6 ms·

If I try to look at this from Apple's side, I can sort of see the logic: the problem stems from the OEM Touch ID sensor being replaced with a mismatched (or ent

If I try to look at this from Apple's side, I can sort of see the logic: the problem stems from the OEM Touch ID sensor being replaced with a mismatched (or entirely third party) sensor during a screen repair, which screws with the hardware security chain on the device and generally makes it difficult to troubleshoot problems even if they seem unrelated. This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones. As a consumer, I would love to have a better legal framework for situations like this. As a guy who has manufactured and sold a mass market tech hardware product, I have no idea how to realistically make that work.

gameshot911 10y ago
My understanding from the article is that Apple might be able to refuse service if they were to look at the device and determine the problem is caused by the 3rd party sensor. What they can't do however is totally refuse service based _solely_ on the fact that a 3rd party repair happened at all.
- benchaney 10y ago
  That seems like it would run in to problems in practice. What if there is no way to directly link 3rd party repair to malfunctions, but devices that had undergone third party repair malfunctioned more frequently. On the one hand, Apple shouldn't have to take on the burden of causing problems that were caused by third party repair. On the other hand, some of the devices would have malfunctioned anyway, and from the outside it appear like Apple is refusing service solely because of a 3rd party repair.
  - spangry 10y ago
    The situation sounds remarkably similar to auto-manufacturers building cars that can only be services by 'licensed technicians' (usually their dealer network). I wonder if that is the bigger issue the ACCC has in mind (and is trying to discourage): manufacturers who sell a product that creates a subsequent and artificial 'captive market'.
    - simion314 10y ago
      Exactly, so you change your built-in speaker in your car then the engine breaks and you lose your warranty because you changed the speaker at a third party.
      - culturestate 10y ago
        The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components. A better example from the automotive industry would be losing your engine warranty for having an "unauthorized" mechanic swap in an aftermarket oxygen sensor.
        wtallis 10y ago
        > The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components. That's an obvious and important distinction, but it can't be solely left up to the manufacturer to determine what was coupled or related enough to void the entire warranty or absolve the manufacturer of all liability. If it's left up to them, they have a strong incentive to prohibit any third-party repairs of any kind. A good regulatory policy would need to ensure that the incentive is for the manufacturer to be the cheapest and easiest provider of repair services, so that poorly-executed third-party repairs are less likely to happen in the first place.
        Someone 10y ago
        "The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine" In today's world I wouldn't bet on that always being the case. Your audio system might send audio data to your speakers over the same network your car tires uses to tell your engine that the road is slippery. Also, your car's engine in a wider sense might want to use your audio system to communicate with you, for example if your chair has detected that you are dozing of. Modern car electronics really are integrated with each other.
  - Radle 10y ago
    Apple gives a guarantee. Not an "Your system might run for x months." But an "Your system WILL run for x months." Even if the error is not caused by apple, they take in 99% of the profits that comes with selling and repairing the devices. They can take some responsibility for third party fails, in cases where they can't proof that other people actually failed. That's a very limited scope.
    - Ntrails 10y ago
