Apple bricking iPhones that have been 3rd party repaired
Discussion
A new screen on an iPhone 6 is only £86.44 not £236.
https://www.apple.com/uk/support/iphone/repair/scr...
As usual, Apple do something to help and protect users and everybody moans but think about the alternative - they permit third party replacements and somebody finds a way to use the old security data to access your account, Apple really would be screwed then wouldn't they !
Would your credit card provider permit you to fix your own credit card using a third party chip ? Because that's effectively what the direct comparison is with the Apple Pay data held by the phone, it's effectively a credit card.
Admittedly there should be better communications regarding the fitting of non-authorised parts or at non-authorised repair companies, but I agree with Apple in principle.
https://www.apple.com/uk/support/iphone/repair/scr...
As usual, Apple do something to help and protect users and everybody moans but think about the alternative - they permit third party replacements and somebody finds a way to use the old security data to access your account, Apple really would be screwed then wouldn't they !
Would your credit card provider permit you to fix your own credit card using a third party chip ? Because that's effectively what the direct comparison is with the Apple Pay data held by the phone, it's effectively a credit card.
Admittedly there should be better communications regarding the fitting of non-authorised parts or at non-authorised repair companies, but I agree with Apple in principle.
George111 said:
A new screen on an iPhone 6 is only £86.44 not £236.
https://www.apple.com/uk/support/iphone/repair/scr...
As usual, Apple do something to help and protect users and everybody moans but think about the alternative - they permit third party replacements and somebody finds a way to use the old security data to access your account, Apple really would be screwed then wouldn't they !
Would your credit card provider permit you to fix your own credit card using a third party chip ? Because that's effectively what the direct comparison is with the Apple Pay data held by the phone, it's effectively a credit card.
Admittedly there should be better communications regarding the fitting of non-authorised parts or at non-authorised repair companies, but I agree with Apple in principle.
It is £236 for a new touchid sensor. The £86 is just for screen replacement https://www.apple.com/uk/support/iphone/repair/scr...
As usual, Apple do something to help and protect users and everybody moans but think about the alternative - they permit third party replacements and somebody finds a way to use the old security data to access your account, Apple really would be screwed then wouldn't they !
Would your credit card provider permit you to fix your own credit card using a third party chip ? Because that's effectively what the direct comparison is with the Apple Pay data held by the phone, it's effectively a credit card.
Admittedly there should be better communications regarding the fitting of non-authorised parts or at non-authorised repair companies, but I agree with Apple in principle.
It's nothing like fitting a third party chip to a card anyway - who would do that when the bank will replace it foc.
Still don't see why they can't just disable the touchid support and leave the rest of the phone working.
rscott said:
George111 said:
A new screen on an iPhone 6 is only £86.44 not £236.
https://www.apple.com/uk/support/iphone/repair/scr...
As usual, Apple do something to help and protect users and everybody moans but think about the alternative - they permit third party replacements and somebody finds a way to use the old security data to access your account, Apple really would be screwed then wouldn't they !
Would your credit card provider permit you to fix your own credit card using a third party chip ? Because that's effectively what the direct comparison is with the Apple Pay data held by the phone, it's effectively a credit card.
Admittedly there should be better communications regarding the fitting of non-authorised parts or at non-authorised repair companies, but I agree with Apple in principle.
It is £236 for a new touchid sensor. The £86 is just for screen replacement https://www.apple.com/uk/support/iphone/repair/scr...
As usual, Apple do something to help and protect users and everybody moans but think about the alternative - they permit third party replacements and somebody finds a way to use the old security data to access your account, Apple really would be screwed then wouldn't they !
Would your credit card provider permit you to fix your own credit card using a third party chip ? Because that's effectively what the direct comparison is with the Apple Pay data held by the phone, it's effectively a credit card.
Admittedly there should be better communications regarding the fitting of non-authorised parts or at non-authorised repair companies, but I agree with Apple in principle.
It's nothing like fitting a third party chip to a card anyway - who would do that when the bank will replace it foc.
Still don't see why they can't just disable the touchid support and leave the rest of the phone working.
In any case, there's no need for a new touch sensor if the screen is damaged - Apple will replace a screen without having to replace the touch sensor.
