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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

Well...

[zantolak]

At least it's a stylish brick!

How to relock an iPhone

[EvilSpudBoy]

There are instructions on how to relock an iPhone here

It seems a bit involved

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.

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: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.

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".