Slashdot Mirror
Hacked iPhones Confirmed As Bricking With Latest Update
mhollis writes "Field experience has confirmed that if you have a hacked iPhone, it will become an iBrick if you use Software Update to install the latest update on your iPhone. The BBC reports: '[Apple's] warning has now proved correct as many owners are reporting their phones no longer work following installation of the update. Apple requires iPhone owners to take out a lengthy contract with AT&T in the United States but there are a number of programs on the net that unlock the device for use with other networks.' The only 'solution' is to unhack your iPhone."
iDidn't buy one so iDon't care about iT.
I've read that it's also happening to non-hacked phones too.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
It reminds me very much of the hacks that went on with the PSP a while back, whereby you could "brick" your shiny new console if you didn't know what you were doing with firmware updates. That one was finally solves by a hack involving accessing the service mode via a modified battery of all things!
As much as I hate AT&T, Apple chose to partner with them to distribute and provide cellular service for the iPhone. Given all the nefarious and legally questionable stuff AT&T has done over the years, are we really that surprised that they/Apple are taking active measure to prevent people from taking their iPhone to other providers?
I like a lot of Apple's products, but won't buy an iPhone until they are available through other providers. ATT& is pure, unadulterated evil.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
it's iCan't ;)
I suggest attaching a nasty note and lobbing them through Apple's iWindows.
These stories are free but worth money.
This is reminiscent of DirecTV's Black Sunday - if I remember right, they put out an update on Superbowl Sunday that killed hacked receivers, and a good portion of unhacked receivers in the process.
A bricked iPhone can be returned for a full switch... Correct me if I am wrong, but its not like they can tell the phone has been "unlocked", as I have not opened this phone in any way, and as such have not voided any warrenty on the hardware.
In fact I think I will install this update, I have a small scratch on my iPhone driving me insane, which is not enough to warrent an exchange. A bricked iPhone on the other hand from a corrupt firmware, would...
I will have to explain to my family that they should *not* update the firmware if they want to keep using t-moble, at least until someone else figures out how to unlock the phone. Or I will simply install my backup copy of the current firmware, no harm done and all.
I mean, being able to play a few games while in airplane mode, having free personal ringtones ripped from our own media, using t-mobile, an ebay tracker, an application that uses cellphone triangulation to calculate your location on the map, an AIM client, a digital recorder for lectures and meetings, a quickbooks app, an ebook reader, and a NES emulator; are all worth more to us then having an itunes store on the phone that lets us know what songs are playing in our local starbucks... I mean with the tmobile 'total internet' package (for $19.95 a month), I can use the tmobile hotspot in my local starbucks, for speeds faster then EDGE.... A greater convinence in my mind.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
I've used a third-party firmware on a number of devices at home and at work. Each time, I was fully aware that I could brick the device, and that subsequent firmware updates (for another part of the device) could 'brick' the device.
I would never expect the original manufacturer to support my hardware if it's running a third party firmware; although some savvy vendors will do this.
If some of these iPhone owners didn't understand this, they will soon. Consider it a learning experience.
I'm sick and tired of all the Apple bashing that hasn't yet taken place.
Look, Bricking hacked iPhones is the ONLY way to protect the AT&T network from collapsing under the weight of millions of replicating parasites and virii introduced into the carefully nurtured and fragile telecommunication ecosystem.
Also, if Apple does NOT brick the hacked iPhones, it will go bankrupt and we will all be condemned to using old 386 pcs with DOS 5.0 for our computing needs.
Also, the police might follow their example and stop investigation child abuse allegations too. WON'T YOU THINK OF THE ABUSED CHILDREN?
Thank you and death to hackers.
If there are now enough iBricks to build a iHouse?... Apple seem to be doing the "bad" thing more and more these days... Particulary when it comes the the iPhone.
I want to see a thorough defense of restricting user choice on the net by this time tomorrow. Your essay must have no less than 1,000 words, at least three Zune references, and at least one reference to Ballmer throwing chairs. Bonus points if you make a reference to the Borg.
Also, don't forget the graphs and sound bites.
Could someone point me to when the US or world law changed to disallow the ownership of personal electronics?
How does anyone -- be it Apple Inc. or Script Kiddie Inc. -- think they have the right to hack into and disable any piece of electronic equipment which I own? Even if I should open the door for this through "software updates"? Would I have to explicitly sign away this right if I should choose to purchase an iPhone?
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
"citation needed"
Sell it and buy a different phone. Like a Palm Centro or Neo1973?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
..Apple should have started up their own cell phone company. ;-) Or at least bought some tower space (?) on an existing network. Then again, we don't know how much of this is Apple's doing and how is AT&T's.
Ha ha!
Not a problem. There will be a new hack out within a month that turns your iBrick back into an iPhone. Just because you put a hole in a wall and someone patches it doesn't mean you can't put another hole in the wall.
Or are the owners shipping them in for replacement or hanging on for a fix?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You forgot the words 'Class Action' in your subject title. I'm sure plenty of these hacked iPhone owners can get together and bitchslap Apple.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Well, I've read that pink unicorns are real. That doesn't make it true.
Please provide a link to backup your statement. Otherwise you're just spreading rumors.
This isn't Digg-- please try to backup your assertions.
I've read that it's also happening to non-hacked phones too.
Yes, that was covered in the linked article. From TFA:
1) There are also reports of the update causing issues with unaltered iPhones.
2) Some owners are reporting on technology blogs and Apple's own forums that the update is deleting contacts information, as well as photos and music, on iPhones that have not been modified in any way.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Theyh're not hacking into phones and disabling them.
They're offering a new firmware update, and that new firmware reestablishes the AT&T SimLock (and has new security features to make it more difficult to unlock it). Some of the phones, locked and unlocked are being bricked by the firmware update, which is always a risk with just about any firmware update.
>>> It won't be hard to prove this was deliberate destruction of private property.
Yeah, but who's property did Apple destroy. It certainly wasn't yours. Apple just let you use their iPhone. They are the ones that 'own' it. *
* (in this case, 'own' should be spelled with a 'p'.)
Let's say I have an iPhone. I've hacked it so it now is using t-mobiles network. How is the update being applied then if it is no longer on the AT&T network? Is it because a person gets it from iTunes or something?
- I'm an i-phone - And I'm a cellular phone - I cost a lot and run on only one cellular network - I'm cheap and work with pretty much any service - I run lots of cool i-apps and have a big touchscreen. Steve jobs likes to present me on big projection screens. - I do what a cellular phone is supposed to do. i fit in a pocket and let people make and receive calls. - I turn into a brick when people hack me and unbrick when I'm unhacked. - You should audition for the next Transformers movie. Now excuse me, I have some important calls to make.
They warned you it would happen!
Karma Schmarma
A firmware update is a mystical experience that cleanses and purifies the soul of the machine, setting it on the path to higher functionality and bringing it closer to perfection. A few machines MUST be consumed by the holy fire, if there is no risk, there can be no reward. It's all in the book of mormon. Keep the firmware fire alive! Thank you.
You bought that overpriced POS and now you whine it doesn't continue to work after you hacked it and Apple responded in kind with an 'update' to fix your hack? I feel so sorry for you, not!
IANAL.
Please people, let's quit talking like newbies.
If you drop your iPhone in the toilet, or if you microwave it, it will become bricked.
If you simply fudge it up, to the point where it needs to be restored, it is not bricked. Especially if all the other functions on it function.
I know that there are a lot of Apple haters out here, but we don't need to be confusing tech terms.
We all know what a brick is, and what a recoverable system is.
That being said, why the fuck would they apply an update to a hacked and unlocked phone? Hmm, maybe I'll remove my catalyc converter and ask my certified mechanic to keep working on it. You think he'd agree to that? (just to use a car analogy.)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Remember when the first generation of Windows-ready iPod's came out, which came with MusicMatch Jukebox? Steve extolled it's virtues ... only to release iTunes for Windows a year or so later. My guess is that Apple will eventually become a carrier, but just weren't ready to dive into that business Quite Yet. Just give it time, they'll stab AT&T in the back.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I hate to ask a stupid question, but I've had many cell phones and cannot remember ever updating the software on them. Even my blackberry hasn't ever updated. Why the iPhone? Are they trying to add right-click functionality?
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
1) Apple won concessions from AT&T that were unprecedented. Some of these were really good for users, like a cheap plan with unlimited internet access.
) Do do this, they had to make a deal with AT&T that included AT&T being the sole US service provider for 2 years. Unless AT&T has no lawyers (ha ha), you can be assured that the contract includes an obligation by Apple to shut down any hackers and keep them from opening the phone. Thus, Apple has not choice and will be forced to continue to stop hackers on the iPhone, even though insider's comments suggest people there may even personally like the activity.
3)The new firmware does not "brick" the phone. The use of this term reflects the large number of newbies who don't know what that means. It returns the phone to an unhacked state from which one cannot escape (so far). If you were not using a normal AT&Y iPhone plan, you can't use your phone until you sign up. This applies to phones that have been hacked even a little bit.
4) The new firmware may not be so easy to open up. My guess is that it will also be cracked, but I would not be surprised if it is more difficult than before since there are several things Apple can do fairly easily, and now they have an awareness of what they need to do. (Wherewas before it was very uncertain what hackers might emerge.)
Is Apple deliberately bricking the phones, deliberately disabling the hacks, or are they just updating their own product the way they best see fit, which coincidentally mucks up phones that have been hacked? I've seen a lot of rhetoric assuming Apple is doing this on purpose for nefarious business reasons, but not much evidence to support it (would love to see some if anyone can provide it).
Does Apple have an obligation to keep your phone working after you've hacked it and violated your warranty? Should they make sure their updates don't affect any third party hacks? Is that even possible?
I'm not trying to defend Apple's increasingly annoying tactics here, but am curious as to how much effort people think Apple should put into preserving third party hacks?
Doesn't one reference cover both?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
...and.. of course it's completely coincidental and not a single directive was given Apple's programmers to ensure the new software bricks hacked iPhones, right?
once you hack your phone and can do pretty much whatever you want... what's the point of getting updates from Apple? Hope that they're going to give you something great that the OpenSource community can't? Why not just disable updates to prevent accidental iBricking and then call it a day?
