Slashdot Mirror
Apple May Be Breaking the Law With Policy On iPhone Unlocks
an anonymous reader writes "Apple's recent decision to void warranties for folks that unlocked their iPhones may wind them up in legal hot water. The site Phone News points out that Apple appears to have broken a key warranty law relevant to SIM unlocks. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a law decades old, would seem to prevent Apple from voiding warranties in the way it is threatening to do with the iPhone, or so the site argues. 'The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states that Apple cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product. The only exception to this rule is if Apple can determine that the modification or enhancement is responsible [for] damaging the product in question ... The legal [questions are]: Is the SIM Unlock process that has become mainstream doing damage to iPhone? And, also, is Apple designing future software updates to do damage to iPhone when said SIM Unlock code is present?'"
It's not about unlocking phones.
It's about the radio firmware being altered in an unknown way, or even damaged. (Note: this is DIFFERENT from jailbreaking, OS hacking, and installing third party apps.)
Why should that be covered under warranty?
[...] is Apple designing future software updates to do damage to iPhone when said SIM Unlock code is present?
NO!
Absolutely not.
Apple has already explicitly stated that they are not going to intentionally or proactively do anything to unlocked phones. Even a small amount of logic would reveal that when the baseband radio firmware is in an unknown state (this is different from the OS on the phone, and doing the "hacking" to install third party applications, and so on), future updates, either to the firmware or the OS or both, may break things. Even a software update that expects the radio to accept commands or interact with the OS in a particular way could end up breaking things.
Oh, I know a lot of you really want to believe Apple is actually going to intentionally damage phones that are unlocked. Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply not the case.
If there is any legal issue that erupts over this, Apple will very easily be able to prove that there is no way for it to predict the state of the hardware when it does updates when it has been altered, perhaps irreparably depending on the method, in an unknown fashion by the user.
Further, I think it's funny that some seem to carp about how Apple will be "fixing" the mechanism via which phones are currently unlocked, as if it's evil. Of course they will! It's a general buffer overflow that happens to be used in the unlock process. Should Apple not fix an exploitable buffer overflow in the OS just so people can continue to unlock phones? The arguments on this topic are laughable.
Moreover, while end-user unlocking of handsets is legal in the US under the current DMCA exemption, the vendor is under NO OBLIGATION to support the phones in such a state with future software/firmware updates. I can hear all the "But what about the UK?" people chiming in now. Apple will do whatever is required by law in any jurisdiction. If a certain jurisdiction REQUIRES unlocked phones, Apple may skip that market entirely (for now). Even in the UK it isn't as clear as some people like to think it is, because the phone technically isn't subsidized, meaning that it may not have to be unlocked after the subsidy is repaid - because there is no subsidy. And a large part of Apple's iPhone strategy with carriers is tight integration for things like the activation process: things that simply aren't supported with anyone but the partner carrier.
Remember: it's "legal" to do a lot of things which also might end up voiding the warranty of a particular product. Something being "legal" doesn't imply all of these things people seem to think it does. A lot of odd arguments appeared in the last story about this, saying that since the DMCA exemption allows handset unlocking, somehow, Apple must actively enable it. Wrong.
Customers have a choice:
- Don't ever apply a software update after unlocking (unless applying said update to a phone unlocked using your exact mechanism has been confirmed to work by others), and your phone will stay unlocked
- Don't buy an iPhone
Don't act like Apple is somehow bound to support all unlocked phones via any mechanism, some which may damage the phone, in any and all future software updates, especially when it can't possibly predict all iterations. You don't have to buy an iPhone.
And if you want to argue about simlocking in general, it's a very common practice the world over, and your beef isn't with Apple. If Apple just sold all iPhones unlocked, like some people think they should, there would be nowhere near the tight integration with any and all carriers, the pleasant do-it-yourself activation process that is part of what makes the iPhone genius, not to mention the economic arguments, where
If you don't like the product then don't buy it.
...from a few days ago is a better lithmus test for this act, don't you think?
U.S.A Communist Party FP !
It seems that this would also apply to people who have had their warranties voided due to linux installation. like here . Let's hope so.
If a firmware update from Apple breaks an iPhone, how it that Apples fault?
Its not the QA departments responsibility at Apple to test their updates on unsupported platforms. What is the QA department suppose to do scourer the web for iPhone hacks and test their Firmware updates against them.
But even if it wasn't, I don't understand why certain sectors are frothing about this. The iPhone is a product and it's configured in a certain way at the factory to work a certain way. It's not "commodity" hardware, a generic phone. I just don't understand why, if you dink around with it's software, which is an integral part of its operation, its "total experience", why Apple shouldn't void the warranty. It's not the same thing they sold you, why should they be responsible for it?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I think Apple is simply going about it wrong. Rather than being all vocal and tolling hell's bells, it could just release updates that make the current method not work. Once the new update is cracked, release another. It's a motivation to deliver something new in every update (*cough*flash*cough*).
Yeah, it's might be like brushing it under the rug, and AT&T wouldn't like that. A policy of "We are not responsible and we do not support the unlock and will not repair the software of unlocked phones--only the hardware, but un-unlocked phones are repairable in full" might do the trick.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
All this sounds like griping from people who hacked their phone to unlock it.
What did you expect? Now that Apple will probably brick your hacked phone you are pissed off. You took the risk.
All the people posting here that, somehow, the warranty defines your rights or a manufacturer's responsibilities are absolutely 100% wrong.
Federal, state, and local statutes trump warranties every time.
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
Any defense of Apple that does not account for law or relevant legal precedent are, at best, flawed.
It's not illegal to unlock a phone because of an excemption in the DMCA, but the DMCA says nothing about requiring warranties remain invalid. If this law were used to force Apple into maintaining warranties on unlocked iPhones, then wouldn't Microsoft be also obliged to maintain warranties on 'chipped Xbox's. Right now they're merely banning them from Xbox live, but shouldn't the inability to get online with a product which heralds its online capabilities be a warranty issue?
><));>
iPhones can probably play the same crap. As long as they warn you that 3rd party software or hardware may brick the system, they're fine. Nintendo just did that with Metroid Prime 3. There is a warning saying that upgrading the firmware will most likely brick machines with mods, and even gave instructions on how to circumvent the installation. You couldn't play the game, but at least you don't have a brick.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
As we have seen in many instances, and especially in SteveJob's recent flagrant disregard for the law in his options backdating, Apple is a very conservative company, in the respect that it doesn't really care what the law is (meaning, they behave as a conservative).
So the conservative solution to this is like all conservative solutions: if you break the law... just get rid of the law you broke! Support "deregulation" of the consumer protection laws Apple ignores. It's the only truly conservative recourse.
Who said it's mainstream? I know of no one that has actualy unlocked their iphone.
Why should apple care? Doesn't unlocking a phone only take customers away from the carrier? Apple already got the profit from the phone when it was purchased, who gives a shit if someone wants to use it on a different network. If anyone should be pissed, it's Cingular/ATT. Also, this practice of voiding warranties for "hacking phones" is not new. I've hacked my Verizon Razr V3c because it just works way better with the hacks (all it does it enable features that are normally disabled, I dont change the software) and guess what, that voids the warranty with Verizon, but not with my phone insurance company.
If Apple would assist with providing an easily accessible method to have a working iPhone in Canada I'll have no reason to unlocked an iPhone.
