
iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs - noobie
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple-iphone-software-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair
======
tristanj
I posted this earlier today, but the current article (from bbc.co.uk) does a
poor job covering the issue. In summary, Apple iOS uses a validation system to
ensure Touch ID sensor is not maliciously replaced or modified. The Touch ID
sensor has access to the iPhone Security Enclave, where fingerprint data is
kept. A malicious sensor could, hypothetically, steal fingerprints from an
iPhone user unknowingly. This could be used to unlock the phone and make
purchases through Apple Pay without the owner's permission. To prevent this,
Apple uses a validation system whenever the Touch ID sensor is repaired. When
iPhone is serviced by an authorised Apple service provider or Apple retail
store for changes that affect the touch ID sensor, the validation paring is
updated. Third-party repairs to the sensor will not update the pairing, and
will fail validation when using Touch ID. This validation error is shown to
users as the mysterious "Error 53".

If the validation fails, the device will function mostly fine, although with
Touch ID disabled. However, the device will be prevented from restoring or
updating to a new version. Restoring from backup still works. I'm not too sure
why restoring or updating is blocked, but my guess is that they want to
prevent malicious software from being uploaded in this process.

From the Daily Dot article, if a user encounters this error, Apple's current
resolution is a full device replacement. It may be overkill I don't think
Apple expected many people to encounter this issue, so it seems reasonable why
they chose this option.

This is a great security feature for users, and I'm really glad Apple
engineers considered this situation. Unfortunately the media is blowing this
and leaving crucial details about what's happening and the reasoning behind
it.

Here is Apple's statement on the matter:

 _We take customer security very seriously and Error 53 is the result of
security checks designed to protect our customers. iOS checks that the Touch
ID sensor in your iPhone or iPad correctly matches your device 's other
components. If iOS finds a mismatch, the check fails and Touch ID, including
for Apple Pay use, is disabled. This security measure is necessary to protect
your device and prevent a fraudulent Touch ID sensor from being used. If a
customer encounters Error 53, we encourage them to contact Apple Support._

~~~
jdhawk
Wouldnt it be more logical to simply disable the Touch Functionality and treat
it like a Pre-TouchID button when not replaced by Apple with an OEM part?

~~~
fixermark
Why? Then the user is left guessing why their phone is acting like it has no
TouchID when it does.

~~~
germanier
Would you rather guess why Touch ID isn't working or have a completely
unusable phone?

------
mootothemax
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

"Anyone can access your private photos and emails! Just replace the home
button with one programmed with your own fingerprints!"

Can you imagine the comments if that were a story?

The problem here is that Apple didn't find a way to tell repair shops and
users that this could be an issue.

~~~
ohthehugemanate
It doesn't have to be either or. Apple could provide a better fail over
behavior for the home key, including a way for a consumer to validate the
changed hardware.

For instance: "IOS has detected a change in your Secure Home Key. Please
contact apple secure support to confirm that your device is still secure!" add
a 1-800 number and some security questions. Or automate it by requiring a
login to your Apple account, email validation, and email notification of the
change.

Bottom line, when one authentication method fails, you need a fail over to
something more difficult.

~~~
natch
The bad guy can then walk the user through that security verification process,
and the user is screwed. Think it through.

~~~
ethbro
Let's extrapolate this to UEFI/Secure Boot.

If a motherboard displayed an error when a piece of hardware from a different
manufacturer was inserted and failed to operate, we'd cry bloody fucking
murder. Instead, we expect users to take responsibility and if they compromise
their own machine / want to take a risk then that's their business.

Just because it's an Apple phone shouldn't reallign our morals concerning user
control and responsibility.

------
KiDD
I highly recommend reading up on Apple's Security white paper that details how
it all works...
[https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf](https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf)

------
jacquesm
It's totally dumb that a functioning phone is bricked by an update because of
repairs done in the past. Imagine the same thing happening to your car. "Sorry
sir, the software update done to your car has now disabled the vehicle because
in the past someone not related to x (insert name of car company here) has
repaired it, your car is now junk (you can't even resell it) and you'll have
to buy a new one".