The whole issue is a flagrant abuse of the free market system. Having exclusivity with a carrier is ok; forcing the exclusivity on the customer after they paid for the hardware is wrong. It's my phone, I should be able to use it anywhere after paying hundreds of dollars for it. Locking me into a carrier via hardware is contractually-sanctioned and obligated extortion.
The Mac guy is moonlighting as a stone mason.
You hack YOUR phone, and Apple says you can't do that. That's why this has a MS feel to it.
It's not a troll. It is a concise stated opinion. Whoever mod it a troll, it is you that is the troll. Just waiting in the bush to pop out and pounce.
I am not old enough to remember when phones themselves were first introduced. However, I am sure the exclusivity was limited to simply I have a phone and you do not sort of thing. I wonder if lan line phones also suffered from using X phone on a Y circuit, and not having it work where you had to buy an X phone for an X circuit? If it was that way in the beginning or early ages of the telephone how long was it before the service and device separated?
I mean anyone can go to best buy, circuit city, or radio shack buy a phone and it works whether you have Qwest or Cox (All i have for options in my area). You certainly are not restricted by cordless phones either and though they are a bit different then cell phones in terms of towers, signals and what not. The phone still works on whomever your provider so if you have a 5$ wired handset from wal-mart or 150$ 3ghz wireless handset family pack. So it is any wonder that the cell phone providers continue to get away which such tripe is beyond me.
This certainly is not the case today, and I really gotta hand it to phone companies woo-ing the general public into thinking a cell-phone along with the provider is like some country club. However we don't see much of 'you are t-mobile we don't serve your kind here' mentality yet, but who knows with starbucks and iphone which implies ATT relationship, who knows?
Come on, the company builds a few phones and now it could be a carrier? You really(!) underestimate the infrastructure of a cellular network service. Do you even know what is inside a cellular switch, ok so maybe you don't know whats inside a switch. Ok, how about outside the towers, you have backbone lines to the the actual network, nameless easements, government regulations, FCC bands, billing, claims center, call centers, network centers, support centers.
UGH, donut spew that kind of nonsense. There's few companies that have the pockets to startup their own cellular network and those companies are already doing it or know that it is better someone else does it.
Um, no, you hack your phone, and a re-install of the upgraded OS reverts it to an un-hacked state. Nothing surprising, evil, or permission-ish about it.
Apple doesn't care if you want to play Tetris on your iPhone. They _do_ have to pretend to care that you want to go with a carrier other than who they have a contract with (AT&T). So if you did something to change who you go through as a carrier, and since Apple didn't write the hack, they don't promise how it'll act going forward.
What else could they do? They have to keep their business partners happy for legal reasons, and how in the world could they support a third-party hack they didn't write? I don't think it's reasonable to think that they should have to do a full regression testing of every version of every unlocking hack out there. In fact, I'd prefer they don't. I'd rather they spend their time working on features for the mainstream, and let those who unlock their phone do so with the understanding that they unlock hack may not work after you upgrade the software.
I sure as hell wouldn't voluntarily install a trojan horse "update" from any hostile party, and in this case, were I a (modified) iPhone owner, that would include Apple.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
No -- Apple offers a firmware upgrade and users choose whether to install it. There's no requirement to install the firmware upgrade. It's entirely optional. It's not being forced on the phone nor automatically installed. If you prefer to run your own software on the iPhone then don't install the new Apple software.
Apple doesn't have a duty to make sure its software is compatible with every other piece of software that could conceivably be run on the iPhone. If you want to use Apple software then use Apple software. If you want to use other software then use other software. But there's no way to get the best of both worlds -- to modify the OS and then expect Apple to support it.
http://xkcd.com/285/
There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
Yeah. Let's be clear on what is happening exactly. A software update would obviously affect Hacks, since the executables would be overwritten and placed in the un-hacked state. But it would probably not brick the phone.
An Unlock involves changing information on phones that would not be overwritten by a software update. This is more likely to be capable of bricking a phone since there is information involved that would persist across a software update.
Another misleading sensationalist headline?
Over the past several years, Apple has done this with the iPod, iTunes, and now the iPhone. Their best interest is to keep their products under their control. Whenever there is a method to utilize iTunes through wine they include updates in order to interfere with installation and operation. It used to be that you could download previous versions of their binaries from their website that would work in wine but once there was a capable way of installing them through wine they were altered to impair such activity. I'm talking about 7.0 and up. I haven't tested 6.x and below. This is how they run their business and it's up to them on how they wish to run it. While I don't like it I respect their business decision. Apple makes a good product but it makes sense to use their product only when using their products.
For the best interest of the consumer, stop using their restricted products. If you do, just don't update the software. I hate saying don't update but it's their policy to break any alteration in their products. Also don't trust downloads of their binaries from other sources. While some can be reliable, it is best to get them from the source. My suggestion is to use Amazon.com with their DRM free music downloads, or use the Real.com subscription to listen to streamed media using Helix or the RealPlayer. There are other online music sites but right now Amazon.com has the model that stands out more than any other for commercial music.
Using a product to be cool is one of the weakest reasons to get said product. Go suck on Steve Job's teat a little more.
That's your pro-freedom choice, really?, REALLY? First of all you are using it's slave name, the name it's creator gave it was Linux, so that's kind of anti-free right there, but for all that you have more choices with Linux, you are still compelled to do a bunch of stuff. If you really want freedom why not Viva Chuck, Viva la BSD?
First off I'm not a lawyer ... but ... A long time ago I worked in E-911, and if I recall it is not legal to utterly render a wireless phone useless all calls, as it will violate the 'emergency use only' clause that the FCC requires. Does anyone have an iBrick that can test this out?
-b
Incorecct. The upgraded phone fails to recognize even valid AT&T SIM cards. In other words, for many people, if you previously unlocked your phone (and in some cases DIDN'T unlock your phone), it refuses to activate.
I think the article makes a poor distinction between actually bricking as in breaking the iphone, to returning the unlocked iphone to out of the box settings.
It seems to me there are two significant end results from updating your unlocked iPhone to firmware v. 1.1.1.
1. Your phone is dead, non function, inactive, incapacitated and irreparable damage has been done that cannot be undone.
Or
2. Your phone has been returned to the "requires activation screen" when synchronized with iTunes, thereby returning the phone to it's 'out of the box' settings.
From all the posts that I've read on HowardForums, Engadget, and Gizmodo, I find that #2 for the most part, has been the only outcome. Option number two then basically means, your phone is no longer unlocked, but if you follow through with the activation via iTunes and enter into a two year contract with AT&T, you have yourself a fully functional iPhone.
I hate all sigs, even this one.
This may just be a guess, but I don't think Apple needs their own cellular infrastructure to become a 'carrier'. To the best of my knowledge, Virgin Mobile doesn't have it's own infrastructure (they're using T-Mobile's network), yet their phones seem to work just fine. I don't believe there's any reason why Apple couldn't do the same thing Virgin Mobile is doing.
I could be wrong though.
Aero
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Dudes ... you've been iPwned
They _do_ have to pretend to care that you want to go with a carrier other than who they have a contract with (AT&T).
Wow, you drank the Kool-Aid. It seems AT&T pays Apple for each subscriber on a monthly basis, how much and what for are in dispute. In your twisted representation, Apple would love nothing more to allow you to go elsewhere but for some other reason, AT&T would cry. Based on my reading, I see that Apple wants the single vendor relationship for its own benefit. The reality is Apple would lose the monthly fee for every subscriber not using AT&T. With at least 1 million phones and a few bucks a month ads up to a decent monthly income for Apple. If you do not think that is the reason, you need to take off the Apple glasses and look again.
Here are some links
http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=133945
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/07/19/piper.iphone.income.share/
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9747031-7.html
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/14997/
You can search for Apple revenue sharing AT&T and read more. To think that Apple would not pursue similar kick back deals in other countries would be naive as well.
Virgin Mobile uses the Sprint/Nextel network like many Mobile Virtual Network Operators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mobile_USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Nextel#Sprint_Nextel_today
My Sysadmin Blog
So, Apple does some things I think are lame (like this and DRM on iTunes). But you're saying I shouldn't hold it against them, because they don't *want* to do lame things, they're just forced to.
Poor Apple, these big mean companies keep holding guns to their head and making them sign contracts that say they have to do lame things. But their products are happy and shiny, so you know they're really the good guys.
It seems apple has updated the iPhone to use the same interface used by iPod Touch. Basically, there's no means to jailbreak (enable direct right access) the phone yet. This is because iTunes requests now need to be authenticated through a PKI scheme. In order to bypass iTunes activation, you either patch the lockdownd bunary (that is responsible for checking activation status) or replace Apple's Public Key in the phone (so you can sign your activation with a custom private key). Since there's no right access to change these files, only ATT can activate iPhones with this firmware (1.1.1) for now. Aparently, the 1.1.1 update has an intermediate "preparation" update before the main thing goes on. It is believed that this first change is responsible for the introduction of the iPOD touch protections. Some folks believe if this first update can be bypassed, there won't be any problems. Also, there is a change to the firmware image. The image is encrypted, and the decryption process happens inside the phone. That's true for all versions. The iPhone loads a ramdisk image into its RAM. This ramdisk contains all the info needed to decrypt the image files. The difference between 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 is that in 1.0.2 this ramdisk wasn't encrypted at all, and now, in 1.1.1, it is encrypted with AES256 and signed with DSA1024. So, before it was ease to decrypt the image file. One only needs to mount the ramdisk and extract the keys. Now the ramdisk needs to be decrypted first. Of course, the key for decrypting the ramdisk is somewhere, and some folks believe this key can be found in the first "preparation" update that comes with 1.1.1 DISCLAIMER: Everything here might be a misinterpretation, disregard any accuracies, please, after all, this is not intended to be a guide of any sort.
I believe that translates into: Bricked(so far)
They could set up as a MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator), which would mean that they piggy back onto someone else's infrastructure. They just run the billing department and buy bandwidth in bulk from the physical carrier. There are several MVNO operators in the UK and according to the linked wikipedia article they also exist in the US.
