Slashdot Mirror
Class-Action Lawsuit Over iPhone Locking?
An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe reports that some iPhone users are mad as heck at Apple for bricking up their device in response to non-Apple-authorized software downloads. In a discussion thread on Apple's own iPhone forum, one user posts that he's 'Seeking respondents for possible class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. relating to refusal to service iPhones and related accessories under warranty.' Some who have replied to the post agree that Apple is being unbelievably arrogant and is ripe for legal action. But others say Cupertino is well within its rights to control its own device." Apple seems to have removed the cited post, but it is reproduced as screenshots in the article.
Update: 10/02 02:42 GMT by KD : Reader Cleverboy wrote in to note that the screenshots present in the article are of a posting on Macosrumors, not Apple's forum, and to question the conclusion that Apple removed any posting. The article has been updated since this story went live to make clear that the original posting by user "myndex" was on the Apple forum and was (apparently) removed by Apple; and that the screenshot is of a mirror post myndex made to Macosrumors.
Update: 10/02 02:42 GMT by KD : Reader Cleverboy wrote in to note that the screenshots present in the article are of a posting on Macosrumors, not Apple's forum, and to question the conclusion that Apple removed any posting. The article has been updated since this story went live to make clear that the original posting by user "myndex" was on the Apple forum and was (apparently) removed by Apple; and that the screenshot is of a mirror post myndex made to Macosrumors.
can be found here ;-)
The problem here isn't just that you're pissing off people by bricking their phones. The problem is you are locking down a device that would otherwise be a killer development platform.
Remember how you lost the OS war to Microsoft? Its because Windows had more apps, and it didn't matter that it sucked.
The iPhone's is a fine phone, but its UI and hardware are well suited for all kinds of other apps that will drive sales way beyond just the smart phone market: games, vertical business apps, voip, home controller, etc. It's not just an mp3 player. If you need to rework the AT&T deal just do it, because the platform play is a much bigger opportunity.
Please just open it up already.
Sincerely,
Apple shareholder
Wouldn't the phone belong to the person who bought it, not Apple?
It'll be interesting to see what happens here, since it isn't uncommon for companies to refuse warranty for "unauthorized" use.
It is true that Apple are in their right to release the device under the license they want. The problem is in the user. How in hell do you want to buy a device with is locked to a single carrier, and more, whith a solded battery (we are talking about a PHONE here!), and wich is imo (and in other's opinions) overpriced, and not even the "best" in their class? Just because it has a rotten apple drawn in it's surface? Well, the buyers **are** the stupid part here. Hell, I don't even own an Ipod because it's not good enough for me. Having the Apple in the white shining surface may make you cool in the eyes of the teenagers, but doesn't mean a thing for me.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Does this arrogant behavior remind you of any one else? (RIAA??!!)
I quite clearly remember Jobs standing on stage at Moscone declaring proudly that the iPhone ran OS X. Everyone oohhed and ahhhed as they began to realize what this meant: the iPhone was a full-fledged miniature PC powered by their fave OS. Think of the killer apps that could be written for this thing, etcetera. Now that reality is setting in, one has to wonder what Steve's thinking. What use is a PC you can't write apps for?
RE:["But others say Cupertino is well within its rights to control its own device."]
once an iphone is sold it is no longer apple's property, it belongs to whomever purchased it...
besides Apple's gadgets are just overpriced fanboy crap & way too over priced...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
As an owner of an unlocked iPhone I think people are just acting stupid. I'm perfectly content to sit back and use the 1.0.2 firmware until a solution is found for the new firmware. Going around and blaming Apple is a waste of time. While I think Apple could've handled things better to prevent bricking of phones, it isn't truly bricked. It is possible to revert the system back to the older firmware if you know what you're doing. The problem is, a bunch of naive users are playing with their firmware and they don't have a clue as to what this means. I think most intelligent iPhone hackers understand that you can't upgrade firmware the day it's released and expect it to work right with previous mods. But I guess all this complaining shows that a lot of ignorant people are hacking their phones without understanding all the complications involved.
As much as I lke what Apple does, I like the Mac, OS X, X Code etc. I think they've really got it wrong here. It was wrong to tie into AT&T exclusively and wrong to stop the phone being unlocked. It should never have been locked in the first place. I was at WWDC when the lack of SDK was announced, and that again was a big bad move. The iPhone is a wonderful little device, but without proper 3rd party app support, it's a fashion accessory. I know some mac geeks who are geekier mac geeks than anyone else, and although they've got the iPhone, they're still on their Blackberries for practicality.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
I mean - wtf - do iPhone users own the thing or not? Whose property is it anyway?
...
If you were to lease the thing then I can side with Apple. But if they sold it then I dont get it
Aren't they violating the DMCA or whatever?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
> Wouldn't the phone belong to the person who bought it, not Apple?
/. for posting such drivel since the way it is posted isn't attacking such a notion as stupid. But since it IS Apple we are talking about and so many here live fully inside the Reality Distortion Field you get Slashdot editors leaving otherwise insane sentences like that one in a post. And no, this isn't just a pile on kdawson rant, CmdrTaco is equally within the Field.
If it were any other vendor Slashdot would be in 100% agreement that Apple doesn't 'own' the product once it is bought, in fact they would be venting almost as much fury at
Listen up you primitive screwheads, Steve Jobs is AS evil, if not moreso than Steve Balmer. He just doesn't throw chairs or dance around like a drunken monkey.
Democrat delenda est
A procedure exists - and has been tested quite a bit now - to reverse the iBrick'd efforts. linked here.
- - - - - - - The Webguy - - - - - - -
Anyone seen the cover of Linux Journal? Trolltech has released the QTopia Greenphone, an Open Source GSM/EDGE smartphone that costs about $695 WITH a GPL'ed software development kit. (http://trolltech.com/products/qtopia/greenphone/index) While it perhaps isn't as sexy as the iPhone in terms of UI, it IS an open device, costs about the same as the iPhone, is guaranteed never to be bricked by the manufacturer, and encourages user development and contributions to its features. And it runs Linux. If THAT isn't a better deal than an iPhone, I dunno what is.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
It seems the problem is easy. It's legal to unlock a phone. But once you've modified the phone to do that, it becomes your problem. Don't install the new firmware. There are plenty of owners that stayed with 1.0.2 and had no problem. Apple doesn't secretly go around bricking phones -- they offer a new software update that's compatible with their operating system, not whatever modifications users made to it.
If I completely wiped the OS and then tried to install the firmware upgrade I'd be shocked if it _didn't_ brick. Once I've made the software my own, it becomes my problem to support it. The easiest way would be to just not install new firmware upgrades (or at least wait until there are new unlocks available).
It'd be nice if they had a "bring in your brick" program whereby they re-flashed phones that had been bricked, but I'm not convinced it's a legal requirement.
Apple's update re-locks iPhones that were unlocked by third parties. Given that there have been several methods, none of which were approved or passed through Apple (obviously), how can Apple write OS updates that work around these hacks? At least one hack required physical modification to the iPhone - how can any update be expected to allow for unknown changes?
In fact, should Apple be expected to work around hacks at all?
I see the choice as either Apple updates the iPhones regardless of any hacks (over-writing them, re-locking iPhones) or Apple refuses to update hacked iPhones. Clearly Apple are taking the former path, and I agree with that.
First, what kind of clueless idiot runs an update on a hacked device after being told explicitly that running the update on a hacked device will brick said device. Second, what kind of feature phone/PDA maker creates a device that doesn't include a usable SDK and APIs so that developers can add functionality without compromising the core firmware and creating the brick-on-update problem.
Both sides have shown less than stellar judgment and both sides will lose. I suspect that the iPhone plaintiffs will lose their case and Apple will lose a chunk of market-share opportunity.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
This is like ignoring a "No Trespassing" sign, then getting shot. Don't Follow instructions; pay the consequences. End of Story.
I have nothing against apple design but I never understood why people went ape crap over iphone. The cost of the phone was really high and added to that you still have to sign a contract with ATT and added cost to replace batteries. I know it "looks" cool and all but there were other devices(although not many in US) which could do all the things that could be done with an iphone.
I guess reality is setting in for those who are suing.
It'll be interesting to see what happens here, since it isn't uncommon for companies to refuse warranty for "unauthorized" use.
How about warranty for stuff Apple broke trying to lock down other people's iPhones? iPhone is a beautiful device, crippled by non free software and ATT. One is bad enough but the combination is unworkable and unbearable.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
It was a buffer overflow that allowed the hack that was exploited to unlock the phone in the first place. If Apple didn't fix it, people would be complaining Apple had lax security.
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
Is there a way to replace the default OS w/ a Linux based one? Without killing the WiFi, phone, and music playing? Apple can't brick a phone that they don't provide updates for.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
If Apple gets away with this and doesn't suffer a backlash from its customers then other companies might follow suit. Microsoft bans people with hacked XBOX's from playing online, but at least they don't brick the system. What if Microsoft, Sony or even Nintendo were to follow suit with their game systems?
The lawsuit. America's answer to everything.
I guess we have a slashdot user who has not watched Army of Darkness enough times. Sad. :)
But seriously, just watch how His Steveness reacts to a little market dominance. Macs are a footnote in the PC world so being overtly Evil would just be suicide, thus Macs aren't infused with much Evil. But look at the iPod and now iPhone game, where Apple feels itself to be dominant. All of teh new iPods are infested with DRM from the bootloader on, no RockBox or iPod Linux on any of the newer hardware. The iPhone came out of the chute with a locked firmware, just buggy. So in response they are bricking em.
Democrat delenda est
This is what you get if you buy a phone that's under the control of Apple, tied to one provider, only allowed to run 'approved' applications. Apple never said you'd get any different.
When reading articles like this one, Windows Genuine Advantage, even crap like the Patriot Act, they make me realise people don't care about freedom until they lose it. If Benjamin Franklin were a software engineer today, he'd probably say something like:
If you want a phone that won't try to lock you in, might I suggest the OpenMoko. It looks good and is completely open, why bother trying to work on a platform that's actively hostile? Get one that encourages hacking! Those that just want a phone that runs Apple's ShinyOS, get the iPhone.
I don't think the current unlocking of the iPhone is a legit unlock. The current unlock method reflashes the modem firmware(with a modified version) to allow it to use multiple carriers. On my old smartphone, the unlock software scanned my phone and then when I booted with a different SIM, I typed in an unlock code and the phone actually unlocked itself (the same as if my carrier had given me the unlock code). The modified modem firmware, while it creates the unlock effect, it isn't the same method AT&T would use to unlock the iPhone.
I think the unlock method will change over the next few months. In the US, Apple uses AT&T, in Germany, they use T-Mobile, ETC... When the hacking groups begin to compare the differences between the various regional iPhones, they'll find that there is a better way to unlock. I doubt future firmware updates will convert German iPhones to AT&T. So by examine the difference, we should get closer to having a real unlock and hopefully we'll be able to avoid issues with firmware updates as a result.
This is not a troll post, I swear. I agree that if we own a piece of hardware we should be able to do with it what we want. But, that line starts to blur when said hardware needs a particular network connection to function.
I can hack my (original) xbox or Wii. I just can't connect to their online services or download any updates because, surprise, the updates may brick my consoles. It sucks, since there's no proof that a hacked console is being used for illegal purposes, but that's the way it is. And I can't attempt to get the consoles serviced, because I've voided their warranty. The same policy applies to my Ford Ranger - If I change the chip in the onboard computer, I've voided my warranty.
Where it's a little different in this case is that the iPhone downloads its updates automatically. There's no real benefit to using an iPhone as just an iPod, now that the iPod touch is out. But it's not like you don't have a choice in what phone you buy. There are plenty of other phones on plenty of other carriers. You chose to buy an iPhone, and you chose to hack it to run on another network, knowing full well that it was not only unsupported by Apple, but would void your warranty and possibly brick your phone. If you didn't know that, you shouldn't have been involved in hacking your iPhone in the first place.
For better or worse, the iPhone is a closed system. It's meant to run one OS on one carrier. Am I going to sue Chevrolet because my Corvette got stuck on a mountain bike trail? Of course not. I used the car in a manner not supported (or warrented) by the manufacturer, and now I pay the price.
All this talk of class action lawsuits and people whining about the supposed Apple 'monopoly' of the iPod and iPhone just makes me mad. Nobody's forcing you to buy the shiny, pretty Apple gadget. Go buy a Zen. Or a Treo. Or a Dell. Stop trying to blame the big bad corporation for telling you how to use its product.
Anymore more upset about Apple deleting dissenting posts in its forums than about the iPhone issue?
Why would you update the phone if you knew that it wasn't compatable with what you've done to it? The update is optional... Why should Apple make all thier updates work with your stuff?
"But others say Cupertino is well within its rights to control its own device."
Control its own device? So Apple takes your money but the phone is still theirs? Sorry but that's just plain wrong.
You give Apple money.
They give you a phone.
You lose ownership of the money -- it now belongs to Apple.
Apple loses ownership of the phone -- it now belongs to you.
That's the fundamental basis of all commerce.
On the other hand, anyone stupid enough to pay hundreds of dollars for an over-priced over-hyped phone with ridiculous limitations deserves to get screwed. So I guess it isn't so bad after all.
It would seem that Apple just doesn't want to let that be.
It just occurred to me, not that they would do this since Qtopia has been good about not TIVOing stuff, but if it was under the GPLv2 (instead of v3) couldn't they lock down the phone with anti DRM software? In Which case legally under the DMCA it would be illegal for anybody load any modified code on to the phone?
Regardless of the rights of Apple or not to fix bricked iPhones, we have to admit that Jobs' promotion of the iPhone around OS X and such was intellectually dishonest, as is the fact that the phones' locking is not easily circumventable. Sure, they can do that, but it's something that should be thought of as offensive for consumers as loyal as Apple buyers. That's why I'd never buy one of those or recommend it for anyone.
is well within its rights to control its own device.
It stopped being "their device" when they sold it; after the sale, you can do with it whatever you want. OTOH, they can push whatever updates they like and don't have to honor their warranty if you have modified your device substantially. Furthermore, it's not like this is coming out of the blue either: Apple was clear about what the iPhone was for, they have a history of more than two decades of doing this to their customers, so WTF are people complaining about?
I believe a class action is going to break out and I think it will be successful, though perhaps by media pressure and not by judgment. I acknowledge there are various technical arguments to the effect that Apple can only test its patches against firmware or software it knows, so if a phone that has different firmware or software 'just happens' to be bricked in the update process, that doesn't prove 'intent to brick'.
But it doesn't matter. This is too fine a technical detail to dally over and Apple trying to use it in defense will just glaze over the eyes of judges or jury that to whom this is presented. The rule of law is that of what seems reasonable to an adult, and that people who pay hundreds of dollars for a non-subsidized device can have it bricked by the manufacturer carrying on as if they still own the phone is plainly not reasonable.
Instead, I think this will become a turning point for the carrier and handset industry. Around the iPhone, a critical mass has gathered that is passionate about the device, which no other device has enjoyed in this space until now (most handsets sales are small number or subsidized, cheap commodity phones no one can get excited about). Many of these people are the obnoxious, uppity Mac crowd stereotype who are convinced they are right regardless of the facts, but in this case their conviction may be a triumph for everyone. Once precedent swings against the ridiculous situation where carriers and handset manufacturers believe that they can control and restrict a device they have sold in good faith, it will crumble and just perhaps we will see a shift in power in the mobile space from carrier/manufacturer to consumer. Therefore, I say to iPhone owners: Sue, and sue hard. Punitive damages. Criminal RICO prosecution. An all out attack will keep it in the press and that may be more powerful than the suits themselves.
Amen. Open the iPhone so that I can buy one too.
I don't particularly want the phone part but I'd use it - I want the hardware, UI and some developer tools.
Sincerely,
Anon Apple Shareholder
So that's why they haven't start selling iPhones over here... by law the phone can be unlocked after 2 years of the purchase without any aditional fee, or for a fixed fee posted by the carier if before those 2 years time. So doesn't matter if the phone is locked to a carier or not, I have, by law, the right to change carier (even if by paying a fee.... gotta love those competition and trade laws in here).
Deja vu sensation with 1st gen iPod that weren't sold here coz of the 24 months warranty that wouldn't go along with the 18 months lifetime battery hey...
Let's compare specs:
Apple iPhone:
Radio: Quad-band + EDGE, 802.11 b/g, Bluetooth.
Display: 480x320.
Touchscreen: multitouch.
Flash: 8GB.
Camera: 2MP.
Sensors: 3-axis accelerometer, proximity, ambient light.
Goodies: Visual voice mail, special maps widget, photo browser, iTunes, stereo headset.
Price: $399
TrollTech Greenphone:
Radio: Tri-band + GPRS.
Display: 320x240.
Flash: 128MB + MiniSD.
Camera: 1.3MP.
Touchscreen: single-touch, requires stylus.
Sensors: None.
Goodies: GPL.
Price: $695.
That GPL goodness had better be worth a lot to you.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Let's just hope that the trend towards integrated DRM, closed platforms, and locked-down devices/services doesn't continue to personal computers in general. Imagine a day when that new laptop you bought can ONLY run Windows, or ONLY connect to Comcast, or only play media verified by the RIAA/MPAA as secure and non-pirated. You heard it here first.
I'm frankly disappointed by Apple and Steve Jobs on this whole issue. I understand that when Apple was smaller, it would have been suicide for them to put a big legal bull's eye on their back. They paid to license Amazon's one-click "technology", which if I remember write drew howls of anger from us for the perception of giving the patent merit. They did it to avoid a lawsuit over having the best shopping experience for their customers. When they first introduced the iPod with the tabline "Rip. Mix. Burn." RIAA was outraged. Even though "ripping" a CD was perfectly legal and even protected by the Home Audio Recording Act, Apple backed off the message rather than risk a lawsuit preventing the iPod's introduction. Smart move on their part seeing how the iPod turned out.
But now Apple is not some little computer company struggling as a small fish in a pond of predators. Apple isn't even a computer company anymore. They are a consumer electronics company, and they are dangerously close to repeating Sony's mistake of letting fear of the content producers influence the design of their consumer electronics. That's a recipe for failure. Hardware sales directly benefit from the availability of content, and if you cut the flow of content, you strangle your hardware sales. No one would buy a MacBook or iMac no matter how great it was if it was as closed as the iPhone has become.
The reason Apple has to take such a hard line on the iPhone is because, for perhaps the first time, Apple is at the mercy of a "content" provider: Cingular/AT&T (the content in this case is access to the cellular spectrum). I would bet any amount of money that somewhere in the contract between Apple and AT&T is the stipulation that if a Voice-Over-IP application appears on the iPhone platform, Apple will forfeit a big chunk of change. That's why there's no Flash (microphone interaction has been possible with Flash for a while now). That's why there's no native development. It's not about protecting the network from faulty a application that might screw up the mission critical cellular network. Cell phones don't have that power, otherwise you could make the same attack with the cellular PCMCIA cards and adapters that the cell phone providers already sell. Until Apple can negotiate a price they are willing to pay or give up to allow full development, knowing full well that job number one for everyone will be a VoIP app that eliminates the need to even keep Cingular around for Pay-As-You-Go, Apple is going to keep the phone locked down tight.
So I'm understand Apple. I don't expect to ever see native iPhone development as long as AT&T is in the picture. But Apple has gone too far with the warrantee cancellations. It's against the law, at least in California. A manufacturer can't void a warrantee based on a 3rd-party modification unless you prove that it was the 3rd-party modification that caused the problem. Toyota can't tell you that your warantee on your new car is void because you had Audio Discounters install a stereo unless they prove Audio Discounters cut the main system bus or something. Apple is hiding behind the fact that as a software company, they are more familiar with licensing which seems to dictate that Apple can declare the moon made of cheese and anyone who clicks "I Agree" has to live with that. But courts don't let people waive rights that are guarantee regardless of what a contract says, and so I suspect that if this case goes to court, Apple will lose. For the courts to rule otherwise would shut down nearly every hardware aftermarket industry overnight.
And, Apple would also have to prove that hardware can be, in fact, damaged by just software. That's a very scary thing to admit about a product you engineered. If it were truly possible for software to damage the iPhone hardware in a way that it would be unreasonable for Apple to be require to fix it, that's a timebomb waiting to happen. Let's say there is an exploit in Safari (there are). Let's say someone writes some cod
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
The federal government says you can't put leaded fuel in the car. Ford doesn't say you can't, but if your leaded fuel causes damage, then that's not covered under warranty. If you add accessory equipment (like NOS for street racing) that causes damage, that's not covered under warranty either. But, if you put leaded fuel in your car, and your transmission breaks, your transmission is still covered under warranty.
Either way, these analogies have naught to do with the bricking iPhones.
paintball
Honestly im not surprised by the reaction that iphone users are having. Ive always been a patient person, and i am totally waiting for the price of iphone to fall before i buy it. So think about it, all the people who bought an iphone were a) really excited and desperate to have one b) extremely impatient c) rich and stuck up So as i see it, the reaction by the current owners of iphones is totally expected. Im sure all of them see fit to demand amazing and quick service. They dont understand complications, they just want to be able to do what they want.
For your analogy to be valid there need to be a "if unauthorized software present then brick the phone" routine in Apples update. Is that your claim? What is it based on?
A better car analogy would be: You buy your car, go to a tuning shop for some chip tuning. When you get back to your dealer for the next inspection, he fries the motor electronic because your custom chip does not play well with the dealer's diagnosis instrument.
You can't start blaming the dealer for that, now can you?
Trolltech has released the QTopia Greenphone
Yeah, the QTopia Greenphone is GPL alright. Unlike Linux and Gnome, Troll Tech wants commercial developers to pay them big bucks for the privilege of developing software for their platform. Even the FSF doesn't go that far. It's a marketing gimmick to help Troll Tech establish their platform on phones--a platform that deliberately excludes major other open source toolkits.
and encourages user development and contributions to its features.
Well, that's debatable. At QTopia prices, it very much discourages commercial development for the platform. Furthermore, although QTopia is released under the GPL, nobody other than Troll Tech can actually realistically develop or enhance it--if anybody tried to ship their own version of QTopia, none of the commercial QTopia apps could run on it.
And it runs Linux. If THAT isn't a better deal than an iPhone, I dunno what is.
Just about anything else: if Troll Tech manages to establish their platform as the default "open source" phone platform, open source on mobile devices would be effectively dead because it would be fully controlled by Troll Tech. You can contribute to QTopia only if Troll Tech lets you, and only if you effectively donate your free labor to them.
So, for now, I'll stick with my Palm: Palm has open source development tools, there is plenty of open source software, and the company doesn't dictate what license I can ship my software under.
(Another reason not to use QTopia is that it sucks from a user interface point of view, but that's a separate debate.)
It seems like that would be the answer the question as to who owns the device. Is leasing hardware the future of electronics with all the DRM crap and vendor lock-in occurring these days?
The lawyers. Three years later when Apple cuts you a check for $50 and the lawyers get $150 I'll be using my new iphone 2.0 that cost $99 and has more features.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Well, I was born two decades later, I firmly believe they you own it once you baught it and I agree that you can't expect the manufacturer to consider your modifications when he updates the device. It is a very nice if he does, but you can't blame him he doesn't.
The problem is that legitimately, everyone has a reason to justify a suit against Apple for this issue based on "Tying". This is a pseudo-Microsoft like tactic that tied the phone to a single provider, likely due to some back-scratching going on between them at some point. This is where you'd have to start. It's not solely the locking of the phone to AT&T, as you'd loose that issue solely on it's merits in all likelihood.
The problem is that the courts are also likely to side with Apple saying something akin to "you did not have to buy the phone in the first place, thereby putting yourselves at risk for this issue. And; you accepted the conditions of the phone when you agreed to the service agreement upon purchase." Ie; you knew you were about to contract with AT&T as the sole provider when you whipped out your credit card.
I think it safe to say that if anything, you might want to make the biggest impact to Apple by calling for the legal recourse to be returning all these phones to Apple for full refunds, and not much else. You'd likely get to do that but at some form of a loss because they'd claim that you got some use out of the device.
Then you will have been assumed to "learn your lesson" and not purchase any product that will lock in to a single provider again. Apple will also be assumed to have learned not to play monopoly with some of these other unscrupulous companies, because they'll now have all these dead phones that nobody wants solely for that reason.
The only reason it isn't any different on the market today is that you people keep patronizing these companies for these "cool" products without looking at what your getting. I suspect Apple was under the impression that in 2 years, the service contract would be up and you'd like to get a better deal which is likely to be over at T-Mobile instead of AT&T, and they'd just say "sorry; can't do that". And you'd be living with your iPhone as just a simple glorified media player that would have to be loaded from your computer. Or; if you just had to have the iPhone, you'd be patronizing them again in 2 years for the "next" model! I bet the second idea is probably it because we all know that Apple, like everybody else, loves money and money means profits..!!
Right now, unless they're legally challenged with monopolistic practices, you all have nothing really to go or stand on. Sorry but thats what it looks like from here.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Sure. But once they sell it to me, I'd like to be able to use it as I please *and* not have to forgo firmware updates because Apple's going out of their way to disable any non-blessed modifications.
It's regrettable if some users of stock iPhones are having issues of data loss, but is it really news that software updates sometimes have such unintended consequences? (Yes, it depends on how widespread the problem is, though we all know the Internet magnifies everything.) And if the context were anything but iPhone, wouldn't the standard response be "you should always back up your data"?
One of the inevitable topics of discussion among hackers is how to modify their cellphones. The closed architecture of the iPhone and the inferior monopoly carrier Apple chose are disincentives for anyone whose interest in technology transcends that of a consumer.
But Apple shouldn't disable a modified phone unless they are willing to compensate the owner. It's not their property. If Apple wants iPhones to be regulated, then they need to lobby for legislation to regulate the iPhone, and leave the enforcement to law enforcers.
Finally, I'd sooner spend the money supporting a class action lawsuit against Apple, than purchase an iPhone, as long as they are disabling phones that no longer belong to them.
As I see it, this is suing for the wrong thing. You bought a device, did two unauthorized modifications (used a different SIM and hacked the software), then are mad that a software update for an unmodified device caused you problems. This is your fault. You should have seen this coming a mile away, whether intentional on Apple's part or not.
"I replaced the tires on my Ford Escort with big tracks, and when I installed the free hubcaps they sent me it caused the tracks to lock up and destroy themselves. Damn Ford killed my car!"
If you want to sue, then change the suit to something more appropriate. Sue Apple for only allowing you to use AT&T. Sue for not letting you unlock your phone after 90 days. Sue Apple for locking down the smart phone. You knew the phone was locked to 3rd party software when you bought it, but sue anyway. This is the US, it'll work. Sue AT&T for charing you $600 for a substandard phone (no games, can't record videos, etc) without clearly disclosing that stuff up front. Sue the FCC for allowing vender lock-in. Sue MS for making such a terrible platform (I used CE 1.0, and I had a WM 5 device. In many ways, it wasn't much better. In many ways, it was worse). Sue the management of Palm for driving the platform in the ground, thus reducing your choices. Sue MS for making it impossible to use their phones with non-Windows software (illegal bundling/tie-in? And yes, I know about Missing Sync).
The iPhone is neat. I'd like one. I'd LOVE to try to develop for it. But you bought the device in one state, modified it, and are mad that your modifications caused problems. Sue for the right reason. Don't start a trend of companies being forced to support modifications of their devices that they were explicitly trying to prevent.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Nothing like a good ol' class-action suing..
"Hey look at me! I'm the company that can do no wrong. FUCK YOU CONSUMERS AND EAT MY SHIT!! I'm fucking Apple. How do you like them apples. I'm apple, you little piece of crap! Buy my make-up case candy computer and buy my pod and music. You don't get to do anything with it, because I'm fucking Apple, bitch. You're an idiot.. Go buy an Iphone now and you're gonna get AT&T because I make the decisions around here! It's my money; not yours. Are you licking my balls yet?!"
{BIG LONG DRAWN OUT LAWSUIT.. IN CONSUMERS FAVOR}
"Hi, I'm a Mac. I bend over backwards for you and I am a fair price."
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Your analogy is inappropriate in the sense that if you do something drastic to your new car you are going to void the warranty. They have no obligation to honor the terms of the warranty. Change the engine, possibly modifying the exhaust, modify the chip in your car, etc.
The proper analogy here is that the iPhone EULA is similar to leasing a car. Do anything that is not allowed and you'll be paying a lot of money. So basically, Apple has bricked your iPhone because you did something they didn't like. Did you sign a piece of paper, similar to the lease, that said that this would happen? Nope, they forced the agreement on you after the fact, right? All EULAs are like that. I don't know what the agreement was when you signed up for AT&T though.
Maybe you missed the memo, but the Apple iPhone costs $399. I would say that is about $294 cheaper than the device you want people to buy at the pre-market SDK stage.
is guaranteed never to be bricked by the manufacturer
Is that in writing somewhere? I don't want you making claims that aren't supported by anything but wishful thinking.
