Bricked: iOS 11.3 disables third party touch displays

Bricked: iOS 11.3 disables third party touch displays
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.

This is not the first time users have been hit with this issue. Last year we reported a note in the changelog for IOS 11.0.3, which fixed a third party display problem caused by the previous update. The notes also included a warning about using third party parts and recommended always having repairs done by Apple. Many choose to use third party repair shops because they are cheaper than Apple. The company has yet to announce whether it will release another update to correct the issue or not. 

The question remains, are users stuck with a broken device without a patch? 

Well, not necessarily. The issue is supposedly caused by microchip that operates the touch display. Third party shops are accustomed to finding work around solutions for these issues. Sometimes replacing other parts such as the chip itself can resolve it. This appears to be the cost of doing business, especially when the OEM is not in favor of outside companies handling repairs. Still, for many users this is the only viable option when it comes to cost. The issue may become yet another hurdle in the "Right to Repair" battle we have covered in the past. It is also worth noting that the last time this issue occurred, it took a week for Apple to release the patch. 

source: Vice via 9To5Mac

Related phones

iPhone 8
  • Display 4.7" 750 x 1334 pixels
  • Camera 12 MP / 7 MP front
  • Processor Apple A11 Bionic, Hexa-core, 2390 MHz
  • Storage 256 GB
  • Battery 1821 mAh(14h talk time)



1. Nimbus

Posts: 442; Member since: Apr 02, 2018

So the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph mean will apple patch it in next minor update or leave it to right to repair authority retailers to fix 3rd partty touch display on iphone 8,8+?

2. Matthew_Mills

Posts: 21; Member since: Apr 08, 2018

As of now Apple has not commented on the issue or announced a future patch to fix it. What is known is that a similar issue happened last year and the company fixed it.

13. lyndon420

Posts: 6897; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

Odd that apple issued a patch for problems associated with unauthorized third party components. What is it about these displays that makes apple turn a blind eye to such after market madness...?

22. Dingy_cellar_dweller

Posts: 339; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

The impending court case's that will follow if they don't fix it.

26. Macready

Posts: 1830; Member since: Dec 08, 2014

A class action suit. Don't forget that in many areas there are no Apple (authorized) service centers, so people have to rely on third party/non authorized repair shops. You could argue that Apple can't deny third party repairs by unnecessary bricking devices through a software update, when they don't provide service points themselves.

3. palmguy

Posts: 987; Member since: Mar 22, 2011

Wow. Just when you thought you purchased yourself an iPhone. Apple is still saying MY precious and mo money, mo money, mo money. :-)

6. Foxgabanna unregistered

I mean...... It's their product. So why let unauthorized people fix them when the issue will eventually lead that person calling or visiting Apple demanding a replacement. People have to learn not to cut corners and just go through the process state in the manufacturer warranty.

8. Crispin_Gatieza

Posts: 3168; Member since: Jan 23, 2014

No, it's not their product. It belongs to the paying customer and as such, has the right to take it wherever the f**k they see fit for repairs. Expect a class-action lawsuit if this pattern continues. Oh, and by the way, I own an iPad and Macbook so don't go thinking I'm an Apple hater.

14. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2488; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

In legal terms you are both right. It is the legal right of the consumer to do with a product as he or she sees fit, including taking it to a repair shop of his or her choosing. HOWEVER It is also noted that you are legally bound by terms and agreements after you buy said product. These terms and agreements are what pop up on the screen or are included in the box with what you buy. Everyone typically discards these legal documents or presses “I Accept” without thinking. Usually these terms and agreements will have written that the manufacturer cannot guarantee the warranty or the performance of a product if you alter the product in anyway. Ex: Microsoft will not let you replace your Xbox hard drive and still reap the benefits of the warranty. And it makes sense. Let’s just imagine that you bought a Samsung TV and the display panel goes out within a year. So you take it to a third party repair shop who says they can replace the panel with a cheaper one than what Samsung would make you pay. You, of course, agree to the repair. Then you take it home and realize that the colors don’t pop as much as they used to or the settings are all wrong. The question is: do you blame Samsung for you having a bad display panel or the third party company you bought the panel from? In this case, these repair shops KNOW they are selling displays that do NOT have the custom chipset needed to work properly. It’s between you and that company and their repair service terms as to whether you can get a properly working display or not. EDIT: Just to quote the source article:

16. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2488; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

"According to several people I spoke to, third-party screen suppliers have already worked out the issue, but fixing the busted phones means re-opening up the phone and upgrading the chip." So, these repair shops know what needs to be fixed but some of them probably don't want to do this because it can add costs to their bottom line.

17. lyndon420

Posts: 6897; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

If I bought a Samsung TV and the screen died within a year...pretty sure Samsung would replace of charge.

18. Subie

Posts: 2430; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

Under warranty - you're right!

19. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2488; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

It was just an example argument. I wasn't researching the intricacies of a Samsung product warranty and what they cover in a years time before I wrote that. Since Samsung TV warranties go for a year, just simply replace my writing of "one year" with "one year and 1 month".