Maybe with Google as their partner?
Just throwing that out there. I don't really see it since Apple would need to create low end phones. iPhone Nano? iPhone Shuffle?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Thats so funny...
Apple won concessions from AT&T that were unprecedented. Some of these were really good for users, like a cheap plan with unlimited internet access.
I am willing to bet it's an even better deal for AT&T.
Apple's actions fly into the face of the reasoning that has brought the world such enormous progress in the past decade or so - namely interoperability, openness, and empowerment of the end user. Enjoy your iPhones. I for one am CERTAIN now that I will never buy one.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
With such obvious intentional corporate sabotage. What this means, is that real estate agents who carry WM, Palm, and Blackberry phones around right now will just continue to do so...if they buy the iPhone, it's only purpose will be for personal use (if that).
Because of that, this firmly places the iPhone in the realm of "toy phone". I've been developing mobile enterprise applications for years, and the prerequisites for such are a productive development environment to create extensive custom applications, ability to work directly with the phone's hardware (in certain cases, such as being able to automate turning the phone on/off to automatically synchronize data with their remote user accounts), acceptable battery life, etc. Just because the phone is a hot phone on the market, doesn't mean it's acceptable to use for work...I've worked for companies that took a pass on the Motorola Q, the Motorola RAZR, and other phones that were popular at the time mainly because they just couldn't do as much as the aforementioned smartphones. Some companies won't even touch Blackberries or Palms because they barely make the cut.
The iPhone had a lot of promise for the enterprise market...but Apple is doing a tremendous job of killing it. The sad thing is that most people issued WM phones would gladly opt for just being able to carry an iPhone. These people are frequently mobile sales people, and they will always take an opportunity to brag about their phones to their contacts. The potential to take a lot of market space is right there, but Apple has decided to drop the ball.
Technically superior doesn't mean anything if it can't get REAL market penetration, and it's not going to make it past the early adopter phase and really hold on strong without strong enterprise and development support. Palm extended their original OS's lifetime considerably by investing in their developers...they are still selling Palm OS phones to this day to people who have certain apps they really like and cannot do without (and don't want to deal with a WM version).
Why exactly did they want to be a cell phone provider? So far the iPhone has generated more negative press for Apple than anything since the Newton. I sincerely doubt that they'll decide it was a bad idea and just bail out, but given Apple's history I am surprised that they're in it in the first place.
I do not care if a firmware update kills unlocked phones; I don't believe Apple ever said that they would support unlocking the iPhone, and they did warn against applying the update to an unlocked phone. I'm just amazed that Apple would want to be involved in the phone business at all.
It is now totally legal to unlock your phone. Legal, as in, perfectly all right according to the federal government. You can make your phone work with any other carrier. Period. No arguments. This is raw verifiable data. If apple pushed software out to remove your rights in that manner, in an attempt to circumvent this consumer right, the folks affected could have a potential case against them. Just because apple and at and t (two companies so now maybe RICO applies as well) choose to ignore the law in the first place and claim they can get away with it by publishing some bullshit doesn't make it either legal or ethical. Corporations try this stunt all the time,(MS is infamous for it) they regularly get beat back down. You can't sign away your rights, nor agree to a contract that says you don't have some rights. You can attempt it, but it isn't legal. You can have stacks of papers that look official that might say something along those lines-but it still isn't legal. Apple can push all the updates they want, but if it results in someone's rights being violated, as in having their customized and legal phones go back to being less functional or non functional, they are most likely breaking several laws. We won't know until the source code gets subpoenaed and audited by independent third parties though, but my hunch is it was deliberate software sabotage designed to try and stifle normal consumer rights by "punishing" those who took advantage of said rights. I hope they lose a billion dollar case and some of the execs go to jail with the RICO charges if this plays out like I think it should.
Want a car analogy, everyone's favorite? You buy an acme motors car, according to them and some "end user driver agreement", it is designed to run on "roads", burning "gasoline". Acme claims they can restrict you to only using such and such a brand of gas, and only drive on such and such a toll road owned by their friends someplace else. There is a factory recall-update fix, you take in your car, they "fix" it, now if you try to use the "wrong" brand of gas or drive on the "wrong" road the vehicle doesn't function. Think they should be sued, think any laws might have been broken?
They spent $600 + $1440 (contract) on a product, and then had to get someone to specially reverse engineer code to get it how they wanted the product. If this isn't blind, dumb fanboi behaviour, i don't know what is. Have your phone bricked/relocked whatever, and next time learn to buy a good product based on it's feauters not "ooh shiny apple!". Because for the next 2 years you are going to be fighting a battle for ownership of your own phone.
Mod me down if you will, but it was perfectly clear this was going to happen from the day apple and ATT's love child was conceived.
Apple should have started up their own cell phone company. ;-) Or at least bought some tower space (?) on an existing network.
Starting up a new cell phone company is extraordinarily cost prohibitive, even if you can get the spectrum in the first place. Ditto for co-locating on anyone else's towers. A much more viable option would've been for Apple to become an MVNO like Helio .
Oh please; the whole of Apple's product line is one massive dongle. They promote DRM, they don't allow interoperability (and when someone works it out they force an upgrade and break it). You have the freedom to use hardware as long as you use it with Apple software, under their control. Even Microsoft aren't that extreme.
iTunes will download the update and ask if you wan tto install it, but you do not have to agree to do so - simply wait a few days for some new iPhone app loader to come out, then update and reload at that point.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You have it exactly right, in that people can simply not take on Apple updates if they do not want to.
What people are unhappy about is that they want the features the new update provides (like the WiFi msuic store) along with custom apps. They refuse to choose between the two worlds.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even in an unactivated state the iPhone allows 911 calls out.
Ad it's not Apple that's rendering the device inoperable; they are not responsible for what is done with hacked firmware which the user install. Why should they be? Just as a company wouldn't be liable for FCC fines for a product that had broadcasting power boosted by a user.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, just like Apple's bogus claim that they only allow OSX to run on their own hardware because...um, something to do with the way they put hardware together being "better" than the way anyone else puts hardware together, and how they only have to support drivers for one set of hardware, even though it's totally vanilla hardware.
I guess Apple just feels that AT&T is so much better than all those "non-standard" telecoms like Verizon or T-Mobile, right?
There's no getting around the fact that Apple has decided to be the opposite of "open". Too bad for the customers, but their gear sure is shiny, no? Ultimately, Apple is going in the wrong direction for this consumer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not to defend Apple too much, but what would you have done in Apple's place? Told the cell phone companies to f*ck off and built your own cell network from scratch? Doing that would have made every iPhone an iBrick, since nobody would be able to use them as, you know, cell phones.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
they'll stab AT&T in the back
or they will buy them out.
Hey noodlehead, ever hear of boot camp? It allows you to run windows as the os on your intel based mac. Ignorance is bliss, neh?
Totally vanilla hardware like the broadcom wireless chipset that doesn't currently work properly under Linux you mean?
Why ever would a hardware vendor want to limit themselves to one chipset? Maybe so they don't have to write a bunch of drivers.
All of this talk of being "required" to sign a contract is bogus. You can activate an iPhone without signing up for a 2-year contract.
I have a co-worker who did exactly this; he was told how to do it by a sales associate at the store he purchased it from. This is not illegal in any way; AT&T lets you do month-to-month on all of their plans in this manner, if you buy the phone first. Given that the iPhone price is not subsidized by the contract in any way, shape or form, why tie yourself into a contract?
When you activate the iPhone in iTunes, enter all 9's for your Social Security number. You'll fail the credit check (duh!) and you will be told you can either go to an AT&T store to talk to a representative or you can go month-to-month.
Given how much whining people have done about being "forced" to sign a with AT&T contract in order to use an iPhone, you would think that month-to-month thing would be being shouted from the rooftops. Are iPhone-bashers just ignoring inconvenient facts?
A bricked iPhone can be returned for a full switch... Correct me if I am wrong, but its not like they can tell the phone has been "unlocked", as I have not opened this phone in any way, and as such have not voided any warrenty on the hardware.
If you check the comments here, you see one particular comment of interest:
You see, they can tell,
Which means: You're iScrewed if you update... and I TOLD YOU SO. A month ago, long before any announcement by Apple... Steve said no unlocking. Even though he's wrong this time, he's stubbornly sticking to his guns like always. Maybe you'd like to buy a real smartphone when you get that bad taste out of your mouth. For God's sake, whatever you do, don't say, "Thank you sir may I have another."I Highly respect you. no joke.
Boot Camp is one of MS's greatest allies... A way to get all Mac owners to pay for Windows. Brilliant!
-]Phreak Out[-
Yes, that's exactly what Apple needs to do, set up an MVNO network like Disney Mobile. Why look at the success Disney Mobile has experienced with Steve Jobs on Disney's Board of Directors. Oh that's right, Disney Mobile is scheduled to fold at the end of this year.
Maybe this has all been a part of Steve's grand plan, to eliminate internal competition under his share holding umbrella because Apple intends to buy out a smaller national carrier like T-Mobile USA or a large regional carrier like Alltel rather than creating their own MVNO which may follow suit like all the others and fail(excluding Helio for this brief moment).
Which leads me to wonder why Virgin Mobile USA has met such success as an MVNO on the Sprint Network. Helio is on Sprint as well, right? I bet Sprint/Nextel's relinquishing the IDEN network to the government has a lot to do with their success.
Wowee! Wild speculation and conspiracy thoeries abound in this post! I hope I don't take a hit in Karma on this one.
I hate all sigs, even this one.
I expect a huge iLawsuit to be filed soon.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Here's a hint: it's 100% Apple's doing. AT&T didn't release the firmware update. My guess is that Steve Jobs hasn't made peace with the fact that Apple isn't a monopoly and will never be a monopoly, so he is just trying to piss off third party developers until Apple becomes an entirely separate market, with a separate Internet, separate power grid, and separate civilization. Really, why else would Apple deliberately thwart so many other 3rd party developments, like open source DAAP access (yes, I know, Apple didn't deliberately brick these phones, this update just consequentially bricks them).