It's just petty revenge because you had to temerity to go to another party
other than apple to get your phone repaired and maybe even saved some money in
the process. So now, in retaliation we'll destroy your phone in software. I'm
sure this will go down well with the various EU courts.

~~~
benevol
Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones
with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model? [0]

Apple is in the business of selling (overpriced/overengineered) hardware.
Their tactics make that very clear.

The only problem with that is that there is no real competition in mobile
phones anymore, it's just a giant duopoly. Sure, you can switch to
Google/Android, which as the giant ad company (in other words: personal data
hover/mass surveillance company) is just as bad.

My only hope is for Ubuntu to make the right moves soon.

[0] A source:
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2709502/Does-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2709502/Does-
Apple-deliberately-slow-old-models-new-release-Searches-iPhone-slow-spike-
ahead-launches.html)

~~~
matthewmacleod
_Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones
with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model? _

No, because that never was a fucking thing.

Seriously, this is supposed to be a community of reasonably well-informed
tech-oriented people. Step back for a second, take a deep breath, and think
before you spread nonsense like this. Jesus.

~~~
dang
That does sound ridiculous.

But please don't comment like this and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11047606](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11047606)
on HN. That just makes the threads worse. Instead, please stay civil even when
some people are being silly.

~~~
matthewmacleod
You are, as ever, totally right; there's no reason to be rude. Sorry.

~~~
dang
> _You are, as ever, totally right_

Good lord no. But thank you for the polite response and intention to change.
It really is a collective effort.

------
arihant
This is still not as bad as the newer laptops in which TPM is soldered onto
motherboard and the OS won't boot if it's damaged. You can't even get it
repaired, even by the manufacturer without getting a brand new motherboard.

Hardware level security is important, but one must know that whenever you
involve hardware into the equation you must allow for collateral damage.

Trusting trust is hard. You can't expect the verifier to verify the security
module you got changed from the guy in a basement. Might as well get the OS
and kernel from the same guy too.

The reason this disables your phone is the same reason you see a red page when
using self signed certificates. The guy vetting you isn't vetted himself. Now
there is a case to be made that Apple should just show you a warning and let
you use the phone. But this isn't about protecting your privacy, this is about
protecting privacy of the guy whose phone you found.

~~~
Dylan16807
How often do you damage a chip on your motherboard? Or need to replace non-
capacitor parts on it?

This is such a problem because it's stuck to the screen, and people need to
replace screens all the time.

~~~
ericabiz
This only affects the home button. If you replace the screen and keep your
original home button, there is no issue.

I co-own a repair shop. We have known about this for a while. We won't replace
home buttons for this reason. But we replace hundreds of screens a month with
no issues.

~~~
charlesarthur
Apologies if this sounds rude, because that's not the intent. How can you be
sure that people whose screens you've replaced don't then get an "error 53"
when they later come to do a software upgrade? Because that's the only time it
shows up. Would they know to come back to you about it (possibly shaking
fist)?

~~~
ericabiz
Sorry for the late response--I just now saw this. We've fixed thousands of
screens at this point--we'd have an angry mob if screen replacements caused
the issue!

Yes, we have had people come back with Error 53; that's how we knew it existed
a while ago. All of them had either had their home button replaced or water
damaged. We were able to successfully recover one of them after the Apple
Store told the guy there was nothing they could do. It was a water damaged
home button and we were able to clean the corrosion off of it by soaking it
overnight in a special solution. It came back the next day. If your original
home button stops working, though, you are screwed.

------
randomname2
Alternative: Apple stops NSA, China, crooks meddling with TouchID during
repair.

[https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/695709113964195840](https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/695709113964195840)

~~~
grubles
Alternative alternative: Apple wants you to pay Apple a premium to repair your
device.

