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.

Comments

Do we own the iPhone or lease it?

[bizitch]

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?

iBrick Can Be iReversed

[The Webguy]

A procedure exists - and has been tested quite a bit now - to reverse the iBrick'd efforts. linked here.

Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install

[Hes Nikke]

steve jobs has gone on record calling it a "cat and mouse game" if that doesn't dispel reasonable doubt about intent, i don't know what does

Re:Apple's device?

[Detritus]

Here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself a real history book. Software was a "product" long before Bill Gates started hawking his wares. They just weren't marketing it to Joe Consumer.

Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install

[adona1]

One of the more intelligent things I've seen pertaining to this....and it's not hard to understand either.

You buy an iPhone, you can do what you want with it. Apple might not like it and maybe has T&Cs forbidding it, but for all intents and purposes, if you want to unlock it, you can. This software update is optional, and by now everyone with an unlocked phone knows that if they want to keep it that way they shouldn't install the update. Those who have are a little screwed, but a workaround will be developed shortly, so they'll get their phones back.

If Apple had released the firmware as a 'stealth update' a la MS - uploading it to your iPhone when you got your email, for example - then yes, the cries of "Evil!" would be justified. But they didn't. Don't download it if your phone is unlocked. End of story.

Re:Official Steve Jobs Response

[Planesdragon]

The class action law suite should be thrown out, every Apple customer know that this is what Apple does. Apple is no better than MS, in fact, in many areas they are worse then MS. 1: A law suite? As in, a bunch of lawyers working in a group of connected rooms, like in a hotel? Yeah, that's kind of creepy. Better disbar the lot of them. (It's "lawsuit", one word.)

2: This is above and beyond Apple's previous behavior, and even if it weren't it may very well violate interoperability laws. An iPhone isn't a standalone device like an iPod or a PSP -- it's a part of a fairly regulated network, and the FCC has some fairly specific rules as to what they can and can't do on a cell phone.

When you get right down to it, Apple bricking unlocked cell phones is pretty much exactly what the FCC is supposed to stop with its jurisdiction over cell phone receivers. It's bad for the economy, and bad for the network.

These complaints are stupid

[laird]

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.

Re:These complaints are stupid

[afidel]

Actually denying hardware warranty service on a device because of third party software is illegal just about everywhere. This practice would be covered under the same laws as third party hardware such as RAM in computers or non warranty covered parts in an automobile, unless they can conclusively prove that the third party part is the cause of the failure they cannot deny you warranty coverage.

Re:Official Steve Jobs Response

[mrchaotica]

When you alter your phone in a way not supported by company, you lose your warranty.

No, you don't! There is a law, called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which says that unless Apple Can prove that the alteration caused the particular problem, it has to honor the warranty. Apple cannot just decide to void the warranty on unrelated components for no reason.

In good Slashdot tradition, here's a car analogy: If you modify the engine in your vehicle and the radio stops working, the maker cannot refuse to replace the radio because of that modification. In contrast, if it were the transmission that broke, and the maker could prove that the transmission broke because it could rot handle the extra torque of the engine created by the modification, then it could legitimately void the warranty of the transmission (but still not the whole car).