Palm trees and 8
Why wouldn't Apple want this to be multi-carrier? Then they could sell more iPhones through more carriers, and I'm sure they could just as easily negotiate a cut of the monthly service fees for the privilege of that carrier being able to offer an iPhone. Apple has all the market incentives in the world to make it multi-carrier (now that they know it is in-demand and doing well).
IAALS.
ya, that's right.. when you spend $600 on an iPhone, it's not really yours...somehow Apple still owns the device and is in the right when they destroy, confiscate or disable it.
With all the rumors floating around, I'm surprised this story's made it this far. Apparently, a day after the dreaded update, and no one's sure what's going on.
Fact or Fiction
Video
Gizomodo's take on this
Pick your poison?
For those too lazy to read the links, the reports have gone as such. If you're in the majority, a hacked iPhone reverts to a clean slate after the update. If you're unlucky, it refuses to accept sim cards, legit or otherwise. If you're super unlucky, you start with an un-hacked, perfectly legit phone that still turns into iBrick. 3rd party software is no longer in the menus but is probably still hiding somewhere in the phone itself.
What a mess!
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." ~ Jack Gurney
I have always despised the iPod. Massively overpriced etc... However, with the iPod Touch, bloody Steve Jobs has finally made me want an iPod. (I have absolutely no use for an iPhone). But I have no delusions of being able to run third party apps or whatever on it. I want it for what it does out of the box. Anything else down the line is an added bonus.
As for the iPhone... The early adopters got burned with the price drop. And now the people who hacked their phones can't do what they want to do with their precious toy. I'm sorry, but I find that quite amusing. I realise this will be an unpopular opinion, but Apple is a business like any other. If they want to cripple third party apps for now, that's entirely their choice and, sadly, their right. Anyone who harbors the delusion that when they buy a device they actually own it and can do what they want has clearly not been paying attention to any technology of the last 5-10 years.
It's not like Apple didn't warn folk this was coming, which is a hell of a lot more than other companies have done.
The problem stems from the fact that Apple purposefully locked themselves into AT&T. If they had allowed their phone to be used on any network (unlocked from the start), this wouldn't be an issue.
But that's not the point. They are not only telling you that they don't support your changes to the phone you own, YOUR phone, but that they have the right to go in and undo your changes. You can avoid it by not doing an update, but, what makes this feel like an MS move is that they want to control your phone. You bought it. It's yours, not theirs.
What we're seeing is Apply trying to do to the phone what they did with the PC. The only thing that keeps them from doing this type of thing if you install Linux or XP on your Mac laptop is that they would lose market share that Apple cannot spare. If they were number one, they would be as bad, or worse, about keeping other OSs off their computers. If you don't think so, look at this and their iPod/iTunes behavior.
A Federal Act (law) called the DMCA prohibits some reverse engineering, particularly surrounding encryption, etc. The iPhone is a cell phone. An exemption to the Federal law granted by the Library of Congress and it permits *ALL* individuals to unlock their phones. Apple developed the iPhone and Apple knew about this exemption prior to releasing the iPhone and selling it. Therefore Apple knows that altering the unlock is a violation of the exemption of the DMCA and hence a violation of the DMCA.
If you own an iPhone how long are you supposed to live with it being locked?
If you do not own an iPhone are you aware that you can't use the phone for anything at all until you get it unlocked? No internet, no ipod, no calculator, no maps, no wifi, nothing!
Did you know that it can only be unlocked by signing up to AT&T? (Or by hacking.)
Therefore, did you know you can't use the phone for anything until you agree to the 2 year service plan with AT&T?
What happens after 2 years? Are you just going to throw away the phone?
If you expect to keep using that phone then when the 2 years are up would you not like to use a different service provider? If so, how can you do that?
If your service plan expires after 2 years are you aware that your phone may be relocked and you can't use it?
If this is the case then your service agreement would be longer than 2 years because it becomes a brick after the 2 year service agreement unless you choose to sign up with AT&T again.
The federal exemption was created for a reason and this is most likely that reason. It is to keep you from having to commit to one provider even beyond the initial contract. The cost of the phones are most likely a factor in the reason behind the exemption.
Also, there's a Federal Act that limits the rights of companies such as Apple from dishonoring their warranty. When they offer a warranty they have certain requirements under law. One of the notable things is that it is not legal for a company to dishonor the warranty just because the item was modified. They must show that it damaged the item. Since there is no evidence that the iPhones have been damaged there's no legal basis behind Apple dishonoring the warranty for someone that has unlocked it.
Apple is essentially being dishonorable in this matter. The laws clearly give the owner of the iPhone the right to modify it (for good reason). Apple knew about those laws before they released the phone; as did AT&T. Apple has since broken the phones of many who have unlocked their phones and they have done so intentionally. On top of that they have relocked the phones even though the federal law says that you can unlock your cell phone. Apple's action are dishonorable because they are picking and choosing when to obey the DMCA. They expect consumers to obey it and in fact, acted in a hostile way toward consumers whom they believe are in violation of the DMCA. But when they are bound by the DMCA they choose to ignore it because it benefits them.
In addition they are being dishonorable in that they have found a way to violate fair use. You have a tune you purchased that you like. You want to use it as a ringtone? You can't, unless you agree to pay for the song a second time. If your ringtone is only 15 seconds that's fair use. I'm sure it can be longer or shorter but it is fair use. Apple is effectively cheating you (hence acting dishonorably) because they want to be able to pick and choose which laws they are willing to obey.
This isn't a matter of you altering their product and reselling it such as altering the OS and renaming it and reselling it, or even selling it illegally. It is a matter of them choosing to not obey the rules of law. They know these laws exist and the exemption.
No one can say you don't have the right to unlock your cell phone. If not then you can't tell anyone that they are breaking the law by doing so. Since the law permits this action explicitly it protects cons
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Apple released a product, making it painfully clear it was to remain on the AT&T network, if you don't like at&t, you aren't forced to buy the product if you choose to "hack" it, and make it work on other networks, props to you, but you really can't expect apple to continue to support it... new updates ARE NOT mandatory, only if you choose in itunes. i have an iphone (its not hacked) but if i were to hack it, i would do so with full understanding that apple would not support it
They do have an obligation under law to ensure they don't damage the consumer's iphone since the DMCA permits that cell phones can be unlocked legally. To damage that is the violate the very law that protects the consumer's right to unlock the phone.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Would you be saying the same if Apple were replaced with Microsoft ;-)
I'm pretty sure the point he was making was that you can't run OS X on other hardware, not that you can't run other OSes on apple hardware.
This is the biggest rant piece of crap I've ever read in my life.
Let me make this clear: If you don't agree with the T&C's for the iPhone, then don't purchase one
It is that simple. Don't like it. Vote with your $$ !!
Why is this so difficult for some people? Are some people born to rage against a machine that they have a choice to not pay money to?
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
quote:...since the DMCA permits that cell phones can be unlocked legally....:quote
but the hack doesn't do that, does it?
the significance of a signature is insignificant
It was locked to AT&T when you made the purchase. You knew that. You still bought it.
You didn't like that, so you unlocked it. Then you applied the upgrade and broke your phone.
This is not Apple's fault. It is not AT&T's fault. It is your fault. The issue is yours, not Apple's.
How is this phone any different than any other phone? AT&T can and will unlock other phones. Unlocking it does nothing to get you out of your contract with AT&T. Apple and AT&T are still getting their money.
The only reasons that I can see Apple and AT&T doing this are:
1. Force international users to pay insane roaming rates. (That's why I unlock GSM phones - I use an Orange SIM when I go to the UK.)
2. Prevent users from taking their legally purchased hardware to another carrier after the (unlikely) expiration of the contract.
Sorry, but both of those seem just plain evil.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
To be clear, in Apples place I would probably have done exactly what Apple did in both the cases I mention, as it was probably the best thing for Apple. Which is not the same as being the best thing for customers or the world at large, but that's to be expected.
I think the business decisions I reference are "lame" from my point of view, but not necessarily "incorrect" from Apples.
What I object to is not so much Apples decision, but putting all the blame for those decisions on their business partners. Apple worked a deal with AT&T and/or the record labels; the fruits of those deals are Apples responsibility as much as the other party.
It's frankly a pretty trivial peeve of mine, but the need of some people to put companies such as Apple into an exclusively "good guy" or "bad guy" role strikes me as one aspect of a failure to see nuance. Other symptoms of this failure have more serious consequences.
1) Link please.
2) You are totally making this shit up. Link please!
3) The new firmware does not brick "hacked" phones. It does, however, brick "unlocked" phones. If you can't figure out the difference, then please turn in your nerd badge.
4) Tell us something we don't know.
Frankly, I think anyone who bought this overpriced piece of shit is a fucking moron. I laugh at all you pathetic Apple monkeys running around, squeaking about how great the phone is, but how Apple wants to have you all by the balls.
What a pack of rubes. You know, if an asteroid came along and wiped out all the Apple fanboys, I'll wager the average IQ on the planet would jump about 9000%.
Reminds me of the story my father-in-law told me about the TV they had when he was a kid; they'd put in coins to watch television, and every once in a while a man would come to collect.
...and this will make things better how? Sadly, Apple is demonstrating a desire to be more and more restrictive. They aren't TELCO BAD yet, but getting closer with more and more products.
They don't HAVE to be in support of all software imaginable or not yet imagined. Why can they NOT be multi-carrier? Better, stable, continual kick-backs from AT&T? How'd such a deal ever make it past any Congressional hearings or sub-committees?
Maybe some of them, too, are on the take? (Assuming there's a "take"...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This is iPhone genuine advantage in action! It is a good thing for customers!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
You are right, Virgin Mobile uses Sprint in the US and Canada. And they use T-Mobile in the UK.
aero
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Yes, you bought it. It's yours. Fine. Apple releases software that cleans up various bugs etc.. etc.. It also either bricks or undoes whatever mods were done to the phone. You don't HAVE to install the update. So either you can use your phone in the state you want it, or you can apply apple updates to it. It's one or the other, not both.
One of my clients today purchased a brand spanking new iPhone at the Pioneer Square Store (downtown Portland, OR). Brought it to the office. Activated it through iTunes, ran the firmware and it insta-bricked it. There's just something wonky with this firmware update. Apparently Q&A didn't thoroughly test it enough I'm guessing...
