

 

[Borin]

I changed the battery on my car. I came back and found my car locked and disabled. Toyota said that it was done for security reason because my non-Toyota approved battery hasn't been tested (by Toyota) and could potentially explode.

Is it not Toyota's responsibility to ensure that the car is safe?

No kidding! Not everyone can or want to go to Apple every time there is a problem with his/her iPhone.

I am neither able, nor wish to, go to Apple every time there is a problem with my iPhone. That's why things like carrier cover exist to replace my phone at the first sign of trouble. Is there absolutely no alternative to Apple's cover? And is there absolutely no way to get your phone to Apple without having to physically carry it into a store?

Are you genuinely railroaded into a choice between going to an Apple store, or doing it entirely by yourself?

 

[illegaloperation]

As far as car analogies go, it seems the one mentioned at https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-button-repairs.1954696/page-29#post-22546351 is more appropriate.

Not sure which post you are referring to.

Is it not Toyota's responsibility to ensure that the car is safe?

If I install some aftermarket battery and it gave me third degree burns, Toyota is not responsible.

I am neither able, nor wish to, go to Apple every time there is a problem with my iPhone. That's why things like carrier cover exist to replace my phone at the first sign of trouble. Is there absolutely no alternative to Apple's cover? And is there absolutely no way to get your phone to Apple without having to physically carry it into a store?

Are you genuinely railroaded into a choice between going to an Apple store, or doing it entirely by yourself?

Don't turn this into a straw man argument.

It is within my rights to repair my own property or have whoever I want repair my property.

What other options I have is irrelevant to this argument.

Apple has no right to render my property useless because it doesn't like what I am using.

If Apple doesn't like it, then Apple should be in the business of leasing iPhones rather than selling iPhones.

 

[C DM]

Not sure which post you are referring to.



If I install some aftermarket battery and it gave me third degree burns, Toyota is not responsible.



Don't turn this into a straw man argument.

It is within my rights to repair my own property or have whoever I want repair my property.

What other options I have is irrelevant to this argument.

Apple has no right to render my property useless because it doesn't like what I am using.

If Apple doesn't like it, then Apple should be in the business of leasing iPhones rather than selling iPhones.

Should be https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-button-repairs.1954696/page-28#post-22546351 (I guess some posts in that thread got removed and that shifted the other posts).

 

[Mr_Brightside_@]

Apple has denied service to iPhones repaired by a third party since day one.
Nothing will come of this.

 

[AronDraws]

I'm not sure if the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 applies to this case. Reason being is that act is meant for "regular" parts so to speak. Apple is bricking iPhone's with replaced (3rd party or form another iPhone) TouchID home buttons. TouchID is a security feature so the closest car equivalent would be immobilizer chips, which didn't appear on vehicles until 20 years after that act.

From Apple's POV, the most likely vulnerability of the TouchID security feature is a hardware attack hence the locking of the device and the bricking of a device with changed button.

It's still quite possible that Apple needs to only disable the TouchID feature and disabling the device outright does violate a law.

I figure since things have changed so much in between when the act became active, and today, it might take a court ruling to update that act and outline what it does cover.

 

[oneMadRssn]

This violate the law, specifically the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

I think you're right, but only if this occurs within the 1yr warranty period. This would apply if someone had the screen repaired by a third party, that also swapped their touch-id sensor, which later rendered their phone unusable with the ios9 update. That person would bring it in to Apple for a warranty claim, which would be denied as we predict. I think a carefully worded letter that outlines the argument you have presented sent to Apple's legal department, cc-ing the store manager that denied the service and the local attorney general's office, might do the trick.

That said, after the initial 1yr warranty is gone, I am not sure there is much teeth to this.

 

[Tech198]

It's a pretty astounding silly position apple have taken on this.
I'm sure you'll see a long line of lawyers wanting some flesh over this one..

Well..u can also ague, that's what u get with a closed eco-system..

 

[Rogifan]

Do people really believe Apple made this change without the approval from legal department? Seriously?

 

[C DM]

Do people really believe Apple made this change without the approval from legal department? Seriously?

It could happen. Not to say that it did, but to say that all kinds of things have been done by all kinds of companies without going through all the appropriate channels or even by going through them and getting overlooked for one reason or another (or no reason at all basically, just slipping through the cracks).

 

[kdarling]

Do people really believe Apple made this change without the approval from legal department? Seriously?

They should've asked the PR department instead!

Seriously, though it's very possible that a programmer thought he was "fixing" the code,ïwithout thinking about the ramifications.

Programmers rarely have the time or desire to ask a legal department what to do.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I'd be careful here, just take back to Apple.

 

[samcraig]

I wonder if they will just start an MFi program for this part. We all remember the noise raised over lightening cables...

 

[Rogifan]

It could happen. Not to say that it did, but to say that all kinds of things have been done by all kinds of companies without going through all the appropriate channels or even by going through them and getting overlooked for one reason or another (or no reason at all basically, just slipping through the cracks).

Sorry don't buy it. This isn't something that just gets overlooked or slips throug the cracks.

 

[Tech198]

if Apple overlooked something, then Apple has just decreased their security.... Something they would never ever do.

We only don't understand this, because Apple is the only ones who brick the phone after a non-Apple repair "fixed" and user tries to apply update..

This comes as a cross between security and convenience to 'continue to use.'

I dunno about you, but if i want security, i would not continue using a phone after it has been repaired 'by a non-Apple repairer' just to save money . I would have no idea want else they may have done...

Bricking a phone after an update is just Apple's way as a trade off for users, but they also need to understand *why* Apple does this, and its not to cause issues (although that's usually the only thing users think).. Have a cup of coffee, and ll will become clear..