Slashdot Mirror
Upcoming Firmware Will Brick Unlocked iPhones
iCry writes "It was rumored last week, and Apple has now confirmed it: 'Apple said today that a firmware update to the iPhone due to be released later this week "will likely result" in SIM-unlocked iPhones turning into very expensive bricks... So what are users of SIM-unlocked iPhones to do? Not run the latest software update, that's for sure. Users can instead pray to the hacking deities — the famed iPhone Dev Team that released the free software unlock, and iPhoneSIMfree, which released a commercial software unlock — to write applications that will undo the unlocks, as it were, if those users want to run the latest iPhone software.'"
... This is most likely to be just lowly scare mongering. Apple is becoming evil awfully quick.
If you look at the comments that Phil Schiller made yesterday, Apple's taking the position that they don't "mean" to brick it, but it just "might happen" anyways, which of course is total bullshit. At least they're not shooting themselves in the foot immediately by saying that they're deliberately trying to brick 'em.
Now my question is, what exactly do they need to update that would cause such brickage.
What, releasing a firmware update? Or do you mean because it renders unlocked phones useless? I highly doubt it. I am sure the fine-print means you would forfeit your right to warranty and fitness for purpose if you go modifying your phone at such a basic level, so no, I am doubtful you could argue this is illegal. So long as you have the right not to accept the update, I guess. But even if the update were forced upon it, I'm sure you'd still have a hard time convincing a judge that it was an illegal act on Apple's part.
I would expect that people who were smart enough to pay for the phone with a credit card would say "Hey, my phone is busted. Fix it or I'm returning it. If you don't accept the return, I'm doing a chargeback." Visa/mastercard/discover/amex provide a fairly decent product warranty program for items purchased with one of their cards.
...we have the unedifying spectacle of Apple fanboys scrambling to justify the exact same types of behaviour they constantly condemn Microsoft for:
- defective by design hardware featuring crippleware to degrade functionality in the event of uses which differ from the uses the parent company approves
- intentional attempt to force customers to buy uncompetitive/unattractive services in addition to the thing they want
- vague and misleading corporate spin which dodges the real issue
Apple have done some good stuff lately, particularly playing hardball over music licensing on iTunes. But this is not good, and you should have the guts to say so, just as you would if it was Microsoft or some other similar company.
Read Pynchon.
IANAL, but i'm pretty sure that *not byuing* the iPhone untill apple stops doing stuff like that, is perfectly legal...
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
Actually it very much resembles the actions taken by apple to make sure that macintosh will lose the battle against IBM PC's and MS-DOS back in the 80s ...
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
If you own something, its yours. You paid for it, you paid taxes on your purchase, you completed the transaction.
If a company intentionally destroys your property and thus denies you the rightful use of your property, how is that *ANY* different than a DDOS?
If Apple does this, it should be sued into the ground. I'm not talking just statutory damages, I'm talking "punitive" damages intended to reduce the likelihood they do this crap again. If every iPhone use who gets bricked sues for $1m, it could be interesting.
I am sick of U.S. companies treating customers like shit. Damn it! Make a good product, sell a million of them, and support your customers. What the hell is so difficult about that formula? It is the basis of real capitalism, not this fascist lock you in and bend you over crap companies are doing today.
If you don't like AT&T don't get an iPhone. Nobody is forcing you to buy one and you're definately not entitled to own one just because it exists.
Morality leaves the equation when a billion dollar corporation is on the other end of the transaction. Also, Apple is the one not playing fair here. Not the iPhone owners.
I think the unlocked iPhone owners are the ones not playing fair. THEY KNOWINGLY took the risk of bricking their iPhones when they unlocked them. They knew (or should have known) that the potential for the iphone to become unusable in the future existed.
If morality leaves the equation when a billion dollar corporation is on the other end, what makes you think fairness stayed? As far as I know, nothing requires Apple to sell you an iPhone at all. What isn't fair, is voiding your warranty then crying foul when it breaks.
I don't agree with bricking unlocked iphones, but you were warned.
In my mind, morality is never, ever dependent upon who is on the other end of the equation. Only justifications are dependent upon that.
You may consider it justified to steal from someone who has billions and immoral to steal from someone who doesn't (I'm not saying unlocking an iPhone is stealing, I am just using an obvious example), but the morality of theft depends on if it is theft or not, not who the victim is.
(Admittedly - this is purely my position and opinion, and not absolute fact.)
Evolution ceases when stupidity can no longer be fatal.
WiFi support for OpenMoko is in the works. Current Neo1973 GTA01 does not include a wireless LAN chip, but the upcoming Neo1973 GTA02 is going to have one: Atheros AR6K 802.11 b/g. http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/WiFi_support_in_OpenMoko
I mean god forbid that someone would buy something and then not expect the vendor to have complete and utter control over it! What is this world coming to?!?!
