UPDATE 2: iOS 11.3.1 FIXES The iPhone 8 If You've Replaced The Screen

[iamdarkyoshi]

Source

 

Quote

It has been reported that IOS 11.3 has disabled some iPhone 8 touch displays. The devices affected are those who have had third party displays installed. These displays are typically installed by local repair shops and are not affiliated with Apple. There are videos circulating showing the display on but not registering any touch input whatsoever. Without the touchscreen enabled, the device is essentially useless. It has been noted that people have had their iPhone 8 displays replaced in this manner since release without any issue. However, after the update rolled out, some discovered that they can no longer use their phone.

 

Rossmann covered this here: 

 

UPDATE: OEM screens are behaving the same way if installed by a 3rd party as well!

Source

Quote

Apple’s most recent iOS updates are causing problems with iPhone displays that have been fitted by third-party repairers. It was initially believed that unauthorized parts were the cause of the issue, but it seems there’s something bigger happening under the hood of your devices.

 

Even genuine Apple displays don’t work properly if they’re not installed by Apple.

 

So even if you can get a genuine one, it'll still brick if you or a 3rd party install it.

 

 

UPDATE 2: Apple releases iOS 11.3.1 with third-party display repair fix

Sauce

Quote

Apple has released a new software update for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. iOS 11.3.1 is likely a bug fix update to the iOS 11.3 software update released last month.

I'm glad this update was pushed out, but its still a bit crap that they would have this issue in the first place. I hope next time they also test their updates on phones repaired with third party parts before pushing them out to the public.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

First it was the home button, and now its the screen? This is getting insane.

 

At LEAST give the end user a heads up that their phone is about to be turned into a paperweight before installing an update. This is just nuts.

 

As we've seen with Linus himself, apple doesn't always fix your device, often leading to 3rd party repair as an only option. And now apple's going to kill your device because you had to bring it to a 3rd party repair store. Fantastic.

[Snipergod87]

Apple Tax

[jtmoseley]

10 minutes ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

Source

 

 

Rossmann covered this here: 

 

First it was the home button, and now its the screen? This is getting insane.

 

At LEAST give the end user a heads up that their phone is about to be turned into a paperweight before installing an update. This is just nuts.

 

As we've seen with Linus himself, apple doesn't always fix your device, often leading to 3rd party repair as an only option. And now apple's going to kill your device because you had to bring it to a 3rd party repair store. Fantastic.

I mean it was going to be obsolete about a year after release anyways.... So at least they are ahead of schedule... That's new.

[DrMacintosh]

This is isolated to the iPhone 8 line of iPhones. 

 

These knockoff displays have a chip attached to them that do not have the proper firmware on them or iOS cannot interface with the fake display on the firmware level for some reason. 

 

And from where I see it, why should a company be obligated to make sure that their products work with knock off parts? Even if Apple is intentionally bricking the display, are they outside of their rights to do so? 

[Hiitchy]

This actually explains a lot. 

[Blademaster91]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

This is isolated to the iPhone 8 line of iPhones. 

 

These knockoff displays have a chip attached to them that do not have the proper firmware on them or iOS cannot interface with the fake display on the firmware level for some reason. 

 

And from where I see it, why should a company be obligated to make sure that their products work with knock off parts? Even if Apple is intentionally bricking the display, are they outside of their rights to do so? 

Except that no other phone manufacturer intentionally prevents you from installing a replacement screen,and Louis Rossmann says that in the video.

Apple has no reason to place proprietary software into the screen controller chips except for forcing planned obsolescence when Apple refuses or charges you more than the device is worth for repair, both must happen quite often as Rossmann has a really good business going.

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

This is isolated to the iPhone 8 line of iPhones. 

 

These knockoff displays have a chip attached to them that do not have the proper firmware on them or iOS cannot interface with the fake display on the firmware level for some reason. 

 

And from where I see it, why should a company be obligated to make sure that their products work with knock off parts? Even if Apple is intentionally bricking the display, are they outside of their rights to do so? 

If it's actually a dysfunctional knock-off display then sure, you should expect it to not work, but I don't think that's the case here.  I doubt any shop would install a display, find it doesn't work, and then give it back to the customer.  It sounds to me like these displays were functioning correctly, but Apple went out of their way to brick these devices even though they were actually working fine.  So no, they're not obligated to make it work with third party parts but intentionally bricking things to try and prevent repair is incredibly anti-consumer if that's not obvious.

