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."

14 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. Imagine that by photomonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Imagine that by T-Bone-T · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it be more like: they work on the engine like it is the original engine and the incompatible Chevy parts in the Ford engine cause it to break down.

      Apple isn't actively trying to break modded iPhones. They are doing updates to the unaltered software and it the mods break, too bad.

  2. Re:ownership of personal electronics by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple says "If you've modified your phone in an unsupported way, the next firmware update may brick it."

    The firmware is released, and only installed if you allow it to be.

    What is the problem here? Anyone who bricked their phone did it to themselves. Or are you just super-anti-corporate man?

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  3. Re:Non-hacked too. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Intrinsically evil.... or possibly an erroneous fluke of a mess up best not to get upset about. Obviously the update wasn't meant to brick locked phones. If it did, it was an accident, not par for the course. My locked phone updated just fine. As with ANY software update, including open source ones, there will be a small number of systems adversely affected.

    With a proprietary vendor you can take it back for repairs or replacement. How exactly will the "l33t dudes" in #linux on IRC help you in your time of need if you don't know how to fix your free software problem yourself?

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  4. *NOT* bricked! by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:ownership of personal electronics by photomonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not at all a matter of law, nor is this particular case a matter of property ownership.

    The law: It's not illegal to sell or license someone a good or service with ridiculous terms attached, so long as the terms themselves are legal and in good faith and the buying party is aware (or can reasonably be made aware) of them. People are actually dumb enough to 'buy' stuff that they don't own or can't control. That's the uneducated market at work for you.

    But this isn't even a matter of ownership. It is pretty crystal clear that you OWN your iPhone. You paid money to buy the hardware, you paid money to license the software, and you pay money to use the cellular bandwidth for calls and data.

    If the software stops working (IE, Apple releases a new firmware/OS that breaks the core functionality of the original, unmodified device), you might be able to get Apple to fix/replace the phone. If AT&T/SBC decides they're not going to offer you cellular service anymore, they have to let you out of your contract without penalty. If you decide to take your $500 iPhone and hit it with a hammer to see what kind of noise it will make, well that's you're problem.

    It's not like if you hack your iPhone, Apple comes to your door and accuses you of destroying their property. You didn't. It's your phone to do with as you please. But the contract you signed probably said something to the effect that they will only support unhacked/unmodified/etc. phones.

    Bad car analogy: I own a Jeep. I bought it new and it is under warranty. If I drive it responsibly and follow the scheduled maintenance protocols, it will stay under warranty for another 2 years. I did put a suspension lift on it; and in doing so replaced and/or modified factory suspension components. I have no expectation that Chrysler will honor the factory warranty for any part of the suspension now, mine or theirs. And that's fine. If the engine throws a rod, you bet damn right I expect Chrysler to fix it under warranty, as it is completely unrelated to the suspension. If, while putting the lift on, I bent the frame or broke an axle, how is that Chrysler's fault? If the suspension modifications indeed were incompatible with the Jeep, how is that Chrysler's problem? They sold me a working product under very clear terms. I chose to make my own changes to it.

    You definitely own the phone. You license/lease the software and service, respectively.

    --
    Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  6. Re:ownership of personal electronics by Vokkyt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're being a little silly here. I don't think that anyone is going to argue that the AT&T service is pretty bad and also a little infuriating. But that is the contract entered into when you bought an iPhone. You knew this going into it. Honestly, I'm surprised that Apple had the decency to warn people in advance that the update would remove the unlocking. I'm not calling it bricking, because bricking would assume that a legitimately purchased phone that was still in contract is no longer working due to the update.

    Essentially, you're bitching because you made up your own rules to play with, and Apple is playing a whole different game. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to the technology you own. If Apple sent out an update on Macbooks which forced you to use Appleworks instead of any other office suite, you'd have a right to be angry. You didn't sign up for any contract which said you couldn't or that you had to use Apple's program.

    That isn't the case with the iPhone. You entered into a contract knowingly (it was most definitely during the purchase), so what is the point of bitching when you've already broken the rules. Technically, Apple didn't have to tell you, or even hint that a phone would be reverted to an unlocked state. They've been polite; you're the one being a bit unreasonable, in my opinion.

  7. Re:Apple hates freedom by davetd02 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Non-hacked too. by drifterusa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It's like people acting surprised that Microsoft installed a stealth update that's wrecked a few systems, even when they turned off automatic updates."

