1. Nonsense. A "shadetree mechanic" is a common terminology used for someone who does repairs without the requisite training. I don't really care if you don't like the tone of my comment. It doesn't change the facts one way or the other. The guy went to an unauthorized/untrained repair shop. The voided warranty and UA are not red herrings. There are very much central to the story. They are agreements specifically broken when the user chooses to have the device repaired by an unauthorized/untrained repair person. By breaking those agreements, the user has de-obligated the manufacturer. This is common practice for most devices you might own. The difference in this case is that after voiding those things, the user went back to the manufacturer for further service (in the form of a software update), expecting the manufacturer to still be obligated by the same agreements the user has already broken. That brings us to the next point.
First point. I never made a comment about the tone of your quote. Me liking/disliking the quote is immaterial to my response. You're still introducing your own evidence to force a narrative. Characterizing the tech as a shadetree presumes he had no requisite training. You don't know that. The guy went to an unauthorized repair shop. You introduced the untrained part, still reinforcing the narrative you've created. Yep they're still red herrings, but I do agree they're central to the story. The one you've created. Not the one in the article. Afaik, the guy made no claims that brought into question the UA or the warranty. He complained about not being warned the update would brick his phone. That's it. Bolded portion I will address below.
2. How do you go about requesting a software update? You respond in the affirmative by clicking the 'software update' button on the phone's screen (or in iTunes on a device tethered to the phone). The next thing you have to click in order to proceed is 'I Agree' button for the User Agreement, which once again warns about unauthorized hacking of hardware or software. The user broke the previous UA with the visit to the unauthorized repair shop. The user then repeats the same violation by clicking 'I Agree' to a fresh UA with the same prohibitions.
No one requests an update. I've never done it and you've never done it either. To continue using the word request in relation to software updates is just plain obstinate. Neither request nor any of it's many synonyms will help you arrive at the meaning you describe above. From your point 1: You're kidding. I know for a fact you're kidding. That description in no way, shape, or form resembles a software update. That thing you said about the UA? Not true either. Here's the UA:
http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstore/dev/stdeula/ Hardware is a warranty issue. Software is covered differently. Since they guy did nothing with software, it's immaterial. Another red herring.
3. The user was tempting fate. He was lucky that the device worked at all after the repair by the unauthorized shop. That fact does not obligate the manufacturer to assure that the device will continue to function with further updates. The manufacturer apparently included in the code for the update a check to confirm the validity and security of the phone's hardware. In this case, the phone failed the check, because it did indeed have unauthorized tinkering in what is supposed to be the most secure part of the device.
Fate, luck, kismet, or the skill of the repairman. His phone worked. You're 100% right. It doesn't obligate the manufacture to assure updates won't brick a phone. No one claimed that expectation either. Certainly not the guy in the story. Another element introduced by you.
4. There was perhaps some snark, but no disingenuousness in this point. You refer repeatedly to the warranty in this part, but I didn't refer to the warranty in this point at all. I only referred to the UA. You ask "Why would there be an assumption that a repaired phones that works properly would be bricked by an update?" I can only respond to that with a similar question. Why would there be an assumption that a phone that has been repaired in violation of the manufacturer's terms that the manufacturer would be obligated to continue to provide software updates and guaranteed continued functionality?
I repeatedly referred to the warranty because it's a hardware issue that is under the auspices of the warranty. Which you can view here:
http://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/products/ios-warranty-document-us.html
Bolded. This is why I said your comment was disingenuous. There was no assumption the manufacturer would be obligated to provide updates. Framing the update process in this manner is disingenuous. Me, you, and anyone who's owned an iPhone knows that's a completely inaccurate description of how updates occur.
I obviously have a different perspective from you on the facts of the case, but I didn't create any new facts, as you claimed. Thanks for playing, though.
True, we do have different perspectives on the facts. And no you didn't create any new facts, nor did I claim that. I said you created evidence to support your version of the narrative. Facts and evidence are not the same thing. They can't be used interchangeably. Well they can; just shouldn't be. Just like your definition of request.
Thank you for thanking me for playing. Since it's still my turn...
"Well Drew, since the other contestant waaaaaaay overbid his hand, I'm just going to bid $1."
