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.'"

Comments

Is that even legal?

[mrjb]

Is that even legal?

Re:Is that even legal?

[MistaE]

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Luke Dawson]

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[TooMuchToDo]

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[kannibal_klown]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it optional to accept a firmware update through iTunes? I thought it was just something that comes up in iTunes much like an iPod firmware update. If that's the case, any user with an unlocked iPhone could/should choose to ignore it, thus it is not mandatory.

If they made it a background/transparent upgrade over-the-air without the user's knowledge then I could see it being a legal issue since it would unknowingly stop their service and potentially leave them stranded in an emergency. An iTunes update just makes it an annoyance, so long as they prompt you saying "Warning: if you unlocked your iPhone this will disable it."

Anybody that unlocked their iPhone must have known there'd be fallout, and that the future would probably turn into a game of cat-and-mouse. They unlock the phone, Apple brick the phone, they unbrick it, etc.

I personally think all phones should be sold unlocked, but it's rare to find them. The fact that Apple is reactively fighting back is a little new, but not unseen.

Re:Is that even legal?

[fymidos]

IANAL, but i'm pretty sure that *not byuing* the iPhone untill apple stops doing stuff like that, is perfectly legal...

Re:Is that even legal?

[fymidos]

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 ...

Re:Is that even legal?

[putzin]

No, Microsoft had the option to not purchase made illegal and immoral quite a while ago. Apple is just riding the coat tails. In summer 2008, I believe it also becomes illegal not to use AT&T for all services including face to face visits with friends and family. In 2009, not only will it be illegal to smoke, but also to not use Apple and AT&T HW, SW, and services for everything you do (I hear the iToilet touch flush will be amazing). All this for the low cost of 40% of your yearly salary or $30K, whichever is greater.

Re:Is that even legal?

[DustyShadow]

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[@madeus]

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. To any developer I would think it would be immediately obvious what you are saying is not true (it's in no way 'total bullshit' that rendering the device unable to boot "might happen" accidentally). Hell, even to any use of a Linux or BSD distribution that uses binary packages that should be immediately obvious it's a likely scenario that you could screw the device by blindly applying a delta to a binary that is different from the intended target binary.

Of course it might "brick" a hacked iPod without them meaning to (note, Phil Schiller is quoted as specially referring to 'unlocked or hacked' iPhones). Even if they are just making a minor update to a simple app, they might be using a newer version of an existing library in the new version, so that library update gets rolled into the delta too. That might also mean other more core things (which have been recompiled to also use that new library) get included and a hack that hooks into them might break, which would screw up the device, rendering it unusable.

This is unlikely to affect users who have only unlocked their phone and is much more likely to affect at users who have also modded their phones in other ways (particularly if they have any software that activates on startup - and particularly software that might screw up if it can't start properly).

I don't have an iPhone, but I'm assuming even if it was "bricked" to the point of not being able to start up normally it would *still* be possible to reset the firmware on it (as it is with the iPods), so it wouldn't *really* be bricked - hence my use of inverted commas.

Re:Is that even legal?

[cyberworm]

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Kymri]

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.)

Re:Is that even legal?

[schon]

I think the unlocked iPhone owners are the ones not playing fair. Poor Apple - people are buying things from them and then using them in ways that Apple hadn't intended! That's so totally unfair to Apple I can't believe it!

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?!?!

Re:Is that even legal?

[Moridineas]

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??

Re:Is that even legal?

[slashname3]

"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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[jonnyj]

IANAL but in the UK this would almost certainly breach the Computer Misuse Act. Section 3 says that "A person is guilty of an offence if (a) he does any act which causes the unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer". All that's needed is a simple letter to Apple and O2 telling them that you withdraw any previously granted permission for them to modify your firmware in any way. In so doing, you might put yourself in breach of your contract with O2 but I doubt if the right to push sofware onto your handset would be regarded as a fundamental contract term.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Applekid]

What isn't fair, is voiding your warranty then crying foul when it breaks. It's one thing to void your warranty and crying that they won't fix your mistake. It's another thing altogether to void your warranty and have them reach out and break an otherwise 100% working phone.

Re:Is that even legal?

[EastCoastSurfer]

It's possible this has happened, but has MS pushed down an update to the xbox which bricked it (prevented it from ever playing games) if it had a modchip?

Re:Is that even legal?

[Richard_at_work]

Don't apply any updates then, its that simple.

Apple are selling what is essentially a sealed unit, every single device out there should be 100% identical (other than user data) in Apples view, so why should they check to see if their universal update to the iPhone would cause your individual unit harm? Its an extra hassle and effort that they really should have no need to do, since they sold the item with the intent of it remaining identical.

If you change the game by modding or unlocking the iPhone, the onus is on you and you alone to then keep abreast of the play and pay due diligence to any updates to ensure they don't have any adverse effect on your non standard item.