20. izim1

Posts: 1607; Member since: Feb 04, 2013

Wrong. Iphone and 3rd party touchscreens aside, we've discussed these "shrinkwrap warranties" in the past a million times and how they're not "legal documents" in the US. Dont understand why you internet lawyers keep bringing them up. The magnuson-moss warranty act is a federal law enacted in the mid 70s to protect the consumer from exactly these types of disclaimers on warranties. Companies have to prove that what you do to said product ruins it, i.e apple would have to prove a hardware mod ruined a specific component to legally be able to deny warranty on it. Sure, most times the price of the battle isnt worth it, but to say these "you must agree to these terms" or "if seal is broken warranty is voided" disclaimers are even close to being legal documents, is just plain and simply consumer ignorance. Which is what these companies are hoping for.

23. Subie

Posts: 2430; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

Good post izim1. I would like to add that people reading this should exercise due diligence regarding their own regional laws, as this one is USA specific. Many countries have similar laws to protect consumers...

25. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2488; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

First of all, those warranties are indeed legal documents as they set the parameters for what is covered and not covered. So, I'm not sure why you would say they're not legal documents as they've been used in courtrooms all across the country whenever a consumer is trying to bring legal action against a company. Secondly, your understanding of the act is obviously insufficient if you truly believe companies are breaking the law by denying warranties to those who tamper with the product. If we were to take the way you described it, there would be class action lawsuits all over the place. Talk about low-hanging fruit for any lawyer to get their name recognition. But, the FTC actually PERMITS tie-in sales provisions in warranties that say you can void a warranty if they use a third party replacement part. "However, a warrantor can require a consumer to use select items or service if they’re provided free of charge under the warranty. Your warranty can disclaim warranty coverage only for defects or damage caused by the use of parts or service you didn’t provide. Here is an example of a permissible provision in that circumstance: Necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair that causes damage to your product may void this warranty." Again this is STRAIGHT from the FTC website. The FTC also allows waivers from the general tie-in sales provision if needed as well which I assure you most of those big companies probably have.

31. RebelwithoutaClue unregistered

The key words here are: Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair that causes damage. So they still have to prove that repairs done on part A are the cause of damages of part B. Like in my country rooting (or jailbreaking) doesn't void warranty, even if the warranty says so. So it might be a legal document, not everything in that document might be legal (as in according to the law).

43. Crispin_Gatieza

Posts: 3168; Member since: Jan 23, 2014

Dr. Phil, that refers to the software which is Apple's. The hardware belongs to the consumer. As for legalities, each state has its own set of rules and the Federal law governing is the Magnusson-Moss act of 1972 which basically says manufacturers have to offer at least a 90-day warranty. In 1972, that was a big deal when you consider that the crappy Chevy Vega was one of, if not the first, 12 month warranties for cars. My memory is hazy on that one but I'm quite sure I'm right.

46. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2488; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

Again, in this particular case the third party repair shops were NOT using the same panel chipsets that are supposed to be used. Now, some may say “Well leave it to Apple to create custom chipsets for their displays”, but that’s exactly what 3D Touch relies on. The repair shops in this case have acknowledged they knew this was going to happen (if you read the source article), they know how to fix it, but are refusing because again it cuts into their bottom line.

48. Subie

Posts: 2430; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

From the source article - "Customers are annoyed and it seems like Apple is doing this to prevent customers from doing 3rd party repair.” It's one thing if third party equipment damages equipment, or fails. It's completely different if Apple deliberately makes the third party equipment fail...

49. Crispin_Gatieza

Posts: 3168; Member since: Jan 23, 2014

That's a different matter altogether. Using a non-standard vendor doesn't suggest that they do a shoddy job. It's no different than having the home button replaced without the chipset. The home button will work but not Touch ID. You get what you pay for but that remains the consumer's choice, not the OEM. If a GM owner replaces his stereo with a Sony, he can't reasonably expect OnStar to work anymore. If so, he's an idiot and nature has to thin the herd eventually.

56. Macready

Posts: 1830; Member since: Dec 08, 2014

12. ijuanp03

Posts: 669; Member since: Dec 30, 2014

"It's their product", "People have to learn no to cut corners" - typical iSheep defending Apple for their wrongdoings. You bought the phone, you are entitled to get it repaired wherever you want. Oh well, that's why Apple is rich.. because of people like you.

15. Subie

Posts: 2430; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

There'd be "some" validity to your last sentence if these were warranty repairs. Breaking the screen or any other component on your device due to mishandling, is not covered by the general warranty... That leaves each user to repair or replace out of their own pocket. That's where the right to repair act comes in.

21. palmguy

Posts: 987; Member since: Mar 22, 2011

My nearest Apple store is about 4 hours away. I'll walk there tomorrow morning before lunch.

4. Plasticsh1t

Posts: 3109; Member since: Sep 01, 2014

Patch it up before s**t storm happens.

5. HillaryClinton2020

Posts: 192; Member since: Feb 08, 2017

then dont use third parties, plain and simple

11. Crispin_Gatieza

Posts: 3168; Member since: Jan 23, 2014

That's ignorant, even for you.

7. Foxgabanna unregistered

That's their fault. Why not just send it to apple or go visit them? Their customer service is great.

9. Subie

Posts: 2430; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

Here's two lines from the article explaining why: Second paragraph: "Many choose to use third party repair shops because they are cheaper than Apple." Third paragraph: "Still, for many users this is the only viable option when it comes to cost."

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless