To Apple does not like their phones be repaired in technical services that are not owned, is what emerges from situations like that with the famous ‘Error 53’, an error emerged after a controversial update and it finished with many iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s converted into very expensive bricks. ‘Brickeados’ unilaterally by Apple phones.
The problem came by the repair of these terminals in unauthorized workshops start button by many users, but by not having a service close to or to find places where the repair was more economical. The result was phones gone unused and Apple refused to repair them, which can cause you serious problems now that the ACCC, the Association rights of the consumers of Australia, will take to Cupertino to the courts.
Pledged security of the fingerprint reader
That was the official response from Apple when appeared the famous ‘Error 53’ that left so many terminals iPhone lines 6 and iPhone 6s without service. The external service in a non-authorized Apple service endangered the security of the device itself to contain a secure fingerprint reader.
According to Apple, some defective components affect the sensor itself that can “cause a bad pairing with Touch key ID”, something that It does not occur when the repair is carried out in official technical services, Since the pairing between the parts is recertified by the company itself. This security issue ended with the famous ‘Error 53’ for which Apple recommended to contact Apple support. But that contact did not reconditioned phones.
The key, according to Apple, was that third-party access to the Touch ID undertook encryption and device security
The own ACCC says that repaired iPhone in an external service does not extinguish the maintenance contract Apple should keep with the user, hence the ‘Error 53’ should be repaired by the company itself. All this on the basis that the rights of the consumer in this regard are protected by Australian law.
Warranties under consumer law Australia consumer rights exist independently of any one manufacturer’s warranty and are not extinguished simply because a consumer repair their products at a non-brand service”
The term ‘monopoly’ appeared to refer to the service
These statements of Rod Sims, the person at the head of the ACCC, occurred at the same time that the ACCC announced at Apple that placed all relevant documentation to the Justice of his country for initiate legal proceedings against the company directed by Tim Cook. “Consumers should not be penalized for seeking the best price for your repairs,” said Dimi Ioannu, lawyer of the law firm Maurice Blackburn Australian.
The last words of Ioannu are perhaps that more should worry to Apple in this case, and also other manufacturers that they can be in the same position for any reason. According to Ioannu, no manufacturer can constitute a monopoly for the repair of your products. We will see in what has all this judicial process that, surely, will be sounded.