Do you think Apple went too far?

[sam_gordon]

You're still not getting it. Yes, of course the thieves can replace the fingerprint sensor in a stock phone - that was the premise of my explanation. The new software is choosing to lock the phone because it's assuming that if the sensor doesn't match the rest of the hardware, then the phone was stolen and someone has replaced the sensor. It has no way of knowing whether the person who replaced the sensor is the true owner or a thief, so it chooses the safest option.

That would make total sense, IF the installation of the 3rd party hardware bricked the phone immediately. However, that's not the case. It doesn't brick until the update is installed, which can be months or weeks later, so the phone's content is STILL compromised. So tell me again how this helps security?

ETA: I still think Apple has a responsibility to it's customers to warn them what could happen before installing the update. A simple "3rd party hardware detected, continuing with the update could make your phone unusable. Proceed at your own risk." should suffice.

 

[GaryDis]

That would make total sense, IF the installation of the 3rd party hardware bricked the phone immediately. However, that's not the case. It doesn't brick until the update is installed, which can be months or weeks later, so the phone's content is STILL compromised. So tell me again how this helps security?

I'm assuming the brick can happen in either order. So if a person with a stock phone upgrades iOS today, no problem. But if tomorrow the phone is stolen, or tomorrow the owner decides to pay a third party to fix the fingerprint sensor, then it will brick on startup. It's just that this is new behavior for this version of iOS, and so there's a mess of people who already have third party repairs who are seeing it at once.

Again, this is mostly speculation on my part.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm assuming the brick can happen in either order. So if a person with a stock phone upgrades iOS today, no problem. But if tomorrow the phone is stolen, or tomorrow the owner decides to pay a third party to fix the fingerprint sensor, then it will brick on startup. It's just that this is new behavior for this version of iOS, and so there's a mess of people who already have third party repairs who are seeing it at once.

Again, this is mostly speculation on my part.

If your assumptions are correct, I would not feel sorry for the people who install 3rd party hardware. That's the chance you take.
I'm assuming a person with a stock iPhone replaces his fingerprint reader, the phone boots, it gets used for a week or month, then, when he updates it, the phone bricks.

Speculation on my part.

 

[Domo]

If your assumptions are correct, I would not feel sorry for the people who install 3rd party hardware. That's the chance you take.
I'm assuming a person with a stock iPhone replaces his fingerprint reader, the phone boots, it gets used for a week or month, then, when he updates it, the phone bricks.

Speculation on my part.

If this is indeed correct, then it reeks of the phrase, "Wise After the Event".

 

[PerfessorZ]

I'm with OP. I can't imagine any other product I buy being rendered deliberately inoperable by the manufacturer because I fixed it with a perfectly working non-OEM part. Voided warranty, sure, but not inoperable.

 

[book_junkie]

The thing is, while you the consumer are thinking there needs to be a warning with the update, you've already signed the waiver by turning on the phone the first time.
Go back to the giant terms of service and warranties that you got with your Apple device when you first got it (or read it online). It's in the fine print that you the user agree to use Apple & Apple sponsored retailers, services, apps, software, & whatever else they can think of forever and ever- if not, they're not responsible for anything. It's actually pretty standard- it's in Android and other platforms as well, Apple is just more fanatical about it.

 

[Kathryn Merteuil]

Crazy idea... if the phone has unauthorized parts and it is working. Disallow the update, don't destroy the phone. OR maybe with an update the touch ID sensor just won't work and you can use the phone just like the older iPhones with a pass code.

I have a hard time buying into this "it's for your own good" excuse, it is greed.

 

[rwdavis2]

But the question is, is that legal and/or ethical for a business? Why does Apple have any right to tell you what to do with their product after you buy it? (yes, voiding the warranty is OK, basically they are saying what THEY will do with the product based on what you do), but telling the consumer who now OWNS that product that they cannot use it however they want--why is that acceptable?

Is it likewise OK for car manufacturers to then add something in the vehicle software which makes the cars inoperable if anyone other than the dealer (entering some special code or something) changes the oil or a tire or does other maintenance?

Legal, yes. Ethical, maybe.

 

[Shutterbug]

ETA: I still think Apple has a responsibility to it's customers to warn them what could happen before installing the update. A simple "3rd party hardware detected, continuing with the update could make your phone unusable. Proceed at your own risk." should suffice.

I think something like that should have been a good notification as well.

 

[Albort]

http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/ap...-ios-to-restore-iphones-disabled-by-error-53/
looks like Apple is backing down... good news for us consumers...

 

[longboard55]

Silicon valley acts like they do not need to follow the law, porn kids can get to, streaming stolen music, no sales tax, and now this. It is evidence in a crime and it is against the law to not provide help. The can open the phone and send Xerox copies if they are concerned

 

[sam_gordon]

Silicon valley acts like they do not need to follow the law, porn kids can get to, streaming stolen music, no sales tax, and now this. It is evidence in a crime and it is against the law to not provide help. The can open the phone and send Xerox copies if they are concerned

I think you posted in the wrong thread.