But I can see them simply re-locking the phone as part of the warranty. IANAL, by the way.
Palm trees and 8
The astroturfers are quick!
People wake up!! All the people posting here that, somehow, the warranty defines your rights or a manufacturer's responsibilities are absolutely 100% wrong.
Federal, state, and local statutes trump warranties every time. You have rights, and Apple has responsibilities!!!
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
Any defense of Apple that does not account for law or relevant legal precedent are, at best, flawed.
I can see how this law would prevent Apple from voiding the HARDWARE warranty, but I see that "hacking" your phone would void all software warranties. According to the excerpt, unless Apple could prove that the changes to the firmware caused hardware failure, then they would have to continue their warranty on hardware replacements. They could, however, refuse to re-flash the phone or deal with any interface/software problems. I think this law would be better applied to those stories we hear about laptop and PC owners being denied under-warranty hardware replacements when they are using non-Windows OS's.
This entire problem occurred because Apple partnered with AT&T. It was a sink-the-company idea for Apple, in my opinion, guaranteed to get Apple some VERY bad press.
People have a legitimate need to use other SIM cards in their phones. For example, if you travel to Europe or Asia or South America, it is common to buy a SIM card there (GSM phones only) because then you get a local number, making it much cheaper for local people to call you and for you to call them.
Locking the iPhone while charging the full price for it was an attempt to squeeze more money from buyers, most of whom don't fully understand all the ways cellular phone companies, and now Apple, can abuse them, in my opinion.
AT&T is no longer the old AT&T, because the name was sold to SBC. My understanding is that the SBC trademark was worse than useless because the company is so abusive. So, the managers decided to use another name. Those interested in how that happened can watch Stephen Colbert explain in a 1 minute 14 second video: The New AT&T.
SBC taking the name AT&T is, in my opinion, a kind of legal fraud, but fraud nevertheless. People are bound to be confused and misled. AT&T had a very good reputation. SBC-AT&T is a completely different company, and has no connection in its culture with the old AT&T. At the very least, the SEC should require the company to disclose in the first sentence of any prospectus for its stock that there is no connection whatsoever.
I don't know if you've written any software yourself, but the first rule about deploying patches to consumer software is that you are NOT allowed to make any assumptions about the state of the hardware or software.
The reason people are up in arms is because apple has raised the possibility of this update permanently bricking your iPhone. That possibility is unacceptable. Any decent programmer would just have the update checksum the software and firmware and overwrite any hacked copies with the new version. None of your arguments about altered radio firmware and so on have any bearing on the issue...what does it matter which piece of firmware we're talking about? If an update requires consistency on the part of other elements of the phone, it needs to ensure that they are consistent, and if they are not, either fix them or fail gracefully.
The bottom line is that there is a lot of precedent for hardware warranties being unaffected by the actions a consumer takes with his software. Any manufacturer who causes users 4-600$ dollars worth of hardware loss via a software update would be liable. End of story.
Believe me, if PC manufacturers could have voided your warranty for installing a different operating system (as they would be able to according to your arguments), they would have years ago.
Some car manufacturers integrate non-audio circuitry into the radio. GM, for example, did (still does?) that for the airbag controls so its not necessarily baloney that replacing your car's factory audio headunit caused your ABS to cease operating or operate incorrectly.
Sometimes the line between vendor-forced lock-ins and blind cost-reduction engineering is hard to distinguish.
...I believe there's a good chance that other corporations are monitoring this case very carefully, then will dispatch fleets of lobbyists in Washington to push legislation to repeal the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, with Harry Reid more than willing to comply. It cannot be understated that both major political parties in Congress have made it very clear, in the last ten years or so, that they are for the most part sympathetic towards Big Business.
Think copyright laws and the virtual demise of public domain.
Think file sharing. Think internet radio.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
You are plugging a radio device into a regulated liscenced network. You have a responsibility not to screw with the emissions of the device or misuse it. More than a responsibily--a legal obligation. But Apple also has a responsibility to try to prevent misuse of the device since it can't be expected that every user knows what they are doing and can weigh the ramifications of software installation. They need to make it reasonably safe but beyond that it's the end user that commits the crime.
It's also remotely plausible software can ruin the device and even increase the risk of fire. So making it hard to mess with also makes sense from that perspective. This is much more of a minor concern than the former, as there are already many perfectly safe battery operated computers. The reason it matters here at all is simply the numbers game. Unlike most moddable handhelds, theres millions of these things and they are very likely to be operated on airplanes and public transportation. Some prudence is required.
But beyond apples need to due dilligence above they also have the desire to make the thing have some value to the carriers and to the music sellers. Thus locking them helps the carriers. If there's a kickback for sales then it lessens the initial purchase cost to the consumers too. And it makes a market for DRMd music. (people who whine about fairlplay can't be pleased--it's a freakin fair-use speedbump folks, not a lock in. At least for the music. Video is a different story.). People may not like DRM but the mass consumer likes having a marketplace so they want to make that possible. To do that they need to enhance the sales value to attract the sellers. Personally I'm pretty happy with the line apple walks between buyers and sellers interests on audio sales. You can disagree with me on the DRM, but please see the point that apple has its reasons for needing to keep the device secure given its middleman position in the market.
Finally, my guess is that like their video DRM (as opposed to audio) they are not trying to win the cat and mouse game here but simply perpetuate it at a level where the rodent population is tolerable. hardcore folks will play update games. Everyone else will not.
So sure there may be sim card laws that say they can't prevent that. But they can prevent people from unlocking many of the other parts of the phone which may amount to the same thing, indirectly.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You can hack your Tivo, and there has been some (backhanded) help from Tivo insiders to do so. You can make it do all sorts of wonderful things that Tivo did not intend, or were to litigation averse to embed in the system. Thing is, when Tivo updates the boxes you lose all your hacks. The community realized this and created a workaround that prevented automatic updates. Then they get the new software update, sifted through it, and either provided new hacks or a customized update to work with existing hacks.
I don't own an iPhone - I have a cingy 8525. I have flashed it to a not-quite-released WM6 firmware. If I want the latest and greatest approved stuff from AT&T, I need to load their software (though it does not appear to affect my unlock status...but it could). If I don't want the updated goodness, I don't update. My DTivo is about 3-4 minor updates behind, and before the last update I was a major upgrade behind. I'm not willing to lose my TiVo hacks for a couple bells and whistles (proper DST...which could be an issue coming up here...and folders).
If the firmware upgrades are "forced", those with hacked phones need to either code a workaround to avoid the updates or just suck it up.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The author is no doubt referring to 15 USC 2302(c): "No [company] may condition [a] ... warranty ... on the consumer's using ... an[] article or service ... which is identified by brand ... or corporate name; except ... if the [company can show] that the warranted product will function properly only if the ... service ... is used in connection with the warranted product."
What this literally means is that Apple's warranty cannot say "This warranty is void if you use the iPhone with a company other than AT&T." However, Apple's warranty doesn't say that. It says that the warranty is void if you mess with the firmware. It HAPPENS TO BE that the only way to make it POSSIBLE to use another company's service requires doing something else that will void your warranty, but the warranty terms themselves aren't anti-competitive, the firmware is.
Even if the terms of the warranty did say this, Apple is probably still safe because it wouldn't be hard to argue that the iPhone isn't "function[ing] properly" if Visual Voicemail is broken.