      No, they guarantee that where proper care is taken the device will run for x months. If you try to use it underwater they won't repair it for free, and if you have it repaired by a non approved party they won't repair it for free. Both represent "misuse"
      - mikeash 10y ago
        That's probably how they want to do it, but it's not how the law requires them to do it. They must still repair it for free unless the underwater use or third-party repair caused the problem. They cannot say, "somebody else touched this, so tough luck." If they can demonstrate that your problem is a result of someone else touching it, then they can say tough luck. If they can't, then they have to fix it even if you didn't do things the way they want you to. I think it's important to remember that these consumer protections aren't some random government overreach. They were put in place as a reaction to abuses by manufacturers. Without them, we'd probably have Apple charging $50 for a charger, with the threat of voiding your warranty if you use an unapproved charger, or similar tactics. To bring it into another realm where the problem might be more obvious, imagine if your car manufacturer could void your warranty if you installed unapproved (and un-overpriced) tires or brake pads. Again, if those tires or brake pads cause your problem then they don't have to fix it, but they can't just void your warranty because of their mere presence.
        Ntrails 10y ago
        Oh, I agree, my point was that the guarantee of "free repair" is contingent on terms not just a blanket statement. They are required to take it in under guarantee to look at it but when they open it up and water starts leaking out they're going to stop and send you a bill. The interesting part of it is how hard it would be to prove them wrong if they say it could have been caused by behaviour x. Eg, if I chip my car and run it at non stock settings - the manufacturer can probably attribute almost any issue at all to that and I'd be hard pressed to disprove that assertion.
spangry 10y ago
I personally can't see the problem with the concept of consumer protection laws when applied to smartphones or other tech gadgetry. As for when Australia's consumer protection laws, they underwent a fairly comprehensive re-write in 2011. Would you mind expanding on some of the conceptual difficulties you see? Genuine question; not trying to be snarky. I just like playing "king for a day" :) It's an interesting issue, particularly around how warranties apply to things like firmware updates and security patches. HP have previously run afoul of the ACCC, due to their policy of making customers pay extra for firmware updates after their 1 year warranty period expires (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-fo...).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
aplummer 10y ago
I agree with point 1, however: > This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones. I actually think it makes more sense having these laws now than before. A consumer buying a $3k television or $1.2k phone would expect it to be high quality and last many years, but has no way of actually telling it will only last warranty + 1 month because of x,y,z - so needs help from consumer protection. With a mixer it was probably easier, a simpler machine and easier to judge quality for the average person.
angry-hacker 10y ago
So change the touch id too? Laws are made for people and companies to obey them, if it's too expensive, stop selling the product in that country or don't offer touch id.
mikeash 10y ago
I don't see the problem. Third-party repairs make it difficult to troubleshoot? Too bad, do it anyway. Either demonstrate that the third-party repair is at fault, or fix the problem. If that's too hard for some reason, maybe they should design their hardware to make it easier. Or they can put up with erring on the side of caution in their troubleshooting process. These protections were put in place because companies have proven that they will be abusive with their warranties without the protections. I see no reason why these protections shouldn't still apply to smartphones, and lots of reasons why they still need to.

