Apple keeps making third-party screen repairs harder

Apple's changes to the iPhone 13 screen design now makes it harder for third-party repair firms to replace the display, as attempts to switch out a damaged screen could lead to a loss of Face ID support.

A broken display is a very common issue that forces device owners to seek out a repair, either through the manufacturer directly or via a third-party repair center. In cases where the screen has to be replaced, it seems that it's a fix that can only be performed by Apple itself or an authorized repair partner.

According to Phone Repair Guru on YouTube, switching out a display for a replacement sourced from an identical iPhone 13 model will technically work. However, users will be warned they aren't using a genuine screen, and that Face ID won't be available.

While replacing the screen from another iPhone is problematic, it is still possible for repairs to connected components to be performed, including the microphone, proximity sensor, and ambient light sensor.

Despite using a genuine Apple display, the notification basically means there's a step in the repair process that has to be performed to enable the display to work with a particular iPhone, and it is a step that Apple's authorized repair services can do, but not third parties.

This is not the first time that a screen repair through a third-party firm could cause problems with an iPhone. In 2018, an update for iOS 11.3 reportedly killed touch functionality for some iPhone 8 users with aftermarket displays. In some cases, it was also found that there was a loss of automatic brightness adjustment and the ambient light sensor being disabled by iOS at boot.

The discovery occurs at a time whenApple is under fire over the Right to Repair. In September, Apple shareholders filed a resolution to try and persuade Apple to reverse its "anti-repair practices."

In Europe, the German government wants the European Union to force manufacturers like Apple into being freer with spare parts for devices, for up to seven years. Meanwhile in the United States, the FTC has pledged to take on unlawful repair restrictions.

Legislation was introduced to the U.S. House in June to try and force companies into providing repair information and access to components "in a timely manner and on fair and reasonable terms."

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

30 Comments

bobolicious 1177 comments · 10 Years

About 3 years ago

...I remember another prominent valley company touting 'we are not evil'...?
Might disabling face recognition actually be desirable from a privacy perspective ?
Might a 3rd party repair compromise the authenticity (value) of any 'waste' data that might survive on Apple servers or web tracking ?
Let the flames begin...

elijahg 2841 comments · 18 Years

bobolicious said:

...I remember another prominent valley company touting 'we are not evil'...?
Might disabling face recognition actually be desirable from a privacy perspective ?
Might a 3rd party repair compromise the authenticity (value) of any 'waste' data that might survive on Apple servers or web tracking ?
Let the flames begin...

The FaceID module is completely electrically separate to the display pre-iPhone 13. A display swap doesn't disable FaceID as long as you transfer the speaker assembly, which has nothing to do with FaceID, but Apple apparently uses it to authenticate the display pre-13. The authentication now seems to be the display itself, presumably because people found out Apple's scam could be worked around by swapping the speaker assembly.

This is nothing to do with privacy. Apple disables TrueTone on non-Apple displays too (though this has been cracked as usual by the Chinese), and there're zero privacy implications with TrueTone. It's just yet another way Cook is trying to extract extra profit from customers, but puts another bullet in the chamber for right to repair proponents; Apple seems to be clamouring unnecessarily for government scrutiny lately. Also, isn't it odd how Apple claims to be so "green" but makes repairs so expensive it's barely worth it? Right to repair can't come soon enough.

22july2013 3736 comments · 11 Years

Although I read the wikipedia page about "right to repair," I still don't get the point. No law can stop any device owner from taking a hammer to the device (either to repair or destroy it.) What I think they mean (and want) is that a warranty cannot be voided by people taking hammers to their own device.

I think Apple could get a lot of goodwill by offering a training course, that when passed, allows individuals perform warranty-approved repairs. (And it should be available to everyone who applies, not just to Apple invitees only as it currently stands.) But this course would be both thorough and very expensive. Any vendor not willing to pay for it cannot perform authorized repairs. Wouldn't that satisfy many of the right to repair advocates? Or do they actually want untrained repair people to hack at devices without voiding the warranty? I can't figure out what they want. Are there any right to repair advocates here that can clearly explain what they want?

Selling repair tools and documentation doesn't mean anything if the warranties are not covered by repairs made with those tools. So the right to repair advocates are not really asking for these things.

MplsP 4047 comments · 8 Years

22july2013 said:

Although I read the wikipedia page about "right to repair," I still don't get the point. No law can stop any device owner from taking a hammer to the device (either to repair or destroy it.) What I think they mean (and want) is that a warranty cannot be voided by people taking hammers to their own device.

I think Apple could get a lot of goodwill by offering a training course, that when passed, allows individuals perform warranty-approved repairs. (And it should be available to everyone who applies, not just to Apple invitees only as it currently stands.) But this course would be both thorough and very expensive. Any vendor not willing to pay for it cannot perform authorized repairs. Wouldn't that satisfy many of the right to repair advocates? Or do they actually want untrained repair people to hack at devices without voiding the warranty? I can't figure out what they want. Are there any right to repair advocates here that can clearly explain what they want?

Selling repair tools and documentation doesn't mean anything if the warranties are not covered by repairs made with those tools. So the right to repair advocates are not really asking for these things.

It's more than that. Cars are the best comparison. Imagine that Toyota voided the warranty because you had the brakes done at an independent repair shop. Or, worse, that Ford required you to have all your repairs done at the Ford dealer and refused to make parts available to anyone else to do the repairs.

No one is expecting Apple to warranty repairs done by an outside shop, or to cover damage caused by the shop. What they want is the availability of parts to give them more options for repairs.

genius_mac 10 comments · 8 Years

I can see Face ID and Touch ID not being easily replaceable since encryption keys are exchanged. I have replaced iPhone 12 screens, as long as the Face ID is moved over, no issues.

Now another bad example is Farm trucks: can't be repaired by anyone except the dealer:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/09/26/apple-keeps-making-third-party-screen-repairs-harder#/discussion/204789/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-calm-heads-needed-in-looming-china-u-s-trade-war
https://civileats.com/2021/07/13/farmers-just-got-a-new-right-to-repair-their-tractors/
https://www.ifixit.com/News/52612/apple-and-john-deere-shareholder-resolutions-demand-they-explain-their-bad-repair-policies