The worst is when people fucking defend apple no matter what. They go and sleep with the worst service provider in the country,
I get 4 bars of signal with AT&T, in my _basement_. Verizon, at my house, I was lucky to get a call that wouldn't drop in a few minutes.
they completely lockdown the device with no hope for the third party softwares on the brick,
Really? Then AppTap installer doesn't exist? I don't have dozens of third-party apps installed on my iPhone? Oh, do tell, AC, how is it I could have hallucinated all of this? Could it be that you're, you know, either lying or ignorant? Either way, you're wrong.
Personally, I am glad I have not bought any apple device.
Fair enough. Apparently your semi-literate rant is fueled with both ignorance and hatred - a combination which rarely leads to effective selection of technology by criteria which actually matter.
So a bunch of spoiled rich brats got their new status symbol toy bricked?
I only got one thing to say to that:
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!
Oh, one more word:
PWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNED!!!
If you're running hacked software, don't be surprised if an update breaks it. That the shop won't help you fix it doesn't surprise me either. Apple may have marketed themselves as the "cool" option, but if you ever want a taste of what having a Macintosh in every home could be like, look no further than this.
And people call Microsoft the Borg...
PS: I'm aware the Apple Mac is a fine machine. I'm aware it works in various ways that Windows doesn't. I'm aware people are very happy with their iMacs and get very defensive about them. However I'm also aware that the amount of lock-in that Apple have on the Mac makes Microsoft look like the Last Bastion of Freedom in comparison.
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
I've never heard of a month-to-month option for iPhone. I almost certainly would have chosen such a plan if I'd know it existed. Oh well. Caveat Emptor, as the saving goes,
There's no getting around the fact that Apple has decided to be the opposite of "open".
They decided that decades ago. The Apple 2 was open. The Mac was 'closed' and Steve Jobs got up on a lectern during the product launch hubbub and boastfully called the Mac a 'hacker proof' sealed box. Like that was something frickin' wonderful.
There's a reason some of us have despised Apple for decades. It used to be completely wrong to have anything to do with Apple products if you were any kind of a nerd at all. (it still is, on a certain level) Apple stuff is for fashionable people.
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
That's right. If you don't like us lynching, er... people different from us, er... don't move into our town!!
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Apple partners with Virgin. Red & Pink iPhones rule the world.
.....Apple says you can't do that.....
Apple has never said you can't hack the iPhone or anything else they make. All they say is that if you do, don't expect us to support it. The update they sent out was ONLY for devices that are in stock condition. A device that is no longer stock may not work with updated parts, software, and/or hardware. Every manufacturer operates this way. They let you run Windows on a Mac, but don't give you support when that Windows installation misbehaves, do they? Should they?
All theory is gray
.....Why wouldn't Apple want this to be multi-carrier?......
For the same reason they don't want OSX as multi-hardware, for a more consistent and reliable experience for the users. Their costs would greatly increase if they had to support the iphones for all the different carriers. Either that or they could upset their customers by passing the buck to the respective carriers. If your iphone acts up, do you call Apple or AT&T? I suspect most people will call Apple. The tech rep there has been trained on how iPhones and the AT&T network interact. They would also have to learn this for all the other carriers, at considerable cost to Apple. When your Dell PC acts up, do you call Microsoft or HP? No, you call Dell. Now Dell has to determine whether it is the hardware or the software that is causing grief. Apple would have to know the details and state of each carrier's network to accurately make that diagnosis. There are many wireless phones and music players on the market. If you hate Apple and their choice of AT&T, there are plenty of other options. Nobody is forced to buy and iPhone at gun-point.
All theory is gray
You tell me why. I pointed out why they would not want one. Being multicarrier is no big task, look at the BB, smartphones, Razor and many many others. It is VERY possible and already happens and they could have gone multi carrier but they chose not to, they are also trying to establish single carriers in other countries as well. They are proactively taking away the multi carrier ability that others have hacked around. This is CONSISTENT with what I posted above about having an exclusive contract and getting monthly fees from that exclusive carrier. Think about this long term. Apple can lower the price and negotiate higher monthly fees from the carrier as well, similar to what others do with the subsidized phones.
This is all speculation but here is why I think the sudden drop in price happed with the iPhone which was very non Apple like to be done so quickly. AT&T was the inital test bed. Apple is probably negotiating with other carriers in different countries. They will have more negotiating power if they can show a higher number of phone sales and higher number of people switching to that carrier for the iPhone if that carrier chooses to accept Apples contract. Hell, there might have been a contract term that they could get more per month if a certain amount of people activated an iPhone through AT&T, who knows. Apple will still make money off of the monthly contracts but have an initial price that is much lower and prevent the sticker shock and lower the barrier for consumers.
Any company that can bring in many customers to another company will get kick backs of some sort, this happens everywhere with almost every service. If you support one such company exclusively, you can get even more money from them. Think internet access, Dell puts AOL preinstalled and gets $$ from AOL. If they also include Netzero, AOL will pay them less. Did you ever here of "Sprint, the official phone company of the NFL". They are paying the NFL to do that. How about EA Sports and Madden Football. EA sports probably signed a much bigger exclusive deal with the NFL then the NFL would have got from both EA and Sega seperately. How about NFL on Sirius and Direct TV, I can't get NFL games on my Dish Netowrk or my XM radio. You know why? NFL got more money to sign an exclusive deal. You would think the NFL would get more if Dish Network could carry the NFL package as well but they did not. I have no idea why you have such a hard time understanding that concept ar refuse to think it is true.
There are many phone carriers, only one iPhone. Apple can bring a potentially desired hot product to one of the carriers and get a lot of money from that carrier for doing so.
Please show me why or how you think Apple does not really care where you use your iPhone? Give me some examples? Explain to me why you think Apple is doing this for AT&T's benefit and not their own?
"Your computer was locked to Windows when you made the purchase. You knew that. You still bought it. You didn't like that, so you install Linux. Then you applied the BIOS update and broke your computer. This is not the manufacturer's fault. It is not Microsoft's fault. It is your fault. The issue is yours, not Microsoft's."
Funny when you swap a few words around, isn't it? Kinda puts things in perspective.
When I buy a phone, I ought to be able to put it on any carrier I choose. When I buy a car, I don't have to go to a single branded garage, nor drive on a single type of road, or even put a certain brand gas in it. When I buy a TV, I don't have to plug it into only one company's cable service.
So would you mind explaining why some big corporation should be able to lock me into their service when I buy a certain phone?
And don't tell me to exercise my right not to buy it... I'm already doing that.
....So, just like Apple's bogus claim that they only allow OSX to run on their own hardware........
When will people get it through their head that Apple is the only company that builds COMPLETE computer, comprising both hardware and their own custom made software? You don't expect X-Box software to run on a Playstation, do you? The engine in a Chevy won't fir into a Honda. Why is that principle called "bogus"?
All theory is gray
Link please? Making it up? Do a little work of your own: this deal has been in the news, and not just because of the phone itself, for a long time. If you can't be bothered to determine the background story, why are you cluttering things up with a posting?
I'm keeping my nerd badge and asking for yours. Upgrading an unlocked phone puts it into a state with a strange IMEI number (in many cases), but I would definitely NOT call it bricked, in the normal sense that word is used by certified nerds.
As far as people can tell, the 1.1.1 firmware also re-flashes the baseband (radio modem) firmware in a way that makes it incompatible with hacked firmware. There are rumors that that you can still call 911 on such phones, you can definitely query the IMEI and there is a good chance you will eventually be able to do a restore (but not yet). This doesn''t qualify as bricked.
.....the DMCA permits that cell phones can be unlocked legally.....
Fine, does that law also mandate that a manufacturer has to support such an unlocked phone? Anyone may get a hack and unlock their phone. Just don't expect support afterwards, that's all.
All theory is gray
I was thinking more along the lines of issues with drivers in Linux (ATI video cards). And of course computer games in regards to WINE. The same with printers and other hardware with non-existent linux support.
Will they? Before the recent merger, Cingular refused to unlock our phones, despite numerous calls to managers. Once the contract expired, we jumped to T-Mobile, had a third party unlock the Cingular phones, and have been very happy since. T-Mobile does happily unlock subsidized phones after three months.
Has Cingular changed their tune since changing their name?
(I still will not buy an iPhone until I can use it with T-Mobile without paying AT&T. Locking an unsubsidized phone does seem pure evil.)
Bill Gates extolled it's virtues...only to release Windows a year or so later....
Heck, for that matter, Vista.
Now before you go berating me for using Vista... I have to know it for my job, since my clientele use it. Knowing it means using it on a semi-regular basis.
Anyway, I picked up a cheap webcam for use under Vista. The box didn't say anything about Vista, but this was a few months after Vista came out... box designs were in the process of switching over. I didn't think anything of it... just assumed it'd work under Vista, since the majority of webcams seem to pander to that segment of the computer users.
I don't think I need to say that it didn't work... some incompatibility between the drivers and Vista. Thankfully, the retailer allowed me to return it. Now if they hadn't, and simply said "Gee, you're out of luck, guess you should've known it before you tried to use it on Vista", I would've been irritated more than slightly. Probably like one of these guys who just rendered their fancy iPhone borken.
.....The laws clearly give the owner of the iPhone the right to modify it ......
Has Apple stopped anyone from modifying their phone? No? Then what's the beef? Does the law require Apple to support all possible modifications that could be out there? Does iPhone operate correctly as it came out of the box? It does? Is Apple obligated by law or contract to release enhancements and/or bug fixes? Does Apple force users to "upgrade" their iPhone? Did Apple not warn users of hacked phones NOT to update? Would ALL of those hacked phones still work on whatever alternate network the were hacked for, if their users had heeded Apple's warnings NOT to update unlocked phones? These whiners are like little kids whom their mommy has warned not to touch the hot stove. They did anyway and got burned. Rebellious human nature at work.
