Could someone explain what is the legal basis for this?
iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
21–30 of 363 posts
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#22Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you suggest instead and why?
Call it what it actually is: short sighted, greedy, foolish, etc. Don't use a word that puts down people with disabilities.
Did you just say short sighted? Not everybody has perfect eyesight, you know, but that doesn't make us stupid. You hater, you.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#24It'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 pet…
I could maybe see as a good thing from a security point of view, although I'm not sure if bricking is the right solution here. If my self-driving car gets hacked (whether physically or its software), I'd rather it stopped working than let it drive hacked.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#25I'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.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call it what it actually is: short sighted, greedy, foolish, etc. Don't use a word that puts down people with disabilities.
Did you just say short sighted? Not everybody has perfect eyesight, you know, but that doesn't make us stupid. You hater, you.
Ironically, you just helped him make his point.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#27It'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 pet…
It may even be against the law in Europe because the phone was working perfectly after the repair and only the later update locked the phone without the ability to unlock it. To keep with the care maker example, in Germany, the car makers used to void the 10 years guarantee on the painting of the car if the regular checks were done by an independent car shop. This was then declared as illegal. I suppose Apple will so…
How will affected users get the "new update" if their phone is already broken by the previous? I mean, I hope that, in the case of already broken phone caused by their own update, apple _at_least_ give them a new iphone for free, else they are gonna get rape-sued here in EU
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call it what it actually is: short sighted, greedy, foolish, etc. Don't use a word that puts down people with disabilities.
I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend anybody but my reading of the word is that it has two meanings, one of which is 'stupid or dumb'. I'll update the comment.
Your reading is correct. But there's always going to be people complaining about word choice even if your meaning is perfectly clear and inoffensive.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#29Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#30Isn'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?