Re:Is that even legal?

[cyberworm]

And because Apple knew full well that people would want to hack the iPhone, and they should have tried to make the system safely hackable, even if they didn't want any users doing it.

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[cyberworm]

if it's working 100%, I guess you won't be updating yours and you have nothing to worry about. :D

Re:Is that even legal?

[ubrgeek]

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...)

Re:Is that even legal?

[TooMuchToDo]

Heh chief, better check your facts. You don't agree to the contract when you buy the phone. You agree to it when you activate it at home. If I don't activate it with ATT, I don't agree to any contracts.

Also, I have a problem with a company actively preventing you from doing something protected by law (unlocking a phone is protected under the DMCA).

Re:Is that even legal?

[frdmfghtr]

Poor Apple - people are buying things from them and then using them in ways that Apple hadn't intended! That's so totally unfair to Apple I can't believe it!

Sarcasm aside, that is exactly the same reason why unlockers shouldn't bitch if their iPhones become iBricks. They are using them in a way the manufacturer hadn't intended them to be used.

From the iPhone warranty:

This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products; (b) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire,
earthquake or other external causes; (c) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple; (d)
to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized
Service Provider ("AASP"); (e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple; (f)
to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (g) to cosmetic damage, including but
not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; or (h) if any Apple serial number has been removed or defaced.

In other words, swim at your own risk, but don't bitch to us if you get eaten by an alligator; you were told to stay out of the water.

The other option is to simply forgo the update, or re-lock it.

Re:Is that even legal?

[abaddononion]

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".

Re:Is that even legal?

[Dog-Cow]

You need not ever pay AT&T a dime to own an iPhone.

Re:Is that even legal?

[sabinm]

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?

Re:Is that even legal?

[lancejjj]

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. As someone who has worked in the world of firmware of the mobile telephone industry, I can tell you that users can very well "brick" their device once they start messing with low level code.

All of our code went through an amazing amount of quality control - from design to deployment - to ensure that device never becomes a brick. However, in one instance, I recall another manufacturer with exactly that problem - the software was flawed enough such that the device could brick itself.

There was a work-around: ship the unit back to a service center, have a tech open up the device, and snap on a specialty programmer to reload the corrected low level code. The problem was that the manufacturer was not prepared for such an event, and so they didn't have the techs or equipment to perform this service fast enough for consumers. The cost went into several millions.

Of course, that's the case of a device with a flaw delivered from the manufacturer. It's quite different when the customer starts messing around with the guts of low-level firmware. At that point, it is only fair to have the customer pay for the physical disassembly and reprogramming, shipping, and associated administrative costs.

So "might" it happen? Yes, as it has happened, both by the manufacturer (in error), and countless times by individuals who screw around and inadvertently change APIs or inject buggy code that could be invoked by a simple software update. This isn't just an Apple thing - it happens industry wide.

I'm not saying that iPhone hackers are wrong. I'm just saying that they have to be very careful, and be prepared to "eat the cost" of any changes that brick the device. Changing low-level code is NEVER something to do without a lot of careful checking.

Hell, I know of a few dozen motherboard manufacturers that say that you should never upgrade your BIOS with even official updates unless you are very very sure that you need the update. I'm sure THEY wouldn't be too keen on getting back a few 10,000 motherboards with crapped out, user-customized BIOS firmware - why should Apple?

Re:Is that even legal?

[abaddononion]

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[HermMunster]

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[sacrilicious]

In other words, swim at your own risk, but don't bitch to us if you get eaten by an alligator; you were told to stay out of the water.

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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Ginger Unicorn]

well you dont "end up" with a broken phone, Apple deliberately vandalises it, therefore it is not immoral to get your money back off them.

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?

Re:Is that even legal?

[nuzak]

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"?

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 ... 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.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Koiu Lpoi]

Nintendo threatened it with the Wii. Firmware 3.0 came with the warning message "If your Wii console has an unauthorized technical modification, this upgrade could cause inoperability of your console." Mind you, it didn't actually brick any Wiis, and the update was completely optional (seeing as they gave you the warning and the option to stop), I don't see the problem.

Well...

[zantolak]

At least it's a stylish brick!

Re:Well...

[AVee]

Apple has every right to protect what they've sold.

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!".

Build a very expensive house?

[leuk_he]

in SIM-unlocked iPhones turning into very expensive bricks... So what are users of SIM-unlocked iPhones to do?

Bricks have uses too. You can build houses from them. Very expensive houses. But bricks are bricks after all.

Re:Build a very expensive house?

[somersault]

And at least your house won't scratch easily

I think...

[LLKrisJ]

... This is most likely to be just lowly scare mongering. Apple is becoming evil awfully quick.