Any case brought under this law would be without merit and would probably be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Most of the "they can't do X" crap, stems from a misinterpretation of one specific part of the act:
The clause is to prevent, say, a vacuum cleaner company from requiring used of their own brand of bags (unless they provide them free). It doesn't mean you can modify your car for more horsepower, and expect the manufacturer to cover the engine under warranty when it breaks. It also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't put a clause in the warranty which says the car's warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It means that they can't put a clause which says "Use of any brand fuzzy dice other than ACME brand fuzzy dice will void the engine warranty."
Specific to the case at hand, since Apple provides firmware "without charge" during the warranty period, Magnuson-Moss does not require that they allow third party or modified firmware to be used under the warranty terms, and Apple is within the law if they require that only their firmware be used to maintain a valid warranty.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
*Digital Turnip Twaddling (I'm quoting what I think you will agree, or not, is an authoritative technical authority. Opus threw his obsolete iPhone in the trash.)
...like the printer instruction books that warn you that third-party ink cartridges may damage your machine.
It could even be just what Apple says: they've found that there really is an innocent, unintended incompatibility between their updates and the hack. Certainly, there are perennial conflicts between Apple OS updates and software tweaks like Unsanity's "Haxies," and I don't think Apple is doing it deliberately.
I think Apple is using scare tactics, both to keep AT&T happy and to keep them out of the nightmare scenario of being forced to provide support for hacked iPhones.
I could be wrong, of course, but I'm curious to wait and see whether iPhones actually do get bricked... and whether a smoking-gun memo will emerge--"The job's not complete 'till unlocked phones are dead meat"
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Ok, if you buy a brand new car with a warranty, and you then perform a bunch of aftermarket mods to it, including modifying the computer, should the manufacturer support it? No. You performed modification to a device which is meant to function in a specific way. You assume whenever you hack something you're voiding your warranty. There are books entitled, "How to have fun while voiding your warranty" about hardware hacks. You're just pissed because you bought a 500$ device, and now you face bricking it because you rushed out of the gate to mod it. You have implemented things from a 3rd party, not apple. Why should apple support things that aren't theirs? It is no longer the device they sold you. Turn to the 3rd party hack vendors to update. Seriously, you can't have the best of both worlds. Get the hell over it. The most important thing is that apple informed you. Imagine if they released the update and said nothing? At least now you can continue using your iphone as is. So really, you haven't lost anything.
-
Sammy
iPhone
Nothing ever goes wrong with Apple products, right? So what do you need a warranty for?
Peoples approach to thinking that they actually 'own' an iPhone is wrongheaded. You technically 'own' the nice shiny plastic/metal case, but that's about it. The firmware is licenced to you. You have a licence to use the firmware , for a particular purpose (make and receive calls, use features, etc).
You are NOT licenced to reverse engineer/dissassemble it etc.
Don't like Apple's terms, too bad, should have read the licence agreement.
Enjoy your pricy brick. Apple is not obliged to do anything to fix it.
iCRAPPLE
Duh. Would you like to pay monopoly prices, which are twice as much or more?
In the wild west of free-market capitalism, a few companies dominate most big industries, the way Carlos Slim took over the Mexican phone industry.
In the U.S., this got so bad that we passed antitrust laws to prevent businesses from doing this. IBM used to sell computers, and make you buy the punch cards from them. Those were the most expensive punch cards ever sold. If you bought a Chevrolet, you had to buy GM parts at twice the price.
So because of these abuses, we passed antitrust laws. You can love or hate the free market, but it works a lot better (for everyone except Carlos Slim) with more competition.
Consumers who want to jack up their iPhones by HACKING it, don't deserve consumer rights. As far as unlocking the sim card...caveat emptor. You should have known before you bought the phone that you get AT&T and that's it.
It means that they can't put a clause which says "Use of any brand fuzzy dice other than ACME brand fuzzy dice will void the engine warranty."
Funny how this doesn't apply to ink printer cartridges, doesn't it.
I interpret the law a bit differently, since the law says it's not illegal to unlock a phone, but this doesn't mean it's illegal to void warranty on unlocked phones.
You won't end up in jail, but you'll have no warranty..
What does getting "bricked" mean? I've seen it mentioned several times on this thread. Thanks.
I read through some of the information on this Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and it seems that the purpose here was to ensure that manufacturers provided the consumer with a document that is both easy to understand, and not ambiguous. However, it does not put any stipulation on that manufacturer to prevent them from invalidating the warranty if you don't use the device correctly.
However, this act falls a little short in the realm of electronics and firmware. Sure, Apple can't go around saying that your warranty will be void if you use a Motorolla bluetooth headset instead of an Apple one. But, can they say that the warranty is void if you use a different firmware? It seems to me that there's a gray area there. Firmware is required to make the device work, but it's provided by the manufacturer. So, can the manufacturer prevent you from using someone else's firmware by invalidating the warranty?
I suppose the underlying question is, what does the warranty cover? If it's merely electronics, then perhaps the manufacturer cannot dictate the firmware used, but, in the event of a failure, they can surely attempt to load the device with "official" firmware in an effort to determine the problem. Of course, if the unit is completely dead, that won't help. In that instance, the question becomes more of a "what caused the failure" type of question.
That's where 3rd party firmware can become a problem. How do you prove that the firmware was the cause and not the hardware? I'm sure it can be done, but to the satisfaction of the customer? And is it really Apple's responsibility to determine if the firmware was the cause? In the end, it may cost Apple quite a lot of money to make that determination, only to turn back to the customer and refuse the warranty claim. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
Let's use your fuzzy dice example. What happens if an unlocked iPhone has a completely unrelated hardware failure, like the touchscreen or button? Apple would say the warranty is void, but the way I understand it, you can't void a warranty unless an unauthorized modification directly contributed to the failure.
http://images.apple.com/legal/warranty/iphone.pdf
... (e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple;"
Exclusions, paragraph 3, section e.
"This warranty does not apply:
That seems fairly clear that modifying the firmware to alter the capability to use other networks/sims voids the warranty.
> Is the SIM Unlock process that has become mainstream doing damage to iPhone?
Mainstream? I really wonder what percentage of iPhone owners have messed with SIM unlock crap. I bet it's some fraction of 1 percent. Mainstream? I seriously doubt it.
Seems like that "one specific part of the act" you're talking about clearly states that they'd have to apply to the "Commission" to get a waiver, and the commission would have to find that "such a waiver is in the public interest." Any evidence that Apple has gone through that process? Until that happens, sounds like Apple is SOL.
Apple is not bound to provide warranty coverage on an altered product any more than one would expect a car manufacturer to warranty a car engine if it were altered under its warranty period
... you can put an after-market exhaust or air intake on your car, and they can't not honor your warranty when you take the car in for an oil leak.
Pssst. You might want to read Magnuson-Moss. Because that's exactly what it talks about.
They DO have to honor the warranty, unless the modification leads directly to the failure in question and can be proved as such.
This is why a car manufacturer can not void a warranty because you put after-market parts on/in your car (and some car/motorcycle dealers will STILL try and tell you that they can void the warranty if you do).
For example
- Roach
Its more complex than simply unlocking the phone, you are hacking its OS. In some cases changing the hardware. How can a company warranty a product that is used in ways unintended, beyond it's off the shelf capabilities?
I find this whole controversy strange. It seems like the people who hate Apple are complaining that they cant use the iPhone... While the people who love Apple are content to use the iPhone with AT&T.
