Q: iPhone restore error 53 - not listed anywhere, what is the problem? has anyone seen it before???

Jay 75 wrote:

 

You are attempting to defend the indefensible. This is a very unfair move by apple, people with slightly damaged phones that have been working for months are now being intentionally bricked.

 

While I appreciated some people have fanatically unconditional brand loyalty, your support for this is unethical.

Don't quote ethics to me.  It's unethical for someone to violate the terms of a warranty, and then still expect that a company will continue to support that product.  When you bought your iPhone, you agreed to the terms & conditions of the warranty.  If you violate that agreement, then the other party is absolved from providing any further support, and that includes access to their proprietary operating system.  You're welcome to try to use another operating system if you want.  Maybe you can get Windows 10 to run on the iPhone?

This is a technical support forum, not an emotional support forum.  All of the relevant technical questions have been answered.

And it's perfectly defensible.  When you allow unauthorized service on your iOS device, you are willingly forgoing any support of further services form Apple.  That includes use of the operating system.  It's in the hardware warranty and in the terms of use of the operating system.  And every single iPhone purchaser agreed to both at time of purchase and prior to any iOS update.

Please sue, then. Sue them and win so all countries within the EU benefits from the victory (except Denmark).

It's sooo appalling, big 'A'.

Your technical amounted to 'tough, sell your phone'.

Buying a phone with a faulty touch pad is not voiding the warranty, people are getting there phones bricked for faulty hardware problems along with minor damage caused by the user.

Your opinion is most certainly not unbiased, and if this is not a forum for this why are you even replying to the posts just ignore them.

But it wouldn't be faulty if it could be repaired. Should I pay 25€ or 200€? For security? My phone does't contain state secrets. I'm not a Clinton. Perhaps Vladimir and Assad could find my moms complaints about my dads snorring, thats about it.

I guess you're right. If Apple doesn't fall in line, it's a sell.

Jay 75 wrote:

 

Your technical amounted to 'tough, sell your phone'.

 

Buying a phone with a faulty touch pad is not voiding the warranty, people are getting there phones bricked for faulty hardware problems along with minor damage caused by the user.

 

Your opinion is most certainly not unbiased, and if this is not a forum for this why are you even replying to the posts just ignore them.

Yup, that's pretty much what it boils down to; if you don't like the terms of an agreement, don't enter into the agreement.  So, yeah, call it ''tough, sell your phone" if you want.

Who's buying a phone with a faulty touch pad?  If you have a defective product, then the warranty applies.  If you buy a modified device from a third-party, then the warranty was already void when you bought it.

Scenarios:

A) Bought a device new from Apple.  It has a defect.  Apple services/replaces device during one-year warranty, and for a fee after that time frame.

B) Bought a device new from Apple.  It gets damaged.  Apple services/replaces device for a fee at virtually any time (or about 5 years, depending on obsolescence)

C) Bought a device new from Apple.  It gets damaged.  Instead of paying Apple's service/replacement fee, I get an unauthorized third-party to service it, which voids all of my future support & service options from Apple.  I am completely on my own from this point forward.

D) Purchase a used device from a third-party.  My service & support options are determined by what has happened to the device prior to my purchase.

What other scenario is there?

You're confusing my opinion with my review of the facts.  The facts are in the warranty and terms of service.  Nothing Apple has done violates the warranty of the terms of service or the relevant laws as written.  Now, whether or not that warranty or terms of services are within the relevant LAWS as interpreted is a matter for a judge to decide, not this forum.

Question 1:  Was Apple authorized to take this action within the terms of the warranty and software license?  Yes.  There can be no debate about that.  It is a simple fact.

Question 2: Do the terms of the warranty and software license fall within allowed parameters as the law is written?  Yes.  Those terms were reviewed not only by Apple's lawyers but also the appropriate government agencies, and were approved (or at least not challenged).

Question 3: Do the terms of the warranty and software license fall within allowed parameters as the law is interpreted by a jude?  Unknown until there is a case in court.

My opinion isn't really relevant, but I believe that there were alternatives that may have worked better.  For example, I think that the re-authentication should occur on a daily basis, not just when the iOS is updated or restored.  That would be better security, in my opinion.  It also would have revealed the issue much sooner, and made it more obvious to the layman that it was the faulty/unauthorized service that was the root cause, not the iOS update.  I also think there should be more details about error messages in iTunes, with the additional option to permanently disable Touch ID to bypass the error.

But again, my opinion isn't what matters here.  What matters is that a valid technical answer has been provided, and as of this moment, under the law as written and the terms of the warranty and software license, this is within allowed parameters and no violation has occurred.  If it is reviewed by a judge in court, then the law as interpreted will be the deciding factor.  Since that hasn't happened yet, it's pointless to argue it back and forth.

Finally, in regard to your advice to 'just ignore posts'; why aren't you doing the same?  You're welcome to reply as often as you want and it won't bother me.  At most, it amuses me to see someone continue to argue with me on a ridiculous point.  I've stayed focused on the facts, not the 'emotions' about the situation.

But if my replies bother you, consider why that is.  Am I presenting facts (and a point of view supported by facts) that makes you uncomfortable?  Do you not have valid, logical responses to my statements?  Are you incapable of successfully countering my arguments?  That certainly seems to be the case. 

When your argument boils down to 'I don't like what Apple did', and the response is 'Apple had the right to do what they did, per the agreement you entered voluntarily', it does tend to come across as being harshly shut down.  Because what response do you have then?  You wish you hadn't entered into the agreement?  Well, that *****.  But that's a personal regret, nothing else.

So, I encourage you to continue to respond.  I'll admit to some satisfaction with being able to deconstruct and dismantle weak arguments and emotional rants.  So please; continue.

Wow, talk about loving the taste of Apple Kool-Aid. Apple could simply empty the contents of the Apple Pay system or lock out access. Instead, they have, as the original poster wrote, killed the engine because you put somebody else's tire on the car. There is nothing unsafe about the tire in the least. Or, to make your analogy fit, it would be like putting a tire on which could blow at sustained speeds over 120mph. Instead of limiting the car's top speed (or limiting access to Apple Pay), the manufacturer is shutting off the engine, rolling up the windows, locking the doors and demanding you buy THEIR tire (disabling the entire phone). BTW in case you hadn't heard, there are copious numbers of exploits against Apple products. You are living in a bubble if you think you are digitally safe because you drink that Kool-Aid

bobfromlosangeles wrote:

 

Wow, talk about loving the taste of Apple Kool-Aid. Apple could simply empty the contents of the Apple Pay system or lock out access. Instead, they have, as the original poster wrote, killed the engine because you put somebody else's tire on the car. There is nothing unsafe about the tire in the least. Or, to make your analogy fit, it would be like putting a tire on which could blow at sustained speeds over 120mph. Instead of limiting the car's top speed (or limiting access to Apple Pay), the manufacturer is shutting off the engine, rolling up the windows, locking the doors and demanding you buy THEIR tire (disabling the entire phone). BTW in case you hadn't heard, there are copious numbers of exploits against Apple products. You are living in a bubble if you think you are digitally safe because you drink that Kool-Aid

Yes, it's so much easier to claim that someone is an 'iSheep' than to actually counter any of the points I've made.  Well done!

So, it's not the disabling of functionality you have a problem with (since you mentioned emptying the Apple Pay system contents, for example), but the amount of functionality.  So, that means that you believe Apple DOES have the right to make modifications without informing the customer.  Interesting.

And yes, there is a serious potential security issue with Touch ID (even when not enabled via settings, because it's still an active component) when improper service is done.  That's been explained many, many times.  But you can't make a horse drink the water, can you?

And please, cite me any verified example of an iOS device (I need said Apple products) that was not modified having any security breach.

Sources please.  Thank you.

Some people are born to curry favor from the powerful, obey all of their rules, not make waves, and be good sheep. It does not take much imagination to realize what kind of a country this would have been had this type of personality prevailed. All of us are correctly following our instincts on this one which tell us this is not right, not fair and certainly not the American way. In opposition to us are those who think this is perfectly right, totally fair and should be the American way. To those who insist that a grave security threat is the valid excuse for this debacle, please explain why the phone continues to function until you do an upgrade? If there was a sensor problem, yet the phone functioned otherwise, then that must mean some horrible security breach was allowed. Or it means there was no horrible security breach which required total bricking of the entire phone. So, why brick the phone during upgrade, but let it function prior?

Of course there are other scenarios.

Firstly, as someone on this forum already mentioned, a user dropped his phone and got a small crack on the top corner, it didnt effect the functionality of the phone so no need to repair it. 10 months later (while still using the phone) apple decide to brick it.

Secondly, Defective touchpad upon purchase which only comes to light at a later time that does not bother the user, they continue to use their phone and use the code to unlock, user is happy. Phone gets bricked by apple.

Both of these instances have already occurred.

'

http://www.dailydot.com/technology/what-is-error-53-iphone/

bobfromlosangeles wrote:

 

Some people are born to curry favor from the powerful, obey all of their rules, not make waves, and be good sheep. It does not take much imagination to realize what kind of a country this would have been had this type of personality prevailed. All of us are correctly following our instincts on this one which tell us this is not right, not fair and certainly not the American way. In opposition to us are those who think this is perfectly right, totally fair and should be the American way. To those who insist that a grave security threat is the valid excuse for this debacle, please explain why the phone continues to function until you do an upgrade? If there was a sensor problem, yet the phone functioned otherwise, then that must mean some horrible security breach was allowed. Or it means there was no horrible security breach which required total bricking of the entire phone. So, why brick the phone during upgrade, but let it function prior?

