If I try to look at this from Apple's side, I can sort of see the logic: the problem stems from the OEM Touch ID sensor being replaced with a mismatched (or entirely third party) sensor during a screen repair, which screws with the hardware security chain on the device and generally makes it difficult to troubleshoot problems even if they seem unrelated.
This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones.
As a consumer, I would love to have a better legal framework for situations like this. As a guy who has manufactured and sold a mass market tech hardware product, I have no idea how to realistically make that work.
My understanding from the article is that Apple might be able to refuse service if they were to look at the device and determine the problem is caused by the 3rd party sensor. What they can't do however is totally refuse service based _solely_ on the fact that a 3rd party repair happened at all.
That seems like it would run in to problems in practice. What if there is no way to directly link 3rd party repair to malfunctions, but devices that had undergone third party repair malfunctioned more frequently. On the one hand, Apple shouldn't have to take on the burden of causing problems that were caused by third party repair. On the other hand, some of the devices would have malfunctioned anyway, and from the outside it appear like Apple is refusing service solely because of a 3rd party repair.
The situation sounds remarkably similar to auto-manufacturers building cars that can only be services by 'licensed technicians' (usually their dealer network). I wonder if that is the bigger issue the ACCC has in mind (and is trying to discourage): manufacturers who sell a product that creates a subsequent and artificial 'captive market'.
You bring up an interesting point. I'll let the actual car part be what it is (I should totally be able to change a simple mechanical part on my car). Instead, I'll ask the question if I should be able to swap out the LiDAR on my (partially) self-driving car. There are complicated calibration steps needed in order to ensure that the LiDAR is operating correctly and meets safety standards.
If you replace safety critical (and in Apple's case, security critical) functionality on your car and it causes bodily harm, who do you think is going to end up in the news with a negative headline? Furthermore, should a car manufacturer be able to implement measures to prevent this from happening?
You don't need to go to self-driving cars with LIDAR to find safety-critical parts. There's plenty of steering, suspension, braking and restraint systems that are safety-critical already.
This issue is already solved for cars. If you make major modifications to a car, or even small modifications to some parts, it's already not considered roadworthy unless you get a qualified engineer to sign it off. Note that the qualified engineer does not need to be associated with the original vendor.
ABS, if not your brake system, on current cars is a critical safety system and repair centers across the US (and likely similar in other countries) can make these repairs safely and within manufacturer requirements. We accept this because no repair facility is going to want to lose business by installing bad parts or doing a job improperly and the last point of contact; the repair shop; is on the hook legally.
With regards to parts on the phone. Apple simply needs to be forced to make replacement parts available to non Apple repair facilities. They could have an authorization process or whatnot but it needs not to be burdensome.
My only concern with this would be, wouldn't that be a great way for the intelligence services of the world to finally backdoor the Apple's iDevice security.
Not only shops, but it's legal to service your own brakes. Let me repeat that: any random person can go to the auto parts store, spend a few bucks on new brake pads, and install them at home, legally.
A badly done brake job is quite likely to result in injury, if not death, of not only the occupants of the vehicle, but other people as well who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And yet doing it yourself is legal and socially acceptable, and attempts to change that would (rightfully) be met with strident opposition.
The worst that would likely happen with a miscalibrated LIDAR is that the car wouldn't be able to drive until it was calibrated.
So yeah, the safety argument isn't just FUD, it's transparently ridiculous FUD.
FWIW, I imagine what happens quickly in a true self-driving car world is that we stop bothering to own cars as the cost in terms of both time and capital of temporarily renting a car only at the moment we need it makes that no longer be a relevant concern, at which point this actually is no longer an issue as the cars would be owned and maintained by the service we get the car from.
Just thinking out loud but the car one seems solvable by moving the responsibility for accidents. It starts with the manufacture and transfers to the modifer. Although like above the issue gets complicated quickly since modifying one thing might be unrelated to the accident.
I guess if it can be proven it was because of the mod then responsibility should transfer to the modder.