All theory is gray
Seriously? This is Apple we are talking about, a company that makes MS look like the gold standard in terms of open standards. When have Apple ever embraced consumer freedom? The iPhone is full of restrictions (and not just the fact that it is locked to AT&T, there are other restrictions like on the ability to run third part apps), iTunes and the iPod are tied to each other (you can't play playforsure (or whatever they call it) music on the iPod, and you can't play iTunes on normal mp3 players), and since its inception MacOS is tied to Apple hardware.
This doesn't have an MS feel to it. It has an Apple feel to it. The fact that all the Mac fanboys have been blind to Apple's true nature just shows how gullible human nature can be.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
.... but if it results in someone's rights being violated,.....
/. readers excluded :-) ) having a hacked phone, reading such a warning might hesitate to install the upgrade. Apple never prevents anyone from doing anything the buyer may wish. You can run the device over with your car or throw it in boiling oil; that's your right, just don't ask Apple to fix it after that.
So exactly how are your rights being violated by Apple not wanting to support yours and a thousand other hacker variations of their product? This update was NOT a fix for something that was broken or on recall, as per your car analogy, but upgrades and enhancements. As such it is entirely optional. Furthermore Apple warns that this particular update may cause phones modified in an unknown way become non-functional. Any normal person (
In physical products, improvements are often made in later production runs or models. A car maker might increase the horsepower slightly and/or gear ratios a month or two after a car comes on the market. This doesn't mean that they are obligated to retrofit the already sold cars with these improvements unless these represent clear safety issues. Because software isn't limited to such physical constraints, it doesn't cost much extra to offer such upgrades not only to the new production, but also for products already in the hands of customers. Just because this process is something we have come to expect in software, does this suddenly make it an obligation of the manufacturer to offer upgrades to products already sold?
All theory is gray
Gee, If you don't pay for your copy of Windows, why would we?
the kid who got the car may want to use it to drive a very long distance
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
There's a lot of people reading your statement in disbelief as you compare a town that lynches innocent folks to Apple locking the iPhone. You're not helping yourself. Do you really care about an unlocked iPhone that much that you'll write this crap?
No comparison there.
None.
Not even close. Watch Mississippi Burning sometime, then tell me how it compares to a locked iPhone.
Well, I get 4 bars of signal with T-mobile, in my _basement_. AT&T and others, at my house, I was lucky to get a call that wouldn't drop in a few minutes. Not only that, T-mobile has excellent customer service, which lets me UNLOCK my any phone within 5 minutes of first call to them. Dream on for that with your God-gifted AT&T. Also, try getting 19.99$ unlimited dataplan with your God-gifted AT&T.
Not the five people _I know_ who have got the shiny brick to show off. Now who is wrong?
May be there were too many "fuck"s in GP's post, but sheer blind faith in a corporate hell-bent on sucking last penny out of its customer definitely is not _my_ criteria for selection of technology. Go and play with N95 for fuck sake and then talk about technology. Just having a touch-screen does not make something better than anything under the sun.
Now go back and create some more lame defenses for Apple and Steve Wonder Jobs.
Apple encrypted their firmware to make hacking it harder.
Here's a better analogy:
You buy a brand new Chevy. You decide the chevy engine blows, so you put in a Ford engine. A few weeks later you take it by the Chevy dealer because they say there's a glitch in your stereo. You turn it in, and when you come to pick it up, they give you a bag of shit.
It should have been obvious to anybody with half a brain that Apple would wipe any code that doesn't suit them with the first firmware update. And they are, as you say, legitimately entitled to do so.
The real idiocy here is where so many people have been sucked in by the marketroids into paying big bucks for a bloody phone with all its caveats. I too have an antique iPod (just a Mini) which is a squeeze for storage space but still works far too well to justify replacing it, and probably will for years to come. Same goes for my current phone. And I get to choose my own mobile service provider, without having to resort to stupid hacks.
Jumping on the bandwagon of the New Big Thing is wasteful and doomed to eternal disappointment as soon as the Next Big Thing appears on the horizon.
I don't know about anybody else, but when I bought my hardware I didn't or agree to anything other than payment for the hardware. I only agreed to the terms and conditions of a contract while activating my phone with Apple while signing up for AT&T service.
That being said, you can't expect software updates to suit your needs if your needs are not in alignment with the plans of the device you bought. If I was planning on using my iPhone as a copy machine I can't very well hold it against Apple for not upgrading their iPhone camera with extra features like Efax and OCR. You assume you know the expected behaviors of the device and you have faith that Apple will extend those behaviors. *nix tools, NES ROMs and accelerometer based games are not part of that goal, I guess.
I guess in this case, we can't even expect that they'll allow us to fool around with our little projects to use their screwdriver as a multi-tool. Screwdriver it is.
How is the ATT plan a "concession" when the data rate is so slow and the actual price so high?
For Comparison, my $30/month Sprint plan gets me 1.5 Mbps download and around half that for upload. It can tether to PC or router and is unlimited (last month I downloaded several GB of torrents using the phone). I also get unlimited texts and 500 minutes (plus the usual weekend/night buffet). I actually tend not to use so many telco minutes because the Windows phone runs Skype.
Anyway, I looked at ATT's plans and they are all 2x-3x similar plans with other crriers with faster data rates.
Da Blog
What does Congress have to do with this? Apple doesn't need a law from Congress to sell a phone. The closest thing they need is approval from the FCC, which just checks to make sure that the phone won't cause radio interference with other devices.
There's no "take" here. There's no law. Anyone can build a cell phone and sell it if they can get FCC approval. Contrary to popular belief, there are still some areas the government hasn't gotten its sticky fingers into. Thankfully, we don't yet need Congress to authorize every new mobile device.
How'd such a deal ever make it past any Congressional hearings or sub-committees?
You are perfectly entitled to CLICK NO ON THE WINDOW asking if you want to install the firmware and warning you of the consequences , Mr. False Simile Man.
Oh yes, all analogies must be exactly the same in scope.
Idiot.
Sprint is not a cellular carrier in Canada.
Virgin uses Bell Mobility in Ontario, and almost certainly the Bell-allies in the non-Bell provinces.
Bell Mobility and Telus Mobility are the two "national" CDMA carriers, and ALL of the little guys run CDMA. Bell and Telus allow roaming on each other's networks.
Rogers is the only GSM carrier, they bought their competition, Microcell/Fido two years ago.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Once upon a time Apple software simply couldn't run on most PCs because of the Xbox/PS difference you mention. However now Apple software COULD run on most PCs because they're pretty similar. The reason they can't is because Apple uses DRM on OSX to lock it to Apple hardware only. That is why the claim is bogus.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
First off I just tried to get on the My 5 plan with T-Mobile with my unlocked phone. They said sorry no can do even though they told me when I signed up that all I had to do was setup My 5 numbers in the store with a supported phone then put the sim card back in my phone. And $20/mo for really really slow dial up speed or less data plan is not really that amazing of a deal.
The 5 people with a brick unlocked their phone to work on T-Mobile I'm guessing and didn't JUST install 3rd party software.
Is that the same N95 that the iPhone beat out in a recent test on usability?
Yes but including code that deliberately bricks phones would be illegal. Now whether or not Apple does this is what the debate is based on. People here are claiming:
1) Apple detects to see if its unlocked.
2) Apple then bricks the phone.
Others are claiming:
1) Apple detects to see if its unlocked.
2) Apple then reinstalls the OS.
3) Some phones are inadvertently bricked, some aren't.
The BBC leans strongly towards it being deliberate, however it doesn't say it outright. Others are saying other websites are reporting only some unlocked phones are being bricked, but none of them have provided links and I don't care enough to find one myself.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
...that they fix this little problem before they sell iPhone in the EU.
Lock-in is only legal for the first 6 months and it is fully legal to remove the lock.
If Apple don't know that they will get a major problem, and so will the phone company they choose to cooperate with.
If you have a choice not to buy something, it seems like the people that sell it can offer it under any terms they like.
Lots of manufacturers sell unlocked phones that will work on any carrier. They also sell phones that are locked and you normally get them subsidized. It is your choice whether you buy a locked and subsidized phone or an unlocked one at full price. If you're not planning to switch operators a locked phone is no problem. If you are then it is up to you to make sure you get a unlocked one.
Now as I understand it the iPhone isn't subsidized but Apple does get a payment from AT&T so it is an odd case. I guess people buy it because the like the UI or whatever, but they are paying over the odds for what an unlocked phone. But it is still their choice to do it - they could have bought an unlocked phone if they wanted. And I suspect if you sign a contract to connect a locked phone to AT&T for some fixed period you are in breach of it if you unlock the phone and use another operator. But no one forced you to sign that contract - you chose it.
Now the government could do some sort of anti trust action against mobile phone operators and force them to offer all phones unlocked. But for the vast majority of people who don't know how to switch operators that would be a net loss since they would have to pay full price instead of the subsidized one they now pay for locked ones. For a small minority it would be better, but those people should know enough to buy a cheap unlocked phone now.
In practice of course there is no way any government would do this unless one manufacturer completely dominated the market and started to sell only locked phones at a high price.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs, imploring him to open up the iPhone to third-party applications: http://imacpr0n.com/blog/070929.html
"You've given us a glorious new platform on which to make magic. Don't break our wands."
I thought they have made it pretty much clear that My 5 works only on select phones - the ones clearly marked to be enabled for My 5. Agree that the store guys fucked it up probably for you - but then they don't call them 'geniuses', do they?
Well, you know what - I have tested T-mobile Edge on a non-iPhone phone, and AT&T Edge on an iPhone - and I dont see any difference whatsoever. So stop bullshitting there.
And no - the none of those five have tired to go to T-mobile - just third party apps. (Check video on Gizmodo - I am too lazy to dig that out right now).
There aren't that many networks. If Apple spoke to each of them, it wouldn't be that big a deal to find out how they varied and to tweak things accordingly. The hassle would certainly be outweighed by the increased usefulness and flexibility of the iPhone.
It's quite laughable to suggest that Apple locked it to one network for the consumer's own good, or even to save themselves vast sums of money on support. They locked it because they knew they could get more money out of the winning network that way.