Sounds like a lot of speculation to me.

You're bringing patriotism into this now?  Oh, thank you kind sir for the enjoyable laugh this provided me.

You know how freedom of speech doesn't apply to private property?  For example, you're not allowed to come onto my property and say whatever you want.  That's reserved for public areas.  Sort of like how this forum (and all others that are privately held) are perfectly within their rights to restrict topics and language choices.

Same applies when it comes to the concept of freedom versus security.  I'm a huge proponent of: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This isn't a matter of personal freedom or national security.  It's a matter of an agreement regarding proper and authorized use of a product.

If you choose not to follow Apple's directives, that's your personal choice.  But it also their personal choice, and right, to no longer allow you to have access to their proprietary operating system.  So, you've got your iPhone.  No problem.  No go find another operating system to use on it.  Because Apple has no requirement to provide to you access to iOS.  It's a license, not a right.

Jay 75 wrote:

 

Of course there are other scenarios.

 

Firstly, as someone on this forum already mentioned, a user dropped his phone and got a small crack on the top corner, it didnt effect the functionality of the phone so no need to repair it. 10 months later (while still using the phone) apple decide to brick it.

Except it apparently did affect the functionality of the phone, just not in a way that was immediately obvious. All the user has to do is have Apple do the repairs. They just didn't want to pay for them. So, yes, that still falls under TJ's scenarios.

Jay 75 wrote:

 

The action in the UK is being treated as criminal damage, a company that knowingly destroys its customers products in the interest of further profit will not have those customers for long.

Boy, do stories change. ONE BARRISTER said it MAY BE criminal damage. That does not make it so. Of course, lawyers NEVER exaggerate. So it must be true.

That's like saying if your car is scratched you have to get a new one.

Regardless, with all the headlines Apple are going to back track on this one.

You will get your research when I am your secretary. Every point I made remains valid. Apple has other choices to minimize, not maximize, the harm to the consumer. They went the maximize route and you stand by cheering this decision unabashedly which in my view puts you at the head of the line for Kool-Aid refills.  There is no defense for Apple's handling of this error in this manner. You can prevent compromise of a safe deposit box where you know a key has fallen into the wrong hands without leveling the bank the box is housed in. Okay, I relent because you do need an education. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/somebody-just-won-1-million-bounty-for-hacking- the-iphone for one of the more spectacular claims.There's a million roads to Mecca in here: https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-49/product_id-15556/Appl e-Iphone-Os.html and I have in my hands an unmodified iPhone which allows me to bypass security and get into confidential data. It's not a serious breach for most, but the fact is it is a security breach and I can repeat it continually on a locked phone with no tools, cables, or connections.  I will not be your secretary again and thanks for the flowers.

Jay 75 wrote:

 

Of course there are other scenarios.

 

Firstly, as someone on this forum already mentioned, a user dropped his phone and got a small crack on the top corner, it didnt effect the functionality of the phone so no need to repair it. 10 months later (while still using the phone) apple decide to brick it.

 

Secondly, Defective touchpad upon purchase which only comes to light at a later time that does not bother the user, they continue to use their phone and use the code to unlock, user is happy. Phone gets bricked by apple.

 

Both of these instances have already occurred.

 

'

 

http://www.dailydot.com/technology/what-is-error-53-iphone/

1. A damaged device may need to be serviced at any time in the future.  Damage does not immediately reveal a problem.  Apple will gladly service the device for the agreed upon fee.  You cannot make the statement that the damage did not effect the functionality of the device.  It may not be apparent to the user, but very often the damage starts a process.  For example, a single drop of salt water in the charging port may not immediately cause an issue.  But over time, that corrosion can spread and cause problems down the line.  Look at how many people have posted here about water-damaged phones that worked for a while, but then months later, stopped working.

2. A defective device will ALSO be serviced by Apple.  If such a defect is reported within the warranty time, then it's free.  Otherwise, there's an out-of-warranty fee.

Expecting a damaged device, even mildly damaged, to continue to work indefinitely is not a reasonable expectation.  Yo have to be prepared for the distinct possibility that the damage will reveal a problem later on.

And if you get the full one-year of proper operation out of a device with a one-year warranty... when where's the problem?  You might hope that you get longer life, but no one made that promise to you, and you agreed to a one-year time frame of proper operation when you bought the device.

You've failed to provide a situation that I haven't already covered.