Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia Businesses The Courts Apple

Bricked iPhones With 'Error 53' Just Cost Apple $6.7 Million in Australia (betanews.com) 118

Posted by msmash from the no-mercy dept.
Apple has been hit with an AUS $9 million ($6.7 million) fine for misleading customers in Australia. More than two years ago Apple started to "brick" iPhones that had been fixed at non-authorized third-party repairers, generating an Error 53. From a report: Apple admitted to intentionally preventing certain repaired iPhones and iPads from working for security reasons, but later apologized and issued a fix. However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sued Apple for "misleading or deceptive conduct," and now an Australian court has hit the iPhone-maker with a multi-million dollar fine.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bricked iPhones With 'Error 53' Just Cost Apple $6.7 Million in Australia More

Bricked iPhones With 'Error 53' Just Cost Apple $6.7 Million in Australia

Comments Filter:

  • Not "Bricked" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @01:34PM (#56810582)

    but later apologized and issued a fix

    I don't think you understand "bricked".
    When something is "bricked", it can then do anything a brick can, and nothing the bricks can't.
    Bricks can't be given a "fix" that turns them into a smartphone.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sycodon ( 149926 )

      I have a bricked phone right here on my desk.

      It goes through the update process but then fails saying it can't communicate with iTunes.

      Two new cables, two different computers.

      BRICKED

    • Re:Not "Bricked" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @03:31PM (#56811268) Homepage

      but later apologized and issued a fix

      I don't think you understand "bricked".
      When something is "bricked", it can then do anything a brick can, and nothing the bricks can't.
      Bricks can't be given a "fix" that turns them into a smartphone.

      If the user can't fix it and it didn't get fixed until Apple was forced to fix it. Then it was fucking bricked.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nzkbuk ( 773506 )

        If the user can't fix it and it didn't get fixed until Apple was forced to fix it. Then it was fucking bricked.

        Perhaps we need to start using the term Apple Bricked for "Manufacturer has decided you're not allowed to use the device you've paid for until the manufacturer is forced to concede you consumer rights"
        I think this should be used in a similar way to the term Streisand Effect

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      So nothing ever gets bricked, as the structural integrity of phones and computers make them ill suited for building houses?

    • Bricks can't be given a "fix" that turns them into a smartphone.

      You're talking about a problem that required complete and full intervention from the manufacturer to correct. The end user had something as useful to them as a brick and it was only through the will of the brick factory that they were able to be given something else.

      I'm okay with this use of the word brick. If the user did something that they can undo then it's not a brick. But if the user requires intervention from the manufacturer then you have created a distinction without any practical purpose. By your

    • Bricked is relative. If I brick my router while installing DD-WRT that does not mean that the manufacturer could not plug into their dev port and fix it, or anyone could not open the box and do some soldering work. It means that you cannot fix it. Bricked is used pretty much exclusively for software, and sometimes for minor hardware damage caused by software. In all cases the devices can be easily fixed, just not by the typical user, and not without using non standard channels (standard with respect to how

  • That'll learn'em (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlanBDee ( 2261976 ) on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @01:56PM (#56810716)

    Do they realize that a mosquito bit is more annoying to the decision makers at Apple then having to pay a $6.7 million dollar fine? This is hardly a deterrent, they need to add a few extra zeros to that before Apple will change any behavior.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      We really need more jurisdictions to inflict a similar fine - Australia has 24 million people, to make numbers easy if we pretend 2.5-billion people are in countries where Apple operates then this is ~1% of the fine they should receive globally. Likely the potential market is larger so we could guess the fine might be approximately $1-billion globally.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And what behavior is that?

      Apple didn't intentionally "brick" anything. It's not reasonable to expect them to support 3rd party displays which they neither designed nor vetted for their products.

      I'm not saying that having 3rd party hardware in your phone is wrong but a software update may brick your phone because said 3rd party screens may have a hackish/incomplete implementation of the display interface.

      This ain't auto parts. Most cars don't run a touchy high-speed differential signaling protocol between th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        The difference is between intentionally refusing to work, and unintentionally not working due to an incompatibility.
        It appears that apple intentionally broke otherwise working third party screens, and hence a justified fine.