    Actually, it's not like that at all. The imminent arrival of the iPhone update was well-publicized, the possible negative consequences (for those who actively chose to circumvent the warranted use of the device) were well-publicized, and the update procedure itself includes a warning and the option not to install the update.

    "Perhaps a few more people will now understand why closed proprietary is intrinsically evil, regardless of whether it's actually convenient for you right now or not."

    I don't see anything in this story to support your questionable definition of evil. Perhaps a few more people will now understand why heeding warnings (as in waiting to update later or not updating at all -- or even, God forbid, purchasing a device that does what you want it to instead of hoping to make it something it isn't and getting enraged when your experiment hits a bump in the road) is a good idea.

  9. Re:Paging Daniel Eran of RoughlyDrafted... by drifterusa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't lack a sense of humor -- your comment is amusing -- but why is it Apple's responsibility to be all things to all people? How many different cell phones would you say are on the market? How is Apple restricting user choice by offering one model of cell phone in the way they see fit?

    If Apple wanted to offer an SDK, they would. If they wanted to offer unlocked phones, they would. They don't, and why should they? Yes, they might make more money with these things, but they might not.

    In any event, Apple has decided what product they want to offer. Part of that offering is the ability to update the software periodically to add new features. From what I understand, this is unusual in the cell phone industry. It's fine if people want to hack their phones -- as is said repeatedly, you bought it, you own it, you can do what you want with it -- but why should Apple have to support the changes you make on your own? This is the part of the disgruntled hackers' argument that I don't understand. (N.B. I'm not saying all hackers are disgruntled.)

    You bought it, you own it, you did what you wanted with it, and -- as Apple made abundantly clear in advance and at the time of installation -- it's now incompatible with Apple's latest update. Deal (by not updating and/or by waiting for the hacker community to resolve all the issues).

  10. Re:HACK vs. UNLOCK by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they're doing something to check for "tampered" phones, but still running the update anyway. There's a bunch of things Apple could have done differently, from simply not running the update to requesting that the user put the correct data in then load the new improved lock software. Like you said, the phone is not "bricked" but they deliberately leave an error they refuse to correct at the shop.
    In my opinion that is "malicious prosecution" of the contract terms. Because the phone still physically works it is obvious that the phone COULD be fixed, Apple is refusing. Also, the update does not stop if it will fail.. To use a car analogy, this would be like having an unwarranted mod, nox, stereo equipment on your ride. When you take the car in for a routine oil change they say you're out of warranty.. and cut the offending parts off your car with a chainsaw rendering it undriveable.. when you drove it into the shop just fine. Then telling you that it's "your problem" it's not under warranty.
    Apple is clearly self destructing at an alarming rate. Products with half-implemented features, then locked down to ridiculous levels (with out any features) releasing new versions without looking after current customers (I had the 20G photo they stopped updating after 3 months when 30GB video came out... very poor service after the purchase) The iPhone and Touch seem to be the top though. The pricing, and service locks, lack of development platform even after it was cracked... the $200 price drop at 60 days, dud screens on Touch, now disabling the devices. Somebody is getting high off those fumes from the freshly printed money they're raking in. Not to mention they sacrificed their core OS Leopard to make this "innovation" happen? I like Tiger better than Win XP but Leopard is way late... should have been out in the spring and it's holding up development for the core group of Apple fanbois that just want to do cool stuff.

  11. Re:HACK vs. UNLOCK by andreyw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should they make sure their software does something special in the presence of third-party hacks they don't support? Supporting means endorsing, and endorsing means violating their contract with AT&T.

    As to your antique iPod - the only updates are going to be bugfixes. Actually, MOST firmware updates are bugfixes. No updates = no bugs to fix, plus they (and neither do most companies) owe their customers anything to increase the value of OLD products when they could release new instead.

  12. Re:Apple hates freedom by blantonl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  13. Re:HACK vs. UNLOCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To better analogize to a car, this is like a manufacturer sending you a new drive shaft, and you complain when this driveshaft does not fit the custom engine you installed.

    Yeah, you're right, that would be dumb.

    It would be something else altogether when I would come back only to discover my car was rendered full unusable (far below the state it was in when I brought it in for maintainance) because some dipsh*t thought my modification gave him the right to molest my car any way he saw fit.

    That is something quite different than returning the car unchanged, because preliminary checking showed an incompatibility with the requested maintanance.

    Funny : when I only dare to shorthen an URL and thereby retrieve a webpage that was not intended for my eyes I can get send to jail for hacking, but when some company intentionally subverts or disables software running on anything I own its allways rightfully. Did I say "funny" ? I actually ment "strange" :-)