I think this is really a non-storey, some people get their phones repaired by a non-authorised source who can't pair the sensor to the phone so Apple has to disable it to protect the data . . . sounds OK to me and if some tow rag had stolen my phone then accessed all my data simply by installing his touch sensor into my phone I'd be seriously pissed off with Apple and I bet you would too ?
rscott said:
Still don't see why they can't just disable the touchid support and leave the rest of the phone working.
That's the crux of it really. I could understand disabling Touch ID if it detects a different sensor but to brick the whole phone into an unrecoverable state? That's just malicious in my opinion.Samsung have a security protocol called Knox which trips when you root the device. It's a one-way trip as well, once activated it's permanent and irreversible. The reason is that Samsung say they can't verify the end to end security on a rooted device any more which is fair enough. The problem is that without rooting and adbocking, my tablet was almost unusable - shocking for such a powerful device hardware-wise.
What it has done is ensure I'll never buy another Samsung device in future though, it's not been a great experience.
Edited by Funk on Saturday 6th February 23:57
Funk said:
That's the crux of it really. I could understand disabling Touch ID if it detects a different sensor but to brick the whole phone into an unrecoverable state? That's just malicious in my opinion.
Because a phone with a non-paired touch sensor is quite possibly under attack, and Apple would be crucified on the alter of public opinion if they let a stolen iPhone reveal its private data. They know it's quite possibly stolen because the sensor doesn't belong in that phone - pretty big give away if you're Apple and you can replace the touch sensor correctly for just a few pounds.I don't understand why people see this as something bad ? I'd much prefer Apple protect data.
It's not as if you buy an iPhone at £700-£900 and then take it to back street Charlie for a dodgy repair is it ? You send it to Apple and they sort it for you . . . it's part of why we buy Apple, you don't need to mess about with dodgy phone shops.
That's the difficulty.
A lot of people (myself included) are wary of things like biometrics on the simple basis that you can change a password but you can't change your biological fingerprint.
The moment it's shown that you can "fool" an iPhone into storing or giving up biometric credentials anywhere they shouldn't be coming from or going to they're in for a bad bad day so I can see why they've taken the route they have.
I can also understand why people get cheap repairs. I'll probably get pilloried for saying this but to many it isn't a £600 phone it's a £30/month rental.
A lot of people (myself included) are wary of things like biometrics on the simple basis that you can change a password but you can't change your biological fingerprint.
The moment it's shown that you can "fool" an iPhone into storing or giving up biometric credentials anywhere they shouldn't be coming from or going to they're in for a bad bad day so I can see why they've taken the route they have.
I can also understand why people get cheap repairs. I'll probably get pilloried for saying this but to many it isn't a £600 phone it's a £30/month rental.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I can see Apple's reasoning and understand it tbh, but I can also see why a lot of people would be pissed off if they'd had repairs done and all of a sudden their iPhone's stopped working.
They'll still go buy a 7 though.
I agree with all of that. I work in Financial Services software. Specifically on-line banking, banking, on-line payments and the like.They'll still go buy a 7 though.
Once Apple worked out it was potentially possible to make unauthorised payments from the phone they absolutely had no choice but to implement software to defeat that possibility. In my firm we spend a lot of time coming up with ways to hack into our own software, and then implementing features to defeat the attack. In our view - if WE could get in (and we know our own software inside out) then the security simply isn't good enough.
I would hope that they would assist affected users by offering a repair service that revalidates the link between the TouchId sensor and the system core at reasonable cost.
I don't think Apple are doing anything wrong with this. I've had several phones over the years and last week, I dropped one for the first time and smashed the screen. Took it to a few local repair places, all wanted £60 for iPhone 6 screen replacement where as apple only wanted £76. The only annoying thing is trying to get a damn genius bar appointment!
dont see the problem, just stop buying Iphones, they are really very poor anyway compared to some of the competition at a lot less money -
Poor reception, poor camera capability, very easy to damage etc....... and those are just the issues discovered by myself and a bunch of my friends who have previously owned one.
I personally wouldnt have another one because I think there are better mobile phones out there.