I agree with you that no-one is forced to buy an iPhone at gunpoint though. Anyone considering buying one should be well aware of the issues surrounding it. Personally I wouldn't consider it for the same reason I wouldn't consider buying a PSP- potentially nice hardware that's much poorer value-for-money once the lock in is taken into account.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Some terms and how your provider interprets them become only apparent only after you have signed a contract.
Also some terms may be illegal but you will not contact a lawyer to check all documents you agree to (if an agreement includes the right to marry your first daughter let me tell you that would be illegal, but I can guarantee you that if put in place many people would agree to it, that does not make it legally binding. This is an extreme, stupid example if you want, but I think it makes the point clearly enough).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
He may be a "noodlehead", but you are dumb as a dodo, since he was talking about OSX not running on any other hardware, and you are talking about Windows running on Apple hardware. You might want to improve your reading comprehension for a change.
.....Apple uses DRM on OSX ......
That's totally wrong. Apple doesn't sell the Intel version OSX apart from a new Mac. If you copy a Mac supplied disk, you are a copyright violator.
PC's still use the 20+year old BIOS booting system. That's the prime reason why OSX won't run on non-ac computers. There are hacks that allow other PCs to run OSX. Apple's OSX doesn't require the user to type long product codes nor does it call the mother ship in order to be "activated". Apple has no desire to support a million different hardware configurations on the PC and they don't feel like supporting multiple networks and other hacks on the iPhone either. PC and iPhone hackers are their own support system. Apple doesn't care, except for their contract with AT&T.
All theory is gray
....If Apple spoke to each of them....
They did and at that time Cingular, now AT&T gave then the best deal. Is that not what businesses and consumers do, search for the best deal? I suspect that Verizon and the others are now kicking themselves for having snubbed Apple.
(....because they knew they could get more money......)
Of course they knew that. Apple is no a charitable organization, but a business to make money, like any other. Do you fault them for that?
All theory is gray
My bad, thanks for correcting me.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
I believe that I own it and can do what I want with it. But I don't believe that I get to have it both ways--either I choose to have an ongoing relationship with Apple or I don't. I can't insist that it's mine and I can do what I want, but that Apple is obligated to continue to provide me with upgrades and enhancements, and to make sure that they don't cause any problems with whatever weird thing that I've chosen to do to "my" device.
As for the people who "bricked" their phones: Nobody forced them to run the update, and they had fair warning. Eventually, I'm sure that somebody will figure out how to get those iPhones going again. If you aren't willing to risk an interruption in function, you don't update in the first place.
Have you been living in a cave, or something? For quite a while, Apple has been providing--at not extra cost--software that makes it possible to install Windows on any Intel-based Mac. The only thing they don't do is sell or support Windows.
You have a right to unlock your iPhone. But you don't have a right to install updates from Apple after you do it. Apple announced that the iPhone update was only compatible with unmodified iPhones. Do you really imagine that somebody who used a product (the update) in a way that is directly contrary to the manufacturer's instructions has a claim?
Why can they NOT give it away for free? Maybe because they are a business with financial obligations to their shareholders?
Do you imagine that this is the first time a hardware manufacturer ever had an exclusive contract with a vendor? The legality of such contracts is firmly established. The iPhone isn't even the first cell phone to have an exclusive contract with a carrier?
Gee, you think?
But, but...that would mean that Apple would have be some kind of business with a responsibility to make money for its shareholders, wouldn't it?
I thought they were a charity....
Whether Apple are generally "evil" (silly word in this context, but you know what I mean) is open to debate. What annoys me is when Apple fans try to paint the company's moneygrabbing actions as anything more than that. Apple is no a charitable organization, but a business to make money, like any other. Do you fault them for that? Of course Apple have the right to make money- and as I said, people have the right to criticise them for how they go about it. Particularly when presented with ludicrous defences of the company's behaviour.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Is the iphone only becoming a brick if the hack was the unlocking to use on another network, or does it also effect those that hacked it to use 3rd party apps on it?
Well, I get 4 bars of signal with T-mobile, in my _basement_. AT&T and others, at my house, I was lucky to get a call that wouldn't drop in a few minutes.
OK, you've missed that point, let me clarify. For me, where I live, AT&T is not only acceptable, but preferable. I've had T-mobile map my location (they have a nice tool for showing what signal strength to expect at any given location), and, the T-mobile rep was "Um, yeah, not so much for you." Any carrier at all who Apple had chosen to work with, would have had vocal detractors. Sprint? Are you INSANE? I don't like their logo! And blah blah blah for whichever other ones. I'm just pointing out that, for me, AT&T is a better provider than Verizon, which is who I had my service through for my Treo which is now retired.
Not the five people _I know_ who have got the shiny brick to show off. Now who is wrong?
So, here you are confusing third party apps, with unlocking. I'm also somewhat skeptical, to be honest, that you know 5 people with bricked iPhones - I'd be surprised if there are 5 total, let alone in your circle of friends. Or you're intentionally distorting the issue. There are two distinct classes of iPhone mods. 1, installing third party apps. Apple isn't harmed in any way by this. Jobs doesn't give a damn if I play blackjack as a native app on my iPhone. The other class of mods is to unLOCK the phone (as distinct from unJAIL), allowing users to decide who their cellular carrier will be. Apple needs to pretend they don't want you to do that, and to go through a token effort to make it not trivial. Sorry, but, the real world is like that. Contracts and lawyers and all that, you see. But, if they really wanted to prevent it from happening, they could. They haven't, and they won't. It's "Suuuuuure, AT&T, we'll do our best" and a wink to the modders.
May be there were too many "fuck"s in GP's post, but sheer blind faith in a corporate hell-bent on sucking last penny out of its customer definitely is not _my_ criteria for selection of technology. Go and play with N95 for fuck sake and then talk about technology. Just having a touch-screen does not make something better than anything under the sun.
I'm pretty certain at this point that I'm wasting my time responding to you. But - I've played with an N95. The workflow of the default apps on the iPhone is far superior. It's well designed, and it's a unix box that fits in my pocket. The default apps are great, the third-party apps are getting better every day, and people who do things it's not designed to do, won't be supported by Apple for things Apple didn't release. I'm not sure why people get their undies in a bundle that Apple warns them that if they do something unsupported, that Apple won't, you know, support it.
Now go back and create some more lame defenses for Apple and Steve Wonder Jobs.
Yawn. Do you want to discuss facts, or just sling insults?
My iPhone was heavily modded with pretty much every third party app I could find. Updated using the normal mechanism through iTunes, and I have a perfectly functional, and perfectly stock, iPhone running firmware version 1.1.1 now. I'll probably go back to 1.0.2 until the unlocking apps work with 1.1.1, but, despite the FUD, it hasn't bricked the phone, and everything works just fine.
Basically, a firmware upgrade is a "load from cold" of the OS on the box - you're telling it to go fetch a new boot image, load it, and run it. If you're only making software changes, and replace the software with the new version - of course those changes will be gone.
It's just a matter of days until the unjailing software works again. Unlocking relied on a buffer overflow which has been patched, so I suppose people who want to do that will have to find another buffer overflow to exploit. Which will be patched and worked around, lather-rinse-repeat.
You buy a phone that can only be used with one carrier, and you use some third-party instructions and software on how to modify the phone's modem to allow the use of sim cards from any carrier. The phone's manufacturer advises that they can't guarantee the phone will still work after updates. After applying an update, hacked phones only work with the official carrier and there are unconfirmed rumours of some phones not working at all.
Oh, and you used a car to drive to the store to buy the phone in the first place. Unless you used public transit, or a bike, or simply walked, in which case good for you. You're getting exercise and helping to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.
How's that for car analogy?
Don't break our wands
Symbian, Palm and Windows phones have literally hundreds of varieties of wands. I am sure you could find one there that would suit you.
Da Blog
...are inexcusably hypocritical. Many of you whine and complain about DRM, evil M$ practices, unjust software patents, etc. But when Apple, Inc. does something so unfair that no reasonable person could possibly justify it, even if Jesus Christ himself came down from the heavens and blessed it, you guys convince yourself it's AOK and try, pointlessly, to convince others. The bottom line is this: They went out of their way to render Joe Citizen's phone, that he owns and legally purchased, inoperable. That is downright dirty and they don't deserve your justifications. This is not anything like satellite providers issuing ECMs to keep people from viewing TV without a sub. They're not trying to stop someone from stealing content. They are trying to keep YOU from doing what YOU want with YOUR property. There is a route for suppression of what people can and can not do with their own property, it's called legislation. You can whine that "legislation has been passed, and they're legally obligated to do this...", but you'd be wrong. They fulfilled their contract obligations with AT&T when they locked the phone down before they sent it out. You can argue that "you don't have to install the update..." and you'd be right. Apple's actions are still inexcusable due to the fact that you'd be walking around with a very hackable, very broken phone. Regardless of license, those updates are warranty repairs. Apple went beyond repairing your phone, they went the extra mile to harm it. Your justifications do not mask Apple's greed and I have to ask: What do you get out of trying to help them with their unfair business practices?
I'm sorry to interrupt your Ayn Rand fantasy that you are in control of your world, but the problem is that businesses shamelessly copy each others tactics, and occasionally outright collude. Let me make this clear -- you don't get to "vote with your wallet."
When companies first began drug-testing employees, a radically unpopular proposal, the public was assured this was only for "sensitive" positions like public safety workers. "You don't like it, work for somebody else," was the reply. "Public safety" was expanded to include truck drivers. Then waiters. Now, you cannot find legal employment in America without submitting to a drug test.
Searching customers at the door. This was first done at large "warehouse" stores where the store layout meant you could conceivably bypass the cash registers. "You don't like it, shop somewhere else." Now, my local Wal-Mart, Target, and grocery stores have begun to search. When every store does it, you can't "vote with your wallet."
Wal-Mart used to trumpet "Made in America." When China began selling goods in America, a huge number of people asked why we're doing business with those murderous thugs after Tienanmen Square. "You don't like it, buy from other manufacturers." As a story on Slashdot pointed out a couple days ago, there's no longer any way to boycott Chinese goods. They're so pervasive that even if you wanted to, even a conscientious person can no longer ensure that a large chunk of their business does not go to China.