This is the kinda hilarious thing about self-driving cars. Either the manufacturers are held responsible for nearly all accidents, in which case it is probably impossible to make money on them; or we accept that sometimes consumer electronics kill people in the street.
that's all well and good, but regardless of who is to blame, the headline will likely read that the fault is with the manufacturer because it's more likely to generate readers
Exactly, so you change your built-in speaker in your car then the engine breaks and you lose your warranty because you changed the speaker at a third party.
The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components.
A better example from the automotive industry would be losing your engine warranty for having an "unauthorized" mechanic swap in an aftermarket oxygen sensor.
> The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components.
That's an obvious and important distinction, but it can't be solely left up to the manufacturer to determine what was coupled or related enough to void the entire warranty or absolve the manufacturer of all liability. If it's left up to them, they have a strong incentive to prohibit any third-party repairs of any kind. A good regulatory policy would need to ensure that the incentive is for the manufacturer to be the cheapest and easiest provider of repair services, so that poorly-executed third-party repairs are less likely to happen in the first place.
"The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine"
In today's world I wouldn't bet on that always being the case.
Your audio system might send audio data to your speakers over the same network your car tires uses to tell your engine that the road is slippery.
Also, your car's engine in a wider sense might want to use your audio system to communicate with you, for example if your chair has detected that you are dozing of.
Modern car electronics really are integrated with each other.
Because we're talking engine and speakers — it's common practice for cars to produce a louder engine noise through the speakers than what would be heard normally.
Except that it can be. I have a friend who installed a rear-view dashcam by wiring it directly to the 12V line running through the back of the car, and the car would start throwing all sorts of engine errors until you removed the camera. It was basically drawing too much power on a line that was only designed for certain power draw and causing a computer error elsewhere.
My point is, that cars are incredibly complex machines, and it's very hard to say with absolute certainty that "changing component X won't affect component Y".
Cars are not necessarily incredibly complex. We've gone a good way down the path of making them so, but that is almost entirely a self-inflicted problem.
Agree, I also heard about the issue where you remove the battery then the computer restarts and you can't start your car, I am not sure what mechanics do to have it start again.
Probably some major incident needs to happen so safety laws are passed so the main function of a car does not depend on the fancy features like navigation,sensor reading for doors, things like that
My Honda did this. I replaced the battery and the passkey system got confused. Allegedly there is a VIN-tied procedure for temporarily overriding it (e.g. Turn on car, pump brakes 3 times, turn to accessory, back to on pump brakes twice, etc.). Shockingly, the dealer declined to share it with us, forcing a tow to the service center.
If you are buying a new car with a passkey system, make sure to extract the code before you sign the papers.
I am having nightmare scenarios where you get stuck in a remote place because some small issue with a sensor for a door/light that will not let you start the engine.
The fact that a semi-trained person manning a mall kiosk can successfully replace the component in question for $80 would seem to indicate that it's not actually very tightly coupled.
Apple gives a guarantee. Not an "Your system might run for x months."
But an "Your system WILL run for x months."
Even if the error is not caused by apple, they take in 99% of the profits that comes with selling and repairing the devices. They can take some responsibility for third party fails, in cases where they can't proof that other people actually failed. That's a very limited scope.
No, they guarantee that where proper care is taken the device will run for x months. If you try to use it underwater they won't repair it for free, and if you have it repaired by a non approved party they won't repair it for free. Both represent "misuse"
That's probably how they want to do it, but it's not how the law requires them to do it. They must still repair it for free unless the underwater use or third-party repair caused the problem.
They cannot say, "somebody else touched this, so tough luck." If they can demonstrate that your problem is a result of someone else touching it, then they can say tough luck. If they can't, then they have to fix it even if you didn't do things the way they want you to.
I think it's important to remember that these consumer protections aren't some random government overreach. They were put in place as a reaction to abuses by manufacturers. Without them, we'd probably have Apple charging $50 for a charger, with the threat of voiding your warranty if you use an unapproved charger, or similar tactics.
