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

Official Steve Jobs Response

[Anonymous Coward]

can be found here ;-)

Bad move apple

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Bad move apple

[RalphBNumbers]

way beyond just the smart phone market: games, vertical business apps, voip, home controller, etc

I hate to break it to you, but those apps are all part of the smartphone market.
But in any case, it seems to me that Apple is going "way beyond just the smart phone market" in an entirely different fashion that you're advocating.

Apple is pursuing a less-is-more strategy here imho...
Geeks online have flame wars about weather of not the iPhone is a "real smartphone", with the implied presumption that smartphone status is, or ought to be, a goal Apple is trying to achieve. On the contrary, I suspect that Apple is actively trying to avoid having people perceive the iPhone as a smartphone. Smartphones are either toys for geeks or corporate tethers keeping us chained to work; the iPhone is targeted at the mainstream consumer, not a corporate IT department or the individual geeks working in it.

Apple doesn't want to compete in the "smartphone space", it wants to invent the "iPhone space" and grow it by consuming the mainstream featurephone (and, almost coincidentally, smartphone) markets.

I suspect that Apple will eventually allow some form of native apps for the iPhone, just as they eventually added a bunch of random functionality to the iPod (photos, notes, calendar, video, games, stopwatch, etc...). However, it seems to me that they find it essential to their strategy that the iPhone be initially perceived as a simple, easily understandable, and rock solid device (like an iPod that can make calls, rather than like a complicated programmable smartphone).

Personally, as a programmer and potential customer, I was mad as hell when I heard that the iPhone wouldn't let me write my own native apps; I was overflowing with ideas for that gadget the instant Steve started mentioning all of it's sensors in it's introductory keynote.
But if I were speaking as a shareholder, as you claim to be, I would be hesitant to criticize Apple's initial direction for the iPhone here. While their strategy has yet to prove itself in the cell phone space, and replicating the iPod's crushing success in the semi-mature cellphone market is a very tall order indeed, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if "no user apps, less features than an N95, lame" is 2009's version of "no wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame."

Re:Bad move apple

[Phroggy]

And to be honest, acquiring NextStep back when they did was a failure. NextOS and those cubes, as cool as they were, pretty much tanked. It took them a decade to actually start using a derivation of that OS commercially again (the original OS X Server), and a few more years after that before it was truly ready as a desktop/workstation environment. Apple acquired NeXT in 1996, and Mac OS X Server 1.0 was released three years later, not ten. The consumer version of Mac OS X 10.0 was released in 2001. The big mistake Apple made was in not anticipating the need for Carbon; they expected all application developers to rewrite their apps in Cocoa. Adobe's rejection of Cocoa was the main thing that forced Apple to create Carbon, and doing so is the reason Mac OS X took so long to get out the door, but it was definitely worth it - Mac OS X would have flopped without native apps.

Apple's device?

[codemachine]

But others say Cupertino is well within its rights to control its own device.

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.

Steve brought this on himself...

[Dzimas]

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:Steve brought this on himself...

[SashaMan]

Agreed. While I realize it was probably inevitable that Apple would lock down unlocked (i.e. running on a non-ATT network) phones due to contract obligations with ATT, disabling 3rd party apps was a major screw up. Apple is pissing off its most loyal customers, the ones who are most excited about the capabilities of the phone. There are probably more Apple fanboys per user on Slashdot than anywhere, and look at how many of us are rightfully mad that Apple is being a prick about this.

I own an unlocked iPhone

[MSRedfox]

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.

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.

QTopia Greenphone

[OmniGeek]

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.

Not bricking unless you choose to install

[davetd02]

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.

Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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. I'm pretty much in agreement. Except for one unanswered question - is the bricking intentional or really and truly a side-effect? If it is intentional, then I'd says Apple is due a class action lawsuit. However, proving it may be very difficult.

Apple is completely wrong on this and here is why

[JoeShmoe]

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

Bad analogy

[smurfsurf]

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?