        • I agree that it would be justified to fine them for that, but that isn't what they were fined for. They were fined for telling customers that the fix for the Error 53 message wasn't covered by waranty because the customer had used a third party repairer. Since Error 53 is a software problem, and the fix was to do with the display, the waranty was not voided under Australian law. And Apple had been warned about this behaviour before.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nzkbuk ( 773506 )

        And what behavior is that?

        Apple didn't intentionally "brick" anything. It's not reasonable to expect them to support 3rd party displays which they neither designed nor vetted for their products.

        Except that Apple have also done this with refurbished displays [engadget.com] eg where the glass has cracked, but the underlying electronics are fine so the gladd was replaced
        It's also been proven when a display was swapped from one fully working iphone6 to another working iphone6 [ifixit.org]

        This ain't auto parts.

        Fake Auto parts can cause serious injury [manilaspeak.com] or even death [sproxil.com]
        Personally I'd prefer to use a 3rd party part in my phone than my car. I'm far less likely to have a life changing injury from my phone

    • If they use the money to fund additional enforcement efforts then it could be more powerful, but I don't know anything about if that happens in Australia or not.

      Unfortunately, this amount of money is likely too small to even get Apple execs to ask where it goes, or care. But it doesn't have to hurt to lose the money for losing it to modify behavior; though is certainly helps.

    • Do they realize that a mosquito bit is more annoying to the decision makers at Apple then having to pay a $6.7 million dollar fine?

      Of course they do. They're not trying to kill the goddamn goose, they just want some of the gold. These trivial fines don't even slightly dissuade Apple from doing business in their country, but they are a nice little shot of funding.

    • This is hardly a deterrent

      The punishment fits the crime. You don't arrest people for j-walking, you slap them with a $50 fine which is about as annoying as a mosquito bite to most people too.
      The distinction here is that this entire case was based on the premise that Apple said 3rd parties aren't authorized to repair something. They created this Error 53, and then fixed it before the ACCC even got involved.

      This mosquito bite is for making a deceptive claim and nothing more.

  • Pocket Change (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The fine appears pointless since Apple has billions in cash and such a paltry fine will do little to discourage similar behavior in the future.

    • Re:Pocket Change (Score:5, Interesting)

      by green1 ( 322787 ) on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @02:03PM (#56810764)

      You are correct, however I think it sets a precedent. And once a precedent is set, the fines tend to ratchet higher in the future as you can now argue that they knew better and decided to do it despite the fine.

      Of course for this to work, you need a jurisdiction that actually has consumer protection laws, and not only do those not exist in North America, they're becoming rarer and rarer by the day in the rest of the world.

  • fines need to dramatically increase (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @02:03PM (#56810760)

    If you do something like this as an individual? That is, purposefully destroy something of someone's, for profit? And in a fraudulent way? And then publicly lie about it, further compounding things?

    You'd be called a fucking psychopath, and fines wouldn't be the equiv of a cup of coffee. Hell, this fine is the same as .. well, less than a penny in a normal person's pocket.

    What would happen to a *person*? After all, corporations have greater freedoms, powers, and abilities as they've been legally defined as 'persons' in most commonwealth nations. So -- if that's the case?

    Well.. a person might see jail, but would certainly be hit with a life crippling fine.

    Is this life crippling? Does this make Apple reel with the implications, tottering on personal bankruptcy? The fine or the jail time would, for something like this, for 'just a real person'.

    Corporations need to be *deathly afraid* of running afoul of the law. Fire people without morals, that skirt legalities, because otherwise? They'll be bankrupt.

    This fine should have been in the billion dollar range, because Apple has billions in the bank.

    And the same should be so, for any corp that willingly steals and defrauds people.

    • You realize this story is about Australia, right?

    • If you do something like this as an individual? That is, purposefully destroy something of someone's, for profit? And in a fraudulent way? And then publicly lie about it, further compounding things?

      You forgot about the bit where they then promptly issued a fix after the outcry.

      But your rant is irrelevant. The fine had nothing to do with getting an error 53. The fine had to do with telling customer that they had no right to warranty if their phone had been repaired (false under Australian law). Also Apple had to separately pay compensation to 5000 customers.

  • That's it?!? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Should have made it 6.7 billion to make them notice. 6.7 million is morning coffee for the legal team.

