Live data from Hacker News

iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

theguardian.com

361–363 of 363 posts

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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)?

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.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is definitely over-engineered. If it is a scare tactic to bring people to Apple repair centers why isn't this happening with other Apple products?

Oh you mean apart from all the glue and solder, non-replaceable batteries and the like?

Not sure if I understood you correctly but replacing batteries yourself in your Macbook does definitely void warranty but does not brick the device.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that document explain Apple's motivation for bricking phones that never had the fingerprint reader enabled, and that didn't even use traditional lock passwords? No? Well, then it makes sense to look elsewhere for that motivation. Additional data appears to be needed. Lacking such data, assumptions are all we have.

Possibly you're stretching for Hanlon's Razor, except you've got the wrong end of it. Hanlon's is the one that says "never assign to malice what can be assigned to stupidity". This feels like a screwup. The reason why it happens is consistent with security. But the effects are maddening.

Looks like you got this one right, and I'm glad to admit it.
Post reply on HN