Yeah seriously, just the other day I broke my Xbox while installing a modchip--it doesn't work at all now!
Yet those MICROSOFT FAT CATS won't let me return it--can you believe that??
"not legal as they are challenging a consumer's right to do with his personally owned property what he wishes."
Apple is not going to go out and force those users to install the update. Those users that have voided their warranties and unlocked their phones were given a warning. Apple was actually being nice instead of just putting out the update and then having a huge splash in the news when all those unlocked iPhones suddenly turned into bricks.
Once someone unlocked the phone Apple's no longer has an responsibility to make future updates work with that hack. The end user is responsible. The end user can do whatever they want with the product. Just don't go back to the company that sold it to you and complain if you can not get it to work outside of the network they told you it was designed for.
This quote from Airplane! seems appropriate:
"Shanna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."
Honestly, they are not using the iPhone as intended and they full well knew it. To make Apple take into account third-party hackery is just silly. I'm not saying I like the idea of a locked-down iPhone in the first place, but that is not the argument here.
--- witty signature
More Twoson than Cupertino
is that they won't check future software updates to the iPhone to work with each and every unlocking hack somebody came up with.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
That is some seriously flawed logic. Look, the iPhone was promised to only work on Cingular/Att. That's it. That's all. You had three simple choices.
a)buy iphone with att service
b)buy iphone, unlock it, and bite the bullet
c)don't buy iphone
Apple isn't obligated to do any of the things you mentioned. All Apple has done, is sell a device that works as advertised. That is their only obligation.
if it's working 100%, I guess you won't be updating yours and you have nothing to worry about. :D
As far as I can tell, this is marked troll and the parent flamebait because it speaks of Apple in a bad light. I'm as big an Apple fanboy as anyone (five+ macs at home and have been using them for years) but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is in the wrong here. What's wrong with Cyberworm saying so? (And here comes the mark-me-downs...)
Bark less. Wag more.
That's a fine point, but I'll respond with the standard question (and, maybe this doesnt apply to you. I have no previous history with you, so I dont know):
Why is it that when a company like Microsoft or Oracle does some sort of lock-in or stunt like this, they're "so evil" and it's just such a demonstration of how evil they are, but when Apple does it they're just "doing what a business has to do"?
You are absolutely correct in your point. Apple is no way obligated to "support" hacked iPhones. However, how does it BENEFIT them to go after the phones and turn them into bricks? And you can just about bet with safe odds that this WAS deliberate. They are going after these hacked iPhones as if they were a threat to the company and their profits, and that, to me, is just... well, asshole.
I agree that Apple's not obligated to supply full support for hacked iPhones. I agree with that 100%. And if this new bricking was *caused* by a REAL feature-upgrade that Apple was trying to do, and it *happened* to collide with the hacks... then that's fine and dandy and sucks for everyone. However, I dont think anyone believes that's what is actually happening here. Apple (like Sony), has shown again and again that they are SERIOUSLY against homebrewing of any sort, and will implement over and over again whatever features they can to stymie those efforts. Everyone can readily admit that Sony is a bunch of assholes over their handling of the PSP. Why is it just SO hard for people to admit it with Apple? As I said, maybe this doesnt apply to you. Maybe you're always even-handed and would have come out and supported Microsoft or Sony or any of those other companies if they were doing this exact same stunt. However, if you would not have, perhaps you should take a look at yourself and consider "You might be a fanboy".
Let's get beyond the fact of bricking. This response is wrong on so many levels. There was no contractural obligation to sign up with ATT. I can buy a million Iphones and simply use them as expensive Ipods. That's my choice. No one was obligated to buy the AT&T service (of course most did, because it brought intended value to the purchase). ATT can't sue anyone for anything if they never signed up for a plan with them. To say so speaks volumes to how much Apple and AT&T's PR progam has fooled you into thinking you're somehow morally and legally obligated to purchase both the phone AND the plan.
In addition, it's completely legal to unlock your phone under the DCMA to use on other carriers. It's one of the few exceptions allowed to 'consumers'. Now I don't have an Iphone so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't really care if some random guy's phone gets bricked or not. Do I think it's a dumb move? Yes. Do I think apple is completely justified in protecting it's revenue stream? Yes. You can bet the AT&T and Apple's legal department are very carefully looking at just how much effort Apple puts into ensuring their two year exclusivity agreement remains exclusive. You can also bet the other carriers around the world with whom Apple has a contract are looking at the results of Apple's efforts to squash cell phone freedom. These are completely different issues that you shouldn't confuse. I just wanted to let you know that you are completely wrong about contractural obligations. Do you think those guys from "Does It Blend" are liable to AT&T for blending their Ipod without purchasing a cell phone contract?