But then again people do like the latest hyped up "status symbol" and keeping up with the joneses..
Poor reception, poor camera capability, very easy to damage etc....... and those are just the issues discovered by myself and a bunch of my friends who have previously owned one.
I personally wouldnt have another one because I think there are better mobile phones out there.
But then again people do like the latest hyped up "status symbol" and keeping up with the joneses..
The cynic in me wonders if this might be the thin end of the wedge - didn't I read somewhere that Apple want to do more phone repairs in-store? Not quite sure how that would work as they always seem so packed and not everyone wants to go through the whole genius appointment booking thing for a broken screen or home button.
If it's a genuine security measure then I'm not surprised. Apple Pay is a game changer after all.
If it's a genuine security measure then I'm not surprised. Apple Pay is a game changer after all.
Good to see the true believers are still willing to drink the Kool-Aid.
It's one thing if this feature had existed from day one and was publicised. You'd only have yourself to blame.
It's another thing altogether to make it retroactive, to fail to warn that installing the update will introduce this 'feature', to have it destroy data and to then hide behind 'unknown error 53' when you know exactly what is happening and why.
It's absolutely pathetic and if you really think this is a good thing you really need to have a word with yourself and reconsider your membership in the Apple cult. Because cult members are what you look like.
It's one thing if this feature had existed from day one and was publicised. You'd only have yourself to blame.
It's another thing altogether to make it retroactive, to fail to warn that installing the update will introduce this 'feature', to have it destroy data and to then hide behind 'unknown error 53' when you know exactly what is happening and why.
It's absolutely pathetic and if you really think this is a good thing you really need to have a word with yourself and reconsider your membership in the Apple cult. Because cult members are what you look like.
Jonesy23 said:
Good to see the true believers are still willing to drink the Kool-Aid.
It's one thing if this feature had existed from day one and was publicised. You'd only have yourself to blame.
It's another thing altogether to make it retroactive, to fail to warn that installing the update will introduce this 'feature', to have it destroy data and to then hide behind 'unknown error 53' when you know exactly what is happening and why.
It's absolutely pathetic and if you really think this is a good thing you really need to have a word with yourself and reconsider your membership in the Apple cult. Because cult members are what you look like.
Amen.It's one thing if this feature had existed from day one and was publicised. You'd only have yourself to blame.
It's another thing altogether to make it retroactive, to fail to warn that installing the update will introduce this 'feature', to have it destroy data and to then hide behind 'unknown error 53' when you know exactly what is happening and why.
It's absolutely pathetic and if you really think this is a good thing you really need to have a word with yourself and reconsider your membership in the Apple cult. Because cult members are what you look like.
The evangelists seem to forget the fact that pre-iOS 9 these phones were working, with data exposed, after third-party replacement screens, home buttons, TouchID sensors, etc..
So.. the people that were vulnerable to this before were, and are still - if they choose not to update.
It's scary how willing people are to sacrifice their own freedom to do what they want with their own devices that they've bought.
What about those who weren't even using TouchID - so weren't encrypting their data anyway - but who had a replacement screen or home button, is it fair that their devices are bricked because of some nebulous desire by Apple to force protection of data that doesn't even belong to them anyway?
As you say people are really drinking the Kool-Aid if they are supportive of this kind of anti-consumer behaviour, particularly the malevolent way in which it was implemented (no warning, no means to downgrade, no means to recover data, etc)
I started a thread about Apple a while ago because I simply could not understand why people love and champion their products. The fanboys came out in force 
To me, Apple are a pile of arse. I cannot stand the way they try to trap you in their eco system and I find the iTunes concept utterly bizarre. They are quite a controlling company and think that it they make something shiny, it's worth a lot of money and is great.
Each to their own of course and if people want to spend money on Apple, then so be it. But this news is quite bad and bricking the whole unit is ridiculous. As others have said above, rendering a device useless and then saying it is because of security is an absolute farce. If a security option has been circumvented, just disable it.
Who am I to say anything though. People keep throwing money at Apple and some people even consider their device a fashion accessory. Sad fkers.