------
pjc50
The stated rationale is that it's reasonable for a security-critical device to
self-destruct if it thinks it may have been tampered with. Unfortunately this
is a phone which costs a lot of money and has much of the user's life stored
on it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple sued over this; I don't know what
the interaction of the Sale of Goods Act and remote-bricking is.

I was thinking along similar lines recently when someone sent me an email to
an old PGP key - I was able to dig up the key, but had long since forgotten
the password. Do you want your computer security system to fail-open (leaking
your stuff and potentially exposing you to fraud) or fail-closed (losing data
which may be irreplaceable and of emotional significance)?. It's not obvious.
But if you store your photos on your phone, you should probably back them up
to the cloud - _and_ to a different system that is not under the same account,
either locally or another cloud. User-friendly crypto may be possible, but
user-friendly key management is a total nightmare.

~~~
DanBC
Apple have been accused of copper-bottoming the rules when relatives want to
get access to a dead person's phone.

Apple only really need a death certificate and certificates of probate; but
Apple insist on different court orders.

So I'm not sure if SOGA etc will affect Apple here.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> Apple have been accused of copper-bottoming the rules when relatives want to
> get access to a dead person's phone.

> Apple only really need a death certificate and certificates of probate; but
> Apple insist on different court orders.

Huh? Why should next of kin automatically be entitled to all someone's
personal information?

------
KhalilK
Albeit necessary to check the authenticity of components such as the TouchID
sensor for security reasons, bricking the phones seems extreme. Why not simply
disable Touch ID? This is them asking for a lawsuit.

~~~
tedmiston
I wonder if it's really bricked -- could a downgrade to the previous OS
version help? (Admittedly, it's not that straightforward for normal
consumers.)

------
tsmarsh
It is frustrating the the language of MA 'right to repair' doesn't extend to
devices.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Right_to_Repai...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Right_to_Repair_Initiative)

------
jeffmould
All these comparisons to car warranties, and more specifically how in some
countries there may be a question of legality. The U.S. has similar laws that
car dealers can't deny warranty coverage because of third party repairs.
IANAL, but it would be interesting to see how this translates to phones (or
any other similar asset).

[http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-
ro...](http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-
maintenance)

~~~
ascagnel_
Later updates from Apple have said that they'll replace the touch sensor and
other hardware if necessary.

I'm curious; although auto makers can't decline warranty coverage, does an
"authorized maintenance" shop change the dynamics?

------
systemz
Has someone made unintentional medical joke with this error? It reminds me of
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53),
which is responsible for apoptosis - programmed death of cell.

~~~
hackaflocka
Could be intentional.

------
jdsnape
The way they've reported on this seems a bit misleading. Isn't it just that
the third-party repairers haven't reset the security mechanism after replacing
the home button?

~~~
DiabloD3
The problem is, Apple refuses to reset the security mechanism after such
repairs have happened.

Ergo, Apple is bricking phones as some sort of misplaced revenge-like
behavior.

~~~
zepto
This doesn't follow. Apple refuses to reset the security mechanism because it
can't verify the integrity of the repair.

Call it revenge like behavior is just you attacking Apple. It's certainly
incompetent or unanticipated and poorly handled, but it's an attempt to
maintain their security promises.

------
skc
Wouldn't a better idea be to simply display an error message to the effect of
"your phone has undergone untrusted changes, please bring to your nearest
Apple store" rather than bricking the whole thing?

~~~
watmough
This, or simply allow it to be completely reset a la Android or Chrome.

------
letitleak
People in the US should be complaining to the FTC. In the very least, for
phone's under warranty, Magnuson-Moss should apply if Apple isn't fixing these
problems for free.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act)

------
skywhopper
I think it's utterly reasonable for the device to shut down if it detects what
looks like tampering with a high-security component. It's frustrating, sure,
and the error message is beyond poor, but the behavior makes sense. It's not
about preventing third party repairs.

It is unfortunate but true that high levels of security ultimately require
trust, and that means that some things we used to take for granted will fall
by the wayside. Third party repair of what are now secure components may be
one of those things.

------
Fr0styMatt88
I guess "iPhone 'disabled' if Apple detects key security component replaced
with unauthorized version" wouldn't get as many clicks.

------
paulasmuth
I'm not sure I understand what exactly happened here. Was it previously
possible for non-apple engineers to replace the home button or was it not? The
guardian's article seems to suggest it was: "Indeed, the phone may have been
working perfectly for weeks or months since a repair or being damaged."

If that is the case and it was possible to replace these sensors before,
apple's narrative that the "error 53" code was introduced for security reasons
doesn't seem to make a lot of sense: If the hardware sensor wasn't designed
with secure authorization (e.g. via asymmetric cryptography) in the first
place, all they could do now in a software update would be to add some kind of
cosmetic device ID check.

However, any such newly introduced check in software could not actually
prevent "malicious sensor" attacks but would only add a (possibly trivial)
additional step to the attack where you have to spoof the correct device id.

Or maybe my reading of the guardian article is imprecise and replacing the
home button has always meant loosing access to at least some security-relevant
features?

~~~
tdkl
You can get the button exchanged, but since each one is coupled with the
secure enclave co-processor, touch ID doesn't work anymore. But home button
still works, so does the phone encryption, you just can't identify yourself
with the fingerprint anymore. If you go and try to add a fingerprint, it
behaves like you have a muddy finger and can't scan it. But this ain't an
issue since encryption is done by a PIN code first, then fingerprints are used
as a more convenient way to unlock.

Frankly the device bricking is BS, since the encryption PIN code is still
there and unknown to a possible attacker. You just can't use the victims
fingerprints to unlock it anymore, or attach a hacked fingerprint reader,
because it still won't be able to access the secure enclave to open and get
the PIN code.

------
lisper
Now might be a good time to make a donation to the EFF.

[https://www.eff.org/issues/right-to-repair](https://www.eff.org/issues/right-
to-repair)

------
imeron
Could this be a protection against selling stolen iPhones? As I remember a
"broken TouchID" rates pretty high as a shady phone. Does anyone know how does
this work? Can you reset a stolen phone or do they just sell those as parts
nowdays?

~~~
derwiki
This would be a great theft deterrent, if you could remotely brick your
iPhone.

------
awqrre
One more proof that you don't own your device?

------
aftbit
I love the sentence: >He had to pay £270 for a replacement and is furious.

He was so furious that he bought a second iPhone which had the same
fundamental design decisions and would fail in the same way if he got it
repaired by a non-Apple repairer. No wonder Apple doesn't give a damn about
this - everyone is just buying a new phone from them.

------
david_mitchell
I don't see why people are upset or surprised about this. Apple is a pioneer
in making electronics difficult to open up and play with.

It has always been their approach to control every interaction that every
customer has with every part of their business and every product produced by
it.

Accept it or use something else.

~~~
stinos
_upset or surprised_

suprised maybe not so much, but it seems pretty obvious one would get upset if
his/hers go-to device is suddenly rendered practically useless?

~~~
david_mitchell
I accept your correction. In fact, now I think about it, essentially 0% of
apple customers would likely be aware of this possibility at the time they
make their purchase. I should have considered that most consumers won't follow
stories like this as closely as the tech crowd.

I do stand by my assertion that it is legitimate for apple to behave in this
way though. They get to present their business as they choose to just like any
other company and the customer get to choose whether to accept their terms.
Personally I don't but, empirically, most other people seem to.

I would however support requirements (as legislation) that consumers should be
made aware of such practices at the point of purchase such that they can
factor it into their buying decision.

------
soneil
I feel like a hypocrite criticising this one. Security has always been a
tradeoff against convenience. I've been, overall, happy that Apple's starting
to take the security of personal data on a very losable device seriously.

I mean, not to gloss over it. I just got stung €320 for a screen repair, and I
won't pretend I'm at all happy with that. But I have to accept we can't have
it both ways - if we're demanding tough encryption, we have to accept the
inconvenience that comes with it.

