Apple Sued an iPhone Repair Shop Owner in Norway and Lost

> This is incorrect and a complete oversimplification of what actually happened. In every single one of the cases you mention, the device was bricked because having the part displayed broke the chain of encryption from the secure enclave to the device in question - Touch ID or Face ID. If you can't verify the chain of trust, there's no way for the device to accurately tell that the security measures that are in place are working correctly with any kind of certainty.

It's not incorrect just incomplete because even genuine parts would fail validation and result in a bricked device.

> In fact, Apple reversed the Touch ID issue by simply notifying the user that a third-party display had disabled Touch ID

> You're either simply ignorant of how these situations came to be or you're being disingenuous

Now who is being disingenuous and/or ignorant?

Only Apple could replace or repair your screen/button and have Touch ID work. When users had their screens repaired using non genuine parts they were fulled aware that Touch ID wasn't going to work.

The devices didn't brick themselves on first boot. They disabled Touch ID and access to the secure enclave but continued to work. Then Apple released an iOS update that bricked their phones for their safety. Then they back pedaled and released a patch so that instead of bricking devices it just notified the user of what they already knew.

AOL?

>This is entirely inaccurate. They just want there to be a clear distinction between Apple service and third-party service.

False. This is getting tiring.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Consumer-watchdog-accuses-Appl...

https://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/apple-removes-ifixits-repa...

https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/25/iphone-warranty-third-party-s...

Apple is using or was using (for above links) various ways to make it seem like third party services are illegitmate. Its one of the several tactics to maintain a monopoly. Consumers are getting wiser. Thousands of people have gotten a screen fixed or a battery replaced without paying Apple's tax. Apple sure as hell doesn't like that. But tough cookies. Its no different than the inkjet situation where they blocked third party cartriges and made it nearly impossible for you to refill ink.

>To use your Subaru analogy, it would be like Subaru making parts for your car and no other third-party manufacturer making them. You wouldn't have a choice but to buy from Subaru. Subaru isn't stopping anyone from reverse-engineering those parts or simply making their own parts that are compatible but it doesn't make sense that Subaru would have to be forced to provide instructions on how to do it. A

Subaru doesn't brick my car if I put in a non-subaru stereo.

>Anyone that's ever taken their car to a mechanic and gotten screwed should be able to relate to what Apple's goals are here.

And anyone who has gotten gouged by Apple knows that a monopoly of service and parts is never going to bring about competition.

>If someone's iPhone is all fucked up, other people don't know that they got it repaired at some janky kiosk. They just see an iPhone having issues. That devalues and severely harms a brand and company.

So your argument, as best as I can unpack it, since it was very confusing to me, is - Its justified because someone somewhere at somepoint in time in some cases might face some issues with their third party repair and some people might possibly sometimes mistake that as an Apple problem. Wow.

Anyway, we're going around in circles. There is no point in arguing you have your opinion and I have mine. I am happy to support a positive movement that promotes less e-waste and more local jobs.

You appear to be claiming that Apple deliberately develops software updates to break user- or third-party-repaired devices.

This requires Apple to have a team studying how third parties repair their devices, and working on ways to modify their software to break such devices while leaving all others unaffected. That's a not-insignificant challenge.

The likelier explanation is that Apple does not invest in developing updates that will deliberately break your phone as retaliation for you repairing it in ways they don't like. The likelier explanation is that Apple simply doesn't test the interaction between their updates and your repairs, and doesn't much care if your phone breaks as a result. They test for the interaction with their stock devices, and devices repaired through their advocated channels, and don't seem to want the "absolutely everything everybody might do must be supported" approach Microsoft historically took (with good reason -- one of the advantages of tight ecosystem control is getting to avoid Microsoft's nightmare).

First, violating terms of service isn't illegal - ToS isn't the law, it's a contract; breaching contract terms isn't illegal but may expose you to some liabilities depending on the contract.

Second, terms of service don't always apply, you may refuse them, and then you're not even in breach of contract. Things like shrink-wrap/click-through EULAs aren't binding contracts in Norway; so the default provisions of copyright law apply, which allows reverse engineering without the permission of the copyright holder.