To me, Apple are a pile of arse. I cannot stand the way they try to trap you in their eco system and I find the iTunes concept utterly bizarre. They are quite a controlling company and think that it they make something shiny, it's worth a lot of money and is great.
Each to their own of course and if people want to spend money on Apple, then so be it. But this news is quite bad and bricking the whole unit is ridiculous. As others have said above, rendering a device useless and then saying it is because of security is an absolute farce. If a security option has been circumvented, just disable it.
Who am I to say anything though. People keep throwing money at Apple and some people even consider their device a fashion accessory. Sad f
kers. Durzel said:
As you say people are really drinking the Kool-Aid if they are supportive of this kind of anti-consumer behaviour, particularly the malevolent way in which it was implemented (no warning, no means to downgrade, no means to recover data, etc)
I agree the communication could have been better - or, lets face it, there could have been some communication ! All data will (should) be in iCloud so nobody has lost data. But this has been known about since the 5S so it's not a new idea . . . maybe newly publicised ?But as an Apple user I'm all behind this - a phone is no longer a phone, it's a credit card and a password store for on-line banking - I fully support Apple in blocking dodgy hardware replacement if it will protect my personal details. If you don't want to buy into the Apple eco system then fine, buy a Samsung.
I like Apple - I work in IT and spend all day looking at network issues and when I get home I want a phone which just works . . .and the iPhone does just that, it works perfectly, beautifully and without a glitch which is more than I can say for any Android phone I've tried.
The thing is, if it's all about security, for the benefit of consumers, then why is it tied to a process that is entirely optional? As said previously if you don't upgrade to iOS 9 you're unaffected, and can continue to use a phone that is supposedly compromised security wise?
Why not perform this check when a phone is connected to iTunes, or downloads an app, or any number of other behaviours that owners are likely to do more regularly?
As it is the way in which this is being handled feels totally punitive. Tying it to a software update, giving no warning whatsoever beforehand, and leaving no means to recover from - feels pretty disingenuous when you consider it's your data at risk, not Apples, and it's your phone to do with as you please (including taking it to a third party for repair). What about people who don't have easy access to Apple stores? Many countries just don't.
Why not perform this check when a phone is connected to iTunes, or downloads an app, or any number of other behaviours that owners are likely to do more regularly?
As it is the way in which this is being handled feels totally punitive. Tying it to a software update, giving no warning whatsoever beforehand, and leaving no means to recover from - feels pretty disingenuous when you consider it's your data at risk, not Apples, and it's your phone to do with as you please (including taking it to a third party for repair). What about people who don't have easy access to Apple stores? Many countries just don't.
As monitoned above, it's an optional security measure. So, why should it kill a device?
As Durzel has said, it's the owner's phone so they can do with it as they please. It isn't leased, so why should Apple have any say in how it is handled. It's disgusting behaviour and I can't help thinking that if other manufacturers did this, there would be outrage. Could you imagine an old second hand car shutting down because you had work done out of the dealer network and you didn't use an original part?
The fact that it is so hidden is the main issue. Apple are no better than VW in this case.
People will just put up with it though because their shiny Apple device means the world to them:
As Durzel has said, it's the owner's phone so they can do with it as they please. It isn't leased, so why should Apple have any say in how it is handled. It's disgusting behaviour and I can't help thinking that if other manufacturers did this, there would be outrage. Could you imagine an old second hand car shutting down because you had work done out of the dealer network and you didn't use an original part?
The fact that it is so hidden is the main issue. Apple are no better than VW in this case.
People will just put up with it though because their shiny Apple device means the world to them:
Knox trips an efuse if the phone is modified though that's to do with software mods outside the normal scope and not repairs.
And it seems fair enough for a compromised device to flag that it can't be trusted as there really isn't a way to be sure you could truly restore the software to a secure state.
There is also a world of difference between losing trust on a Samsung specific security feature that doesn't affect any normal usage and bricking the entire device beyond the point of data or device recovery.
And it seems fair enough for a compromised device to flag that it can't be trusted as there really isn't a way to be sure you could truly restore the software to a secure state.
There is also a world of difference between losing trust on a Samsung specific security feature that doesn't affect any normal usage and bricking the entire device beyond the point of data or device recovery.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff