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.
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!!
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?
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.
> 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
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.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
"I mean - wtf - do iPhone users own the thing or not? Whose property is it anyway?"
Yours. You modify your hardware, fine. You install Apple's update that's not made for your modifications, fine. But don't go expecting Apple to cover the problems you caused to your hardware. See how that works? If on the other hand you exercise some restraint in what you do to your iPhone, Apple will back you up if problems occur.
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.
"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.
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.
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
So this is what you're saying...
1. A bunch of people figure that Apple did something illegal.
2. We should all recognize that Apple is going to do stuff like this, just like MS
3. ???
4. Profit?
Seriously, whether or not 'this is what Apple does' is completely and totally irrelevant to whether the Class Action Lawsuit should go through, in fact you couldn't get more irrelevant if you tried (well I guess you could mention Vista, and a Beowolf cluster of bricked IPhones...but you might still be more relevant)
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
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?
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.
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.
Hey in New York state if I say he looked dangerous to me, and believed he intended to cause me harm I can do pretty much whatever I want to a trespasser, including shotting him/her.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
...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.
the dmca only says apple can't sue you for unlocking your phone.
It does not require Apple to do anything to support unlocking.
From day one, Apple told everyone it would never have an sdk. From day one Apple announced it would be exclusive to AT&T in the states. Neither exceptions are unusual in phones sold in the us. In spite of apple singing to the rafters that there would be no sdk and exclusive to AT&T, people bought it.
There are many phone models exclusive to a carrier. Why is Apple the bad guy, but motorola, samsung, lg and nokia exempt from such rage over exclusive contracts? Apple has always said it would be a closed platform. Now people are upset that Apple is keeping it closed? Usually people get upset when a company doesn't keep its promises.
I'm not defending apple so much as asking why such an obvious double standard exists? Is it just because the iphone is "cool" and its competition is not? There were always other options that claimed to be - and are open platforms. Apple has always said the iPhone would be a closed platform. Why the crying when they move to keep it closed as they have intended?
It's almost like these people have no idea that every manufacturer has rights too. If you violate your end of a contract (eula?), they have no obligation to uphold their end. Bricked iphones will still work with a valid sim and are therefore not eligible for repair as they are not defective.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
You must be referring to the fact that Gtk is available with the LGPL? Oops... Linux kernel is only available in GPL flavor. Want to extend it, develop a modified version of it, and redistribute it? OK, then your derivative work has to be GPL too! Guess what - that's exactly how it works with Qt.
You are right - even FSF wouldn't dare go that far. Wait a minute - you are wrong - most FSF software is available only under GPL!
Nonsense. Anybody willing to work under the constraints/freedoms of GPL could work on it - a lot of KDE developers actually already do work on Qt in the same manner. Just in case you were wondering your rights are the same (GPL) if you are a Linux kernel developer.
It does expose a hole of commercial apps vs. free software apps, doesn't it? Hence, the discussion about the phone as a free software platform, rather than another "my-software/hardware-manufacturer-bricked-my-expensive-phone-again" post.
This is usually sour grapes from the Gtk-fanboy FUD spreaders. The fact remains that Qt dual GPL/commercial model works and it arguably works better than what Gtk/LGPL provides for. Just have a look at KDE, Google earth, Opera, and countless other apps. Besides, Qt is a lot easier to use, develop with, extend, customize and has more features than a Gtk developer can dream of in a given year. Qt4 is probably the best cross-platform toolkit in its category, bar none. And no, I am not related to Trolltech, KDE, Opera, Google, or any such company/entity other than being a user of some of the Qt-based apps.
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?
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.
Its interesting to see just how badly this is being handled though.
Your initial paragraph about restoring any device going for a warranty repair to its "factory defaults" is sound advice, and will prevent all sorts of problems, if carrying out a reset is possible of course. I had two experiences with this with two separate vendors;
First off, a few years ago I had a laptop develop red vertical lines on screen, these were visible on boot and I assumed were caused by a problem either with the video card or with the screen itself, (I've seen it a few times when there are cracks in the ribbons connecting the screen to the graphics card). I took the machine back to the shop where I bought it (this was within 10 days of purchase) and was told they could not do anything about it as the laptop had been 'modified' i.e. it was no longer running Windows, well that was annoying but simple to solve, the next day when I took the laptop back again, it was running windows and a new laptop was handed over.
The second incident was a little different, I modified the firmware on my IPAQ, I basically changed the bootloader from whatever the HP one is to LAB (Linux As Bootloader) so that I could run Familiar Linux on it, unfortunately about three months after purchasing the IPAQ it stopped booting at all, (there is a stage one bootloader before LAB that you should see regardless), I also couldn't restore the firmware that I had backed up, the IPAQ was simply unresponsive, so I spoke to HP and was told to send it to them, which I did. I received an email stating that the problem was with the device and that they would send a new one out to me, there was no reference to the non-standard firmware, nor any indication that there would be any warranty issues, then sure enough a few days later a nice new IPAQ arrived, and to my surprise it came not with the standard HP bootloader and Windows Mobile, but with my nice LAB bootloader all ready and waiting. Now I don't know if I should thank someone specific at HP for that, or if they simply transfer everything from the broken device to the new one as a matter of course, but either way, it was a pleasant experience.
So would I go and buy another laptop from the first guys I dealt with? No I wouldn't, there is enough competition out there and frankly the custoemr service experience was generally poor, would I buy another IPAQ? Yes I would, in fact I would prefer to buy an IPAQ than any other PDA and that is largely due to the fact that when I hit a problem it was solved, quickly and sensibly.
I absolutely believe people should have the right to hack their products, and they do. I'm a little less sympathetic when they also want to be immunized from the consequences of their missteps. With power comes responsibility, etc. As far as I know, if your Dell or Sony PC (for example) dies on you and you haven't gone out of your way to use it in any way in which it was not intended for, then the warranty would cover repairing it. Emphasis mine. Since before it was released, Apple has been crystal clear that the iPhone is not intended to run 3rd party native apps. If you overclock your Dell, they're not going to honor the warranty. If you hack around in your iPhone's firmware, I don't see how it's Apple responsibility to troubleshoot your home-brew.
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.
- Treo 650 (Palm OS apps)
- Treo 700W (WindowsMobile
... or whatever it's called this week)
- All the Symbian stuff
- Linux phone I'm pretty sure you'll be able to customize the firmware without the FCC showing up
Also the PSP is WiFi enabled so is subject to the FCC. Heck I have a LinkSys wireless router with a custom firmware