If you re-chip your car, you probably void your warranty across the board - for obvious reasons.
That's the car equivalent of reflashing your iPhone firmware.
Does it do anything bad? Well, probably not, but you never now. For car firmware, there may be a corner case that the chippers didn't think about...like pulling a controlled skid at 85 mph (oops).
Not sure what the equivalent would be for iPhone firmware, accidentally boosting the transmit power so it fries the users' brain?
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states that Apple cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product.
It actually *states* all that? Damn! Pretty good for a decades old law; not sure why they decided to make it apply only to Apple though.
No GM vehicle has any mechanisms that have to do with the functioning of the airbags or ABS integrated into the radio. They are not stupid enough to expose themselves to liability like this by integrating a safety-critical system (such as airbags or ABS function) into a part of the car that is often replaced by the owner, like the radio.
What they did integrate into the radio were things like all the audio chimes for things like Onstar, lights-on/door open/key-in, low brake fluid (yes, there's a warning chime for that now), seatbelt warning, memory seat function (ok this one makes no sense for it to be integrated into the radio, I'll admit), parking brake warning, and in some cases the steering wheel controls for the heater and air conditioning.
There are, however, several aftermarket interface modules that allow you to install an aftermarket audio system while keeping all of the factory functions (except perhaps the steering wheel audio controls which would depend on your aftermarket stereo supporting those).
Putting moderation advice in your
When you are designing and testing a product, you don't only test for how you WANT the product to be used, you test for how people are likely to use it in ways you DON'T want.
This space available.
..."other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty."
As stated (perhaps you didn't read this either: "Apple provides firmware "without charge" during the warranty period."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the M-M act trumps this. Apple has to prove that the mod contributed to the failure.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
This is...mostly correct, but somewhat incomplete. If you install some aftermarket part in your vehicle, and there is evidence that the installation of that part resulted in the vehicle damage that you are seeking to repair under warranty, then the manufacturer is within their rights to refuse warranty service. However, if you install a cold air intake, and then you suffer from a failure in the suspension or electrical system, there would be no grounds for refusal of warranty service because your modification could not reasonably shown to be at fault.
How far this analogy extends to the iPhone clearly depends on the extent and nature of the modifications being performed, IMO.
(IANAL, but this is the collective wisdom of the auto-modding community as I have received it)
The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
find anything in the Act which says anything similar to your "understanding." Pointing to some web site which has some incorrect, self-serving interpretation (there are lots of 'em) doesn't count. Like I said, a manufacturer can, as long as it is clearly spelled out in the warranty terms, void the entire warranty on a car if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It is the market, not the law, which serves to prevent them from doing so in actual practice.
It all depends upon exactly what Apple says in the warranty terms. If they say "this warranty is void if any unauthorized modifications are made to the product," then that is the case. It makes no difference if a problem was caused by the modification, or not.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I seem to recall a company by this name. But they drove themselves out of business with silly hardware and service lock-in policies.
Have gnu, will travel.
Great. Now we need juggling analogies to make things understandable.
Except that you are just GUESSING that Apple would say the warranty is void. I've had Apple honor warranties before EVEN after I voided the warranty in another area. Hell, I got a new motherboard on beige G3, even after I overclocked it and I removed the sticker covering the jumpers that said: "removing this voids your warranty". There was a flaw with the ethernet on my board, and Apple gave me a new motherboard (and bumped the CPU from 233 to 300 for me in the process. My 20+ years of Apple experience makes me feel safe that Apple general tries to do the right thing, as oppossed to what all the slashdot cynics suggest.
the Act says no such thing, and I challenge you to point out where it does. Not some self-serving website, cite from the M-M Warranty Act.
Your's is one of the most common mistaken beliefs about the Act (propagated by deliberately misleading self-serving claims of aftermarket modification makers).
It all depends on exactly what the warranty says. If it says "damage caused by unauthorized mods not covered," you're close to correct, but for the wrong reason. If it says "warranty void if any unauthorized mods are made," you're just plain wrong.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Because cellphone *unlocking* is specifically allowed without violating the warranty, they are different from other consumer devices. IANAL, but I do think that if this argument holds then analogies with car computers aren't very useful.
There is still a question in my mind as to whether this applies to some of the other modifications, like installing an SSH server or third-party GUI apps.
The courts will have fun with this one.
Screw the corporate Mofos over and dont buy their crap-ware. 600 bucks for a locked in expensive piece of hitech shit? Screw that!
this same kind of thing happened when i bought my 2006 scion tc. they wanted to sell me the crappy scion stock security system. i said i would be installing a viper system, and they said it would void my warranty. i ignored them and looked up the magnusen warranty act and went happily on my way. car's out of warranty now since it has 46k miles on it, but just nice to know i had a legal leg to stand on.
Does anyone who unlocked their iPhone really give a hoot whether Apple will void the warranty or not? The car example was used above in relation to aftermarket parts and, as was mentioned, adding an aftermarket dvdplayer won't void the warranty on the whole car regardless of what the dealership might say. But even if it did void the warranty on the whole car, the car would not be bricked. It would function just fine (assuming you didn't screw up installation somehow... damn wires). Now lets say there's a recall on the car to upgrade the pistons or something because they aren't performing properly (ie, it's a bug).
:)
You now have 2 choices. One, don't go through with the recall and stick with stock pistons. Two, go with the recall and hope it doesn't make your car unusable. In theory, because you just installed a new radio, changing the pistons (firmware) doesn't brick the vehicle so, in theory, you're fine.
Now lets look at the iPhone. If Apple wants to void a warranty on an unlocked phone that is legally unlocked due to exemptions in the DMCA... fine. The product will still work. I could take my unlocked phone to T-Mobile or over to Europe or somewhere else and be fine. I don't think that's the issue. The issue is bricking the phone, making it so the entire device ceases to function. No phone, no ipod, no contacts, no nada. Such an act is pretty uncool. Unfortunately I'm not savvy enough to know how the various iPhone unlocks work in relation to the rest of the code-base thus making any comment on how firmware upgrading would brick the entire device retarded, but if the iphone dev team unlockers can come up with an app that will 'restore' the iphone to it's original status then this may be a non-issue anyway.
This will be interesting in 2 years when AT&T contracts are up, that's for sure. But by then we'll have very different iphones than what we have today
While many might be hoping that there would be some kind of barrier to prevent Apple from deploying such a limitation, it is everything but illegal to do so. The writer of the original article, while providing persuasive evidence that there might have been a warranty violation breach, does not analyze the full letter of that law nor does any sort of comparison with Apple's own legal warranty claims.
If you take a look at the official Apple warranty for the iPhone, there are a couple of points in their exclusions that make clear that they are within legal bounds to do this: "...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")..." "(a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products;..." "(e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple"If these rules were illegal, they would have been contested before their publication, thus before the release of the device. Apple needs to have these rules in place so that they do not have to pay costs for repairing devices that were broken by people who bought phones to intentionally harm them by all sorts of means. The company made a deal with AT&T, and in that deal there was an implicit demand that the phones stay locked to only their service provider, hence making them an exclusive carrier. Altering this would alter the functionality of the phone against Apple's policy, thus proving a legal voiding of warranty.
We can even take this a step further. Even if Apple had no EULA and only went by the letter of the Magnuson-Moss law, the clause in defense only applies for full warranties, for which Apple's product comes only with a limited warranty. This makes a significant difference, as those provisions no longer apply. This is clearly stated in the Wikipedia article linked to this article.
While I do not defend this decision entirely, it is obvious that if you are a user of an unlocked iPhone, and the firmware update only serves to remedy this "flaw," then the solution is easily to avoid the upgrade. There are no new features or enhancements being introduced in this update, so why is this even a concern?
Couldn't Apple's default setting locking it into AT&T be interpreted as a "buy only ACME fuzzy dice or else..." sort of situation? Since Apple's phones only will work as intended (as a phone) with that one carrier, it seems like at the very least a nasty Hobson's choice.
so... unlocking is when you want someone other than AT&T with the iPhone, so you need to unlock it to get another company's sim in there... jailbreaking is hacking the iphone to put 3rd party software on the iphone, and doesn't necessarily mean that you've unlocked the iPhone... you could still have AT&T & the 2 year contract, and still want to jailbreak the iPhone to play Nintendo NES games. Unshackling is sort of like this, opens the phone for third party intalls, but doesn't require jailbreaking, unjailbreaking the thing.
I feel I fit into the third category. I don't care about AT&T, they're not "THE EVIL" for me, I've been a customer forever (i.e. ~4 years). But my 2nd contract ended with them a few weeks ago, and I don't WANT another contract, as who the fuck knows what I'll be doing or wanting at any point in the next 2 years.
this dude helped me get what I want
So I paid Apple. I am still paying AT&T, though they don't know I am using an iPhone, but technically, I didn't "unlock" the phone. I just hacked it to work with my current AT&T SIM, and I am still contract free. Why should Apple CARE about someone like me enough to WARN me that they may break my phone, or not fix it under warranty?
OK, I have to admit. I am EXTREMELY disappointed by Apple in all of this greedy-give-me-control-shit. "Control Freak" is a term that comes to mind, now... and I'd love to see Jobs on a crossfire type dillio trying to explain how its "better" this way for everyone.
And I didn't even want an Apple made phone... I want a frickin' OS X slate, with inkwell in full functionality. Apple could develope and release such a product with their eyes closed. And make a decent profit. But it might hurt their precious iPhone sales... so... no product.
[quote]That's where 3rd party firmware can become a problem. How do you prove that the firmware was the cause and not the hardware? I'm sure it can be done, but to the satisfaction of the customer? And is it really Apple's responsibility to determine if the firmware was the cause? In the end, it may cost Apple quite a lot of money to make that determination, only to turn back to the customer and refuse the warranty claim. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that if your phone turns into a brick when you update it using itunes, it was the hacked firmware.
If your thinking of lying to apple/at&t/whatever when you return the phone, they can simply ask how it turned into a brick, and of course, they'll then ask if you hacked it. You could lie through your teeth, but its clear at this point who's being unethical.
In the case of firmware causing damage on an arbitrary point in time, i would expect for that warranty act to enacted, the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that your firmware didn't cause the breakdown would rest on you.
But IANAL, so i could be wrong, just seems like common sense to prove your mods didn't cause harm at their expense.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
so... unlocking is when you want someone other than AT&T with the iPhone, so you need to unlock it to get another company's sim in there... jailbreaking is hacking the iphone to put 3rd party software on the iphone, and doesn't necessarily mean that you've unlocked the iPhone... you could still have AT&T & the 2 year contract, and still want to jailbreak the iPhone to play Nintendo NES games. Unshackling is sort of like this, opens the phone for third party intalls, but doesn't require jailbreaking, unjailbreaking the thing.
I feel I fit into the third category. I don't care about AT&T, they're not "THE EVIL" for me, I've been a customer forever (i.e. ~4 years). But my 2nd contract ended with them a few weeks ago, and I don't WANT another contract, as who the fuck knows what I'll be doing or wanting at any point in the next 2 years.
this dude helped me get what I want
So I paid Apple. I am still paying AT&T, though they don't know I am using an iPhone, but technically, I didn't "unlock" the phone. I just hacked it to work with my current AT&T SIM, and I am still contract free. Why should Apple CARE about someone like me enough to WARN me that they may break my phone, or not fix it under warranty?
OK, I have to admit. I am EXTREMELY disappointed by Apple in all of this greedy-give-me-control-shit. "Control Freak" is a term that comes to mind, now... and I'd love to see Jobs on a crossfire type dillio trying to explain how its "better" this way for everyone.
And I didn't even want an Apple made phone... I want a frickin' OS X slate, with inkwell in full functionality. Apple could develope and release such a product with their eyes closed. And make a decent profit. But it might hurt their precious iPhone sales... so... no product.
The Admin and the Engineer
better not use the iphone as a paper weight... or it will become one!
A "no mods" provision is not a "tie-in" provision.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I have Realplayer installed on my mac. And MS Office. These are third party applications. Shouldn't my mac warranty be voided the next time I update iTunes? I'm absolutely sick of Apple dancing between the lines with their phone. They need to stop pretending it's some consumer electronics holy grail and treat it like they treat the rest of their products.
My intepretation of this is that it's like an aftermarket ECU for a car. Aftermarket drop-in ECUs essentially replace all of the software in the car, and usually provide a performance boost, change timings on various things, etc. ECUs can run components in the car at performance levels/speeds that are outside manufacturer tolerances, as usually these bits of hardware are just dumb devices that have no real failsafes.
Therefore since software CAN damage hardware by forcing it to operate outside of it's tolerance I'd say that Apple do have a pretty strong case for automatically voiding the warranty on any iPhone that is unlocked or has a firmware that has been tampered with. If you can't guarantee the operating parameters of a product then you can't really provide, or be expected to provide, a full warranty for when it goes wrong.
Just because the collective gains of Apple as a business puts them in the black, doesn't mean they don't have to create a business model that at least partially recovers the costs of designing, developing, implementing and maintaining the iPhone. If they just left all the other division up to making enough money for the iPhone, then they would not have any money for the iPhone division. Cannibalizing from one department to cover another is never good business.
Dave, has there *ever* been a crappy move/statement/product of Apple's that you have not rushed into defend. You should be getting paid for your efforts. Are you?
This would be like Dell refusing warranty service on someone who hooked up a HP printer, or bought a ATI video card off NewEgg.Com.
The worst they can do is ask you disconnect the 3rd party hardware to see if that fixes the situation.
...if Apple can determine that the modification or enhancement is responsible [for] damaging the product in question... It seems to me, after reading this, that if the unlocking method does NOT damage the iPhone, and the upcoming patch DOES brick it...then that means Apple's own patch constitutes an 'enhancement' that will void the warranty, because their own patch damages the product.If this ever reaches class action status (the only way apple will ever pay out on this issue), and if this particular law manages to be invoked, I expect that one of the primary platforms for the suit will be that Apple's release of the patch intentionally voids the warranty on any phone that previously had a valid warranty despite having been legally, legitimately, and safely unlocked.
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
What bullshit world do you live in that "and the rest of your post is wrong too" constitutes proof of any kind?
"But please, doesn't anyone have anything more important to do than bitch about a phone???? Oh yeah, I forgot, this is slashdot..."
This IS Slashdot. You showed it by thinking that, if someone has a different point of view, that person is stupid.
I am genuinely interested in why companies self-destruct, and have been studying that for more than 20 years.
Did Steve Jobs not realize that locking the iPhone to a single high-cost provider would cause problems, and damage the reputation of Apple? Apparently not, but why?
What kind of idiot are you that you ignore the part of my post that DOES prove him wrong?
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Step 1) Warranty is only void if modification caused the problem
:)
Step 2) Issue a firmware update that bricks the phone if it is modified
Step 3) ???
Step 4) Profit!
Seems to me, the modification caused the malfunction.
I will give your advice back to you: Remember to fact check. The management of the new company called "AT&T" is very different from the more trustworthy company that was AT&T. That's the point. Should Apple have partnered with that new company? I think not.
Why do I think that? Apple will get criticism for everything bad the new "AT&T" does. For example, see the August 23, 2007 article AT&T Ditches 'Fewest Dropped Calls' Ad Campaign, which was apparently fraudulent. This article notes that AT&T's new slogan, "more bars in more places", seems to be exactly the same claim, in different language: AT&T Drops 'Fewest Dropped Calls' Claim.
To understand the new management, consider the history. For $16 Billion SBC got AT&T's VOIP customers, and the AT&T name. Quote from the Business Week: "It isn't clear whether or not AT&T CEO David Dorman, who will earn about $20 million from the sale of AT&T, will stick around."
So, a manager who presided over the failure of his company made $30 million (not $20 million) from selling the company to other managers who are reputed to be just as inept.
The Wikipedia article says, "Dorman's management finesse can be ascertained by tracking the value of AT&T stock during his tenure." Dorman became president in 2000, Wikipedia says. The stock performance tanked beginning just before that, and continued down until the AT&T name was sold to SBC.
It looks from the stock quotes that AT&T is doing well now, but apparently that is only because the AT&T name was pasted on a new company. (It's like unscrewing the radiator cap and driving a different car underneath. That's not real car repair.)
That's Apples new partner. Does that seem like a partner that will enhance a reputation?
Your argument is silly. Just because they CAN do something to prevent issues doesn't mean they're in any way required to, legally or even ethically IMO. They made the decision to sell hardware configured in a certain way. They offer updates and are saying "If you've altered the stock configuration, update at your own risk."
Is it technically feasible for Apple to work around this? Sure. Should they have to? No. It's YOUR damn phone now, not theirs. They're offering updates as a courtesy on their terms, not bending over backwards to suit anyone and everyone. That's how Apple has done business for YEARS.
No sig for you!!
Requiring me to sign up for a specific provider's service in order to fully realize my new iPhone's potential (ie, make calls without voiding my warranty) sounds very similar to requiring me to purchase and use Brand X vacuum cleaner bags in my Brand X vacuum... or having to purchase and use gasoline only from Exxon because I purchased a Chevy vehicle. So, tell me again how their initial policy is legal?
Settle that for me, and I'll consider worrying about the firmware updates.
The mentality of corporate America is that it is legal until a judge says so.
"Even if another company did the same thing and got busted for it, I can do it because the judge never said I could not do it, just them..."
This is where the bottom line is more important than what is legal.
Corporate America also takes into account fines and such. "Is it more cost effective to break the law and pay the fine, than to do it legally?" If it is, then the law will be broken!
Modchips for consoles are 3rd party add-ons. Will this set a precedent for them? If so, why didn't they dig up this ancient law to support their cases?
Will those who were sued into oblivion or shut down by Sony/MS be able to now claim back that they are legitimate 3rd party add-ons? or will Apple use them as a precedent to support their stance for the iPhone?
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
First there's the 'don't buy if you don't like it' argument. Apple is free to set whatever terms they choose, and you're free to vote with your wallet either way.
Secondly, how's fiddling with the firmware to unlock it any different from overclocking your CPU, or adding an aftermarket modification to your car's engine to make it go faster? In both these cases you void your warranty and the manufacturer is not liable for any damages that may result.
Apple provides the iPhone integrated with AT&T as a bundled service, as an 'experience' if you will; they cannot guarantee things will work perfectly if you change the working specs in this manner.
It is lamentable that they don't provide an unlocked phone to begin with, but one can't complain much here.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
This becomes a little tiresome.
But "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has almost no meaning outside of a criminal trial.
Your burden of proof is simply to persuade a judge that it is reasonable to believe that your modifications didn't brick your phone, not so easy to do, of course, if your modified phone has - in fact - been bricked.
I think we are in this stage:
or possibly this one still:
and just about to enter the former stage.
I'm amazed at how accurate this product cycle document is...
Also, I'm decidedly disappointed in the people who are complaining about this warning. First of all, it's nothing more than a warning so far. It is probably not going to amount to ANYTHING. Second, why shouldn't this warning be issued? The company is displaying that they are aware of what is being done with their product and reiterating that they don't support it and their actions could conflict with those of the hackers.
As for the armchair lawyers, why do you think you have any idea what you are talking about? These areas of law are gray, and extremely tenebrous unexplored areas, and the requirements on companies like Apple or AT&T are unknown. That's the point of trials. If this ends up with a trial behind it, regardless of the winner, it's a positive thing to clarify some laws for us with precedents. But, the important thing to remember is that you don't know what you're talking about. Neither do any of you, or you, or you. So please, stfu about the law aspect of this issue.
The naiveness displayed by all parties of this issue is blinding. You have the hackers making permanent changes to an embedded device. Apple haters claiming legal foul on an issue that hasn't even HAPPENED yet. The apologists blindly supporting the downsides of vendor lock-in. The armchair lawyers deciding for the courts before anyone has even offered a case.
Has anyone bothered to point out that this is the same issue you have in any other example of firmware hacks to accomplish device unlocking?
Has anyone bothered to realize that the DMCA exception protects you from legal action, AGAINST you, under copyright law, and nothing else? Why do so many people think this somehow implies responsibility on the side of the OEM?
Personally I'm happy to see Apple showing that they have the guts to continue on with their business model on the iPhone, without taking heed to the tech world underbelly who likes to have it both ways til Sunday. This is the only way we're going to continue to receive excellent software on mobile devices, which simply has not existed before the iPhone. These negative aspects of the iPhone model and release are exactly what we need to motivate other companies to create devices that may actually rival the iPhone and sell them by advertising that they aren't locking you in, that you can get SIM unlocked versions, etc.
Slashdot won't bring you any news or valid commentary but it sure as hell can generate massive amounts of speculative fiction for those who like to read that genre.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
Apple is probably counting on its fanbois to not raise a stink. Its time Apple customers need to realize that they are just like every other company and stand up to when Apple is wrong.
Pretty much, but with some exceptions.
You're right, but it is up to the car manufacturer to show that the modification caused the problem. So if I blow my engine because of my turbo modifications, it's pretty easy for the car manufacturer to void engine repairs/replacement based upon this. However, if my power windows stop working, the car manufacturer can't void my warranty because of my turbo modification without showing how the turbo modification caused the problem.
Software can damage hardware, but it would be up to Apple to show that software that the user installed damaged the hardware. That's sort of the point.
Now, is it worth it for Apple to do this or just say, "Fine, whatever!" and give the customer another $400 phone? That's the question. I suppose it depends on how many people show up on Apple's doorstep saying, "You bricked my iPhone!"
IMHO, you're gonna need a lawyer to get involved.
I'm tired of reading about the iPhone.
C'mon guys, can't we discuss something interesting like that linux scheduler fiasco? I heard Con Kolivas might not maintain some patchset or something anymore. That's interesting too, right?
Oh, and I've heard the RIAA is really just a front for some record company or something and they're suing people!!one!1!
I may have to share this planet with animals, but I'm doing my damn best to eat every last one of them.
Because it alters the way in which users make use of the device, I'd guess Apple would argue it's doing damage to the product, not the phone. They'd effectively have to argue that "How you use it is part of what we're marketing to you, and it's part of what you buy".
If by fun you mean "rejecting outright and thus saving the legal system from one more piece of pointless litigation," you're absolutely correct.
Being able to unlock a cellular SIM due to a copyright exception has no bearing whatsoever on warranty validity. If you modify the firmware of your PC and it breaks, that's your problem. If you modify the firmware of your cell phone and it breaks, it's your problem.
In addition to the other well-developed applications about the warranty's compliance, here's another: the section of Magnuson-Moss as quoted by the "no tying" crowd covers product warranties for parts and workmanship. It does not apply in the same way and to the same extent as a service warranty, which all iPhones possess. It does not apply to software warranty claims at all.
A month ago we had a thread on this topic, and I mentioned the potential applicability of the Magnuson-Moss Act. I'm surprised it didn't get any replies and continued to languish at a +1 mod score. Anyway, there might be some interesting stuff in that thread about whether Apple can deny software updates for unlocked iPhones...
Like I said, I Am Not A Lawyer, and I didn't claim anything one way or another about the validity of the case. I was just pointing out that IF (important word) the arguments being presented were correct, THEN the analogy with an automobile engine computer didn't apply, SO just presenting it without dealing with the arguments wasn't useful.
Thank you for the clarification.
Example; the screen begins to separate from the bezel. The "touch" sensitivity ceases to respond. The home button stops functioning. The battery explodes (and we all know how likely that is!!!) The battery holds no charge after 8-weeks. Etc. Etc...
All likely and easily provable as hardware defects (as long as no evidence of user neglect, of course)...all should be covered under warranty and Magnuson-Moss Act protects the consumer in these situations.
Apply a software "unlock" to modify firmware and immediately phone does not boot....warranty for restoring the software to a usable condition proabably void, Apple has no obligation to offer a restore or any support...must wait for the community to profer a solution...IF APPLE CAN PROVE that the 3rd-party software likely caused the malfunction. But, if the 3rd party mod can't be reasonably be attributed to have caused the problem, warranty still should apply. Read the Apple warranty...it even states this!
How does it alter how you use the device? it is still being used as intended...as a phone...and iPod, etc...the iPhone after a 3rd party unlock still works as intended, designed, and does not really alter how it is used (which is the only real exception to the warranty ain't it).
Altering how it is used would be like, if I put my beer bottle on it and used it as a coaster and then went in to have the screen replaced because it no longer responds to "touch."
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Obviously the kind that realises that just because they may be wrong about one thing, doesn't mean that everything else they say is wrong because of it.
In regard to your whinging about the troll mod, let me say that troll mods have nothing to do with truth, or logic. If you put your opinion in an inflammatory or obstructive way, no matter how logical or truthful you may think it is, you run the risk of legitimately getting a troll mod. That last "and the rest of your comment was wrong" line was especially obstructive. How are you meant to discuss the topics at hand if everyone just said "you are completely wrong" and provided little to no evidence why.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states that Apple cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product." -- it's incredible that a decades-old law was so specific as to only target Apple.
GLORX 3:16
The one PC world wouldn't repair because Linux was on it? http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/09/15/2031231.shtml Seems that whole "'The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states that ______ cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product. The only exception to this rule is if Apple can determine that the modification or enhancement is responsible [for] damaging the product in question ..." might apply there as well eh?
Nope. State and Federal courts are quite clear on the fact that the manufacturer is in no way obligate to support a item if the user manipulates said item so as it is not covered under the agreed to contract or warranty.
Apple is going further than not supporting an item. They are deliberately bricking phones. It would take no effort on Apple's part to run a checksum on the firmware for originality. Not original? No update. It's that simple. That would be perfectly legal.
Instead, Apple is saying, "Our update ignores the existence of aftermarket upgrades that may be incompatible. We are aware that it will brick your phone. We are taking no steps to prevent our update from damaging your hardware. Tough shit." No, really, they are:
I doubt that sort of negligence is legal.
If anyone at Apple is reading this: I've been an Apple fanatic for 10 years. I've owned nothing but Apple computers... until recently. I chose Nokia's N95 over the iPhone because of your stance on locking and a native SDK. That led to the purchase of a PC laptop to run firmware updates on my phone, since the software doesn't support the Mac. Given your current open hostility toward your customers, I am now reconsidering the future purchase of any Apple hardware. I have already let my "ADC Select" developer membership lapse. No native SDK was a real slap in the face. Continue this negligent, hostile behavior, and I will leave your platform as a customer and developer entirely.
You require iTunes to purchase a track... iTunes plays that track. iTunes is free. Warranty act is met. Just because you want to play that track somewhere other than a machine with iTunes.... well thats your problem :)
HOWEVER other functions of the iPhone (such as Visual Voice Mail) only work correctly on AT&T. The whole "registration" process only works on AT&T... you're buying a packaged product with functions other than a phone.
Sure the product works adequately on other carriers, but it does not work as Apple intended. Unless other carriers are willing to invest in the infrastructure required for the iPhone to function correctly Apple are in the clear, obviously no other carriers were willing to invest (at least as much as AT&T were willing to invest) - otherwise they would have negotiated a deal with Apple prior to the launch.
But in case it does, they're on record as having warned you - which will greatly reduce their liability...
... by this Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, formally-legally.
...
...
I don't know.
IANAL.
Still, there's a point to the suggestion raised here:
---
Shame on Apple!
Frankly, I think the solution is to quickly organize a massive "Do Not Buy Apple Products" day before the new firmware comes out. Maybe October 1. Send a message to Apple that they enjoy success at our pleasure, and that a second rate iPhone experience is not acceptable and not what we've come to expect from Apple.
So on October 1, do not run Software Update. Do not buy an iPhone. Do not buy Mac apps at all, including shareware or third party OS X stuff. Let's piss off Apple, let's piss off small developers who will have no one to complain to but Apple.
---
http://firsttube.com/read/Shame-on-Apple
"Obviously the kind that realises that just because they may be wrong about one thing, doesn't mean that everything else they say is wrong because of it."
Well, since I didn't make that claim, that makes you an idiot also.
"How are you meant to discuss the topics at hand if everyone just said "you are completely wrong" and provided little to no evidence why."
Well, since I didn't do THAT either, that makes you an idiot^2.
Also, I couldn't care less about your opinion, and why you have time to waste commenting on my comment of a troll mod is beyond me, but thanks for the opportunity to tell someone off, that made my morning.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
It's not even that. I'm getting my iPhone today, and first think I'll do is unlock it. I never expected to be able to install any updates from Apple after that, so this whole brouhaha seems totally absurd. I just won't update iTunes on the Mac I sync the iPhone with anymore, and that's that.
If I own a telephone which I bought and paid for with my own money, and someone sends a message over-the-air that my telephone receives, and the effect of that message is that my phone that I own is somehow damaged, then whoever sent that message is guilty of criminal damage. They broke my property. That is a matter for the police.
.....