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
No, they don't. They sold it, you know, thats when something changes from one owner to another. It's supposed to be *your* iPhone. That's a pretty basic concept and it's scary to see how people are losing sight of those things when you show them some shiny gadget. There is al lot of that stuff out there, like "Never mind the DRM, look shiny new Aero interface!" or "Never mind your privacy, look shiny new web 2.0 website!".
Honestly, I think Microsoft is in the right here. Someone playing with a modded XBox on XBL could wreck the experience for the other people using the system. They're protecting their other customers from jerks who just want to cheat or worse. I have no doubt that the console game writers have holes in their network code that could be exploited remotely if someone was on there with a modded client, and since the 360 has persistent storage there is danger for permanent harm to other people's systems.
Apple however is just protecting AT&T's revenue stream with their bricking, which goes against the Slashdot mantra of "Your failed business plan is not my problem".
I read the internet for the articles.
If the warranty states that the manufacturer doesn't support unauthorized hacks and will void the warranty, then you do your mods at your own risk.
Fair enough. However, the warranty does not state "the manufacturer doesn't support unauthorized hacks and will deliberately try to destroy your device if you use them". In fact, they're not even legally ALLOWED to pull that sort of thing. Once you buy an iPhone, it's yours, and Apple certainly doesnt have the right to come to your home and smash it with a sledgehammer if they dont like how you're using it. It seems that this is all that they're doing, merely in software form.
The big question over whether this is right or wrong is really "Was it honestly an accident?" And... given Apple's previous stances and history with lock-in and proprietarianism (that's a hell of a made-up word), I dont think any of us are buying that this was just completely accidental. Especially with the convenient timing. Much more likely, this is just Apple's prompt response for trying to kill (legal!) modders off ASAP.
Guys, there is no two year agreement! It is an agreement for life. You own that phone and intend to use it you are stuck with AT&T, period. You think that in two years the phone will unlock itself? NO. So just how are you supposed to use other carriers when the two years are up?
I think you get the point. If you signed up with AT&T and you took the two year contract then you are obligated to that unless you find a way around it such as paying penalties. If you don't get out from under it you are still paying AT&T for those two years. You just aren't using the minutes, so that's free money to AT&T.
The point is that you are committed to AT&T for the effective life of the phone, not just two years. That's one of the reasons why there's an exemption to the DMCA. Most of you must realize the iphone will be in use much longer that 2 years.
What some of you may not understand about the iphone is that you can't use the it even as an ipod until you unlock it and you can only unlock it through AT&T (or some hack). So that means you loose full use of the device, not just the phone capabilities.
Apple did everything to screw the consumer on this one knowing the DMCA was covering our asses. They looked very seriously at this at judged how they would handle those attempting to protect their rights with the DMCA. It is obviously carefully calculated, since any company worth anything knows that the consumer has the right to unlock their cell phone.
You have the legal right to issue DMCA cease and decist letters and a legal right to sue, even in a class action, against Apple if they attempt to brick the phone or they don't carefully protect your rights as a consumer by not negligently creating software that they know could potentially brick the phone.
The way it is set up,that is an AT&T for life phone, not a AT&T for 2 years phone.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Right, and the fact that they put the alligators in the water to intentionally eat swimmers doesn't take away their moral high ground one bit.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
They didn't prevent anyone from unlocking the phone. They're just not supporting you if you do so.
/. crowd to understand? Apple specifically says that non-ATT use of the phone is unsupported. People who bought and hacked the phone knew that when they bought it. Apple didn't stop people from doing so, but they're not going to go out of their way to support them. Get over it.
Why is this so hard for the
This is like whining that Microsoft doesn't support people running Window-Blinds or some other hack.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
If you bought a car off of ford and they said "if you use it for racing you might break it" then you say whatever and buy it and race it anyway and it's fine, then ford sends out a "representative" to put sand in your gearbox and smash your windscreen, who then turns round and says "well i told you it might break if you raced it", would it be immoral to get your money back from ford?
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Why is it that when a company like Microsoft or Oracle does some sort of lock-in or stunt like this, they're "so evil" and it's just such a demonstration of how evil they are, but when Apple does it they're just "doing what a business has to do"?
... back to what they were before QuickTime changed them without asking. It just goes on and on, but just like the leather scene here on Folsom st, there's plenty of people willing to be whipped as long as it's done with style.
It's called "special pleading", and it's been the standard defense of Apple from day 1. Apple is the company that invented the Look and Feel lawsuit. This is the company that sued Microsoft over MS Media player changing file associations
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.