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

New Legislation called “Consumer Rights Legislation” came into force in the UK recently. The bill states that the software has to be of satisfactory quality and must meet a given description. Any software upgrade that renders a device unusable could not be of satisfactory. especially when it prevents the user from returning to its original software

Under the Digital Content paragraph traders are obliged to provide additional information concerning the functionality of the digital content and any relevant information about its compatibility with other hardware My Ipad worked perfectly for months until the upgrade software was installed. IT IS THE SOFTWARE THAT BRICKED UP MY IPAD NOT THE REPLACEMENT SCREEN.

These are only a few of the points in this software does not come up the standard required by this legislation.

<Edited by Host>

Putting your allegation in caps does not give it any more validity.

You are correct, the replacement screen did no disable your phone. The damage to your Touch ID disabled your phone.

Have you called Apple Customer Service about this. Or are you spending all of your time here? If Apple changed their policy for this concern and said they would do an out-of-warranty replacement at the normal fee would that be acceptable to you?

I brought it to them within warrantyand told them that I had replaced the screen They would do nothing for me. If they would fix it for a normal fee I would pay it

And have you called Apple Customer Service, not the people at the store, and discussed this with them?

I suspect that the likelihood of success is directly related to how the customer speaks to the representative.

bobfromlosangeles wrote:

Credit where credit is due. You were right. I did not read the very reasonable alternative you laid out to the handling of this error. And you were right again in splitting hairs on the the security claim. But the words are right there as you stated, so you are right about what you said. I don't know if I can disprove or prove the claim about it being the most secure in the world. Wouldn't even know how to measure that. I don't think it is, but that is purely opinion. The bounty claim, as I said, was one of the more spectacular ones and I dont care if it is true or not given the plethora of other exploits which taken together could get an attacker to where he/she wants to be. But this is besides the point. Your comment that they could have handled this better is a critical one I did not see and for that I apologize. But being lazy, i am not going to go modify the rest of my posts. I will however, drink a glass of my own Kool-Aid. Fowl taste.

That's a fairly reasonable response.

In regards to other exploits, virtually all of them require a previous modification to the iOS of the device to work. You can't just 'go in cold' so to speak.

While it's mostly a matter of opinion regarding which is the most secure mobile platform, there are telling factors.

1. Zerodium themselves pointed out that the difficulty of even getting as far as that group did was a testament to the quality of iOS security.

2. Only 0.7% of all mobile platform malware is written to target iOS, compared to 79% is written to target Android.

3. Obama isn't allowed to use an iPhone, because they can't get into the iOS to know everything that it's doing. Apple doesn't give them access to all the proprietary information, and it's a stick in the NSA's craw. If they can't know everything about his it works, they aren't going to trust it. If they can't get into it and snoop around, they aren't going to trust it.

True, but there have been reports of Apple doing so at some stores after contact with Customer Service. I'm sure in a few days we will know more about how they will handle it.

alberthoran wrote:

New Legislation called “Consumer Rights Legislation” came into force in the UK recently. The bill states that the software has to be of satisfactory quality and must meet a given description. Any software upgrade that renders a device unusable could not be of satisfactory. especially when it prevents the user from returning to its original software

Under the Digital Content paragraph traders are obliged to provide additional information concerning the functionality of the digital content and any relevant information about its compatibility with other hardware My Ipad worked perfectly for months until the upgrade software was installed. IT IS THE SOFTWARE THAT BRICKED UP MY IPAD NOT THE REPLACEMENT SCREEN.

These are only a few of the points in this software does not come up the standard required by this legislation.

<Edited by Host>

Let's see how that plays out. Because the operating system, when installed in a properly maintained device, doesn't* cause this problem.

It's like saying that if you replace your iPhone battery with something else, and then when connecting it to an Apple charger, it doesn't charge, then that's Apple's fault...

You modified the device. Therefore, it's not the same device that Apple sold you. The bill you quote doesn't allow for modifications to devices. Show me where in that bill, or any other UK legislation, that allows a user to make modifications to an iPhone (or other smartphone) without using an authorized & trained technician an authorized & legitimate parts.

You might as well replace your screen with a banana peel, and then complain that you can't open Facebook.

deggie wrote:

True, but there have been reports of Apple doing so at some stores after contact with Customer Service. I'm sure in a few days we will know more about how they will handle it.

I've heard of Apple waiving something like this, but in very, very rare circumstances.

I'm not referring to previous cases I am talking about Apple's current response to the Error 53 situation.

What you said was not correct The damage to the Touch ID did not disable my ipad as it worked perfectly well after I had the screen replaced. It was the software that bricked up my ipad

alberthoran wrote:

What you said was not correct The damage to the Touch ID did not disable my ipad as it worked perfectly well after I had the screen replaced. It was the software that bricked up my ipad

You can repeat that as often as you like. It won't change anything. Call Apple and plead your case to them. Politely.

Should the "likelihood of success is directly related to how the customer speaks to the representative." Should it rather be the validity of the case?

I guess you failed to notice that it said "protecting". It's called nuance.

GB