Insurance companies used to swear "We would never come between you and your doctor. We wouldn't want to." Once deregulation came along, they all fell in lock-step, and now doctors have to call and ask some minimum wage clerk if they're allowed to treat their patients. It doesn't matter which insurance you carry.
Companies do not get to pull nearly as much crap in Europe and Japan as they do here, because in those two places government regulation almost works. I know because I've lived there. No one in America gets to "vote with their wallet" any more because there's no longer any meaningful competition. Through our own stupidity, we've not only returned to the "Bad Old Days" of 1890-1930, we've done them several steps better.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
-1: Nigger
You are welcome on my lawn.
Link please? Making it up? Do a little work of your own
That isn't how it works. I don't prove your unsubstantiated BS for you. You obviously don't have any links to back up what you are saying, so it remains unsubstantiated BS. I'll tell you why Apple is bricking unlockers: Apple makes a cut of each AT&T contract.
No shit, that was my point the entire time, tell that to djh101010 and the others in the "Apple can do no wrong crowd" who seems to think Apple is only providing lip service to AT&T but really has the consumers true interests in mind.
Strictly speaking this is not true. There will probably come a time in the future, especially in Europe where it's all GSM, where Apple will have to play nice-nice with unlocked phones. Or mroe importantly, for customers who have GSM phones that need them unlocked to get on different GSM providers overseas. It is inevitable that Apple will eventually have to stop being dorks. Certainly, one can hope this will be true.
.....That's a pretty huge exception.....
Well yes, don't you think a corporation, or any person ought to honor their promises? Do you honor your promises, even if it later turns out to your disadvantage to do so? It seems nowadays, that many, both businesses and ordinary people do not abide by their promises. Promises in marriage and promises to pay debts for starters?
All theory is gray
For the same reason they don't want OSX as multi-hardware, for a more consistent and reliable experience for the users. Their costs would greatly increase if they had to support the iphones for all the different carriers. Either that or they could upset their customers by passing the buck to the respective carriers. If your iphone acts up, do you call Apple or AT&T? I suspect most people will call Apple. The tech rep there has been trained on how iPhones and the AT&T network interact.
The only way this would make sense is if AT&T had built a cellular network for the exclusive use of iPhones. This makes about as much sense as Apple stating that you can only use a certain ISP with their computers...
.....as Apple stating that you can only use a certain ISP with their computers........
/. value choice a lot more than Joe and Jane User, who value convenience. That's why Linux will never make it in the market place to the scale of Windows or even the Mac. Linux is made by geeks for geeks who value choice far above simplicity and ease of use.
Apple did not sign a special contract with anyone other than AT&T. The others did not want to enable Apple to give customers a user experience like no other wireless provider does. To be able to provide a seamless end to end service for phones, akin to what Apple does for the Mac and iPod, they have to have end to end control of the hardware AND the software. Because they do this, iPhones, iPods and Macs "just work". This costs a bit more and gives them good profits. People who want to get on with their work and life, rather than dork with their gadgets, are willing to pay a little extra. People who shop by price alone don't get the hassle free use of their cheap, rock bottom gear. They get viruses, spyware and a smaller or larger hassle getting their music on some other portable music devices. Geeks on
All theory is gray
It's usable, but not that great. Screen size is the main limitation. You can either put it into "desktop" mode, which requires a lot of scrolling around, or "single column/fit to screen", which does a good job of only requiring vertical scrolling. The former is great in that it looks just like the desktop, but is a pain to use. The latter screws up formatting so much that a lot of websites are difficult to use.
Add to the mix slow processor speeds and (lack of) responsiveness, and you end up with a browser that's usable if you absolutely need it, but it'll usually take you longer to do anything useful than just finding a desktop computer and using that.
The browser (and larger screen) on the iPhone is the most appealing part to me.
I live in Europe, so in addition to that, I have a bunch more issues with the iPhone. For example, it doesn't do MMS, which sucks. They are really pervasive over here, everyone sends them, and pretty much all cell phones sold in the last three to five years can receive them. The iPhone can't. Additionally, no 3G. Where I live, 3G coverage is really good, and most modern phones support it, but the iPhone doesn't. The keyboard doesn't recognize my native words, and it doesn't support Umlaut or accented characters. Finally, you can't use the damn thing publicly over here. Almost every time I take it out to read an SMS or check the time, people start whispering and stare or point at me, or even come over and ask whether they can see it, where I got it, and so on. It's a bit embarassing.
Yet I still got somebody to buy an iPhone for me. I hacked and unlocked it, and I'm really, really happy with it.
During the last decade, I've used a lot of cell phones, among them Nokia 6210, a P800, a Treo 650, and most recently, a P990i. They were usually high-end phones when I bought them, as I use my phone constantly. I use my phone to take notes, read books, communicate. I use the calendar. I write and receive up to 100 text messages a day. And the iPhone is the first phone that really excels at these tasks. Every phone I've used before the iPhone had major issues. The Symbian phones are slow and unusable (entering an appointment takes about 14 taps on the P990i; the UI is sluggish, and has actually become worse since the P800 as they've introduced more animation; it crashes regularly with the insulting message that "the phone has restarted to improve performance"; it sometimes decides to eat through a full battery charge within hours; from time to time, it stops receiving messages until I turn it off and back on; and so on). I like the Palm phones better, but they don't multitask. If I'm reading a web page, get an sms, reply, and go back to the browser, the browser has forgotten its state.
In other words, these cell phones suck.
The iPhone doesn't. It's a pleasure to use. All the stuff I need is easily accessible. It's fast. I will gladly put up with not having 3G, with not being able to send and receive MMS, and with all the other issues I'm having as an Euro user of the iPhone for the simple fact that, unlike all other phones I've owned, it quite simply doesn't suck at the most basic tasks a phone is supposed to do.
Something else: I knew from the day I told my friend to get me the iPhone that I would hack it, and that I would not install any updates from Apple. It's just common sense. Apple can't be happy about SIM unlocks, and they won't do anything to prevent issues with hacked phones, so I never expected to be able to update my unsupported phone. The people who SIM-unlocked their phones, and then installed updates, despite Apple's telling them to not install them, are just dumb.
Best case for Apple: People buy the iPhone and use it with AT&T.
Second best case: People buy the iPhone and don't use it with AT&T.
Worst case: People don't buy the iPhone.
I think it's pretty obvious that Apple wants people to use AT&T, but if they are not going to use AT&T, Apple is probably happy to sell them an iPhone anyway.
What, you are telling me that five of your friends were stupid enough to install the update after SIM-unlocking the phone and after Apple told them not to?
Well, it means they are okay with installing apps (they've publicly said they don't care), but they're not okay with SIM unlocking.
Well, I'm not going to answer to all of the points you've raised (some actually make sense), but:
you can't play iTunes on normal mp3 players
I'm guessing you mean you can't play music you've bought on the iTunes music store on MP3 players not made by Apple. This is partially true, but hardly Apple's fault: Apple will gladly sell non-DRMd music, which runs on all MP3 players, but so far, only EMI allows its music to be sold without DRM.
You can buy EMI's music on the iTunes store and play it on all MP3 players supporting AAC, such as Microsoft's Zune.
On the iPhone, you can install Navizon using AppTapp. It's really quite astonishing. You start it, it triangulates you, and then opens the Google Maps app and puts a marker where it thinks you are. Where I live (in Europe), my iPhone always triangulates me within 200 metres of where I'm standing (as in: "oh, it's over there), which is good enough most of the time.
Only 3. The other two only had third party apps installed. Do NOT assume things you dont know.
I actually really "DO NOT" assume things I "dont" (sic) know. However, you wrote that you know five people who "have got the shiny brick to show off," so presumably their iPhones broke.
Admittedly, I still think you're lying.
There are too MANY of these exclusive deals. I suppose Apple and its board feel that AT&T just won't EVER go away or stop spending money. Heck, I worked for a foreign-owned (supposedly it was, at least by board) company that in 2000 claimed its financial woes were due to AT&T no any longer buying its already-overpriced, underdesired optical equipment, leading to 2 or 3 silent layoffs then to some 4 or 5 rounds of publicised layoffs.
Spreading eggs around is better for the Customers. Companies that care ONLY about the shareholders ought be run out of business. Apple doesn't NEED to rely solely on AT&T. Maybe there are some idiots or other super-beholden to the letter "A" over there. Here's to conjuring a slight impediment to AT&T's well-being so that Apple wakes up. Some people don't LIKE AT&T. I'll keep my eyes open for a Samsung phone. Doesn't NEED to be an iPhone killer, just other than an iPhone until Apple lets ME make MY right choice.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
For this large a market, Apple need not tie itself to ONE carrier. It sounds of "take" to me. SOMEbody in AT&T and SOMEbody in Apple is getting VERY wealthy off there being ONLY one carrier. I suppose the desires of the few outweigh the hopes/desires of the many.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
"This is partially true, but hardly Apple's fault: Apple will gladly sell non-DRMd music, which runs on all MP3 players, but so far, only EMI allows its music to be sold without DRM."
If you believe Apple honestly wants to sell music without DRM but are forced not to by the big bad record companies, I have a bridge to sell you.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Look, you can argue belief all day, but the evidence is on my side. Apple publicly said that they wanted to sell DRM-free music. EMI offered DRM-free music, and Apple is selling it. Universal publicly said they would not give Apple DRM-free music, and thus Apple can't sell it. Case closed.
So this bridge is a suspension bridge over the East River that runs from Manhattan to Brooklyn, I'll let you have it for a mere sum of $10, just give me your credit card number, expiration date, and that little number on the back they all require nowadays...
Look, just because Apple says something publicly does not mean they believe it. Will they be willing to sell DRM-free music? Hell yeah if they think they can squeeze more money out of people! Amazon sells only DRM-free music, and most of it for a lower price than Apple sells their DRM music.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Okay, what part of "They already are selling DRM-free music" do you not get?
Yes, I am aware of they sell non-DRM music. That was sort of the point of my post. They realized they could squeeze out even more money by offering some music without DRM and charging more for it (as opposed to amazon, which sells only non-DRM music usually at a lower price than Apple's DRM music).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.