To bring it into another realm where the problem might be more obvious, imagine if your car manufacturer could void your warranty if you installed unapproved (and un-overpriced) tires or brake pads. Again, if those tires or brake pads cause your problem then they don't have to fix it, but they can't just void your warranty because of their mere presence.
Oh, I agree, my point was that the guarantee of "free repair" is contingent on terms not just a blanket statement. They are required to take it in under guarantee to look at it but when they open it up and water starts leaking out they're going to stop and send you a bill.
The interesting part of it is how hard it would be to prove them wrong if they say it could have been caused by behaviour x. Eg, if I chip my car and run it at non stock settings - the manufacturer can probably attribute almost any issue at all to that and I'd be hard pressed to disprove that assertion.
Good to hear! I see a lot of people who don't understand the distinction and think that you can lose your entire warranty if you do something wrong, and I (incorrectly, obviously) thought you were talking like that.
The question of proof is an interesting one. I guess that, like most things, it'll come down to who's willing and able to prove their case in court, or convince the other side they can't win.
That's one reason I find this case to be interesting. Companies often try really hard to mislead customers about their rights, which seems to be why so many people think you can void your entire warranty by making a small change. They usually get away with it as long as they cave in when they encounter someone who actually knows their rights. But all those people who don't know get screwed over.
I personally can't see the problem with the concept of consumer protection laws when applied to smartphones or other tech gadgetry. As for when Australia's consumer protection laws, they underwent a fairly comprehensive re-write in 2011. Would you mind expanding on some of the conceptual difficulties you see? Genuine question; not trying to be snarky. I just like playing "king for a day" :)
It's an interesting issue, particularly around how warranties apply to things like firmware updates and security patches. HP have previously run afoul of the ACCC, due to their policy of making customers pay extra for firmware updates after their 1 year warranty period expires (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-fo...).
I don't see the problem. Third-party repairs make it difficult to troubleshoot? Too bad, do it anyway. Either demonstrate that the third-party repair is at fault, or fix the problem. If that's too hard for some reason, maybe they should design their hardware to make it easier. Or they can put up with erring on the side of caution in their troubleshooting process.
These protections were put in place because companies have proven that they will be abusive with their warranties without the protections. I see no reason why these protections shouldn't still apply to smartphones, and lots of reasons why they still need to.
> This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones.
I actually think it makes more sense having these laws now than before. A consumer buying a $3k television or $1.2k phone would expect it to be high quality and last many years, but has no way of actually telling it will only last warranty + 1 month because of x,y,z - so needs help from consumer protection. With a mixer it was probably easier, a simpler machine and easier to judge quality for the average person.
So change the touch id too? Laws are made for people and companies to obey them, if it's too expensive, stop selling the product in that country or don't offer touch id.
In Ireland, there are no Apple stores but I've often been to the repair section of the main retailer (chargers!) and their policy is obviously deception. When there's a problem they ask is the device under warranty (one year) and unless you're aware of your EU consumer rights, they won't tell you and are hoping you'll walk away, the truth being:
"Under Irish consumer law, consumers are entitled to a free of charge repair or replacement, discount or refund by the seller, of defective goods or goods which do not conform with the contract of sale. These rights expire six years from delivery of the goods." [1]
My other negative experience was when my iPhone 5 was covered under recalls for the battery [2] and sleep/wake button [3], but Apple refused to fix it without a full screen replacement, for a "crack" so small I hadn't even noticed before sending it in for repair. It became a party piece of mine to challenge people to find the crack.
The Apple warranty is with Apple itself (and the authorized repairshops).
The EU warranty (2 years minimum, varies throughout countries) is with the seller of the device.
I once had a defective SSD in a macbook air out of the 1 year apple warranty period and in the 2 year EU mandated period. Bought on the Apple online shop. There were warnings on the website that it might end up costing money and it really seemed like apple was disliking the EU mandated warranty. I was sent that evening to an authorized repair shop. There they told me that the repair will take longer (up to a week) as the device does not have the 1 year warranty anymore and needs to get cleared by Apple to get repaired. On the next morning at around 8 AM I got a call that I can pick my device up.