IANAL and I am curious about a lawyer's opinion:
1. The Moss-Magnusson act prohibits voiding a warranty based on a consumer's after-purchase behavior unless that behavior was responsible for the failure of the merchandise. But what if the company adds a product design whose sole purpose is to ensure that a specific behavior causes the merchandise to fail? It seems to me that designing firmware that causes a modified iPhone to brick is a way of sneaking out of one's obligations under Moss-Magnusson. Could a judge be convinced of this?
2. Writing a piece of software whose only purpose is to prevent third-party applications from running on your device is an indirect means of making an exclusive contract with any software company (e.g., Opera) enforceable (and arguably serves no other purpose). Does this mean it can be construed as a violation of the Clayton act?
Curious for any INFORMED opinions.
Cheers,
Tavis
Because Jobs is not a fucking idiot. He's got the consumer drones not only happy to be consumer drones, but paying a premium for the privilege of being consumer drones that get to laugh at other people and call them consumer drones because they aren't the right KIND of consumer drones and aren't in the special secret consumer drones club.
This space available.
FIC Neo 1973 GTA01B:
Radio: Quadband, GRPS, CSD, Bluetooth
Display: 640x480
also Touchscreen (Stylus)
Flash: 64MB + MicroSD
RAM: 128MB
USB: client + host
Camera: Fail
Battery: Removable
Sensors: GPS
Goodies: Linux + GNU + package system. Everything else follows from that.
Price: $350 (w/o contract)
okay, it's only in beta as of now, but waiting a bit could be very, very interesting as on the software side it can do way more than the iphone. i just hope they will find open wifi (they apparently hate binary modules, which i deem right).
overall, it's somehow cheaper than both of the above.
My opinion: If apple took it upon themselves to make sure unlocked iphones became bricked when updated then i feel they are liable for the damages done. On the other hand, if the bricking is a side effect of the update, then i don't think they are responsible. If you are maintaining and updating software, you can't possibly predict what sorts of modifications a user might make to their software. It's possible apple had a ligitimate reason to update the iphones and during testing they realized that their update wasn't compadible with the unlocking software. They even took it upon themselves to inform users that if their iphones were unlocked that the update would render them useless (correct me if im wrong, but this is the impression I got from previous articles on the subject).
As i said before, if the bricking is a malicious response to people unlocking phones, then i feel apple is wrong. If it's simply a side effect of an update, then i dont' fell apple is wrong.
Going around and trying to drum up a class action where non exists is a tad unethical. One wonders if this guy used to work for Milberg Weiss.
This is my sig.
And who says they are disabling phones? The fact that their upgrades don't work with a "hacked" phone, isn't Apple's problem. If you hack your phone, you get to deal with the consequences.
I am sure Steve wont say that for a real lawsuit filed in New York on Sep 24th.
And I'm well within my rights to continue to not buy one.
Proud member of the "I just wanna make a call" crowd.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Wait, you are saying all these people stood in the queues for hours and paid 599$ to lease that phone? TO LEASE? Seriously??
...seems to cast doubt on the legality of some of the things Apple is doing here.
Specifically, section 102(c) prohibits the use of tie-in sales provisions in the warranty. Saying that the warranty is void just 'cos you are now using the phone on someone else's network is like Ford voiding the warranty on your Taurus because you let Jiffy Lube do the oil changes, and not the local dealership.
Also, while I'm sure it is certainly possible that a firmware upgrade could innocently fuckup a modded phone, the thought of a company doing this deliberately out of spite ought to make Public Citizen's lawyers salivate until they slip on their own drool.
You hack a device when they told you not to then you cry foul when they wipe out your hack and leave you without your phone? Ever read the service contract? On what basis are you planning to sue, "gee I didn't think they were serious Judge?" Under what legal president does that fall? Trying to hack a $500 phone comes with a fair amount of risk. If you didn't like the deal don't buy the phone. Simple enough. If you did and you hacked it and now you have a high tech paperweight you've got nothing to complain about other than your own stupidity.
Don't do shit the company you bought the device from told you not to do. If you don't like AT&T and you want an iPhone, tough shit. Grow up and stop whining about it.
This update makes me forget everything bad about AT&T and shows that providing good stuff on your hardware always trumps the service provider.
Apple, among other things, does not let you:
* Install Apple software (OS X) on non-Apple hardware
* Install non-Apple software on Apple hardware (iPhone)
I understand apple is out to make a profit but locking iPhones permanently seems rather ridiculous. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "If you want to install the update, you must first remove 3rd party software"?
This is why I do not buy any Apple products (I don't buy any Microsoft products if I can help it, for that matter)
besides the probable loss of sales due to the stigma that will attach to the phone, the related costs in other areas (if I buy a Mac, will Jobs disable it if I install someone else's software?) may be far greater. just as Apple was poised to make gains over the worthless M$ Vista, the shoot themselves in the foot then reload and do it again. Moreover, the anti-trust/class action aspect could also be expensive, very expensive. perhaps the idea here really was to distract people from Jobs' special way of getting stock options?
Kevin O'Kane http://www.cs.uni.edu/~okane/
When we found out that iPhone would have AT&T lock in, many of us knew it would end badly. You can't really fight a massively powerful phone company that is obviously controlling the reins at Apple. I understand Apple's desire to have a partner in the cellphone industry to make the iPhone a success, but they struck a deal with the devil if you ask me.
I'm still trying to pry my life and credit away from Sprint, and they are not nearly as vicious as AT&T.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
apple. the gestapo of computing. next time just buy a real phone.
Some idle speculation...
Apple start work on "revolutionary" mobile phone/device/whatever.
AT&T (among others) are approached to partner.
AT&T examine platform, decide extensibility is bad for them, and signs on with the contractual proviso that Apple lock the platform down.
Apple agree, AT&T throw in a huge wad of cash and the iPhone is born.
Hackers hack the iPhone.
Apple bricks the hacked iPhones.
Class action suit is brought against Apple.
Judgement goes against Apple "forcing it" to open the platform and (unhappily) letting Apple off the hook wrt to their contractual obligations to AT&T.
iPhone sells like crazy, Apple continues to make shitloads of money.
AT&T are stuffed.
First I like to say that I hate Apple.
They SAID the update will cause unlocked phones to not function. Yet some people still did. Those people deserve it. If you break or circumvent a device and rely on the company for any support, you're an idiot. If you unlock a device and circumvented their means of profit, what makes you think that company will help you in any way? If you claim ignorance, you're a moron. Companies reserve the right to deny support for many reasons, including preventing them from making a profit. Last time I checked, Apple is not a non-profit organization.
If Apple specifically created the patch just to spite those people with unlocked iPhones, then shame on them. Shame on those who unlocked their devices and expect support. Both sides are wrong.
It's TOTALLY LEGAL to unlock your cellphone now in the US. If apple pushed an "update" that even partially was designed to relock it or brick it, they have clearly violated one of the provisions in the recent copyright board ruling. This can be ascertained by auditing all the code, and by scanning a lot of emails and other internal correspondence, which, if the case proceeds, will be asked for. "updates" to consumers are supposed to be to provide repairs or added services, and that's it. If all this update did was relock or brick phones, apple is *screwed*. They can claim it was otherwise, but no one outside of apple will know until such a time as discovery is finished.
Here's your car analogy, you bought some car, the included media player was brand X, you yanked it, installed Y, even though in the fine print it said you shouldn't do that. You take it in for the scheduled 20,000 mile mainteance or whatever -the "update" - and the tech notices your changed radio which now violates "specs", so they trash your engine, hand you back the keys and say "oh well, you voided our warranty". Sorry, that don't fly in meatspace now with cars, and if apple did similar they are retarded bungholes deluxe and are going to lose bigtime in court.
Yes, you can "choose" to not take your car in for the update, but normal business says that is what is expected by the consumer. It's there, provided by the company. Now you can't change the phone to work outside of FCC specs, but just about anything else you want to do with it is legal, because you can't sign away your rights via contract, this has huge past precedent in so many cases it isn't funny. And it's your phone, you paid top dollar for it. If the resurrected ma bell and apple think they can just dodge the real law because they are big fat companies, they might want to reconsider, this is 2007, not 1887. Word gets around and stuff. We already went through this with the IBM clone cases and bios and whatnot.
On what basis are you planning to sue, "gee I didn't think they were serious Judge?"
That's exactly what they'll do. "Gee your honor, I knew they publicly stated they would break the law, but I didn't think they were brazen enough to actually do it!" It's called gross negligence, and Apple will have their asses handed to them in court. Not only that, but the court can hand Apple actual damages and punitive damages for negligence.
Apple knew there were unlocking hacks out there. Apple knew their update was incompatible with those hacks. The could have simply checked for firmware originality before installing an update. Instead, they chose to have the installer update without checking the firmware first.
Imagine if Ford issued a product recall on fuel injectors. Let's say Ford knows for a fact that the replacement injector will cause the engine to explode when used in conjunction with an aftermarket supercharger. Ford proceeds to install replacement parts without first checking to see if such an aftermarket product is in use on the vehicles serviced. Who do you think is liable when the car explodes?
1.) Does everything an I-Phone does. 2.) Can be unlocked, works on various networks. 3.) Has an excellent an excellent SDK. Mark
Apple may be able to get away with punking people who hacked their phones and updated. But they're trying to deny warranty service on hardware issues for people who didn't iBrick with 1.1.1. If someone totes in a hacked 1.0.2 with a bad screen/speaker/etc, and there's no concrete evidence it was third party software, then Apple denying warranty service at that point seems to (ianal) open them to liability.
Add to that opening a lot of justified vitriol, and I smell another lawsuit coming.
No, I'd say the same thing whether it was Apple or not.
OSx86 FTW
That's so sinister, "cat and mouse game". Gosh, was he talking about SIM unlocking or otherwise unlocking the platform to install third party software?
Let's get all dramatic about it on Apple's forums! SUE SUE SUE!
Is the Geek's long-term memory selective - or simply non-existent?
WordStar released in 1978 became the defacto standard for word processing on CP/M.
VisiCalc for the Apple II hit the market a year later and would be ported to CP/M, the Atari, the Commodore PET, and the MSDOS PC. Selling 700,000 in six years.
The October 1982 Creative Computing [in its 300 pages!] featured four-color adds for Frogger and Wizardry.
PC gaming on the 8-bit micro has taken on a very familiar shape. King's Quest for the IBM PC is two years down the road. In this single issue there are about 100 pages of adds for software in all categories.
There actually was such a thing, at one time. It was Japan-only, though. Look up "Mobile GB adapter".
OSx86 FTW
don't care about the rest of the post, I just want to comment on this:
No, the reality is that is should be physically impossible to damage hardware with only software. - in the perfect world such thing would not be possible. This is not the perfect world. Software can sometimes damage hardware and firmware can easily damage hardware in most cases. I worked in manufacturing of projectors for a while and I can attest that it is totally possible to damage hardware in more ways than one by forcing it to go beyond its limits (especially with firmware.)
You can't handle the truth.
This is all stupid.
If you hack the firmware on the phone, it's pretty obvious that you won't be able to get warranty support if you bring in your phone with the hacked firmware on it. So if you have a physical problem, restore the factory firmware! I've hacked my TiVo, and I kept the original hard drive available to swap in, in case I need a repair, for just this reason. Anyone who doesn't understand this sort of thing shouldn't be hacking their electronics.
Also, all of this talk about phones being 'bricked' is absurd. A device is bricked when the device is so confused (typically by a bad firmware update breaking the firmware loader) so that it can't be recovered from. That's not what's happening on the iPhone. What's happening when people install the firmware update on the iPhone is that it it's restored to the original condition, meaning that if you used 'jailbreak' to run third part apps, the apps are gone (technically still there, but you can't run them), and if you 'unlocked' the phone so that it's activated on another carrier instead of AT&T it'll go back to 'waiting for activation'. In either case, the phone is not 'bricked' as it is functioning fine just as you bought it - it just doesn't do what you hacked it to do.
If you really don't like it, feel free to help find a mechanism for 'jailbreaking' or 'unlocking' the iPhone 1.1.1 firmware, so the game of 'cat and mouse' continues.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
If you think that software can't cause permanent damage to hardware then you haven't spent enough time working close to hardware. This isn't suprising, as a lot of 'hardware' in a desktop computer only exposes functions via a firmware interface that cuts off direct access to the hardware to keep a programmer from frying the hardware. Embedded devices typically skip that step because it isn't intended to allow the customer to program the device. Why go to the trouble and expense of making it safe for programmers if you're not going to allow third party development?
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Ownership in the U.S. is, "Who Paid for it Last." If an iPhone becomes an iBrick because of an event perpetrated by some one; Then we have a Criminal case of vandalism. Who ever made the "Crack" that turns working tools into paper weights is just as lawless as someone who would take a hammer to the same device. Maybe some time in prison will help certain Show-Offs that Human Predication is expensive.
"Summer of Intimacy" - KY Jelly, 2007
Behind curtain A is a computer running Mac OS X, it can make voice calls (through voip), and it has third party software installed.
Behind curtain B is a computer running Mac OS X, it can make voice calls (through gsm), and it has third party software installed.
Apple argues that, because of the third party software, it can brick one of these computers. What's to stop them from bricking both, with that argument? It can't be because of differences in the hardware, because that isn't theirs anymore. I bought it, it's mine.
Apple has demonstrated it cannot be trusted anymore. A few short weeks ago people were all over Microsoft when they installed software without your knowledge that turns out to have broken some installations. This is worse, since the "breaking" is intentional.
And people think that Microsoft is evil.
:)
No modding (+ Intentional bricking), no changing your own battery, no switching carriers...
No thank you
Your long winded post amounts to a gnat's fart. Those *users* violated the agreement they agreed to.
The case will last seven seconds in court.
Its pretty clear you get all your opinions from the Slashdot feedback loop.
Its not "their" device anymore. /turning a blind eye to hacks, Apple is aggressively bricking iPhones through hacking, thus breaking the contract of first and True Sale.
Once they sold it to you, its yours as First-Sale.
You can use it, modify it, tear it up, etc., but Apple or AT&T has no rights after a True Sale (legal terms).
I welcome this class-action suit.
This will make Apple realize they can't continue to take customers for granted.
Yes, apple has had good karma for its iPhone.
But instead of ignoring
Imagine if i bought a TV capable of playing HD content, and then instead of subscribing to comcast, i take it to Germany DW TV. Does the TV maker and/or comcast have the right to break my HD display ability?
If they do that, they would have a tough time explaining to their shareholders why their CEO and CTO are counting bars in prison.
Its time people started suing Apple.
They are not exactly saints.
Imagine the outcry if Microsoft had done so!
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Currently, developers create web applications for iPhone, not native applications. Hmm... currently? Does this hint at an SDK to come?
Did you miss the word "should"?
In this world, perfect or not, software *should* never be able to cause irreversible damage, otherwise there is a failure or flaw in the design (aside, of course, from software intended to render stolen laptops useless, etc).
Back in the early 2000's I ran into a situation where running Ghost on a particular Maxtor 15-head hard drive using an image made on a 16-head hard drive would cause the 15-head drive to go into "click of death" permanent failure. The attitude from Compaq was that the software was defective, stop using it. My argument was no, the drives are defective because it doesn't matter how badly software is written, the drive should never obey a command to slam the drive heads into the side of the case.
My point is...if, by issuing certain commands, a $400 device can be permanently ruined, that is a flaw that *should* be corrected. Otherwise, an exploit may ruins a significant portion of the devices on the market and that would come right back to the manufacturer.
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
See above reply to similar comment. Yes, it's possible but no, it shouldn't be. When talking about embedded devices, the lack of an user-accessible input path is just as good. At the same time, having a button on the front of an embedded device that when pushed twice in a row caused the device to fail would tend to be viewed as a flaw that should be corrected...or at least labeled with a sticker that says "Self Destruct"
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Read your Windows license. There is absolutely no warranty or guarantee associated with Windows. If you install software on your PC and "brick" (cinder block?) it, Microsoft is under no duty whatsoever to repair or replace it.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
negligence does not apply.
I beg to differ. Negligence applies to loss of property as well as injury/death. It would have been very easy for Apple to check the firmware for originality before allowing the installer to run an update. They failed to do that. Phil Schiller is on record acknowledging that the update would indeed brick phones that were unlocked using two different popular unlocking programs. And of course, you can't forget the company press release. It's open and shut. Apple could have easily prevented the damage by doing a simple firmware check before updating, and they didn't do it intentionally. Worse yet, they announced to the world they were going to do it, knowing it would brick phones... They're fucked! You can't get any more clear cut. The lawyers are gonna have a field day with them.
Ignorant of legal history. Book publishers in the 70s were adding agreements forbidding purchasers from reselling or otherwise reusing those books. The courts found those agreements unenforceable based on their violation of first sale doctrine. It's one thing for Apple to say, we won't support your device unless it is running approved software, but it's quite another thing to say, because you once ran non-approved software that caused no permanent damage and that we are capable of uninstalling, we are going to cancel the warantee on the undamaged hardware. That's like Apple trying to void the warantee on your monitor because you used it to display an unflattering Apple review. Ridiculous? Google the latest AT&T terms and conditions for their Internet Service.
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
You're legally entitled and more than welcome to do whatever hacking you desire. But, that does not imply that Apple is under any duty or obligation to accomodate that in their (free, optional) software updates. In fact they went out of their way to mention that there might be problems, so people could choose what to do. The update is optional and can be refused.
The whole thing is completely blown out of proportion. Apple issues a warning and it's attacked instead of appreciated. But there was absolutely no malicious reason for them to say anything--they gained nothing by it. If they really wanted to brick iPhones they could have just sent out the update silently.
Look back at the history of hacking satellite TV boxes. Has DirectTV or Dish Network EVER issued a warning to their hackers or even acknowledged they exist at all? No, they just send down the next killer update to try to get as many as possible. That's not what happened here though. People were given plenty of warning.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You appear to be unaware that there are extensive aftermarket modifications possible on most American cell phones. Google RAZR mods or browse mobile enthusiast websites like Howard Forums. My prior cell phone was a SLVR that I heavily modified. I used software to add my own ringtones and to change the horrible Cingular-specific themes. I could do it because it was my phone. When Bluetooth failed, there were no questions about "did you run Motorola developer tools on that phone?" ...the hardware was replaced and I reloaded my mods on the new one.
...people who really love their iPhones...like me...
I have also extensively modified my iPhone. I'm totally fine with the idea that I have to choose between my mods and the latest stock version of software. That's how life works, and sooner or later the updates will get modded as they always do. What I'm NOT fine with is the threat that someday if my phone has a legitimate hardware failure, I might be denied warrantee coverage because they can somehow detected that I copied a couple extra M4A files to the ringtones folder on the phone. This the first time I've heard of a American cell phone manufacturer trying to treat the software on their phone as part of the hardware and say that changing the software is as bad as soldering tracer wires onto the board from a warrantee perspective.
You need to take a look at the history of Sony and Apple before you claim they have nothing to do with each other. Sony started out as a hardware maker. You've heard of the Betamax Supreme Court decision, haven't you? Sony made VCRs...those VCRs could copy movies either from the airwaves or other tapes. Sony didn't care because their business was selling VCRs and nobody would have bought them if they couldn't do that. Sony grew very rich from the sales of their hardware and purchased a content company (several, really). Makes sense, right? I mean, you have hardware...now you have something to show or bundle with the hardware.