gameshot911 10y ago

My understanding from the article is that Apple might be able to refuse service if they were to look at the device and determine the problem is caused by the 3rd party sensor. What they can't do however is totally refuse service based _solely_ on the fact that a 3rd party repair happened at all.

benchaney 10y ago
That seems like it would run in to problems in practice. What if there is no way to directly link 3rd party repair to malfunctions, but devices that had undergone third party repair malfunctioned more frequently. On the one hand, Apple shouldn't have to take on the burden of causing problems that were caused by third party repair. On the other hand, some of the devices would have malfunctioned anyway, and from the outside it appear like Apple is refusing service solely because of a 3rd party repair.
- spangry 10y ago
  The situation sounds remarkably similar to auto-manufacturers building cars that can only be services by 'licensed technicians' (usually their dealer network). I wonder if that is the bigger issue the ACCC has in mind (and is trying to discourage): manufacturers who sell a product that creates a subsequent and artificial 'captive market'.
  - simion314 10y ago
    Exactly, so you change your built-in speaker in your car then the engine breaks and you lose your warranty because you changed the speaker at a third party.
    - culturestate 10y ago
      The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components. A better example from the automotive industry would be losing your engine warranty for having an "unauthorized" mechanic swap in an aftermarket oxygen sensor.
      - wtallis 10y ago
        > The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine in the same way that...well really any internal component of a smartphone is coupled to other internal components. That's an obvious and important distinction, but it can't be solely left up to the manufacturer to determine what was coupled or related enough to void the entire warranty or absolve the manufacturer of all liability. If it's left up to them, they have a strong incentive to prohibit any third-party repairs of any kind. A good regulatory policy would need to ensure that the incentive is for the manufacturer to be the cheapest and easiest provider of repair services, so that poorly-executed third-party repairs are less likely to happen in the first place.
      - Someone 10y ago
        "The obvious difference here is that a speaker is not tightly coupled to an engine" In today's world I wouldn't bet on that always being the case. Your audio system might send audio data to your speakers over the same network your car tires uses to tell your engine that the road is slippery. Also, your car's engine in a wider sense might want to use your audio system to communicate with you, for example if your chair has detected that you are dozing of. Modern car electronics really are integrated with each other.
- Radle 10y ago
  Apple gives a guarantee. Not an "Your system might run for x months." But an "Your system WILL run for x months." Even if the error is not caused by apple, they take in 99% of the profits that comes with selling and repairing the devices. They can take some responsibility for third party fails, in cases where they can't proof that other people actually failed. That's a very limited scope.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    No, they guarantee that where proper care is taken the device will run for x months. If you try to use it underwater they won't repair it for free, and if you have it repaired by a non approved party they won't repair it for free. Both represent "misuse"
    - mikeash 10y ago
      That's probably how they want to do it, but it's not how the law requires them to do it. They must still repair it for free unless the underwater use or third-party repair caused the problem. They cannot say, "somebody else touched this, so tough luck." If they can demonstrate that your problem is a result of someone else touching it, then they can say tough luck. If they can't, then they have to fix it even if you didn't do things the way they want you to. I think it's important to remember that these consumer protections aren't some random government overreach. They were put in place as a reaction to abuses by manufacturers. Without them, we'd probably have Apple charging $50 for a charger, with the threat of voiding your warranty if you use an unapproved charger, or similar tactics. To bring it into another realm where the problem might be more obvious, imagine if your car manufacturer could void your warranty if you installed unapproved (and un-overpriced) tires or brake pads. Again, if those tires or brake pads cause your problem then they don't have to fix it, but they can't just void your warranty because of their mere presence.
      - Ntrails 10y ago
        Oh, I agree, my point was that the guarantee of "free repair" is contingent on terms not just a blanket statement. They are required to take it in under guarantee to look at it but when they open it up and water starts leaking out they're going to stop and send you a bill. The interesting part of it is how hard it would be to prove them wrong if they say it could have been caused by behaviour x. Eg, if I chip my car and run it at non stock settings - the manufacturer can probably attribute almost any issue at all to that and I'd be hard pressed to disprove that assertion.

spangry 10y ago

I personally can't see the problem with the concept of consumer protection laws when applied to smartphones or other tech gadgetry. As for when Australia's consumer protection laws, they underwent a fairly comprehensive re-write in 2011. Would you mind expanding on some of the conceptual difficulties you see? Genuine question; not trying to be snarky. I just like playing "king for a day" :) It's an interesting issue, particularly around how warranties apply to things like firmware updates and security patches. HP have previously run afoul of the ACCC, due to their policy of making customers pay extra for firmware updates after their 1 year warranty period expires (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-fo...).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

aplummer 10y ago

I agree with point 1, however: > This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones. I actually think it makes more sense having these laws now than before. A consumer buying a $3k television or $1.2k phone would expect it to be high quality and last many years, but has no way of actually telling it will only last warranty + 1 month because of x,y,z - so needs help from consumer protection. With a mixer it was probably easier, a simpler machine and easier to judge quality for the average person.

angry-hacker 10y ago

So change the touch id too? Laws are made for people and companies to obey them, if it's too expensive, stop selling the product in that country or don't offer touch id.

mikeash 10y ago

I don't see the problem. Third-party repairs make it difficult to troubleshoot? Too bad, do it anyway. Either demonstrate that the third-party repair is at fault, or fix the problem. If that's too hard for some reason, maybe they should design their hardware to make it easier. Or they can put up with erring on the side of caution in their troubleshooting process. These protections were put in place because companies have proven that they will be abusive with their warranties without the protections. I see no reason why these protections shouldn't still apply to smartphones, and lots of reasons why they still need to.