Re:I think...

[betterunixthanunix]

"Becoming" evil? Apple is not some shrine of ethics or panacea of consumer/developer friendliness. This is a company that has tried suing bloggers for talking about upcoming Apple products. One of the first companies to employ TPM-style chips on a widespread basis. The company that takes 50 times more than they give -- GUI, OOP, BSD, KHTML, etc. The company that is locking down iPods so that I won't be able to use them with my computer anymore (because, GASP, I don't run an OS that they support with iTunes!).

If you are surprised by Apple's behavior, you should take a look at some news archives and see what Apple has done in the past. And if you think that they won't try to shut off unlocked iPhones, you REALLY need to review the news archives. In the Apple world, "lock-in" takes on an entirely new meaning.

Going one better

[Andrew Kember]

I wouldn't be surprised if the iPhone Dev Team released a work-around rather than a roll-back. I.e. Have your unlocked iPhone cake and eat it (upgraded s/w) too. How? That's up to the clever people...

How to relock an iPhone

[EvilSpudBoy]

There are instructions on how to relock an iPhone here

It seems a bit involved

And so...

[caitsith01]

...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.

I am waiting for a Neo1973 OpenMoko phone

[dominux]

if you want a Linux based, good looking, feature full and open phone then have a look at Open Moko it is probably going to be capable of multitouch (the touchscreen hardware can do it but the software does not take advantage yet) it will come without a contract so I will be getting an O2 sim only contract when they come out next month. OpenMoko in October, OLPC in November, wow, I am going to be skint by Christmas.

Re:I am waiting for a Neo1973 OpenMoko phone

[dominux]

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

Re:I am waiting for a Neo1973 OpenMoko phone

[dominux]

in fact, if I may reply to my own post, there is another bit worth quoting from that page where they discuss the reasons why they didn't initially have wifi:

We can't find a WiFi Chipset with GPL'ed drivers -- We know this has been discussed (to death) on this list, but as we're beginning work on the next summer hardware refresh we still can't seem to find a vendor that meets our strict requirements: Namely, we refuse to put anything binary in the kernel.

so until they found the Atheros AR6K 802.11 b/g. they were willing to compromise the spec in order not to compromise their principals. I like that.

iPhone Unlocking, Ethical and Practical

[bstarrfield]

I'm an Apple fanboy - I've used Macs since 1984, worked for Apple for a couple of years, and have promoted Apple equipment and software where I've been employed. But at this moment, I'm disgusted. There is no need to disable the unlocked iPhone's, and Jobs and crew should damn well accept that some of us actually refuse to use AT&T on principal. Think Different my a**.

I'm not going to subscribe to AT&T. AT&T, the firm that's trying to eliminate net neutrality. AT&T, the reconstituted (near) monopoly. AT&T the firm that opened their switch boxes to the NSA without hesitation and is now attempting to manipulate legislation to provide immunity from prosecution in that matter.

On a practical note, Does Mr. Jobs even recognize how expensive his bed partner is overseas? And this matter practically to myself and my family. Apple, as normal, has forgotten that Israel exists. Apple has, as far as I know, has never sold its products directly in Israel. If I want to send an iPhone to my family in Israel, should I have to sign up for AT&T and pay for their pathetic World Traveler plan? The world does exist outside the US and a few European markets.

Incidentally - my evil unlocked iPhone works perfectly on T-Mobile - without Visual Voice Mail, but gods, I'll live. So what, precisely, is the point of altering the modem firmware, except to break unlocking? Point out examples of the baseband firmware wreaking havoc on the network; explain how this change benefits users.

The iPhone is the first tablet computer I've seen that inspires the imagination. I want to write programs for it, I want to explore a new user interface. If it runs OS X, treat it like an OS X box and let us get on with writing the programs that will sell the bloody thing. Don't freeze us out while you write such amazing accomplishments as the "Wireless i-Tunes Store" while we're trying to write vertical apps for the medical profession, law, and other fields.

Job's, former AT&T hacker, has decided to repeat the folly of the early closed Mac, the early closed NeXT, and even at times the Newton. Apple made a terrible choice in its partner, and seems incapable of realizing the potential of the iPhone.

Re:iPhone Unlocking, Ethical and Practical

[cyberworm]

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.

Undo the hack

[Dark_Nova]

While the jury's out on whether the bricking is intentional or not, it's clear that something in the update process is incompatible with the changes made by unlocking.

The solution is to reverse the changes before updating. There is a preliminary guide to doing this at:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/24/how-to-relock-your-iphone-before-the-firmware-update/

Of course, this means that your phone is no longer unlocked.

The other option is to just not upgrade.

One more thing..... cyberterrorism? WTF?

[mlwmohawk]

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.

Apple release more details

[Slashcrap]

Apparently the phone won't be disabled immediately. It will first make a call to the nearest AT&T NSA approved logging center, where the phone number will be recorded and your address details passed on to Apple.

Then the phone will disable itself.

Shortly after, you will meet with a mysterious accident.

Apple users that we interviewed were of the opinion that while this was a good first step, it didn't really go quite far enough. "Ideally I'd like to see the offender's family murdered in the streets as well. It's really the only way to teach the proper respect for Apple's products and business strategy.", said one person who was soon copied by all the others in an attempt to show their individuality.

An Apple spokesman who we contacted offered the following statement, "LOL, Windows, LOL!".

Re:Quiiiick.

[@madeus]

and then threaten to turn them into paperweights if you dare to use them away from their selected few. No, they didn't. They are not talking about "bricking" only network-unlocked phones (the actual quote was in the context of hacked iPods too). You are spreading FUD, like most people are on this thread, and the flamers and moderators are lapping it up too.

In fact, in Europe (I don't know about the US) phones *must* be unlockable (providers often refer to this a 'subsidy code' - it's cheaper to buy it from a third party). It can be around 3-4 UKP to buy a subsidy code (generated from your IMEI) online, it's usually about 10-20 UKP to get it done on the high street and about 50+ UKP to get one from the original provider.

After the contract period is up on AT&T from what I have read I believe they are letting you use the device with other providers . I'm not sure if that is through legal mandate or not, as I've indicated I don't know what US legislation there is covering network interoperability for mobile phones.

In either case their most certianly ARE going to be unlocked iPhones out there, that's not the issue. All that's being said here is that "if you've modified the software on your iPhone, upgrading it [i.e. applying a binary delta which is intend to patch against the original OS] might prevent the phone from booting". I would add that if you find that even remotely surprising you are not sufficiently technical to be messing around applying 3rd party hacks to your phone's OS (and that you can almost certainly restore the original firmware on it, even if it won't boot - as with the iPod's).

Slashdot is mis-representing the truth and people who love an excuse to rant against Apple are lapping it up in blind ignorance.

Thank gods...

[Upaut]

A bricked iPhone can be returned for a full switch...
I have a small scratch on my iPhone driving me insane, which is not enough to warrent an exchange.

I will have to explain to my family that they should *not* update the firmware if they want to keep using t-moble, at least until someone else figures out how to unlock the phone. Or I will simply install my backup copy of the current firmware, no harm done and all.

I mean, being able to play a few games while in airplane mode, having free personal ringtones ripped from our own media, using t-mobile, an ebay tracker, an application that uses cellphone triangulation to calculate your location on the map, an AIM client, a digital recorder for lectures and meetings, a quickbooks app, an ebook reader, and a NES emulator; are all worth more to us then having an itunes store on the phone that lets us know what songs are playing in our local starbucks... I mean with the tmobile 'total internet' package (for $19.95 a month), I can use the tmobile hotspot in my local starbucks, for speeds faster then EDGE.... A greater convinence in my mind.

quote

[Darth Maul]

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.

Re:quote

[graffix_jones]

How trivial is it to perform a firmware checksum prior to attempting the update (via the updater)? If the checksum fails, the firmware updater can do one of two things: it can offer to reset the firmware to factory defaults (i.e. a 'complete' restore), or it can simply show a splash screen refusing the update until the iPhone is restored to factory defaults.

This crap of bricking the iPhone is pure nonsense, when it's easy enough to avoid without completely pissing off the customer.

Remember the old adage: "Whether you CAN do something is irrelevant, it's whether or not you SHOULD do it." (I know I mangled that, so please don't nail me on correctness).
Words of wisdom, those are (to paraphrase Yoda).

So what Apple has said ...

[Lars T.]

is that they won't check future software updates to the iPhone to work with each and every unlocking hack somebody came up with.

Sort of.

[Midnight Ryder]

They didn't brick XBox 360's that were modded, but, they did ban 'em from XBox Live. While not the same as bricking it, it definitely rendered it less valuable to people who were playing online games or enjoyed downloading games, videos, etc. from XBox Live.

Re:Sort of.

[jandrese]

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".

Re:Sort of.

[fractoid]

That's different. That's blocking you from a *service* that they provide for users of unmodified XBox 360s.

It's like you buy a Toyota that's designed to only run on Toyota fuel. You modify it to run on any petrol (since Toyota fuel is just petrol with colouring in it). MS's approach with the XBox is to ban you from filling your modded car up at Toyota petrol stations. Apple's approach is to pour sugar in your petrol tank.

Who's preventing?

[blueZ3]

They didn't prevent anyone from unlocking the phone. They're just not supporting you if you do so.

Why is this so hard for the /. 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.

This is like whining that Microsoft doesn't support people running Window-Blinds or some other hack.