Except, the problem is that the company is now schizophrenic because the content side of the company is deathly opposed to things like VCRs. In fact, the content side of the company is so afraid that when Sony goes to make a modern version of the original Walkman (you know, hardware that made them millions of dollars) they don't allow MP3s to play on it for fear they would be copied from the content side's CDs. And what happens? Nobody buys the digital walkmans...they buy iPods from another company Apple who is a hardware maker and does what the customer wants. This cycle repeats in just about every segment of Sony's product line until the stock price is pretty much in the toilet and then, surprised, ATRAC is canned and MP3 and AAC return.
That's Sony's rise and fall in a nutshell. Apple's iPods and MacBooks are to Sony's Walkman and VCRs. Apple's new iPhone is to Sony's cripped digital music player. I can't think of a single other product Apple has produced where you couldn't poke around at the insides. Even the Apple TV hacking, the previous poster child for enthusist modification, was treated fairly by Apple. So why have things suddenly changed? Why does Apple try to blame it on AT&T's fears about their network when the same restrictions exists now through the latest generation of iPods? These trouble me as someone who has been rooting for the underdog (Apple) for so long...I've suddenly found myself wondering if Apple isn't now possibly bullying some other underdog like
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
First Amazon opens an all-DRM-free MP3 shop (as a classical music lover, at least I am satisfied with the selection of titles) which also features lower prices especially for albums.
Then the iPhone/iBrick thing intensifies and rumors of a class action suit begin circulating.
And finally, I decided I won't be buying an iBook after all, in spite of peer pressure from fellow scientists and students. I decided I don't need to be conformist to feel good about myself. -1 customer for Apple!
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
When I buy a brick, it's my brick. When I buy a car, it's my car. When I buy an iPhone, it's... my iphone. So I can do whatever I want with it.
Suddenly, a person who purchased an iphone can't do whatever s/he wants with it, and that is apparently NORMAL, while the brick owner can do whatever s/he wants with it, and that's also normal (duh).
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
I only hope that this will be different in Europe. Honestly I can't imagine that the EU-Comission will allow this product binding as it is against the laws of a free and open market.
Don't give your money to Apple. Steve won't allow third party apps, and he's going to lose the phone wars, just like he lost the PC wars. He's an arrogant, annoying, greedy, and immature PRICK, and it would be better for everyone if he didn't have a market and wasn't around. Throw your money somewhere else, like OPENMOKO for example.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Y'all scribbled "its own device".
Its own ? ITS OWN ?
Fer cryin' out loud, its MY freggin device after passing over my appendix, a leg and half of my left eyeball fer that doorstopper of a gizmo.
On a more subtle note - if someone offers you buy a car, would you accept that you can ONLY fill it up at [pick one gas station. It must be in the next county. (Apple)] An would you accept having a car company controlling who can ride the car with you ? (Apple). And as a bonus, would you accept having a FBI agent read you your rights and ALL of the laws on operating a vehicle yada yada every time you intend to ride the goddamn thing ? (MPAA)
I'd like to think not, but then some people like it a....
With say PCWorld. Rememeber them from a while back? They refused to service a broken hinge on a laptop because it had Linux installed. Ooh they were BAAAAD people who did not know anything about computers and deserved all the bad press etc etc.
Now it is Apple, who refuses to service a piece of hardware because of installed software. Well obviously Apple must therefore be in the the right and shame on those people who think they can do what they want with their own hardware.
This is nothing new, people get emotional about companies. If we feel good about a company, they can do no evil, and if we feel bad about a company, they can do no good. Sony could give away puppies and "we" would find something bad about it and Apple can announce that iPods are powered by slaughtering kittens and "we" would all applaud them.
Apple has a very long history off very poor customer relations, the amount of stories about them refusing to service things for the most idiotic reasons is endless. Most stupid one that keeps cropping up, refusing to service machines entire new because people bought a different configuration made by choices on Apples own website then the default.
In this aspect they are really not any worse then any other PC builder, but Apple got this amazing amount of goodwill that makes lots of fanboys ignore everything and loudly proclaim Apple is best.
They are not, they are just another company seeking the maximum amount of profit, that often means going against the best interests of their customers.
Sometimes people do social experiments with news stories, I propose the following, one of the slashdot editors take a story like this but replace all mentions of Apple with say Dell or Microsoft (depending on hardware/software issue) and posts it. Then a day later reveals the truth. I think a lot of posters would suddenly be faced with having to explain why they flipflopped on their opinion.
In a way Apple is more evil then say MS. We KNOW MS is evil so we are aware and analyze everything they do for the amount of evil in it. That is "healthy". Paranoia is an essential part of staying free in this world. Apple is "trusted" by a lot and so can get away with a lot by people simply trusting them to not be evil.
Just read the posts above and check some of the defenders posting history, you can see that a lot of them talk a lot differently when other companies are involved in similar stories. In Apples history a lot of names pass by to explain its greatness, but the truly great one is the person at marketting/public relations that managed to create this amount of goodwill without doing anything particulairly good (what has Apple really done to benefit the world?)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
since when is an disgruntled user ranting in a user forum news?? yawn...
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
Filing a lawsuit against Apple for sticking to their EULA is pointless and childish. Much more promising, and more intelligent would be to file a lawsuit against Apple for locking their phones in the first place, thus not leaving any room for competition, creating an artificial monopoly. There's much more legal leverage in that field than in complaining about something Apple did not permit in the first place - and informed the user that it wasn't permitted. That stupid "Apple + Provider lock-in = iPhone availability" is already causing delays in several other countries, where the iPhone should/will be released. They should really give it up, before it's going to start hurting sales. (It arguably already does). So if you want to go to court, do it because of the locking, not the unlocking.
What part of what Apple did was illegal?
1) People change their OS in a way not expected by Apple
2) Apple does not take these changes into account when writing update
3) Apple tells people with changes to not install update in case something goes wrong
4) Users install update anyway
5) Update on changed phone leads to unexpected results such as calls no longer working
6) Apple fixes said results, but old hack is not possible anymore
What part is illegal?
Unfortunately there would only ever be one third party application that needed to be develeoed and that would be a version of Skype. Once that was out it would kill off all the phone usage and therefore the phone itself.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Apple has publicly said that they did not intentionally cause the issues, which by the way don't happen with all hacked phones, but with SIM-unlocked phones only. And actually, even those phones aren't bricked at all, they just go into some kind of weird mode where no SIM card is accepted anymore.
Here's the Schiller quote: "This has nothing to do with proactively disabling a phone that is unlocked or hacked. It's unfortunate that some of these programs have caused damage to the iPhone software, but Apple cannot be responsible for ... those consequences."
So it seems it's an unintended side-effect of the update which they observed, but decided to not fix. I actually see why they feel no urge to support people who don't use AT&T and thus don't help them make money :-)
For the record, I own a SIM-unlocked phone. The day I unlocked it, I knew that I would probably not be able to install any updates anymore.
And work on your reading comprehension.
How much clearer could Apple have been? They put out a press release days before releasing the software, warning people that the firmware update could potentially damage unlocked iPhones. Then, when you downloaded the firmware update it threw up a warning screen saying that hacked/unlocked phones could be damaged by the firmware update. If that didn't scream "don't install me on a hacked phone" what would have?
Now people are looking to sue because they ignored these warnings and installed the firmware update anyway. Please grow up and take responsibility for your actions. You hacked the phone. Don't expect updates or further support, and, most of all--HEED THE VENDOR'S WARNINGS!
These potential lawsuits will go nowhere.
This is really bad PR for Apple. It shows that Apple are willing to punish their own customers just to 'have control' over what users can and cannot do. I have some respect for Apple users because they have the balls to stand up to M$, but I think now they should start looking at some more open platforms. We can't let tyrants dominate the computing market anymore. Power to the people!!!
People keep repeating that, and evidence for it keeps not existing. In fact, Apple claimed just the opposite; namely, that they did not intentionally disable anything.
Uhm, no. Apple told us to not install the update. If we installed it anyway, we were the ones making our iPhones break.
I would be writing gushing prose about using two tin cans and a length of string to communicate after a year of using a RAZR. I think you should get some sort of award for being able to use it for an extended period without throwing it out of a window..
if it was any other company but apple... it wouldn't happen.
If this post has multiple meanings, and one of those pisses you off, I meant the other one.
If you actually read the article linked from the parent comment (at this time, as it is a wiki), you can plainly see that there is NO KNOWN METHOD to recover phones that were unlocked with the free SIM unlock.
The fact that the baseband cannot be backdated to previous versions imply that apple intentionally removed the previously existing method for updating the baseband. This intent Jennifer Bowcock's statement that people need to buy a whole new iPhone seems pretty damn evil to me.
Given Apple gets 40% of call revenue, you would think they would do their best to ensure it works?
Um, didn't the customer buy the device? Shouldn't they be able to control it?
Oh wait, I was thinking of every other cell phone market in the world. Where customers are acutally allowed to use any phone with any service. Silly me.
I was just responding to your: the reality is shtick that came before that is should be physically impossible to damage hardware with only software - the reality is not what you wish it to be. The reality is that it is up to the manufacturer to fix things like that and often it's not done.
You can't handle the truth.
Well, if people are only as mad as "heck" then it shouldn't be a big worry for Jobs. Once they get as "mad as hell" perhaps he'll change his mind.
Seriously, any blogger who can't use the word 'hell' in their blog and feels obliged to tone it down loses serious respectpoints from me.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Once I spend my money,it's my device.
If it is remotely ruined by the manufacturer,they better be ready to replace it free(incl.s&h)or
I'll be ready to hunt,catch and castrate the manufacturer (Steeev J.)for stealing from me.Seems fair and just.So be it.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
... Apple has registered a trademark on the word "brick" and plans DMCA takedowns of anyone infringing on their new precious intellectual property.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This is great, now if your in the EU - your in luck! The waste laws would come into force. What apple is effectively doing is reducing the shell life of their products which goes against the EU Waste and Recycle laws.
