Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over iPhone Bricking
An anonymous reader writes "The week's debate over the iPhone 1.1.1 has finally resulted in legal action. InfoWeek reports that on Friday, California resident Timothy Smith sued Apple in a class-action case in Santa Clara County Superior court. The suit was filed by Damian Fernandez, the lawyer who's been soliciting plaintiffs all week for a case against Apple. The suit doesn't ask for a specific dollar amount, but seeks an injunction against Apple, which prevents it from selling the iPhone with any software lock. It also asks that Apple be enjoined from denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhone, and from requiring iPhone users to get their phone service through AT&T."
Do Apple users think they're different than everyone else? I guess that question is silly - of course they do ('think different' and all that). Well, looking at it now, perhaps this is more organized by the lawyer (does he use Apple products?) than the Apple users directly. I understand their frustration, but suing to have the phone unlocked from AT&T? OK, perhaps this will be a 'fight the good fight' and perhaps they'll actually win. Perhaps this is the only group that feels this passionately about the subject. But why not sue Blackberry for only allowing the Curve 8830 on the TMobile network? I want an 8830, but on AT&T. Should I buy it, sign up for TMobile, then sue RIM? Or TMobile? Or both? I guess I don't quite understand the notion of throwing these other extraneous issues in to the suit, unless they're hoping for *something* to stick.
creation science book
Bah. We're talking about software here. It's not like little gnomes entered the iPhone and physically started destroying the hardware. At the very least Apple should allow people to wipe everything and begin anew.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
That won't be so complicated. They will sell the phone with a contract. The same thing they do with any other phone. It won't be locked but you've already signed the multiple year contract when you get it.
For our international friends OfCOM is the government watch body for communications, a few years back they made the statement that unlocking your phone so it will work on different networks is perfectly legal and carriers have to unlock a phone if asked to do so (not tried it myself.) Apple's recent american update would fly in the face of that and OfCOM aren't afraid to fine companies and force them to follow their rules. OfCOM is currently looking into forcing broadband adverts to be more truthfull so marketing speak like "upto 8MBPS" or "unlimited" won't be allowed (even if they are legal) for Americans out there this is to protect consumers and is a good thing.
I doubt its going to sell many units to the teenage "cool and hip" crowd because every teenager I know in the UK doesn't want to bring an expensive phone out on the town and I doubt your "power manager" type will end up with one because, from my albiet limited expearence with O2 stores. The staff are actually quite good at matching the phone to the individual, it may not necessarily be the most expensive phone they have on offer nor might it be the coolest looking but it will be roughly what the customer is after.
You believe that Apple's actions are OK, and maybe they are in the US. But that won't fly in Europe.
The GSM standard expressly provides for cross-vendor compatibility through simple SIM change, and unlocking of locked phones is entirely legal in most if not all European countries. In fact, it's a substantial business to provide unlocking services, and to sell ready-unlocked phones.
That doesn't mean that it's free (a cellphone service provider will charge you for unlocking, since it carries the risk for them that you might defect to a competitor if their service is bad). But it does mean that unlocking is supported.
If the accepted and legal position in the US is that providers are allowed to deny GSM service mobility by not offering unlocking and by bricking unlocked phones on purpose (allegedly), then those providers are about to face problems when they try to do the same thing in European jurisdictions.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I don't know the details of the law, but it's been claimed that in (e.g.) Belgium, it's not legal to tie even an unlocked phone to a subscription:
http://mindthegeek.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-idea-from-belgium.html
http://www.ibert.be/2007/08/looks-like-iphone-wont-be-in-belgium.html
Your analogy is completely broken. What people have done is simply modify their firmware along with the addition of a few new 3rd party applications. Keeping this in mind, why is it so hard for Apple to release an update that clears all memory first, then installs itself fresh. No bricked phones. Certainly everything may be reset to factory defaults, but that is a good deal more preferable than the situation people find themselves in now.
Nokia updates work this way - Sony Ericsson is very similar.
I really hope this class action thing succeeds.
"Wasn't it announced *ahead of time* that the upgrade would brick unlocked phones?"
I think I remember seeing that magic word "could" thrown in there in Apple's release. That "could" relieve them from some/any liability in a lawsuit. Of course, my personal opinion is that if you modify your device and then update it after being warned that the update "could" conflict with changes you have made, you have taken that possibility upon yourself. Tinker all you want if you are willing to take responsibility for the results. I don't ever remember seeing anything from Apple promoting this as a Mr. Potato head type of toy that you can make changes at will.
The other issue of course is Apple selling a device that is locked and also locked into a contract with a provider. All legal issues aside, if you don't like the terms then show them that with your dollar...don't buy. It's not like this is a device that is necessary in order to keep you breathing. It's a freakin' phone.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
But if the customer thinks they got a good deal -- what they needed and wanted -- they'll probably go back to the store next time they need something it sells.
Last time I went into an O2 store they had the cheap £20 pay-as-you-go phones, and they didn't try to sell anything more expensive to my grandma -- in fact, they recommended it since it had larger buttons than most other phones.
Warnings were given multiple times. Apple release a press release, posted a warning before your computer downloads the new software and then posted an aditional and seperate warning (completely seperate from the EULA) before you could CHOOSE to install the software.
Protecting all customers == good PR
Bricking customers' iPhones, warranty or not == bad PR
As to what ATT thinks, they can get screwed -- the market potential of unlocked iPhones is greater than the amount of money Apple can hope to get from ATT. Enough said.
Not only are you making unauthorized updates to software, you're making unauthorized updates to firmware. Of course changing the way the hardware and software interact is going to be a dangerous endeavor! Why should Apple be any more responsible for changing the firmware to unlock the phone than they should be for if you change the firmware to over-clock the CPU?
Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
According to several reports, a big chunk of Apple's profit is coming from the locked-in service providers:
http://www.thestreet.com/s/huge-iphone-fees-juice-apple/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10369581.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/17/mobilephones.apple
To make the same profit without a lock, Apple would have to raise the retail price significantly. Looks like a subsidy to me.
Yes, when purchasing an iPhone you are under no obligation to sign a contract.
What Apple want is for the customer to own the phone and not the service provider. Steve Jobs said many times he wishes to change the business models of mobile phone service providers where they provide the service, and the customer owns the device (iPhone). Now this is where it gets into a dodgy area in the UK. Contract phones are locked in the UK because the device is owned by the service provider until x amount of payments are made - payments that cover the subsidy costs. Because the service provider owns the device, they can do whatever they want to your phone; they can lock it to their network, block the phone, or even take it off you. The contract will state this, and if you want the device to be unlocked the contract will have to be terminated, you will have to pay all the payments for the term of the contract (to cover the subsidy). When the contract ends, the service provider will usually give the ownership of the phone to the customer, so if the customer wishes they could unlock their phone, a small and reasonable administrative charge may be made (£15 is what O2 charges). Now, the iPhone is not owned by service provider, with what OfCOM have stated (telephones must be unlocked on request and small admin fee may be charged), the iPhone should be allowed to be unlocked from day one of ownership. O2 are stating you will not be allowed to unlock the phone for 9 months and doing so will terminate the contract so the rest of the last 9 months contract will have to paid off, however the phone is not owned by O2 in any way, so what they are doing is going against what OfCOM have said. 'Yeah what contract, there was no contract when I bought the phone' will be in my head when it is launched. I have asked at three O2 stores and they have confirmed the iPhone will not be owned by O2 however their HQ is pushing for the iPhone to not be unlocked. One stored offered to unlock it, but do not know of any means to at the moment. I will stay with O2 but do not want that awful contract they offer for the iPhone, I get a better offer on PAYG. Notice the contract is "for the iPhone" and not "with the iPhone". The O2 stores believe a PAYG method will be available just like AT&T if you have a poor credit rating. I asked I could have the PAYG and they said yes if it is offered as they cannot say no because it would break discrimination laws. If PAYG is offered, they for sure cannot keep you locked in. You do pay full whack for the iPhone, they have a nice table that was printed that states how much each handset will cost on certain contracts, the iPhone was listed and it said, "£269. (none subsidised)".
The phone in general isn't exactly bricked - though it is heavily locked down that it might as well be. However, as far as anyone can tell the baseband chip - which is used to communicate with the mobile network - does get bricked in many cases if the phone has been unlocked.
In fact, he article you've linked to doesn't say that many unlocked phones have come through unbricked. It says that jailbroken (modified to run third-party software) don't get bricked, but people who've unlocked their iPhone definitely shouldn't upgrade because they're likely to end up with a bricked phone that doesn't even work on AT&T anymore.
Also, the important security updates are to the main iPhone itself and don't require a baseband firmware update - I'm guessing that's aimed at closing whatever hole allowed the unlocking in the first place. If it bricks a few unlocked phones, well, what do Apple care?
BS.
I work retail in the US myself, and the management in the particular retail chain I work in does no such thing, in fact they encourage the opposite. We don't ever manage the customers pocket book, period. We specifically ask qualifying questions, aka probing questions, to find out what their exact needs are. This is done industry wide. Stores like circuit city, best buy, staples, etc mostly use cyberscholar to train their salespeople, and this is exactly the kind of practice that cyberscholar encourages.
If a customer tells me they don't want to pay as much for whatever it costs, then I help them decide on compromises, e.g. they asked for a wireless printer but I'll point out that they can connect a wired printer to their existing wireless router and it will print fine from their wireless laptops.
In fact a lot of times I'll even turn down a customer if e.g. they have an existing printer, and they describe a specific problem that they can easily fix, and I just tell them how to do so. Everybody along the entire chain of management is aware of this, and they expect it, because they know that customers appreciate honesty, and that brings repeat customers.
This is even in Arizona, which has very little in the way of consumer protection laws.
What you are thinking of would be car salesmen. Totally different industry there.
It's just that in America we believe in things like free speech, and other crazy incarnations of freedom not comphended in Europe and Canada.
I got a Razr V3i a couple of years ago, unlocked, from eBay cheaper than I could get a locked one from my cell phone company. You just have to look around, rather than buying the cheapest or easiest thing you see.
There are services that can sometimes recover or replace that bit of hardware for you, and sometimes the manufacturer might even offer to replace it, but they are under no legal obligation to do so, as you have voided your warranty.
It is not Apple's obligation to examine the state of your phone before applying an update. As long as the update is functional with the device as it is intended and anticipated, they're in the clear. If you use it outside its intended purposes and with no warranty of fitness claim, your warranty is void.
Even within the context of Magnuson-Moss, disclaimers are permissable of exactly this nature. The "third party refusal" section is posted out of context as an excerpt of a product liability warranty, not of a hybridized warranty including all service arrangements (where service tying is permitted, with a few common law exceptions).
Actually, it does. It says that "iPhoneSIMfree users seem to be in fine shape as long as they're rocking an AT&T SIM card." The most severe problems seem to be with "iPhone Dev Team's anySIM unlock," while it is unclear whether SuperSIM and TurboSIM users are at risk (although Engadget is advising them to play it safe and hold off on the update).
It should be fairly trivial for Apple to detect unlocking if they wanted to "brick" phones intentionally. So this looks less like an intentional act and more like a bug. After all, why should Apple spend money testing the update on all the different varieties of unlocked iPhones?
Especially since it is hardly Apple's fault if owners of unlocked phones choose to ignore the onscreen ALL CAPS warning not to apply the update.