~~~
lisper
The problem here is not so much that the devices are being bricked as the fact
that it's coming as a nasty surprise. People needed to be _warned_ about this,
and the warning needed to happen _before_ they bought the phone.

------
yason
So much for owning something you thought you owned. This has happened again
and again, and will increasingly happen in the future under whatever disguise,
security-wise or not.

------
laverick
Something suspiciously like this happened to me on a second-hand iPhone 6 I
bought a few weeks ago. Talk about crappy timing.

Everything pointed to a software issue, but every repair person I took it to
(both apple and non-apple) kept saying it was a hardware fault.

Touch ID stopped working and the phone drains super quickly despite not being
in use. Hoping Apple can provide a "fix", not gonna hold my breath though.

~~~
tdkl
I got a second-hand 5S last year with faulty Touch ID, the seller admitted
that it didn't work and didn't even notice because he never used it (at the
time also many Touch IDs stopped working after iOS 8 updates). I got a lower
price and a friend took it to Apple Store in Germany (had couple months
warranty left), where they tried to change the display first, then swapped it
for a new unit without issues.

------
mattkrea
I'll take it as a positive that there is a good chance if someone tampered
with my device my information is still secure.

------
sneakycr0w
I feel for both sides of this issue. As a consumer I am upset that I am
essentially being forced to either buy a new iPhone or do my repair via Apple
(do they even do all repairs?). Although, as a business I understand not
wanting third party repairs as those can damage your brand if done
incorrectly.

------
dade_
I think it is a design flaw, putting a security component in a common fail
assembly, a fragile glass cover. Sony chose to put their touch ID sensor in a
side button. I wonder if they thought of this, it sure looks like a smart
design decision in light of this.

------
sneakycr0w
I feel for both sides of this. On one hand, as a consumer, I think it's unfair
to force users to either buy a new iPhone or do repairs via Apple (do they
even do them all?). As a business, I understand how non-Apple repairs can
damage a brand.

------
hirephone
This is just the beginning.

High prices and resale values have spawned a substantial and apparently
growing 3rd party repair and refurbishment market for Apple mobile devices.
Beyond the dodgy corner unlock shops, multiple national chains have sprung up
over the last 2 years where I live that advertise heavily on broadcast TV.

Apple clearly sees this as money left on the table and they're concerned about
the emergence of a comprehensive parallel supply chain for repair parts.
Bricking end-user devices is one of the few levers they've got to try and shut
down this industry, since there's no way to effectively identify and pursue
the upstream suppliers in mainland China.

Sucks for the users, though. I wonder if Apple will still be selling devices
at all in 5 years, or if they'll only rent them out for €25/$25/£25 per month.
Ultimately that'll probably be the only way to get the control they want.

~~~
marincounty
People buy a high-end watch, like a Rolex. They can repair it if they have
then knowledge. The problem is Rolex, and 99 percent of watch manufactures
won't sell your, or your Watch Repair person the parts.

You need to send the watch to the factory for service, at factory prices.

So, when you buy a Rolex, your are actually leasing it? You don't truely own
it, if you can't get the parts to fix it?

It's just another way to make money.

I didn't think Apple would irritate their customers at this particular point
in time?

And yes, I too believe, "This is just the beginning."

~~~
tshtf
Actually a majority of the watches, besides Rolex, in the <$5000 range use
standard unmodified Swiss ETA movements, which can be repaired by any
competent watchmaker. Very few watches in this price range use in-house
movements.