:)
Bring on the EU
Presumably, you are free to install OpenMoko or some other OS onto /your/ iPhone hardware.
-rozzin.
It was OK when it was a book. I bought the book. I didn't buy a copyright license (this would have allowed me to make and sell copies and/or derivative works) but I definitely owned the one copy I did have.
I'm a Mac/iPod/iWhatever user... but really, I don't quite get this one. Some people deliberately use a third party tool to circumvent a "lock" deliberately placed on a device by Apple (forget the legalities, just stating the facts), and use the device in a way not intended. Then they go and UPDATE the phone using an Apple Updater, and whine and threaten with class action suits. Huh? Really, if you didn't like the AT&T lock-in, don't buy it. Use your wallet-muscle to get it changed. You know that it WILL change eventually. If you were willing to take a risk and circumvent the lock-in, don't whine when things go awry. And seriously, don't be dumb enough to update your phone with an updater that was KNOWN in advance to "brick" it.
That said, my understanding is that these phones aren't "bricked" in any way. They're just re-locked into AT&T (require activation), just like they were when they were sold, under the premises that they were sold. If thre was a way to avoid this, easily, then shame on Apple for being so anally retentive about the whole thing. But if there WASN'T an easy way around, short of writing update software that can detect the unlock and play nice with it (and as a result intentionally inviting the wrath of the AT&T legal department for breach of contract), I don't see this as being Apple's fault. Just wait for the guys to come up with a new and improved unlocker, and get back to business. And have a spare phone handy for your SIM if you need to have your phone at all times. I'd say it's pretty stupid, to say the least, to tinker with an un-guaranteed program on your cell phone, if you need to rely on it.
Back in our days when we did hardware tinkering with our early Macs, we weren't exactly moaning and bitching if we screwed something up, or the next System release wasn't compatible with the hardware tinkering we did. Of course, we walked through 20ft. of snow, up hill, both ways, 200 miles round trip, to get to school too. And we liked it. Yada yada yada.
There should be clear rules about what can and can't be expected by a manufacturer of a hardware/software device. Then again, there should be a fine for stupidity too.
If you modify how the phone is supposed to work, why would the vendor have any responsibility in repairing what YOU did to the phone? The fact that the phone is not working is not the fault of the vendor, it is the fault of the consumer. I am sure that the warranty is clearly voided when you perform the hacking that occurred that made the phone unlocked. Additionally, you KNEW the phone was locked only to the AT&T phone service. Don't play dumb. If you are smart enough to unlock your own phone or even find someone who can unlock it for you, you were smart enough to know that the phone was locked in the first place AND you should be smart enough to know that by hacking the phone, you voided the warranty. This isn't news.
Theme 1: It's Apple's phone to do with what they wish, when they want.
/. would be throwing hissing fits! Because Apple did it though, it's perfectly OK.
Answer: Nyet! Wrong! Once someone purchases the hardware it becomes THEIR hardware to with as they please. It would be perfectly fine if Apple released all new iPhones with this firmware that PREVENTED unlocking/opening/whatever, but this is not the case.
Theme 2: They warned you!
Answer: All this means is that they KNEW it was going to break the things - it was intentionally put out there to break it. That's some horseshit right there. If Microsoft did something like this (oh wait, it did - remember the Windows Update breaking Restore/Repair? People were up in fucking arms about it) people on
Theme 3: If you know the update could brick your hardware, then just don't apply it!
Answer: Nyet! Wrong! What if (this is hypothetical since the only thing this firmware update seems to have done is broken iPhones) I _needed_ some fix that was part of this update? Then what? Or what if it's some sort of security update - like the Wireless encryption not being properly implemented and therefore suceptible - Apple designs a firmware fix - EVERYONE needs that. But oh there's a catch - it'll frag your device. Enjoy!
Theme 4: By changing the software/firmware you've voided your hardware warranty.
Answer: Nyet! Wrong! Software does not destroy your warranty clauses and should not be expected to do so.(as seen from the article a few days ago about a PC Sales location not accepting hardware repairs for a machine that had linux installed on it - we all know what happened there!)
Apple was not justified. That's all there is to it. A Class-Action seems perfectly legit in this case - and I hope it teaches them a lesson. The lesson that you do NOT piss off your customers. Microsoft hasn't learned it yet - but I expected more from Apple.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
OK, so what does everyone mean when they say "bricked" in this story? When I say that something is bricked, I mean that it's completely non-functional and non-recoverable. In the case of Apple products, that might mean that it's a very stylish coaster. Some comments in this ongoing story, however, indicate that the iPhone is recoverable, just without the hacks that users have put into place.
I'm also having trouble understanding why people installed a manufacturer's firmware update, having hacked their firmware. What part of that idea sounded like a good idea? Wouldn't one wait for the hack of the update?
Replace Apple with PC World, OK.
Replace Firmware with software, because the laptop's firmware hadn't been modified.
Replace firmware update with a broken hinge, because it wasn't a software problem.
Replace Laptop with Cellphone, because laptops are normally expected to run user-installed software, and cellphones aren't.
Replace everything, in fact, because it's a completely different story.
I've got an old iPaq. I replaced the firmware in it. I don't expect to be able to upgrade it to the next version of Windows CE without replacing the original firmware, and I didn't even consider replacing the firmware until the folks who came up with the hack had a working mechanism to reverse it.
If it still hadn't worked, that wouldn't be Microsoft's fault or Compaq-I-Mean_HP's fault. I knew I was doing something that was dangerous, and unsupported. Installing another operating system on a laptop is a completely different situation.
And even so, in the example you give, the guy was an idiot. I wiped the drive on my Thinkpad before I sent it in for repair, and I wiped the drive on my Macbook Pro before I handed it over to the "Genius Bar" (god, I hate that name) for them to replace the drive. And I wasn't even running unsupported software on either of them. That's just something you do when you get a laptop repaired... it should be routine.
what has Apple really done to benefit the world
Ship a version of UNIX that doesn't suck too much and you can actually get third party applications for.
Seriously. Their hardware is overpriced and poorly designed, but there's no alternative if you want software that doesn't suck like a jet engine.
The lawsuit will only become valid if they can prove that Apple maliciously bricked the phones and removed said software. If you can't prove that it's a malicious act, you have no case.
So you'll have to figure out wether the firmware actually rewrites the existing firmware or wether it just updates it. We already know that all your applications are rewritten, so that's not the issue. If it rewrites it and bricks your phone, then most likely it was malicious, if it updates it, then your hack was the problem.
But Apple has gone too far with the warrantee cancellations. It's against the law, at least in California. A manufacturer can't void a warrantee based on a 3rd-party modification unless you prove that it was the 3rd-party modification that caused the problem.
The 3rd-party modification in question was based on a buffer overflow exploit. Apple closed a security hole. I have no belief that a judge would ever understand that part, or even judge in favor of Apple, but at least with your logic this isn't illegal. At least for those of us that have a clue. The exploitation of a buffer overflow is NOT standard practice of legitimate third party applications. If fixing the exploit results in a bricking, its the third party software causing the problem, as the software no longer functions as advertised. Not only that, but it isn't even designed to function in the first place without a security flaw.
What I don't get is WHY on earth someone that KNEW they had used a third party tool to modify a device in a way not sanctioned by Apple, and who were told EXPLICITLY that running a firmware update would "brick" it, went ahead and ran the update. My guess is that 3 of them did it on purpose, to make a point, and bring suit. I suspect the rest were just too stupid to figure out what they had done. I have sympathy for the genuinely challenged. I have no sympathy for whining idiots.
the bunch of you shrugging off apple's stance because these tweakers knew they could risk botching up the software would waive the freedom to alter SOFTWARE on any piece of hardware from here on out?
it's been said here a few times already but every few posts still chimes in with essentially "dumb @$#%!%*". What if dell users edit windows registry? what if dell ubuntu users get sudo happy? Then dell wont replace their computer because a heatsink was faulty and something got burnt? If it is under warranty, then they should replace the hardware! I lame examples but it really is the same in principle I'd say the line should be drawn with: I buy phone, I am satisfied with my software modifications to my phone, faulty hardware under warranty should be replaced, I continue using MY phone how I want.
Look, your beloved ________ manufacturer could pull the same gimmick if apple evades lawsuit. If enough people perceive injustice, then perhaps there IS injustice. Why can't Apple just say that if you alter clock speeds/power consumption then you gotta pay to replace that one part, but general OS and 3rd party apps that have no chance of ruining hardware are cool to use? Oh because as one poster previously stated, At&T and apple are big business and they want to pump everyone dry. Profits and margins rule the day, they've got your money, you are on a two year service contract, why should they give you any money back in the form of reliable customer service and valid hardware warranty claims? They all have the resources to do it. I hope these people get their day in court even if they don't know what they are doing software wise. That's not the point.
The Apple fanboys will troll me for this, but think how pissed you'd all be if there was a firmware update for PocketPCs that bricked your phone if you had hacked your phone to run Linux instead of WindowsMobile. I think slashdot would be singing quite a different tune.
Its a question of contracts, fanboyism and anti-appleness aside. When you buy the iPhone you don't agree to anything spectacular like an EULA or anything. (you can't put an agreement on the inside of a box and have it be legally binding. Thats like me putting "By reading this post you agree to pay me $100" at the bottom of all my posts and having anyone who reads it legally bound to pay me) The only binding agreement is at the bottom of the iPhone box with a little bit of legal stuff which basically says that in order for you to access the full functionality of the iPhone you're going to need a 2 year contract with AT&T(activation). However, it does not require you to purchase a 2 year contract, this is an important point because at this point you own the iPhone but you are no longer "required" to do anything. The Service Agreement and more importantly the Software EULA are agreed to when you activate with iTunes. If you never activate with iTunes then you are not bound by any of Apple or AT&T's wants and desires, they are "s*** out of luck" so to speak, no matter how many C&D letters or complaining to the contrary because there has been no "real" agreement, (if you never activate through iTunes you never agree to a EULA) The tricky bit is that Apple doesn't have to support its device, just like any company doesn't have to support its device, when you sign up with AT&T and Apple with the EULA, you are agreeing that Apple owns the Software on the device and is just "Leasing" it to you in return for software updates and other support from Apple. So, if you want to buy an iPhone and unlock it for another carrier then you can, you will lack the full functionality of the phone (visual voicemail) so the only pre-activation agreement is fulfilled. Apple has no claim on the software because when they sold it to you there was no EULA and AT&T has no claim because you are trading out the full functionality of the phone for the ability to use another carrier. Moral of the story, when you update your phone you have to agree to a EULA which takes away your right to complain because you just gave Apple control over the software, and they are free to brick your phone (PLEASE FIGHT THIS IN COURT...SERIOUSLY) you still own the device but they have removed the software that they now own. If you unlocked, DON'T UPDATE!
Yea it sucks that apple bricked unlocked phone but there was a disclaimer that every owner of the phone agreed to that stated you would not mess with the software and if you did it voids your phone.
To quote "Airplane":
"They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!"
Someone call the waaaambulance.
I mean, REALLY! What a bunch of simps! It isn't as if the lock-in was a big secret. And if their iPhone became a brick after they fucked around with it, well, them's the breaks, kid!
Sheesh.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
You don't sign a contract to walk out of the door with an iPhone. The warranty is on the hardware. You don't ever even have to sign it up for a carrier for the hardware to break.
...give you the right to sue.
My hacked and unlocked iPhone went through the update just fine. It did re-lock it, but since I was on AT&T anyway, it wasn't that big a deal. I unlocked it more "just because" than for any actual useful purpose.
I have a friend who also unlocked his "just because", and his is now an iBrick. In a bit of self-referential humor, his first IM to me after he got his replacement was "Haha, sucka. You paid $599 for your iPhone. I got mine a few months later for $399. Ooh, burn!" Yes, he was a little annoyed at Apple, but he knew full well (as did I,) before applying the update that it might kill his iPhone. He knew that he had technically violated the terms of the iPhone software license agreement, and he had seen all the doom and gloom warnings from Apple that this update might brick unlocked iPhones. But he did it anyway.
Nobody forced him to update. His iPhone would have continued to work just fine with software 1.0.2 indefinitely. HE made the choice to apply a software update with full warning (in bold capital letters, no less,) that it might kill his iPhone. He isn't a "rich bastard", He said that he had to get an advance on his paycheck to afford the replacement iPhone, so it's not like losing a $399 (or $499, or $599, depending on your point of view, since he bought it on release day,) was something that didn't mean anything. (Of course, if the iPhoneDevTeam figures out how to de-brick these phones, he could turn around and sell it for probably $299, at least making back SOME of his money.)
I'm sorry, but if you do something that you have been warned repeatedly *NOT* to do, where not doing it doesn't bring any penalty (sorry, but "not getting the iTunes WiFi Store" is NOT a penalty,) then it's your own damn fault when it breaks. As much as I dislike seeing companies take actions against their customers, I dislike frivolous lawsuits even more. And this is the height of frivolity.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
from apple, to say 'hey kids, we're making AT&T happy by plugging this hole..but if you modded your shit DON'T UPDATE YOUR PHONE.' read between the lines, kids. they did not have to have such explicit warnings whatsoever. and they did and i think that was nice of them. fixing a buffer overflow is reasonable. tho... if any of the 3rd party shit gets locked out that's kind of a bummer. by the way, IS it locked out? i don't wanna lose my 3rd party stuff. the NES emulator and Mobilechat are too cool. as is the summerboard hack that allows scrollable springboard and dock hiding.
As the owner of a modded iphone (3rd-party apps only, I'm fine with AT&T), I didn't install the update. That's because I have more than one brain cell.
If I took you to the top of the Empire State building, and told you not to jump off, would you jump ?
- If you would, great. One less moron in the world.
- If you wouldn't, fine. You understand the concept "actions have consequences".
Would it be my problem if you jumped and killed yourself - hell no. I told you not to jump in the first place. If the culpability is yours in the case of a human death, why the hell should (ab)using a cellphone get preferential treatment ?
If you can't see the analogy, I guess you're another of those all-too-common people who lack any sense of personal responsibility. You were warned not to update the phone if you'd hacked it because it would break. You updated it. It broke. Your fault and yours alone. Deal.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
According to engadget many unlocked iPhones are coming through the upgrade unbricked, albeit with loss of their hacked capabilities. It seems to depend upon how you unlocked your phone.
So the notion that Apple's software is designed to recognize (which should be pretty easy) and disable modified phones seems to be false. It sounds more like Apple simply didn't bother to test and debut the upgrade with all of the hacked configurations. And why should they? After all, when you choose to violate the warranty by messing with the "not user serviceable" parts of a device, you do it at your own risk.
Let's say, for argument sake, that someone bought a car and took it apart with the intention of severely modifying it. Cosmetically it might look the same, but maybe they simply wanted that flux capacitor under the hood. What do you think GM, Toyota, Mercedes or any other auto company might do when our intrepid hobbyist brings this car in two months after they bought it complaining that it was "bricked" because the dealership performed some routine maintenance? They'd tell our customer that no, in fact, you purchased a car and not a time machine and that not only is it common knowledge that extreme/permanent modifications void your warranty, it's written in giant block letters on your service contract every time you bring it in for work.
Would such a customer have even the slightest right to complain when, having permanently altered the guts of their car, the big bad General Motors or Honda or whatever company made it told them to hike without batting an eyelash? Of course not. They'd be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
It's time to grow up, people. No one made any of the bricked iPhone owners mod their own phones. To say the risks involved were hidden is absurd. It is in all upper-case bold type at the very top of the service agreement, right in plain view over every single user who updates their firmware: "If you screwed with your phone, it could die if you apply this." Yet all these users clicked CONTINUE. People need to take responsibility for their actions and stop whining.
Part two. The installer should have insured the firmware was original before running the update. Not original? No update. It's a brain dead simple task for any programmer here to run a checksum and compare it to another checksum. It would have been a simple task that would have prevented bricking. Not doing so, then announcing "We're gonna brick your fucking phone assholes!" will be considered gross negligence in a court of law. Enjoy the real and punitive damages AAPL shareholders.
Just who, precisely, paid $400-$600 for an iPhone from an Apple store: the consumer, or Apple?
/. posters don't get even the most fundamental goddamn concept in capitalism correct. The owners are well within their rights to do as they please with the phone; whether Apple should support them after they have modified it depends on what Apple has stated in their software licensing, warranty contract, and particularly, what a court of law dictates they shall cover should this actually go to court (which it likely will), etc...
Oh, right, Apple sells the device. Hence, once money is exchanged for the "iPhone" goods, the device becomes property of the purchaser.
Stupid
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Is it negligence to install an upgrade on your non-standard iPhone when you have been warned that the result will be that the iPhone probably won't survive?
So you believe Apple... should sue the users... for bricking the phones?? Did you grow up under high voltage lines? Eat a lot of paint chips? That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot.
From the article:
Once I buy an iPhone, it's not Apple's device, it's mine. The manufacturer can control the warranty, but not the device itself.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Like I posted on the hackint0sh forums, the Act that everybody keeps citing saying that Apple can't deny (Magnuson-Moss Act) does not apply to the iPhone's warranty. It applies only to FULL warranties; the iPhone warranty is a LIMITED warranty.
Certainly if they did it maliciously, then there would be a tort action. But if you use your product in a way that is not intended, they don't have to cover it (read the paragraph in the warranty concerning failure to follow instructions). Its like if you put tiny rims on your new SUV and break an axle - yeah, you can do that and its a third party device, but the car company doesn't have to warranty the car if your stupid ass caused the damage because you made an unauthorized modification to a key component of the car.
Laws may vary by state to state, but I'm pretty sure this is a lost cause unless somebody can prove malicious intent on the part of Apple.
http://brockerhoff.net/bb/viewtopic.php?p=2191#2191 Both on the technical front (as to why the 1.1.1 update might be messing things up for the unlockers), and the legal front. Mostly technical, which is what makes it more interesting. ^_^ The legal stuff has been bandied about enough already.
If you are a California resident and you believe you quality to join in filing a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc., you should contact the California lawyers working on this at http://www.appleiphonelawsuit.com./
I can see how some would get this upset but I do think it is a bit silly to sue Apple over the matter - it's just the way commerce works! On the oterh hand, the ringtone issue is crazy. I am absolutley embarrassed how end-user unfriendly the iPhone has become - very un-Apple like in my opinion. I would venture to guess that the iPhone is now the most uncustomizable cellphone on the market!! Am I upset enough to sue - NO. Doesn't really make sense to me. If you are as unimpressed as I am then sign my petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/custom-ringtones-for-the-iphone [thepetitionsite.com]
If you choose to use unsupported firmware and software on a product, you risk bricking it and should accept your responsibility for any loss or damage. If a firmware update, crafted with reasonable care and attention to reasonable use, incidentally bricks your non-standard device, that bit is your fault.
If Apple deliberately set out to brick the altered phones, by writing malicious code to cause damage, or even take insufficient care crafting new code in the full knowledge of the modifications out there (don't for a minute believe they didn't do some reverse engineering of their own!), then Apple have committed a crime under most nations' communications and commerce laws.
The only issue is "Did they, and if so, how to prove it?"
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1