Unfortunately, I won't be able to dial 999 because my phone is broken
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I'm confused. Apple's iPhone warranty clearly states:
... unauthorized modification
> Limitations| The Plan does not cover:
Clearly unlocking a phone is unauthorized modification. There are laws that enable individuals to unlock their own cell phones, but these laws do not require the OEM to honor the warranties on the equipment. Unlocking a phone is something you do at your own risk.
Since the warranty is clear, I don't think Magnuson-Moss applies...
As for firmware that causes damage to unlocked phones, I think Apple would be overstepping it's bounds. There are other ways to skin that cat. A simpler, less volitile solution would be for Apple to patent a custom SIM package and the iPhone would only work with SIM cards that Apple produced.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Also, I couldn't care less about your opinion"
I don't think you read that part before you wasted your time composing a reply I'll never read.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
That is not the intent of the MM act and it is not used in that manner. Using your theory, you would not be able to do anything with the car or the warranty would be void which would make the entire MM act useless. It is far from useless.
In your theory, changing tires to something that handled better then stock which would allow you to drive more spirited would also voilate the warranty, how about using synthetic oil or using high octane fuel? The auto maker has to PROVE that your modification did not cause the problem. The fact that you have 5 more HP does not prove why the rear shocks blew out.
On that note though. I had an AC hose that was in close contact to my exhaust manifold. It was not a hose that you could move and it was installed in that position from the factory build. I had actualy noticed it a month prior and made a mental note that it should not be that close to the exhaust and tried to manipulate it by hand but soon forgot about it. The 95 degree day that I had no cold air from the AC, I immediately thought about that hose. I was initially denied warranty repairs because of "modifications" I had done to the car. Well there was absolutely no modifications at all and the car was only 4 months old. Me and the dealer were involved in some heated discussions and eventually they fixed it under the warranty free but it took a while.
I have no doubt that certain dealers will attempt to weasel out of repair work if possible.
I read it. You seem to want to end the conversation, yet the replies keep coming.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Also, I couldn't care less about your opinion"
I still don't think you read that part before you wasted your time composing another reply I'll never read.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Posted to: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1151569&stqc=true
Subject: Apple. I will abandon you.
The iPhone is a platform. I expect 3rd party apps. I expect them on a Sony phone. I expect them on a Symbian Phone, a Windows Mobile Phone, a BlackBerry and a Palm.
The iPod is an appliance. I no more expect third party apps on it than I do my DVD player or my digital camera. Confusing the iPod appliance with the iPhone platform isn't a mistake the market should forgive.
If you brick my phone because it has SSH and Navizon on it. I will abandon you.
Do the right thing and make a proper SDK.
About an hour later I received this (it's technically right - but while I'm already irritated about the news I took it just as aggravating):Please read our Apple Discussions Use Agreement so that you may discover what constitutes an appropriate post to our service. Section two, "Submissions," is most germane.
Your post, copied below, has been removed from Apple Discussions. This area is intended to address technical issues about Apple products. Posts that do not conform to the Apple Discussions Use Agreement are inappropriate.
Please see the Apple Discussions Use Agreement at http://discussions.apple.com/help.jspa for more information on the proper use of Apple's Discussion forums.
Each Discussion user is required to agree to these terms before gaining posting privileges. You reserve the right to not post on Apple Discussions should you disagree with these terms.
If you would like to send feedback to Apple about a product, please use the appropriate selection at http://www.apple.com/feedback
Sometimes you have comments or concerns for which there is no technical response. If you need the kind of help that a troubleshooting expert can't prfovide, you can call Apple's Customer Relations group.
++++++++++
This message is sent from a send-only email account. Any replies sent to this address are deleted automatically by the system.
So I guess I'll resend to the feedback group instead of the discussions.
Yeah, but if I don't reply, how will I stress that I'm the better man for walking away without having the last word?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Also, I couldn't care less about your opinion"
I still don't think you read that part before you wasted your time composing yet another reply I'll never read.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Let's just see how many combinations of the same ol' crap you can make before:
a) You run out of ideas, and the lameness filters get you
b) The thread closes
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Traditionally, the hacker takes his chances and doesn't cry foul when the firmware is revised, or he/she slips with his soldering iron and ruins the product. If he/she passes on the hack to his friends or publishes it on a newsgroup, this same "traditional" hacker doesn't invest anything into it other than personal pride and a hope that it proves useful to someone else. Here, on the other hand we have "monetized hacks" and the hackers have a vested interest in making Apple look as bad as possible.
The main problem here however, is that we also have a frenzied army of consumers with absolutely no idea about hacking, computer firmware, or the history of hacking practices. We have "mom and pop" iPhone users that bought a bill of goods from some hacker on eBay and do not understand why Apple is "abandoning" them. On top of that, we have an associated group of juvenile idiots spreading rumors everyday on Digg about Apple's monopolistic and "evil" intentions (as if they actually know anything about this).
The net result is that these assholes (the iPhone "hackers"), are making a bundle, all the teenagers get to cry foul on Digg, and Apple has to clean up the mess and take the heat for being "evil."
IF the agreement violates the consumers rights, then it is simply garbage, and furthermore, you can NOT agree to a warranty or contract that removes your rights.
Apple's little 'warning' is hogwash - you can NOT say 'Oh that plane ticket you bought, if you get on the plane wearing a red shirt we are going to fly into a mountain' NO.
ALL phones MUST be able to be 'released' from the shackles of any cell service provider. What if you cancel with AT&T and want to take YOUR iPhone to T-mobile?
As long as you pay the cancellation charges etc., WHY cant you do that?
Apple are in seriously deep-dish legal crap on this one.....
The rights of a consumer may NOT be subverted by a company writing a EULA that subverts those rights for its own gain - thats simply illegal.
As someone else has said here, wrecking the phone with an 'upgrade' sent over the 'net is tantamount to a criminal act by Apple - criminal damage, in fact.
This one is just starting to heat up - look for some very interesting action in the next week or so!
I predict an unlocked iPhone by Apple in less than six weeks, with some recompense to AT&T for the loss of income.
Apple have been greedy and power-crazed here, and I suspect that Steve Jobs is really trying too hard - take it easy Steve, World Domination aint all its cracked up to be......
You buy the damn phone and then they tell you what you can do with it - if this were Condoms, presumably the CEO would be in your bedroom telling you how to make out with your wife, and if you dont do as he says, the condom breaks and she gets pregnant.
As some one else says, Corporate America do what they like and wait for the lawsuits. The law is never an issue for them.
Shame to see Apple doing this, with their market share going up and all.....
The issue here is NOT the bloody warranty - its the notion that iPhone OWNERS can unlock their damn phones so they work on any network they choose. All other phones are available unlocked, why not the iPhone?
Apple, unlock the bloody phone so we can all get on with our lives - you are ruining a damn good product with your frickin control-freakery, you idiots.
How fucking stupid are you that you keep posting replies I don't bother reading?
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
If you cared to read them, you'd find out why.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
ok seriously, who cares about the warranty. the non-functional/recoverable 600 dollar phone is something people DO care about. (yeah i know, warranty good etc - point is, the issue is more about the lack of use of your iphone)
How fucking stupid are you that you keep posting replies I still don't bother reading?
I mean, I enjoy dressing your idiot ass down, so this is recreation, but what kind of loser has the time to take such an ass whipping?
Oh, your particular kind of loser does.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.