~~~
micampe
[http://watchguy.co.uk/swatch-group-parts-
policy/](http://watchguy.co.uk/swatch-group-parts-policy/)

~~~
tshtf
Thanks - that's really unfortunate!

------
chris_wot
I'm fairly certain that's illegal in Australia. It's called third line
forcing.

Looks like Apple is, yet again, going to be investigated by the ACCC.

------
Dolores12
So basically you do not own your hardware.

------
dghughes
The iPhone6 and F-35 share the same problem trying to detect approved or
faulty parts. Funny.

------
bbarn
Isn't this piece core to the virtual wallet/payment tech installed on the
phone? Should apple's engineers have to put in friendly error messages if you
exchange components in what's supposed to be a closed system?

------
once-in-a-while
Don't use smart phones. Just don't. It works for me.

------
kleiba
Could someone explain what is the legal basis for this?

------
progrocks9
This type of move can't work now, because Apple is losing its mojo in a very
fast pace.

------
enlightenedfool
yet another thing that anti-iphone people rile and iphone users don't care.
The bricked owners will buy the next gen iphone and won't repeat the mistake
of third party repair. what's the fuss about? yawn...

------
PSeitz
This is just to protect customers. </irony>

------
stesch
Wow, Apple hate like on /r/technology.

------
aurizon
Lawsuit time, which Apple will lose

------
DominikR
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand this is done to protect
the customers from tampered with Touch ID sensors.

It may be overly paranoid but I can at least understand the motivation behind
this. Changing the display also involves disconnecting the Touch ID sensor so
technically a malicious person might have done something that exposes the user
of the device in some way.

Statement from an Apple spokeswoman:

“We protect fingerprint data using a secure enclave, which is uniquely paired
to the touch ID sensor. When iPhone is serviced by an authorised Apple service
provider or Apple retail store for changes that affect the touch ID sensor,
the pairing is re-validated. This check ensures the device and the iOS
features related to touch ID remain secure. Without this unique pairing, a
malicious touch ID sensor could be substituted, thereby gaining access to the
secure enclave. When iOS detects that the pairing fails, touch ID, including
Apple Pay, is disabled so the device remains secure.”

[http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/05/error-53-home-button-
iph...](http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/05/error-53-home-button-iphone-
brick/)

~~~
izacus
Yes, but instead of disabling authentication with the non-authenticated
TouchID sensor it bricks the phone.

~~~
Klathmon
... until the old sensor is replaced.

Which is a good thing.

This is like complaining that forgetting your encryption password "bricks"
your hard drive.

Yeah, apple deserves some flack for not making this known to 3rd party repair
shops, but it's not a problem itself.

------
dang
Url changed from
[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35502030](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35502030),
which points to this.

------
MCRed
There is a strong bias, and the amazing thing is that its very difficult for
the people who have this bias to realize it. As far as they can tell it is
fact, and this is in large part because they live in a filter bubble where
they only see things that confirm their bias.

For example: Articles bashing Steve Jobs get upvoted a lot more than ones
praising him. Exactly the opposite for bill Gates.

Now if you look at Slashdot a decade before Hacker news the results for bill
gates would have been the opposite of what you see here.

Effectively, Bill Gates' millions in spending to improve his PR have changed
people's perceptions (they will argue that its because he's such a generous
benefactor, because that's politically correct, alas, they won't look too
close at the activities of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation lest they
notice he isn't.)

Google Good, Apple Bad, Leftism Good, Socialism Good, Basic Income! Global
Warming is FACT, and anything you post that goes against this narrative risks
getting you slow banned or hellbanned.

Hell, I was once banned from here for relating how I met Grace Hopper as a kid
(in a comment on an article about Grace Hopper.)

I have no clue why that was hell ban worthy, after all she was the original
"GRrrl in tech!!11!"

Welcome to hacker news where there are no hackers.

~~~
WhyDoiPostHere
For me, the real question is where have all the hackers gone? Years ago, there
were high quality contributors here. They all had to go somewhere. When
slashdot was dying, it was clear where everyone went (HN and Digg). This time
around, it's not clear at all.

~~~
walterstucco
they just left. arguing with kids is boring

~~~
WhyDoiPostHere
I wonder if that isn't the case. If that's true, that would be a shame, but I
can't blame them.

------
interdrift
That's how desperate Apple is.

------
ywecur
The wonder of closed source

------
singham
More reasons for not to be in Apple ecosystem.

------
stefek99
Has anyone read full Terms and Conditions?

I think most of the people clicked / tapped / pressed "AGREE".

So here you go.

------
natch
What really surprised me, and what most people don't seem to know, is that
repairs at an Apple store are way cheaper than third party repairs.

~~~
natch
Why the downvotes?

I got a Macbook Pro repaired recently and the Genius guy took me aside and
said I got a great deal because they have a per-model, per-service visit price
cap on replacement parts charges for repairs. Meaning that in one visit, you
can get your Macbook repaired and replace the screen, the motherboard, the
hard drive, the power board, the battery, the keyboard, pretty much the whole
thing, and the price (for parts) is capped at around $280 for my particular
model. The labor price is not capped but they are good at what they do, so the
labor is super fast and ends up being cheap.

I had a similar experience with an iPhone repair, where my camera had dust in
it. Apparently the best way to do this is a back cover replacement, and the
back cover comes with the camera built in. I was pretty scared until I heard
the price, which was I think at the time $30, way less than third party
vendors charge for this.

Again the downvotes, for providing useful information, are really baffling
here.

------
consto
So stupid, it's like they are asking for a class action lawsuit

------
quackerhacker
I haven't experience any error 53 codes on the devices I've repaired, but if
this is true... Wow! That's really shady of Apple. I'm starting to get the
feeling that the moves they're making (like charging for Apple radio [not
Apple music], and now disabling phones with unauthorized repairs) is their
response to their recent report of declining iPhone sales. Disappointing if
this is true that these changes are at the expense of their end users and fans
(and I am a fan).

------
userbinator
This seems like a deliberate move by Apple, since they could've put the secure
component ("TPM") on the mainboard, where it won't be as easily damaged,
instead of the fingerprint reader. It's like an organism whose brain is in one
of its appendages instead of its head...

Either way, if the skills of the Chinese (and other far-East) reverse-
engineers continue to be what they are, I think workarounds will be found soon
enough - from what I've seen, the repair people in particular are _very_
resourceful and clever, and come up with "tricks" to fix things that the
original manufacturer never even thought about. It's their core business; you
can bet they'll spend a ton of effort on figuring out how. Apple's proprietary
cable authentication chips have been cloned. The infamous Thinkpad BIOS
password has been circumvented. Replacements for ink cartridge authentication
chips (seriously) have appeared. There is always a crack.

I continue to find it amazing how effective the "security" excuse is; it seems
you can get the majority to give up anything if you can turn it into some sort
of argument about how it'll make things safer. Who doesn't want to feel safe,
even if it ultimately results in society where every little thing you do is
controlled by some huge bureaucracy? The old quote on security vs. freedom is
so relevant today, but related to what I think will happen, here's a variant
on that theme: "I wish for the insecurity that gives us freedom."

------
an_d_rew
You DO have the right to repair your iPhone; it just has to be done by an
official Apple repair centre.

I completely understand the downsides of Apple's particular approach here, and
totally get why people want the right to use 3rd party repair services. I've
used them myself in the past to save (a lot of) money.

But considering just how much of my life, financial and otherwise, is on my
phone, I'm actually very glad that Apple has erred on the side of obsessive
security!

~~~
jrochkind1
Apparently, YOU don't have the right to repair your own iPhone then, only an
official Apple repair centre does. You mean: You have the right to pay an
official Apple repair center, and nobody else, to repair your iPhone.