EU mandated warranty is not a warranty that people have in mind when they say that word. EU barely mandates that the manufacturer has to replace/fix a product which has manufacturing faults up to 2 years after purchase(this actually extends up to 6 years in some cases).
However, it's up to you to show that something is a manufacturing fault - an incorrectly assembled iPhone case for example, you can expect Apple to fix that within 6 years of buying the phone, and they can't say it's out of the original 1 year warranty so they won't fix it. But if your phone dies 2 years after buying it, they don't have to fix it by law, unless you can prove that it died because of a manufacturing error.
almost spot on. the caveat you cite - that you have to demonstrate it's a fault in manufacturing - is how they try to get away without replacing the device.
however, to cover all bases, within the first six months of device life it's the manufacturer that has to prove the fault was not caused from a manufacturing defect.
Just in case you're not aware and it makes your life a bit easier there is an Apple store in Belfast which I've generally found very good when it comes to repairs and warranties. Depends where on the island you are but it might be worth the trip in the case of a broken Mac or something expensive.
I hope they win. I should not be forced to go to Apple for minor repairs when its obvious they overcharge. I'm glad Subaru doesn't deny me service because I put an aftermarket stereo or used a different garage to repair my headlights.
Apple _already_ is capable of diagnosing faults, and finding out which component is causing the problem. If it turns out that the problem is a third party part, they can offer to replace the part. This is standard procedure everywhere.
> I'm glad Subaru doesn't deny me service because I put an aftermarket stereo or used a different garage to repair my headlights.
This is not analogous. The analogy here is that the aftermarket stereo or different garage caused the faults which your Subaru is experiencing, and you are expecting Subaru to fix them.
Predatory pricing is a separate issue, but this is about whether Apple is obliged to make good on repairs to devices (both under warranty and at cost) where widespread component failure could have been caused by another repair shop or component. Would Subaru repair your engine if it stopped working after you replaced the camshaft with a different type of camshaft?
No, it clearly states that the apple is liable for faults that the aftermarket part didn't cause. Any faults with the aftermarket part or faults caused by that repair are the responsibility for the person who installed the aftermarket part.
The point the post illustrated is that an aftermarket part and/or an inexpert repair job could cause widespread damage to other components, and at times do so imperceptibly.
Can you give a practical example of such a thing happening in anything except the rarest of rarest case? If you're always concerned with what's possible, then you'll find that anythings possible, and soon you're buying insurance against a meteor strike damaging your car :P
Also lets not forget that legal frameworks are perfectly capable of handling exceptional circumstances. So even if it was the case that the part caused damage to other parts, it would be an argument that a court would be sympathetic to.
> Can you give a practical example of such a thing happening in anything except the rarest of rarest case?
This happens _all_the_time_. Especially in complex precision-engineered electronics products.
If a third-party repair shop is making repairs using Apple certified components then that's fine. If it's any aftermarket component then clearly Apple should not have any sort of responsibility to the device, which has been fundamentally altered.
In your first paragraph, you present a scenario where the third party repair is responsible for the fault.
In the second paragraph, you present a scenario where the third party repair could have been responsible for the fault.
These are not the same. Apple is not legally obligated to repair a device that's been damaged by a third-party repair, and nobody is saying they should be. Apple is legally obligated to repair a defective device, even if it has been repaired by a third party, unless the defect was caused by that repair.
They can't just say "this could have been caused by the third party, so we're not going to look at it." They have to actually figure it out.
> In the second paragraph, you present a scenario where the third party repair could have been responsible for the fault.
No. Perhaps I could have been clearer, but the emphasis in that sentence is on 'widespread', not on 'could'. Which is to say that third party repairs can do significantly more damage, and if you have your TouchID sensor replaced or repaired by a third party, and a connected component fails, Apple may rightfully feel aggrieved if they're on the hook. The component may have failed anyway, but it also might be due to the third party repair or unofficial component.
> They can't just say "this could have been caused by the third party, so we're not going to look at it." They have to actually figure it out.