  • Interesting precident... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @02:11PM (#56810802) Journal

    ...but $6.7M US is pocket change to Apple.

    • ...but $6.7M US is pocket change to Apple.

      Depends. A penalty shouldn't be based on how much you hate a company, it is proportional to damage done. I can't work out the detail, but TFA implies there were 5000 customers affected which means the penalty is about the price of two new iPhones per customer,
      This seems appropriate to me.

      • ...but $6.7M US is pocket change to Apple.

        Depends. A penalty shouldn't be based on how much you hate a company, it is proportional to damage done. I can't work out the detail, but TFA implies there were 5000 customers affected which means the penalty is about the price of two new iPhones per customer,

        This seems appropriate to me.

        And I'm sure it's just part of the cost of doing business for Apple.

    • And? The punishment fitted the crime. The fine was for telling customers that their warranty was void. They separately also had to compensate customers, and Australia has a history of escalating punishments for repeat offenders.

  • anything about court costs or legal fees in addition to the fine, which seems to be a slap on the wrist...

  • apple's anti 3rd party repair policies (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    apple is definitely up for a slap in the face. after applying to be an apple repair center for nearly 2 years and reply and reply, waiting and waiting... they came back and said.. no.. we are shutting down and getting rid of 3rd party authorized repair centers -- say what?

    sounds like the John Deere & Apple legal issue. -- is it my tractor or not? why can't i fix it myself?
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-john-deere-apple

    rotten bastards..doh! it's ok..

  • Ohhh nooo! (Score:3)

    by gatfirls ( 1315141 ) on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @02:50PM (#56811024)

    No beef wellington on the menu at the campus cafe this week, got to tighten our belts.

    • Apple employees don't eat beef wellington! It's probably just Kale and Yogurt.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      No beef wellington on the menu at the campus cafe this week, got to tighten our belts.

      Why do Americans think Beef Wellington is fancy?

      Its a beef roast wrapped in pastry... if you struggle to make that you should probably admit you're a failure of a cook.

      • Because beef tenderloin is usually regarded as the best cut of meat and it's a ridiculously complicated preparation? I would agree that most Americans find the simplest of cooking tasks complicated but let's have a looksee at classic beef wellington: .............."Preparation
        Make the duxelles
        Heat the butter and oil in a 10-inch skillet over low heat. Add the shallots and cook, stirring often, until translucent, 3 to 4 minutes. Add the mushrooms, stir well, and raise the heat to medium. Cook, stirring occas

  • Idiot ruling from court (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The courts can't hold apple accountable for third party repairs that weren't within the spec of the official original parts used.

    You repaired your phone with a substandard part, so what if it works for *THAT* IOS version - it's not going to work for any future versions if apple decide to fully utilise that part's speed/capabilities, and apple can't know the shit parts third party repairers are going to try to pass-off as working.

    Let me iterate that again - the spec on the replacement part has changed, to th

    • Apple had dealer only tools needed to pair parts that they did not give to 3rd party shops. That is the issue and is the same issue with cars.

      What if GM had an change oil light that needed an dealer only tool to reset?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nzkbuk ( 773506 )
      Except that this happened even if you swapped the screen from one working iphone 6 to another, or swapped a broken screen with a refurbished one.
  • What is $7M to Apple?

  • Assuming an average cost/revenue of $700, $6.7M USD is just above 9,500 iPhones.

    Per Google search, they sell about 590 per MINUTE (4th quarter last year on average).

    So that's about 16 minutes of sales:
    https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

    They were probably laughing while lounging on their yachts that cost more than the settlement.

  • 7 million dollars.

    Wow.

    Apple spends more than that on TOILET PAPER!

    Their annual revenues are north of 200 BILLION and have been since 2015.

    This isn't even a slap on the wrist.

    This is more of a smiling "tsk tsk tsk" while shaking a "naughty naughty" finger at them.

  • This should fall under the statutes relating to the destruction of private property or theft of private property.

  • 6.7 million USD? Is that a joke? Apple probably spends more on cardboard packaging than that, a year.

    In the face of such a horrifically crippling punishment, I'm fully confident Apple will never ever try anything shady again!

  • Here's the real story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • The fine isn't big enough. It needs more zeros

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close