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."

Comments

Re:I read that, too... in the linked article

[jandrese]

So...you have to sync it again after the update? I know it's fashionable to hate anything that is popular, but this seems weak to me.

Re:HACK vs. UNLOCK

[drifterusa]

"they're doing something to check for 'tampered' phones, but still running the update anyway."

Only if the user of the "tampered" phone says s/he wants to run the update.

"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."

Sorry, the phone got into the condition it's in because the user decided to modify the phone and then, despite warnings, decided to run the update.

"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.."

Why should Apple spend precious resources figuring out how to fix myriad iPhone issues caused by incompatible third-party software?

"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."

Analogies (to cars or otherwise) are usually painfully inadequate, but it would be more like the shop giving you this spiel before touching your car:

We have discovered that some unauthorized mods available around town may cause irreparable damage to your model of car. IF YOU HAVE MODIFIED YOUR CAR, THIS PROCEDURE MAY RESULT IN YOUR CAR BECOMING PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE. The inability to use your car due to unauthorized mods is not covered by your warranty. Do you want us to proceed?

That is a rough paraphrase of the warning Apple gives during the iPhone update process, adapted for your analogy. You can easily say "no" and drive away -- though unlike a car's need for oil, there's no indication an iPhone will stop running without periodic software updates.

"Apple is clearly self destructing at an alarming rate. . . . (I had the 20G photo they stopped updating after 3 months when 30GB video came out . . . .) Somebody is getting high off those fumes from the freshly printed money they're raking in."

Something does not compute if your history of self-destruction dates at least to a 20GB iPod photo yet they're still raking in the dough today. (Then again, one could say the same about Microsoft. My reply would be that Microsoft's cash cows are more entrenched and less easily displaced than Apple's.)

"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."

Assuming Leopard ships in October, I wouldn't call four months "way late." For a baby, sure. For an operating system, not so much.

Re:HACK vs. UNLOCK

[tgibbs]

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.

So the new driveshaft comes with a big notice that says WARNING!! THIS DRIVESHAFT MAY DAMAGE YOUR CAR AND RENDER IT UNUSABLE IF INSTALLED IN A CAR WITH A MODIFIED ENGINE!" And you ignore the warning, install it anyway...and what do you know, it damages your car! So you run around complaining that the manufacturer is "some dipsh*t [who] thought my modification gave him the right to molest my car any way he saw fit"

Or would that be dumb?