Which is what this is all about. It's very hard and very time consuming to do that.
It's hard and time consuming to build smartphones in the first place. Sometimes you have to do hard and time consuming things.
I don't see that a requirement to continue to honor the warranty after third-party repairs has been made represents any sort of undue burden on Apple, let alone one so terrible that it justifies overturning hard-fought consumer protections and returning to a system where companies are allowed to screw over customers pretty much at will.
Apple always has the choice to err on the side of caution and honor the warranty even when the third-party repair is at fault. That caps the cost to whatever it costs them to provide a replacement device. Which is probably something like $200 if your phone isn't brand new.
If they feel it may be worthwhile, they can try to determine whether a third-party repair is at fault for the problem at hand. But they don't have to.
Consumer protection law is very strong in Australia & New Zealand. I'm glad to see government taking a tough stance towards what amounts to corporations weaseling out of doing their fair part.
Lots of US companies aren't used to the consumer protection laws in other countries, Valve recently got in trouble for their steam refund policies.
Here in NZ stated warranties mean nothing the actual warranty is what is a reasonable expectation, I'd expect a laptop to work for at least five years and so my expectation is Apple or an Apple authorised repairer would service or replace it for the entirety of those five years.
Another interesting part of the Consumer Guarantees Act (which I'm guessing is similar to the ACCC) is if a product is replaced with something new then the lifespan of the item resets, so if my laptop is replaced three years into an expected five year lifespan then I get another expected five years.
It's amazing how companies try to get away with things though.
The Consumer Guarantees Act is like the Australian Consumer Law; the ACCC is just the body responsible for enforcing it and representing consumers. The analogous body in NZ is the Commerce Commission: http://www.comcom.govt.nz/the-commission/making-a-complaint/
Also, Apple (US) licenses all their software to you without any warranty.
If you wish to keep using their device, you have to accept that the very first time you turn it on.
By this, Apple tries to protect your privacy (which is coincidentally also now basically their core business value) by not letting 3rd parties compromise your phone's security.
The consumer guarantees are specific rights that you cannot sign away; that is, there's no such thing as no warranty. Whether you agree to it when you turn your phone on is irrelevant.
As for misuse, that applies only if it caused the problem. The ACCC's case is that Apple refuses to do any repairs, even when they would be guaranteed (such as a manufacturing fault in the speaker), when the phone has been repaired in any way (such as the screen being replaced). If Apple can prove that these third party repairs do affect their ability to comply with the law, then they may win. I doubt that's the case personally.
We've banned this account for posting mostly uncivil, unsubstantive comments. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future.
A government of a country that leads the USA in almost every public measure and index, including democracy, quality of life and life expectancy. Certainly it can't match the USA in prison population, military size, murder rate, or size of ego. One that tries through consumer laws to ensure that people are not taken advantage of by huge corporate interests seeking to only maximize their profits.
For one, democracy and quality of life are subjective. Second, the other data points are cherry-picked.
Australia has a higher cost of living, a higher fertility rate, the Top Universities in the world 52/100 USA vs 4/100 Australia[1], the Top Medical Universities in the World 22/49 America vs 5/49 Australia[2].
And I could give you plenty more[3], but I think this proves my point.
These have always been the rules and Apple sure charge enough of a premium in Australia (14% more pre-tax) to cover the additional costs.
Plus it seems intuitively correct to me - using a third party repair to refuse service on a completely unrelated issue is anti-consumer and all round garbage behaviour which has somehow become accepted as the norm in mobile phone handsets.
Also, (and apologies for the tangent) I'm not sure how you'd describe a country whose last recession was 25 years ago is "struggling" (regardless of my personal issues with Australian politics).
If a third party fingerprint sensor is installed, the device's security is compromised. Are they supposed to provide a new Touch ID sensor for free? Is that the solution?
This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones.
As a consumer, I would love to have a better legal framework for situations like this. As a guy who has manufactured and sold a mass market tech hardware product, I have no idea how to realistically make that work.