2 ms·

> In the second paragraph, you present a scenario where the third party repair could have been responsible for the fault. No. Perhaps I could have been clearer

> In the second paragraph, you present a scenario where the third party repair could have been responsible for the fault. No. Perhaps I could have been clearer, but the emphasis in that sentence is on 'widespread', not on 'could'. Which is to say that third party repairs can do significantly more damage, and if you have your TouchID sensor replaced or repaired by a third party, and a connected component fails, Apple may rightfully feel aggrieved if they're on the hook. The component may have failed anyway, but it also might be due to the third party repair or unofficial component. > They can't just say "this could have been caused by the third party, so we're not going to look at it." They have to actually figure it out. Which is what this is all about. It's very hard and very time consuming to do that.

mikeash 10y ago
It's hard and time consuming to build smartphones in the first place. Sometimes you have to do hard and time consuming things. I don't see that a requirement to continue to honor the warranty after third-party repairs has been made represents any sort of undue burden on Apple, let alone one so terrible that it justifies overturning hard-fought consumer protections and returning to a system where companies are allowed to screw over customers pretty much at will. Apple always has the choice to err on the side of caution and honor the warranty even when the third-party repair is at fault. That caps the cost to whatever it costs them to provide a replacement device. Which is probably something like $200 if your phone isn't brand new. If they feel it may be worthwhile, they can try to determine whether a third-party repair is at fault for the problem at hand. But they don't have to.