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Even if Apple is intentionally bricking the display, are they outside of their rights to do so?

Is that even a serious question?

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

Except that no other phone manufacturer intentionally prevents you from installing a replacement screen,and Louis Rossmann says that in the video.

Ok

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

Apple has no reason to place proprietary software into the screen controller chips except for forcing planned obsolescence

You don't know that. Certainly that argument can be maid quite easily, but you still don't know that. 

 

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Rossmann has a really good business going.

Yes he does, he has a large presence and services hardware that is profitable. I like Louis, he has a great channel. I just do not agree with some of his positions. 

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

but Apple went out of their way to brick these devices even though they were actually working fine.  So no, they're not obligated to make it work with third party parts but intentionally bricking things to try and prevent repair is incredibly anti-consumer if that's not obvious

If that can be proved I would agree. 

 

But we don't have that information. 

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Is that even a serious question?

Yes. What does the EULA say about it? If it says they can then they can. 

[Silentprototipe]

And this is why im trying to convince my mother to switch to android   

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yes. What does the EULA say about it? If it says they can then they can. 

EULA's are not 100% binding.  They're an agreement, not a contract.  And as @Ryan_Vickers already pointed out, that's a very anti-consumer mindset.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

that's a very anti-consumer mindset.

It's anti consumer if this is intentional, but we don't know that it is. All we know is that Louis is a little salty. 

[vanished]

7 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

If that can be proved I would agree. 

 

But we don't have that information. 

Well the only way we'll know for sure is if someone can take a look at the code and the hardware I suppose, which we all know isn't going to happen.  But you have to admit it's awfully suspicious that they all just suddenly stopped working after an update.  Which is more likely: they intentionally bricked these things because they hate third party repairs (a fact that's well-known), or that they've added/updated something that works with the official apple displays but was somehow incompatible with all these third party ones?

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

EULA's are not 100% binding.  They're an agreement, not a contract.

They're contracts. They're still not 100% binding, but only if specific terms are illegal.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

It's anti consumer if this is intentional, but we don't know that it is.

I agree, but you specifically asked if it was wrong even if they were doing it intentionally, and so I responded to your question.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

they intentionally bricked these things because they hate third party repairs (a fact that's well-known), or that they've added/updated something that works with the official apple displays but was somehow incompatible with all these third party ones?

And we won't know until someone looks into it or takes it to court. Until then I'll reserve judgment. 

 

Sure its suspicious, but weird stuff happens in tech and we just don't know much yet.

[Arika]

maybe repair shops wouldn't have to use third party screens if apple wasn't so uptight about having third parties repairing their devices and actually providing official parts and tools to repair services.

Edited April 11, 2018 by colonel_mortis
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/530646-community-standards/

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Jito463 said:

but you specifically asked if it was wrong even if they were doing it intentionally, and so I responded to your question.

But do you have any basis for that original reply? 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Sierra Fox said:

of course the Doctor comes to the aid of apple in their time of need.

As of the time of this comment there is no indication that something wrong has been done. 

 

The internet just likes to jump on things when they don't know the whole story. I'm just reserving judgment until we know anything real. 

[Jito463]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

But do you have any basis for that original reply? 

Huh?  I don't get what you're asking here.  You asked an (in my opinion) outrageous question of whether Apple was within their rights to intentionally brick iPhones that have been repaired by a 3rd party.  I responded by asking if that was a serious question, because for them to do so would be extremely anti-consumer.  You asked a hypothetical, I responded.  I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

 

One or both of us is very confused on this line of thought, and I'll be honest, I'm not really sure which.

[GDRRiley]

happy my iPhone 5 isn't affect and its getting replace if I break it or in a year with an android phone, 

[Arika]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

As of the time of this comment there is no indication that something wrong has been done. 

 

The internet just likes to jump on things when they don't know the whole story. I'm just reserving judgment until we know anything real. 

I will give Apple the benefit of the doubt for now. but if they come out and say that they are not going to fix it because "Well they shouldn't have had it repaired by a non-certified apple repair center" regardless of the bricking was intentional or not, people are not going to be very happy with them.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Sierra Fox said:

I will give Apple the benefit of the doubt for now. but if they come out and say that they are not going to fix it because "Well they shouldn't have had it repaired by a non-certified apple repair center" regardless of the bricking was intentional or not, people are not going to be very happy with them.

Assuming they bother to reply at all, I give it a 90% chance this is what they say